Pharmacology

As states ban or limit abortion in the wake of the demise of Roe v. Wade, physicians are turning their attention to widely-used drugs that can cause birth defects. At issue: Should these drugs still be prescribed to women of childbearing age if they don’t have the option of terminating their pregnancies?

javi_indy/ Thinkstock

“Doctors are going to understandably be terrified that a patient may become pregnant using a teratogen that they have prescribed,” said University of Pittsburgh rheumatologist Mehret Birru Talabi, MD, PhD, who works in a state where the future of abortion rights is uncertain. “While this was a feared outcome before Roe v. Wade was overturned, abortion provided an escape hatch by which women could avoid having to continue a pregnancy and potentially raise a child with congenital anomalies. I believe that prescribing is going to become much more defensive and conservative. Some clinicians may choose not to prescribe these medications to patients who have childbearing potential, even if they don’t have much risk for pregnancy.”

Other physicians expressed similar concerns in interviews. Duke University, Durham, N.C., rheumatologist Megan E. B. Clowse, MD, MPH, fears that physicians will be wary of prescribing a variety of medications – including new ones for which there are few pregnancy data – if abortion is unavailable. “Women who receive these new or teratogenic medications will likely lose their reproductive autonomy and be forced to choose between having sexual relationships with men, obtaining procedures that make them permanently sterile, or using contraception that may cause intolerable side effects,” she said. “I am very concerned that young women with rheumatic disease will now be left with active disease resulting in joint damage and renal failure.”

Abortion is now banned in at least six states, according to The New York Times. That number may rise to 16 as more restrictions become law. Another five states aren’t expected to ban abortion soon but have implemented gestational age limits on abortion or are expected to adopt them. In another nine states, courts or lawmakers will decide whether abortion remains legal.

Only 20 states and the District of Columbia have firm abortion protections in place.

Numerous drugs are considered teratogens, which means they may cause birth defects. Thalidomide is the most infamous, but there are many more, including several used in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology. Among the most widely used teratogenic medications are the acne drugs isotretinoin and methotrexate, which are used to treat a variety of conditions, such as cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, and psoriasis.

Dr. Clowse, who helps manage an industry-supported website devoted to reproductive care for women with lupus (www.LupusPregnancy.org), noted that several drugs linked to birth defects and pregnancy loss are commonly prescribed in rheumatology.

“Methotrexate is the most common medication and has been the cornerstone of rheumatoid arthritis [treatment] for at least two decades,” she said. “Mycophenolate is our best medication to treat lupus nephritis, which is inflammation in the kidneys caused by lupus. This is a common complication for young women with lupus, and all of our guideline-recommended treatment regimens include a medication that causes pregnancy loss and birth defects, either mycophenolate or cyclophosphamide.”

Rheumatologists also prescribe a large number of new drugs for which there are few data about pregnancy risks. “It typically takes about two decades to have sufficient data about the safety of our medications,” she said.

Reflecting the sensitivity of the topic, Dr. Clowse made clear that her opinions don’t represent the views of her institution. She works in North Carolina, where the fate of abortion rights is uncertain, according to The New York Times.

What about alternatives? “The short answer is that some of these medications work really well and sometimes much better than the nonteratogenic alternatives,” said Dr. Birru Talabi. “I’m worried about methotrexate. It has been used to induce abortions but is primarily used in the United States as a highly effective treatment for cancer as well as a myriad of rheumatic diseases. If legislators try to restrict access to methotrexate, we may see increasing disability and even death among people who need this medication but cannot access it.”

Rheumatologists aren’t the only physicians who are worrying about the fates of their patients in a new era of abortion restrictions. Gastroenterologist Sunanda Kane, MD, MSPH, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said several teratogenic medications are used in her field to treat constipation, viral hepatitis, and inflammatory bowel disease.

“When treating women of childbearing age, there are usually alternatives. If we do prescribe a medication with a high teratogenic potential, we counsel and document that we have discussed two forms of birth control to avoid pregnancy. We usually do not prescribe a drug with teratogenic potential with the ‘out’ being an abortion if a pregnancy does occur,” she said. However, “if abortion is not even on the table as an option, we may be much less likely to prescribe these medications. This will be particularly true in patients who clearly do not have the means to travel to have an abortion in any situation.”

Abortion is expected to remain legal in Minnesota, where Dr. Kane practices, but it may be restricted or banned in nearby Wisconsin, depending on the state legislature. None of her patients have had abortions after becoming pregnant while taking the medications, she said, although she “did have a patient who because of her religious faith did not have an abortion after exposure and ended up with a stillbirth.”

The crackdown on abortion won’t just pose risks to patients who take potentially dangerous medications, physicians said. Dr. Kane said pregnancy itself is a significant risk for patients with “very active, uncontrolled gastrointestinal conditions where a pregnancy could be harmful to the mother’s health or result in offspring that are very unhealthy.” These include decompensated cirrhosis, uncontrolled Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, refractory gastroparesis, uncontrolled celiac sprue, and chronic pancreatitis, she said.

“There have been times when after shared decisionmaking, a patient with very active inflammatory bowel disease has decided to terminate the pregnancy because of her own ongoing health issues,” she said. “Not having this option will potentially lead to disastrous results.”

Dr. Clowse, the Duke University rheumatologist, echoed Dr. Kane’s concerns about women who are too sick to bear children. “The removal of abortion rights puts the lives and quality of life for women with rheumatic disease at risk. For patients with lupus and other systemic rheumatic disease, pregnancy can be medically catastrophic, leading to permanent harm and even death to the woman and her offspring. I am worried that women in these conditions will die without lifesaving pregnancy terminations, due to worries about the legal consequences for their physicians.”

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade has also raised the prospect that the court could ultimately allow birth control to be restricted or outlawed.

While the ruling states that “nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurrence in which he said that the court should reconsider a 1960s ruling that forbids the banning of contraceptives. Republicans have dismissed concerns about bans being allowed, although Democrats, including the president and vice president, starkly warn that they could happen.

“If we as providers have to be concerned that there will be an unplanned pregnancy because of the lack of access to contraception,” Dr. Kane said, “this will have significant downstream consequences to the kind of care we can provide and might just drive some providers to not give care to female patients at all given this concern.”

The physicians quoted in this article report no relevant financial relationships.

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

As states ban or limit abortion in the wake of the demise of Roe v. Wade, physicians are turning their attention to widely-used drugs that can cause birth defects. At issue: Should these drugs still be prescribed to women of childbearing age if they don’t have the option of terminating their pregnancies?

javi_indy/ Thinkstock

“Doctors are going to understandably be terrified that a patient may become pregnant using a teratogen that they have prescribed,” said University of Pittsburgh rheumatologist Mehret Birru Talabi, MD, PhD, who works in a state where the future of abortion rights is uncertain. “While this was a feared outcome before Roe v. Wade was overturned, abortion provided an escape hatch by which women could avoid having to continue a pregnancy and potentially raise a child with congenital anomalies. I believe that prescribing is going to become much more defensive and conservative. Some clinicians may choose not to prescribe these medications to patients who have childbearing potential, even if they don’t have much risk for pregnancy.”

Other physicians expressed similar concerns in interviews. Duke University, Durham, N.C., rheumatologist Megan E. B. Clowse, MD, MPH, fears that physicians will be wary of prescribing a variety of medications – including new ones for which there are few pregnancy data – if abortion is unavailable. “Women who receive these new or teratogenic medications will likely lose their reproductive autonomy and be forced to choose between having sexual relationships with men, obtaining procedures that make them permanently sterile, or using contraception that may cause intolerable side effects,” she said. “I am very concerned that young women with rheumatic disease will now be left with active disease resulting in joint damage and renal failure.”

Abortion is now banned in at least six states, according to The New York Times. That number may rise to 16 as more restrictions become law. Another five states aren’t expected to ban abortion soon but have implemented gestational age limits on abortion or are expected to adopt them. In another nine states, courts or lawmakers will decide whether abortion remains legal.

Only 20 states and the District of Columbia have firm abortion protections in place.

Numerous drugs are considered teratogens, which means they may cause birth defects. Thalidomide is the most infamous, but there are many more, including several used in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology. Among the most widely used teratogenic medications are the acne drugs isotretinoin and methotrexate, which are used to treat a variety of conditions, such as cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, and psoriasis.

Dr. Clowse, who helps manage an industry-supported website devoted to reproductive care for women with lupus (www.LupusPregnancy.org), noted that several drugs linked to birth defects and pregnancy loss are commonly prescribed in rheumatology.

“Methotrexate is the most common medication and has been the cornerstone of rheumatoid arthritis [treatment] for at least two decades,” she said. “Mycophenolate is our best medication to treat lupus nephritis, which is inflammation in the kidneys caused by lupus. This is a common complication for young women with lupus, and all of our guideline-recommended treatment regimens include a medication that causes pregnancy loss and birth defects, either mycophenolate or cyclophosphamide.”

Rheumatologists also prescribe a large number of new drugs for which there are few data about pregnancy risks. “It typically takes about two decades to have sufficient data about the safety of our medications,” she said.

Reflecting the sensitivity of the topic, Dr. Clowse made clear that her opinions don’t represent the views of her institution. She works in North Carolina, where the fate of abortion rights is uncertain, according to The New York Times.

What about alternatives? “The short answer is that some of these medications work really well and sometimes much better than the nonteratogenic alternatives,” said Dr. Birru Talabi. “I’m worried about methotrexate. It has been used to induce abortions but is primarily used in the United States as a highly effective treatment for cancer as well as a myriad of rheumatic diseases. If legislators try to restrict access to methotrexate, we may see increasing disability and even death among people who need this medication but cannot access it.”

Rheumatologists aren’t the only physicians who are worrying about the fates of their patients in a new era of abortion restrictions. Gastroenterologist Sunanda Kane, MD, MSPH, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said several teratogenic medications are used in her field to treat constipation, viral hepatitis, and inflammatory bowel disease.

“When treating women of childbearing age, there are usually alternatives. If we do prescribe a medication with a high teratogenic potential, we counsel and document that we have discussed two forms of birth control to avoid pregnancy. We usually do not prescribe a drug with teratogenic potential with the ‘out’ being an abortion if a pregnancy does occur,” she said. However, “if abortion is not even on the table as an option, we may be much less likely to prescribe these medications. This will be particularly true in patients who clearly do not have the means to travel to have an abortion in any situation.”

Abortion is expected to remain legal in Minnesota, where Dr. Kane practices, but it may be restricted or banned in nearby Wisconsin, depending on the state legislature. None of her patients have had abortions after becoming pregnant while taking the medications, she said, although she “did have a patient who because of her religious faith did not have an abortion after exposure and ended up with a stillbirth.”

The crackdown on abortion won’t just pose risks to patients who take potentially dangerous medications, physicians said. Dr. Kane said pregnancy itself is a significant risk for patients with “very active, uncontrolled gastrointestinal conditions where a pregnancy could be harmful to the mother’s health or result in offspring that are very unhealthy.” These include decompensated cirrhosis, uncontrolled Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, refractory gastroparesis, uncontrolled celiac sprue, and chronic pancreatitis, she said.

“There have been times when after shared decisionmaking, a patient with very active inflammatory bowel disease has decided to terminate the pregnancy because of her own ongoing health issues,” she said. “Not having this option will potentially lead to disastrous results.”

Dr. Clowse, the Duke University rheumatologist, echoed Dr. Kane’s concerns about women who are too sick to bear children. “The removal of abortion rights puts the lives and quality of life for women with rheumatic disease at risk. For patients with lupus and other systemic rheumatic disease, pregnancy can be medically catastrophic, leading to permanent harm and even death to the woman and her offspring. I am worried that women in these conditions will die without lifesaving pregnancy terminations, due to worries about the legal consequences for their physicians.”

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade has also raised the prospect that the court could ultimately allow birth control to be restricted or outlawed.

While the ruling states that “nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurrence in which he said that the court should reconsider a 1960s ruling that forbids the banning of contraceptives. Republicans have dismissed concerns about bans being allowed, although Democrats, including the president and vice president, starkly warn that they could happen.

“If we as providers have to be concerned that there will be an unplanned pregnancy because of the lack of access to contraception,” Dr. Kane said, “this will have significant downstream consequences to the kind of care we can provide and might just drive some providers to not give care to female patients at all given this concern.”

The physicians quoted in this article report no relevant financial relationships.

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

As states ban or limit abortion in the wake of the demise of Roe v. Wade, physicians are turning their attention to widely-used drugs that can cause birth defects. At issue: Should these drugs still be prescribed to women of childbearing age if they don’t have the option of terminating their pregnancies?

javi_indy/ Thinkstock

“Doctors are going to understandably be terrified that a patient may become pregnant using a teratogen that they have prescribed,” said University of Pittsburgh rheumatologist Mehret Birru Talabi, MD, PhD, who works in a state where the future of abortion rights is uncertain. “While this was a feared outcome before Roe v. Wade was overturned, abortion provided an escape hatch by which women could avoid having to continue a pregnancy and potentially raise a child with congenital anomalies. I believe that prescribing is going to become much more defensive and conservative. Some clinicians may choose not to prescribe these medications to patients who have childbearing potential, even if they don’t have much risk for pregnancy.”

Other physicians expressed similar concerns in interviews. Duke University, Durham, N.C., rheumatologist Megan E. B. Clowse, MD, MPH, fears that physicians will be wary of prescribing a variety of medications – including new ones for which there are few pregnancy data – if abortion is unavailable. “Women who receive these new or teratogenic medications will likely lose their reproductive autonomy and be forced to choose between having sexual relationships with men, obtaining procedures that make them permanently sterile, or using contraception that may cause intolerable side effects,” she said. “I am very concerned that young women with rheumatic disease will now be left with active disease resulting in joint damage and renal failure.”

Abortion is now banned in at least six states, according to The New York Times. That number may rise to 16 as more restrictions become law. Another five states aren’t expected to ban abortion soon but have implemented gestational age limits on abortion or are expected to adopt them. In another nine states, courts or lawmakers will decide whether abortion remains legal.

Only 20 states and the District of Columbia have firm abortion protections in place.

Numerous drugs are considered teratogens, which means they may cause birth defects. Thalidomide is the most infamous, but there are many more, including several used in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology. Among the most widely used teratogenic medications are the acne drugs isotretinoin and methotrexate, which are used to treat a variety of conditions, such as cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, and psoriasis.

Dr. Clowse, who helps manage an industry-supported website devoted to reproductive care for women with lupus (www.LupusPregnancy.org), noted that several drugs linked to birth defects and pregnancy loss are commonly prescribed in rheumatology.

“Methotrexate is the most common medication and has been the cornerstone of rheumatoid arthritis [treatment] for at least two decades,” she said. “Mycophenolate is our best medication to treat lupus nephritis, which is inflammation in the kidneys caused by lupus. This is a common complication for young women with lupus, and all of our guideline-recommended treatment regimens include a medication that causes pregnancy loss and birth defects, either mycophenolate or cyclophosphamide.”

Rheumatologists also prescribe a large number of new drugs for which there are few data about pregnancy risks. “It typically takes about two decades to have sufficient data about the safety of our medications,” she said.

Reflecting the sensitivity of the topic, Dr. Clowse made clear that her opinions don’t represent the views of her institution. She works in North Carolina, where the fate of abortion rights is uncertain, according to The New York Times.

What about alternatives? “The short answer is that some of these medications work really well and sometimes much better than the nonteratogenic alternatives,” said Dr. Birru Talabi. “I’m worried about methotrexate. It has been used to induce abortions but is primarily used in the United States as a highly effective treatment for cancer as well as a myriad of rheumatic diseases. If legislators try to restrict access to methotrexate, we may see increasing disability and even death among people who need this medication but cannot access it.”

Rheumatologists aren’t the only physicians who are worrying about the fates of their patients in a new era of abortion restrictions. Gastroenterologist Sunanda Kane, MD, MSPH, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said several teratogenic medications are used in her field to treat constipation, viral hepatitis, and inflammatory bowel disease.

“When treating women of childbearing age, there are usually alternatives. If we do prescribe a medication with a high teratogenic potential, we counsel and document that we have discussed two forms of birth control to avoid pregnancy. We usually do not prescribe a drug with teratogenic potential with the ‘out’ being an abortion if a pregnancy does occur,” she said. However, “if abortion is not even on the table as an option, we may be much less likely to prescribe these medications. This will be particularly true in patients who clearly do not have the means to travel to have an abortion in any situation.”

Abortion is expected to remain legal in Minnesota, where Dr. Kane practices, but it may be restricted or banned in nearby Wisconsin, depending on the state legislature. None of her patients have had abortions after becoming pregnant while taking the medications, she said, although she “did have a patient who because of her religious faith did not have an abortion after exposure and ended up with a stillbirth.”

The crackdown on abortion won’t just pose risks to patients who take potentially dangerous medications, physicians said. Dr. Kane said pregnancy itself is a significant risk for patients with “very active, uncontrolled gastrointestinal conditions where a pregnancy could be harmful to the mother’s health or result in offspring that are very unhealthy.” These include decompensated cirrhosis, uncontrolled Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, refractory gastroparesis, uncontrolled celiac sprue, and chronic pancreatitis, she said.

“There have been times when after shared decisionmaking, a patient with very active inflammatory bowel disease has decided to terminate the pregnancy because of her own ongoing health issues,” she said. “Not having this option will potentially lead to disastrous results.”

Dr. Clowse, the Duke University rheumatologist, echoed Dr. Kane’s concerns about women who are too sick to bear children. “The removal of abortion rights puts the lives and quality of life for women with rheumatic disease at risk. For patients with lupus and other systemic rheumatic disease, pregnancy can be medically catastrophic, leading to permanent harm and even death to the woman and her offspring. I am worried that women in these conditions will die without lifesaving pregnancy terminations, due to worries about the legal consequences for their physicians.”

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade has also raised the prospect that the court could ultimately allow birth control to be restricted or outlawed.

While the ruling states that “nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurrence in which he said that the court should reconsider a 1960s ruling that forbids the banning of contraceptives. Republicans have dismissed concerns about bans being allowed, although Democrats, including the president and vice president, starkly warn that they could happen.

“If we as providers have to be concerned that there will be an unplanned pregnancy because of the lack of access to contraception,” Dr. Kane said, “this will have significant downstream consequences to the kind of care we can provide and might just drive some providers to not give care to female patients at all given this concern.”

The physicians quoted in this article report no relevant financial relationships.

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

LONDON – Weight loss, lipid reductions, and “robust improvements” in lipid species associated with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease were achieved in patients who were treated with pemvidutide in a first-in-human, phase 1 clinical trial reported at the annual International Liver Congress, sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

The presenting study investigator, Stephen A. Harrison, MD, said that pemvidutide, which is also being developed for the treatment of obesity, appeared to be well tolerated. There were no serious or severe adverse events, and no patient had to discontinue treatment because of side effects.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Overall, “pemvidutide represents a promising new agent,” said Dr. Harrison, medical director of Pinnacle Research in San Antonio, Texas.
 

Dual incretin effect

Pemvidutide is a “balanced” dual agonist of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and glucagon, Dr. Harrison explained in his oral abstract.

“With glucagon, we are working to drive energy expenditure up, and with GLP-1, we’re decreasing food intake,” Dr. Harrison said.

What might set pemvidutide apart from other incretins lies within its structure, Dr. Harrison suggested. The structure has two main regions – one with greater GLP-1 specificity and the other with greater glucagon specificity, and these two areas are linked by a propriety technology called a EuPort^™ domain. This is an area which allows the drug to bind to albumin, which increases its serum half-life and enables weekly dosing while slowing its entry into the bloodstream.

“Ultimately, we think that this has impacts, hypothetically, on tolerability and potentially mitigating the need for dose escalation,” said Dr. Harrison.
 

Weight loss results

The phase 1 study Dr. Harrison presented had a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled design with single and multiple ascending doses (SAD/MAD) of pemvidutide being tested. He presented data on the MAD phase only, noting that the SAD phase had been used to determine what doses to use in the latter.

Seventy individuals with a body mass index of between 25 and 40 kg/m² were recruited and 34 of these were enrolled in the MAD phase of the study. Three doses of pemvidutide were used, given subcutaneously once a week for 12 weeks: Seven participants received 1.2 mg, 9 were given 1.8 mg, 11 had 2.4 mg, and 7 subjects were treated with placebo. Dr. Harrison noted that there were no caloric restrictions in the trial and no lifestyle modifications or interventions.

The average age of study participants ranged from 27 to 35 years and the mean BMI was 30-31 kg/m² across each group, with their lipid parameters in the upper range of normal.

Clear weight loss reductions were seen across all the pemvidutide groups versus placebo, with the greatest percentage changes in weight loss seen with the two higher doses used. At week 12, there was a 4.9%, 10.3% and 9.0% weight loss in the 1.2-mg, 1.8-mg and 2.4-mg pemvidutide groups compared to 1.6% in placebo-treated individuals.

All patients in the 1.8-mg group achieved a 5% or greater weight loss, Dr. Harrison observed, but there “was a plateauing” effect with the 2.4-mg dose with 89% of patients achieving this target. In comparison, a third of patients on the lowest dose and 20% of those on placebo achieved this target.

The trajectory of weight loss seen in the trial suggests that “the rate of weight loss would continue beyond 12 weeks if we were to continue the therapy” Dr. Harrison said.
 

Lipid changes and liver fat reductions

Levels of serum lipids from baseline to week 12 fell to a greater extent with pemvidutide treatment than with placebo, in the range of –27% for total cholesterol in the two highest dose groups, –25% for LDL-cholesterol for those groups, –37% for triglycerides for the 1.2- and 1.8-mg groups, and reductions in apolipoprotein B were seen.

“We saw an initial decline in HDL [high-density lipoprotein],” Dr. Harrison said, noting that “this is consistent with prior studies looking at rapid weight loss, and over time, this mitigates as you continue to treat at least based on other mechanisms of action or other drugs with similar mechanisms.”

Pemvidutide treatment was also associated with increased lipid oxidation and decreased lipid synthesis, and “there was a robust decrease in lipids implicated in NASH inflammation,” Dr. Harrison pointed out.

Importantly, in five of eight participants who had high levels of liver fat at baseline – defined as a 5% or greater magnetic resonance imaging–derived proton-density-fat-fraction (MRI-PDFF) – showed a decrease to undetectable limits (1.5% or less). This was a greater than 90% reduction in liver fat, Dr. Harrison said. All five patients were in the 1.8-mg and 2.4-mg groups.

As for side effects, these were “predominantly upper GI, with nausea and vomiting.” These were mild in most cases, but he pointed out that five patients treated with the 1.8-mg dose experienced moderate nausea and three experienced moderate vomiting. Mild diarrhea and constipation were also seen in two of patients given this dose but was not reported in any of the other groups.

During the discussion following the presentation, it was pointed out that there was no clear dose-dependent effect considering the 1.8-mg dose seemed to have a stronger effect in some areas than the 2.4-mg dose. That’s a fair point, Dr. Harrison responded, reiterating it was a small study with a short treatment duration, but that there did look like a plateauing effect, “at least in patients with a mean BMI of between 30 and 31.”

Dr. Harrison was asked about potential effects on insulin levels and if that was a worry because, if glucagon is stimulated, it could increase insulin. That in turn might encourage insulin resistance and promote worse outcomes.

“If you look outside of just this program, glucagon agonism has been dosed in a lot of patients over time, and we haven’t seen that,” Dr. Harrison replied. Pemvidutide is an agonist rather than antagonist, so perhaps the [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis]–inducing effects seen before with glucagon antagonism won’t occur, he suggested.

Dr. Harrison disclosed ties to Altimmune (the study sponsor), Akero, Axcella, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cirius, CiVi Biopharma, Conatus, Corcept, CymaBay, Enyo, Galectin, Genentech, Genfit, Gilead, Hepion, Hightide, HistoIndex, Intercept, Madrigal, Metacrine, NGM Bio, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, NorthSea, Pfizer, Sagimet, Viking, and 89Bio.

LONDON – Weight loss, lipid reductions, and “robust improvements” in lipid species associated with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease were achieved in patients who were treated with pemvidutide in a first-in-human, phase 1 clinical trial reported at the annual International Liver Congress, sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

The presenting study investigator, Stephen A. Harrison, MD, said that pemvidutide, which is also being developed for the treatment of obesity, appeared to be well tolerated. There were no serious or severe adverse events, and no patient had to discontinue treatment because of side effects.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Overall, “pemvidutide represents a promising new agent,” said Dr. Harrison, medical director of Pinnacle Research in San Antonio, Texas.
 

Dual incretin effect

Pemvidutide is a “balanced” dual agonist of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and glucagon, Dr. Harrison explained in his oral abstract.

“With glucagon, we are working to drive energy expenditure up, and with GLP-1, we’re decreasing food intake,” Dr. Harrison said.

What might set pemvidutide apart from other incretins lies within its structure, Dr. Harrison suggested. The structure has two main regions – one with greater GLP-1 specificity and the other with greater glucagon specificity, and these two areas are linked by a propriety technology called a EuPort^™ domain. This is an area which allows the drug to bind to albumin, which increases its serum half-life and enables weekly dosing while slowing its entry into the bloodstream.

“Ultimately, we think that this has impacts, hypothetically, on tolerability and potentially mitigating the need for dose escalation,” said Dr. Harrison.
 

Weight loss results

The phase 1 study Dr. Harrison presented had a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled design with single and multiple ascending doses (SAD/MAD) of pemvidutide being tested. He presented data on the MAD phase only, noting that the SAD phase had been used to determine what doses to use in the latter.

Seventy individuals with a body mass index of between 25 and 40 kg/m² were recruited and 34 of these were enrolled in the MAD phase of the study. Three doses of pemvidutide were used, given subcutaneously once a week for 12 weeks: Seven participants received 1.2 mg, 9 were given 1.8 mg, 11 had 2.4 mg, and 7 subjects were treated with placebo. Dr. Harrison noted that there were no caloric restrictions in the trial and no lifestyle modifications or interventions.

The average age of study participants ranged from 27 to 35 years and the mean BMI was 30-31 kg/m² across each group, with their lipid parameters in the upper range of normal.

Clear weight loss reductions were seen across all the pemvidutide groups versus placebo, with the greatest percentage changes in weight loss seen with the two higher doses used. At week 12, there was a 4.9%, 10.3% and 9.0% weight loss in the 1.2-mg, 1.8-mg and 2.4-mg pemvidutide groups compared to 1.6% in placebo-treated individuals.

All patients in the 1.8-mg group achieved a 5% or greater weight loss, Dr. Harrison observed, but there “was a plateauing” effect with the 2.4-mg dose with 89% of patients achieving this target. In comparison, a third of patients on the lowest dose and 20% of those on placebo achieved this target.

The trajectory of weight loss seen in the trial suggests that “the rate of weight loss would continue beyond 12 weeks if we were to continue the therapy” Dr. Harrison said.
 

Lipid changes and liver fat reductions

Levels of serum lipids from baseline to week 12 fell to a greater extent with pemvidutide treatment than with placebo, in the range of –27% for total cholesterol in the two highest dose groups, –25% for LDL-cholesterol for those groups, –37% for triglycerides for the 1.2- and 1.8-mg groups, and reductions in apolipoprotein B were seen.

“We saw an initial decline in HDL [high-density lipoprotein],” Dr. Harrison said, noting that “this is consistent with prior studies looking at rapid weight loss, and over time, this mitigates as you continue to treat at least based on other mechanisms of action or other drugs with similar mechanisms.”

Pemvidutide treatment was also associated with increased lipid oxidation and decreased lipid synthesis, and “there was a robust decrease in lipids implicated in NASH inflammation,” Dr. Harrison pointed out.

Importantly, in five of eight participants who had high levels of liver fat at baseline – defined as a 5% or greater magnetic resonance imaging–derived proton-density-fat-fraction (MRI-PDFF) – showed a decrease to undetectable limits (1.5% or less). This was a greater than 90% reduction in liver fat, Dr. Harrison said. All five patients were in the 1.8-mg and 2.4-mg groups.

As for side effects, these were “predominantly upper GI, with nausea and vomiting.” These were mild in most cases, but he pointed out that five patients treated with the 1.8-mg dose experienced moderate nausea and three experienced moderate vomiting. Mild diarrhea and constipation were also seen in two of patients given this dose but was not reported in any of the other groups.

During the discussion following the presentation, it was pointed out that there was no clear dose-dependent effect considering the 1.8-mg dose seemed to have a stronger effect in some areas than the 2.4-mg dose. That’s a fair point, Dr. Harrison responded, reiterating it was a small study with a short treatment duration, but that there did look like a plateauing effect, “at least in patients with a mean BMI of between 30 and 31.”

Dr. Harrison was asked about potential effects on insulin levels and if that was a worry because, if glucagon is stimulated, it could increase insulin. That in turn might encourage insulin resistance and promote worse outcomes.

“If you look outside of just this program, glucagon agonism has been dosed in a lot of patients over time, and we haven’t seen that,” Dr. Harrison replied. Pemvidutide is an agonist rather than antagonist, so perhaps the [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis]–inducing effects seen before with glucagon antagonism won’t occur, he suggested.

Dr. Harrison disclosed ties to Altimmune (the study sponsor), Akero, Axcella, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cirius, CiVi Biopharma, Conatus, Corcept, CymaBay, Enyo, Galectin, Genentech, Genfit, Gilead, Hepion, Hightide, HistoIndex, Intercept, Madrigal, Metacrine, NGM Bio, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, NorthSea, Pfizer, Sagimet, Viking, and 89Bio.

LONDON – Weight loss, lipid reductions, and “robust improvements” in lipid species associated with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease were achieved in patients who were treated with pemvidutide in a first-in-human, phase 1 clinical trial reported at the annual International Liver Congress, sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

The presenting study investigator, Stephen A. Harrison, MD, said that pemvidutide, which is also being developed for the treatment of obesity, appeared to be well tolerated. There were no serious or severe adverse events, and no patient had to discontinue treatment because of side effects.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Overall, “pemvidutide represents a promising new agent,” said Dr. Harrison, medical director of Pinnacle Research in San Antonio, Texas.
 

Dual incretin effect

Pemvidutide is a “balanced” dual agonist of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and glucagon, Dr. Harrison explained in his oral abstract.

“With glucagon, we are working to drive energy expenditure up, and with GLP-1, we’re decreasing food intake,” Dr. Harrison said.

What might set pemvidutide apart from other incretins lies within its structure, Dr. Harrison suggested. The structure has two main regions – one with greater GLP-1 specificity and the other with greater glucagon specificity, and these two areas are linked by a propriety technology called a EuPort^™ domain. This is an area which allows the drug to bind to albumin, which increases its serum half-life and enables weekly dosing while slowing its entry into the bloodstream.

“Ultimately, we think that this has impacts, hypothetically, on tolerability and potentially mitigating the need for dose escalation,” said Dr. Harrison.
 

Weight loss results

The phase 1 study Dr. Harrison presented had a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled design with single and multiple ascending doses (SAD/MAD) of pemvidutide being tested. He presented data on the MAD phase only, noting that the SAD phase had been used to determine what doses to use in the latter.

Seventy individuals with a body mass index of between 25 and 40 kg/m² were recruited and 34 of these were enrolled in the MAD phase of the study. Three doses of pemvidutide were used, given subcutaneously once a week for 12 weeks: Seven participants received 1.2 mg, 9 were given 1.8 mg, 11 had 2.4 mg, and 7 subjects were treated with placebo. Dr. Harrison noted that there were no caloric restrictions in the trial and no lifestyle modifications or interventions.

The average age of study participants ranged from 27 to 35 years and the mean BMI was 30-31 kg/m² across each group, with their lipid parameters in the upper range of normal.

Clear weight loss reductions were seen across all the pemvidutide groups versus placebo, with the greatest percentage changes in weight loss seen with the two higher doses used. At week 12, there was a 4.9%, 10.3% and 9.0% weight loss in the 1.2-mg, 1.8-mg and 2.4-mg pemvidutide groups compared to 1.6% in placebo-treated individuals.

All patients in the 1.8-mg group achieved a 5% or greater weight loss, Dr. Harrison observed, but there “was a plateauing” effect with the 2.4-mg dose with 89% of patients achieving this target. In comparison, a third of patients on the lowest dose and 20% of those on placebo achieved this target.

The trajectory of weight loss seen in the trial suggests that “the rate of weight loss would continue beyond 12 weeks if we were to continue the therapy” Dr. Harrison said.
 

Lipid changes and liver fat reductions

Levels of serum lipids from baseline to week 12 fell to a greater extent with pemvidutide treatment than with placebo, in the range of –27% for total cholesterol in the two highest dose groups, –25% for LDL-cholesterol for those groups, –37% for triglycerides for the 1.2- and 1.8-mg groups, and reductions in apolipoprotein B were seen.

“We saw an initial decline in HDL [high-density lipoprotein],” Dr. Harrison said, noting that “this is consistent with prior studies looking at rapid weight loss, and over time, this mitigates as you continue to treat at least based on other mechanisms of action or other drugs with similar mechanisms.”

Pemvidutide treatment was also associated with increased lipid oxidation and decreased lipid synthesis, and “there was a robust decrease in lipids implicated in NASH inflammation,” Dr. Harrison pointed out.

Importantly, in five of eight participants who had high levels of liver fat at baseline – defined as a 5% or greater magnetic resonance imaging–derived proton-density-fat-fraction (MRI-PDFF) – showed a decrease to undetectable limits (1.5% or less). This was a greater than 90% reduction in liver fat, Dr. Harrison said. All five patients were in the 1.8-mg and 2.4-mg groups.

As for side effects, these were “predominantly upper GI, with nausea and vomiting.” These were mild in most cases, but he pointed out that five patients treated with the 1.8-mg dose experienced moderate nausea and three experienced moderate vomiting. Mild diarrhea and constipation were also seen in two of patients given this dose but was not reported in any of the other groups.

During the discussion following the presentation, it was pointed out that there was no clear dose-dependent effect considering the 1.8-mg dose seemed to have a stronger effect in some areas than the 2.4-mg dose. That’s a fair point, Dr. Harrison responded, reiterating it was a small study with a short treatment duration, but that there did look like a plateauing effect, “at least in patients with a mean BMI of between 30 and 31.”

Dr. Harrison was asked about potential effects on insulin levels and if that was a worry because, if glucagon is stimulated, it could increase insulin. That in turn might encourage insulin resistance and promote worse outcomes.

“If you look outside of just this program, glucagon agonism has been dosed in a lot of patients over time, and we haven’t seen that,” Dr. Harrison replied. Pemvidutide is an agonist rather than antagonist, so perhaps the [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis]–inducing effects seen before with glucagon antagonism won’t occur, he suggested.

Dr. Harrison disclosed ties to Altimmune (the study sponsor), Akero, Axcella, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cirius, CiVi Biopharma, Conatus, Corcept, CymaBay, Enyo, Galectin, Genentech, Genfit, Gilead, Hepion, Hightide, HistoIndex, Intercept, Madrigal, Metacrine, NGM Bio, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, NorthSea, Pfizer, Sagimet, Viking, and 89Bio.

Hydroxychloroquine should be initiated with caution in older patients with rheumatoid arthritis who also have heart failure or are at risk for it, say the authors of a study suggesting that the drug could increase their risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), compared with methotrexate.

A cohort study published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology looked at outcomes in 54,462 patients with RA aged 65 years or older and not previously treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Half were initiated on methotrexate and half on hydroxychloroquine, making 27,231 propensity-matched pairs.

Across the entire cohort, hydroxychloroquine was not associated with a higher risk for sudden cardiac arrest, ventricular arrhythmia, or MACE, compared with methotrexate. When broken down into individual cardiovascular events, the data suggested a statistically significant 17% increase in the risk for cardiovascular mortality and 10% increase in all-cause mortality with hydroxychloroquine, although there were no differences in the risks for myocardial infarction or stroke.

However, a subgroup analysis revealed a significant 30% increase in the risk for MACE among patients starting hydroxychloroquine who also had a history of heart failure, compared with patients taking methotrexate. The researchers found no difference between the two drugs in patients without a history of heart failure. The study also suggested an overall 41% increase in the risk for hospitalization with heart failure with hydroxychloroquine, regardless of heart failure history.

Hydroxychloroquine was also associated with a 34% increase in the risk for cardiovascular mortality, a 22% increase in the risk for all-cause mortality, and a 74% increase in the risk for MI.

The lead author of the study, Elvira D’Andrea, MD, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, said that hydroxychloroquine is used as a first-line treatment for RA, but there was limited evidence on its cardiovascular risks. The pandemic in particular shined a spotlight on these concerns and prompted the researchers to extend their original prepandemic study to encompass additional cardiovascular outcomes.

“The emerging concerns on its cardiovascular safety in early 2020 has led the rheumatological community, and patients regularly taking hydroxychloroquine for rheumatoid arthritis, to confusion,” Dr. D’Andrea said in an interview.

She advised that clinicians be cautious when initiating hydroxychloroquine in older patients with existing heart failure or who have risk factors for it. “Although heart failure is a known concern for hydroxychloroquine use, these findings helped to clarify the relationship between the use of hydroxychloroquine or methotrexate and heart failure. Clinicians should pay careful attention to clinical manifestations of cardiomyopathy or heart failure in older patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with hydroxychloroquine.”

Hydroxychloroquine is associated with cardiotoxicity, particularly cardiomyopathy, which may help precipitate MACE or heart failure exacerbations in patients who already have deterioration of their cardiac tissue, the authors suggested.

Short follow-up period leaves risk attribution under question

In an accompanying editorial, Elizabeth Blair Solow, MD, and Bonnie L. Bermas, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, commented that the lack of an increased risk for arrhythmic events or MACE in the overall cohort taking hydroxychloroquine was reassuring. They also suggested the subgroup analysis findings among patients with preexisting heart failure were still “exploratory and hypothesis-generating” and should be interpreted with caution.

They noted that the follow-up time of the study was relatively short – a median of 209 days – given that hydroxychloroquine does not reach a steady-state level for 6 months.

“Evidence to date suggests cardiomyopathy from HCQ [hydroxychloroquine] takes years to develop, many months beyond the exposures described here, bringing into question as to whether HCQ itself increased HF hospitalizations,” the editorialists wrote.

The editorial also raised the question of whether the association observed in the study was related to a possible cardioprotective effect of methotrexate, given that previous studies have suggested this effect in older patients with RA.

The study authors did an exploratory analysis comparing hydroxychloroquine with sulfasalazine, which appeared to support their main findings of a possible cardiovascular effect of hydroxychloroquine. However, they qualified this by pointing out that the analysis involved small numbers of patients.

Senior investigator Seoyoung C. Kim, MD, ScD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, also noted that the study only looked at outcomes in patients aged 65 years and older.

“It would be clinically important to further examine the cardiovascular safety of hydroxychloroquine versus methotrexate in a younger population with rheumatic conditions,” she said.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Harvard Medical School. Four authors declared unrelated research grants from the pharmaceutical sector, with one also declaring stock options and consulting work with the pharmaceutical sector. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

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

Hydroxychloroquine should be initiated with caution in older patients with rheumatoid arthritis who also have heart failure or are at risk for it, say the authors of a study suggesting that the drug could increase their risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), compared with methotrexate.

A cohort study published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology looked at outcomes in 54,462 patients with RA aged 65 years or older and not previously treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Half were initiated on methotrexate and half on hydroxychloroquine, making 27,231 propensity-matched pairs.

Across the entire cohort, hydroxychloroquine was not associated with a higher risk for sudden cardiac arrest, ventricular arrhythmia, or MACE, compared with methotrexate. When broken down into individual cardiovascular events, the data suggested a statistically significant 17% increase in the risk for cardiovascular mortality and 10% increase in all-cause mortality with hydroxychloroquine, although there were no differences in the risks for myocardial infarction or stroke.

However, a subgroup analysis revealed a significant 30% increase in the risk for MACE among patients starting hydroxychloroquine who also had a history of heart failure, compared with patients taking methotrexate. The researchers found no difference between the two drugs in patients without a history of heart failure. The study also suggested an overall 41% increase in the risk for hospitalization with heart failure with hydroxychloroquine, regardless of heart failure history.

Hydroxychloroquine was also associated with a 34% increase in the risk for cardiovascular mortality, a 22% increase in the risk for all-cause mortality, and a 74% increase in the risk for MI.

The lead author of the study, Elvira D’Andrea, MD, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, said that hydroxychloroquine is used as a first-line treatment for RA, but there was limited evidence on its cardiovascular risks. The pandemic in particular shined a spotlight on these concerns and prompted the researchers to extend their original prepandemic study to encompass additional cardiovascular outcomes.

“The emerging concerns on its cardiovascular safety in early 2020 has led the rheumatological community, and patients regularly taking hydroxychloroquine for rheumatoid arthritis, to confusion,” Dr. D’Andrea said in an interview.

She advised that clinicians be cautious when initiating hydroxychloroquine in older patients with existing heart failure or who have risk factors for it. “Although heart failure is a known concern for hydroxychloroquine use, these findings helped to clarify the relationship between the use of hydroxychloroquine or methotrexate and heart failure. Clinicians should pay careful attention to clinical manifestations of cardiomyopathy or heart failure in older patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with hydroxychloroquine.”

Hydroxychloroquine is associated with cardiotoxicity, particularly cardiomyopathy, which may help precipitate MACE or heart failure exacerbations in patients who already have deterioration of their cardiac tissue, the authors suggested.

Short follow-up period leaves risk attribution under question

In an accompanying editorial, Elizabeth Blair Solow, MD, and Bonnie L. Bermas, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, commented that the lack of an increased risk for arrhythmic events or MACE in the overall cohort taking hydroxychloroquine was reassuring. They also suggested the subgroup analysis findings among patients with preexisting heart failure were still “exploratory and hypothesis-generating” and should be interpreted with caution.

They noted that the follow-up time of the study was relatively short – a median of 209 days – given that hydroxychloroquine does not reach a steady-state level for 6 months.

“Evidence to date suggests cardiomyopathy from HCQ [hydroxychloroquine] takes years to develop, many months beyond the exposures described here, bringing into question as to whether HCQ itself increased HF hospitalizations,” the editorialists wrote.

The editorial also raised the question of whether the association observed in the study was related to a possible cardioprotective effect of methotrexate, given that previous studies have suggested this effect in older patients with RA.

The study authors did an exploratory analysis comparing hydroxychloroquine with sulfasalazine, which appeared to support their main findings of a possible cardiovascular effect of hydroxychloroquine. However, they qualified this by pointing out that the analysis involved small numbers of patients.

Senior investigator Seoyoung C. Kim, MD, ScD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, also noted that the study only looked at outcomes in patients aged 65 years and older.

“It would be clinically important to further examine the cardiovascular safety of hydroxychloroquine versus methotrexate in a younger population with rheumatic conditions,” she said.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Harvard Medical School. Four authors declared unrelated research grants from the pharmaceutical sector, with one also declaring stock options and consulting work with the pharmaceutical sector. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

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

Hydroxychloroquine should be initiated with caution in older patients with rheumatoid arthritis who also have heart failure or are at risk for it, say the authors of a study suggesting that the drug could increase their risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), compared with methotrexate.

A cohort study published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology looked at outcomes in 54,462 patients with RA aged 65 years or older and not previously treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Half were initiated on methotrexate and half on hydroxychloroquine, making 27,231 propensity-matched pairs.

Across the entire cohort, hydroxychloroquine was not associated with a higher risk for sudden cardiac arrest, ventricular arrhythmia, or MACE, compared with methotrexate. When broken down into individual cardiovascular events, the data suggested a statistically significant 17% increase in the risk for cardiovascular mortality and 10% increase in all-cause mortality with hydroxychloroquine, although there were no differences in the risks for myocardial infarction or stroke.

However, a subgroup analysis revealed a significant 30% increase in the risk for MACE among patients starting hydroxychloroquine who also had a history of heart failure, compared with patients taking methotrexate. The researchers found no difference between the two drugs in patients without a history of heart failure. The study also suggested an overall 41% increase in the risk for hospitalization with heart failure with hydroxychloroquine, regardless of heart failure history.

Hydroxychloroquine was also associated with a 34% increase in the risk for cardiovascular mortality, a 22% increase in the risk for all-cause mortality, and a 74% increase in the risk for MI.

The lead author of the study, Elvira D’Andrea, MD, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, said that hydroxychloroquine is used as a first-line treatment for RA, but there was limited evidence on its cardiovascular risks. The pandemic in particular shined a spotlight on these concerns and prompted the researchers to extend their original prepandemic study to encompass additional cardiovascular outcomes.

“The emerging concerns on its cardiovascular safety in early 2020 has led the rheumatological community, and patients regularly taking hydroxychloroquine for rheumatoid arthritis, to confusion,” Dr. D’Andrea said in an interview.

She advised that clinicians be cautious when initiating hydroxychloroquine in older patients with existing heart failure or who have risk factors for it. “Although heart failure is a known concern for hydroxychloroquine use, these findings helped to clarify the relationship between the use of hydroxychloroquine or methotrexate and heart failure. Clinicians should pay careful attention to clinical manifestations of cardiomyopathy or heart failure in older patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with hydroxychloroquine.”

Hydroxychloroquine is associated with cardiotoxicity, particularly cardiomyopathy, which may help precipitate MACE or heart failure exacerbations in patients who already have deterioration of their cardiac tissue, the authors suggested.

Short follow-up period leaves risk attribution under question

In an accompanying editorial, Elizabeth Blair Solow, MD, and Bonnie L. Bermas, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, commented that the lack of an increased risk for arrhythmic events or MACE in the overall cohort taking hydroxychloroquine was reassuring. They also suggested the subgroup analysis findings among patients with preexisting heart failure were still “exploratory and hypothesis-generating” and should be interpreted with caution.

They noted that the follow-up time of the study was relatively short – a median of 209 days – given that hydroxychloroquine does not reach a steady-state level for 6 months.

“Evidence to date suggests cardiomyopathy from HCQ [hydroxychloroquine] takes years to develop, many months beyond the exposures described here, bringing into question as to whether HCQ itself increased HF hospitalizations,” the editorialists wrote.

The editorial also raised the question of whether the association observed in the study was related to a possible cardioprotective effect of methotrexate, given that previous studies have suggested this effect in older patients with RA.

The study authors did an exploratory analysis comparing hydroxychloroquine with sulfasalazine, which appeared to support their main findings of a possible cardiovascular effect of hydroxychloroquine. However, they qualified this by pointing out that the analysis involved small numbers of patients.

Senior investigator Seoyoung C. Kim, MD, ScD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, also noted that the study only looked at outcomes in patients aged 65 years and older.

“It would be clinically important to further examine the cardiovascular safety of hydroxychloroquine versus methotrexate in a younger population with rheumatic conditions,” she said.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Harvard Medical School. Four authors declared unrelated research grants from the pharmaceutical sector, with one also declaring stock options and consulting work with the pharmaceutical sector. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

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

A new study finds that mortality is significantly higher among patients with advanced solid tumors who are admitted to the hospital for chemotherapy treatment.

The findings – released in a poster session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology – found that patients with solid tumors were more likely to be treated for nonurgent indications, not be referred to palliative care, and die within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies.

Decisions about inpatient chemotherapy should not be uniform and instead should be based on a case-by-case basis, said Natalie Berger, MD, a hematologist-oncologist at Mount Sinai Hospital,, New York, and the study’s lead author.

Inpatient chemotherapy can be appropriate in certain situations, such as when chemotherapy must be given in the hospital and when it must be administered quickly after a patient presents with cancer symptoms and needs relief, she said.

However, “sometimes patients are admitted due to infection, side effects of chemotherapy or cancer, or for reasons unrelated to their cancer, and chemotherapy may be administered when it is not appropriate. It is also overutilized at the end of life which can lead to more aggressive end-of-life care rather than focusing on quality of life and supportive care,” Dr. Berger said.

The study is based on a retrospective chart review of 880 patients admitted to Mount Sinai Hospital between January 2016 and December 2017 to receive chemotherapy.

They found that the type of tumor was used to determine the urgency of an in-hospital stay for chemotherapy (odds ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.25-0.72; P = .001). Patients with solid tumors or older patients or patients with a functional impairment score (Karnofsky Performance Scale) of 50% were less likely to respond to chemotherapy. There was also a decrease in quality of life among these patients, but only 46% of patients with solid tumors and 15% of patients with hematologic malignancies met with a palliative care professional.

One-third (34%) of patients with solid tumors didn’t have urgent indications, 43% of patients had no response to inpatient chemotherapy, and 20% died within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies (19%, 19%, and 9%, respectively).

“There are many reasons why this [high mortality rate in patients with solid tumors] may be happening. Solid tumor patients are more often admitted at a later stage of their cancer when they are sicker, and they were also less likely to have a response to inpatient chemotherapy. Older patients and patients with a poor performance status were also less likely to respond to chemotherapy. This indicates that these patients were sicker, and chemotherapy use may not have been appropriate and palliative care may be underutilized,” she said.

Dr. Berger and colleagues have created a standardized protocol to assess “the appropriateness” of inpatient chemotherapy, improve quality of life, and reduce chemotherapy and health care utilization at the end of life. The protocol has been implemented as a pilot program at Mount Sinai Hospital, Dr. Berger said.

“Any inpatient chemotherapy case that meets standard accepted criteria for required inpatient administration are auto-approved through the electronic survey. For cases outside of standard criteria, further information must be inputted to determine appropriateness of inpatient treatment and are then scored electronically and reviewed by committee physicians and pharmacists,” she said.

Gabriel A. Brooks, MD, MPH, an oncologist with Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., who was not affiliated with the study, said that inpatient chemotherapy treatment is under scrutiny elsewhere as well.

“There has been recognition that patients who are otherwise sick enough to require hospital admission are often too sick to benefit from chemotherapy,” although there are exceptions. “There is certainly a movement to limit inpatient chemotherapy to situations where it is most likely to be beneficial. Some of this is driven by cost pressures. For instance, Medicare pays for inpatient hospitalizations using the DRG [diagnosis-related group] system. Hospitals cannot charge a la carte for treatments given in the hospital. Instead, they are reimbursed at a fixed rate based on the hospital diagnoses. This will often lead to poor reimbursement of high-cost cancer treatments.”

Dr. Brooks said the study offers insight into who’s getting inpatient chemotherapy. However, “what I can’t tell from this poster is how often the solid tumor patients are getting first-line chemotherapy [as] these patients may be presenting late or may have a potentially treatable cancer with a narrow closing window for treatment versus later-line chemotherapy.”

He also noted that patient and family wishes are missing from the research. “This is critical. Patients and families should be informed that inpatient chemotherapy may not provide the benefit they are hoping for, especially for patients with solid tumors starting later lines of therapy. Patients should be informed that there are alternatives to inpatient chemotherapy, such as hospice referral or waiting for possible outpatient treatment – if their condition improves. But when a patient wants to try inpatient chemotherapy and their doctor wants to offer it, then it is likely a reasonable thing to try.”

Going forward, he said, “qualitative study is needed to better understand when and why inpatient chemotherapy is used. There are likely some clear good uses and some clear bad uses of inpatient chemotherapy. Can outpatient regimens be substituted for the regimens where patients are directly admitted? Or, can outpatient protocols be devised for these regimens? Are there specific situations where inpatient chemotherapy is the right thing (leukemia, esophageal cancer with worsening dysphagia, etc.)?”

No study funding was received.

A new study finds that mortality is significantly higher among patients with advanced solid tumors who are admitted to the hospital for chemotherapy treatment.

The findings – released in a poster session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology – found that patients with solid tumors were more likely to be treated for nonurgent indications, not be referred to palliative care, and die within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies.

Decisions about inpatient chemotherapy should not be uniform and instead should be based on a case-by-case basis, said Natalie Berger, MD, a hematologist-oncologist at Mount Sinai Hospital,, New York, and the study’s lead author.

Inpatient chemotherapy can be appropriate in certain situations, such as when chemotherapy must be given in the hospital and when it must be administered quickly after a patient presents with cancer symptoms and needs relief, she said.

However, “sometimes patients are admitted due to infection, side effects of chemotherapy or cancer, or for reasons unrelated to their cancer, and chemotherapy may be administered when it is not appropriate. It is also overutilized at the end of life which can lead to more aggressive end-of-life care rather than focusing on quality of life and supportive care,” Dr. Berger said.

The study is based on a retrospective chart review of 880 patients admitted to Mount Sinai Hospital between January 2016 and December 2017 to receive chemotherapy.

They found that the type of tumor was used to determine the urgency of an in-hospital stay for chemotherapy (odds ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.25-0.72; P = .001). Patients with solid tumors or older patients or patients with a functional impairment score (Karnofsky Performance Scale) of 50% were less likely to respond to chemotherapy. There was also a decrease in quality of life among these patients, but only 46% of patients with solid tumors and 15% of patients with hematologic malignancies met with a palliative care professional.

One-third (34%) of patients with solid tumors didn’t have urgent indications, 43% of patients had no response to inpatient chemotherapy, and 20% died within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies (19%, 19%, and 9%, respectively).

“There are many reasons why this [high mortality rate in patients with solid tumors] may be happening. Solid tumor patients are more often admitted at a later stage of their cancer when they are sicker, and they were also less likely to have a response to inpatient chemotherapy. Older patients and patients with a poor performance status were also less likely to respond to chemotherapy. This indicates that these patients were sicker, and chemotherapy use may not have been appropriate and palliative care may be underutilized,” she said.

Dr. Berger and colleagues have created a standardized protocol to assess “the appropriateness” of inpatient chemotherapy, improve quality of life, and reduce chemotherapy and health care utilization at the end of life. The protocol has been implemented as a pilot program at Mount Sinai Hospital, Dr. Berger said.

“Any inpatient chemotherapy case that meets standard accepted criteria for required inpatient administration are auto-approved through the electronic survey. For cases outside of standard criteria, further information must be inputted to determine appropriateness of inpatient treatment and are then scored electronically and reviewed by committee physicians and pharmacists,” she said.

Gabriel A. Brooks, MD, MPH, an oncologist with Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., who was not affiliated with the study, said that inpatient chemotherapy treatment is under scrutiny elsewhere as well.

“There has been recognition that patients who are otherwise sick enough to require hospital admission are often too sick to benefit from chemotherapy,” although there are exceptions. “There is certainly a movement to limit inpatient chemotherapy to situations where it is most likely to be beneficial. Some of this is driven by cost pressures. For instance, Medicare pays for inpatient hospitalizations using the DRG [diagnosis-related group] system. Hospitals cannot charge a la carte for treatments given in the hospital. Instead, they are reimbursed at a fixed rate based on the hospital diagnoses. This will often lead to poor reimbursement of high-cost cancer treatments.”

Dr. Brooks said the study offers insight into who’s getting inpatient chemotherapy. However, “what I can’t tell from this poster is how often the solid tumor patients are getting first-line chemotherapy [as] these patients may be presenting late or may have a potentially treatable cancer with a narrow closing window for treatment versus later-line chemotherapy.”

He also noted that patient and family wishes are missing from the research. “This is critical. Patients and families should be informed that inpatient chemotherapy may not provide the benefit they are hoping for, especially for patients with solid tumors starting later lines of therapy. Patients should be informed that there are alternatives to inpatient chemotherapy, such as hospice referral or waiting for possible outpatient treatment – if their condition improves. But when a patient wants to try inpatient chemotherapy and their doctor wants to offer it, then it is likely a reasonable thing to try.”

Going forward, he said, “qualitative study is needed to better understand when and why inpatient chemotherapy is used. There are likely some clear good uses and some clear bad uses of inpatient chemotherapy. Can outpatient regimens be substituted for the regimens where patients are directly admitted? Or, can outpatient protocols be devised for these regimens? Are there specific situations where inpatient chemotherapy is the right thing (leukemia, esophageal cancer with worsening dysphagia, etc.)?”

No study funding was received.

A new study finds that mortality is significantly higher among patients with advanced solid tumors who are admitted to the hospital for chemotherapy treatment.

The findings – released in a poster session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology – found that patients with solid tumors were more likely to be treated for nonurgent indications, not be referred to palliative care, and die within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies.

Decisions about inpatient chemotherapy should not be uniform and instead should be based on a case-by-case basis, said Natalie Berger, MD, a hematologist-oncologist at Mount Sinai Hospital,, New York, and the study’s lead author.

Inpatient chemotherapy can be appropriate in certain situations, such as when chemotherapy must be given in the hospital and when it must be administered quickly after a patient presents with cancer symptoms and needs relief, she said.

However, “sometimes patients are admitted due to infection, side effects of chemotherapy or cancer, or for reasons unrelated to their cancer, and chemotherapy may be administered when it is not appropriate. It is also overutilized at the end of life which can lead to more aggressive end-of-life care rather than focusing on quality of life and supportive care,” Dr. Berger said.

The study is based on a retrospective chart review of 880 patients admitted to Mount Sinai Hospital between January 2016 and December 2017 to receive chemotherapy.

They found that the type of tumor was used to determine the urgency of an in-hospital stay for chemotherapy (odds ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.25-0.72; P = .001). Patients with solid tumors or older patients or patients with a functional impairment score (Karnofsky Performance Scale) of 50% were less likely to respond to chemotherapy. There was also a decrease in quality of life among these patients, but only 46% of patients with solid tumors and 15% of patients with hematologic malignancies met with a palliative care professional.

One-third (34%) of patients with solid tumors didn’t have urgent indications, 43% of patients had no response to inpatient chemotherapy, and 20% died within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies (19%, 19%, and 9%, respectively).

“There are many reasons why this [high mortality rate in patients with solid tumors] may be happening. Solid tumor patients are more often admitted at a later stage of their cancer when they are sicker, and they were also less likely to have a response to inpatient chemotherapy. Older patients and patients with a poor performance status were also less likely to respond to chemotherapy. This indicates that these patients were sicker, and chemotherapy use may not have been appropriate and palliative care may be underutilized,” she said.

Dr. Berger and colleagues have created a standardized protocol to assess “the appropriateness” of inpatient chemotherapy, improve quality of life, and reduce chemotherapy and health care utilization at the end of life. The protocol has been implemented as a pilot program at Mount Sinai Hospital, Dr. Berger said.

“Any inpatient chemotherapy case that meets standard accepted criteria for required inpatient administration are auto-approved through the electronic survey. For cases outside of standard criteria, further information must be inputted to determine appropriateness of inpatient treatment and are then scored electronically and reviewed by committee physicians and pharmacists,” she said.

Gabriel A. Brooks, MD, MPH, an oncologist with Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., who was not affiliated with the study, said that inpatient chemotherapy treatment is under scrutiny elsewhere as well.

“There has been recognition that patients who are otherwise sick enough to require hospital admission are often too sick to benefit from chemotherapy,” although there are exceptions. “There is certainly a movement to limit inpatient chemotherapy to situations where it is most likely to be beneficial. Some of this is driven by cost pressures. For instance, Medicare pays for inpatient hospitalizations using the DRG [diagnosis-related group] system. Hospitals cannot charge a la carte for treatments given in the hospital. Instead, they are reimbursed at a fixed rate based on the hospital diagnoses. This will often lead to poor reimbursement of high-cost cancer treatments.”

Dr. Brooks said the study offers insight into who’s getting inpatient chemotherapy. However, “what I can’t tell from this poster is how often the solid tumor patients are getting first-line chemotherapy [as] these patients may be presenting late or may have a potentially treatable cancer with a narrow closing window for treatment versus later-line chemotherapy.”

He also noted that patient and family wishes are missing from the research. “This is critical. Patients and families should be informed that inpatient chemotherapy may not provide the benefit they are hoping for, especially for patients with solid tumors starting later lines of therapy. Patients should be informed that there are alternatives to inpatient chemotherapy, such as hospice referral or waiting for possible outpatient treatment – if their condition improves. But when a patient wants to try inpatient chemotherapy and their doctor wants to offer it, then it is likely a reasonable thing to try.”

Going forward, he said, “qualitative study is needed to better understand when and why inpatient chemotherapy is used. There are likely some clear good uses and some clear bad uses of inpatient chemotherapy. Can outpatient regimens be substituted for the regimens where patients are directly admitted? Or, can outpatient protocols be devised for these regimens? Are there specific situations where inpatient chemotherapy is the right thing (leukemia, esophageal cancer with worsening dysphagia, etc.)?”

No study funding was received.

We’ve still got some work to do before we can say with authority whether concurrent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and immunotherapy is better than concurrent adjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). While there has been some notable progress in this area, we need phase 3 trials that compare the two therapeutic approaches.

Investigators reporting at the 2022 annual meeting of American Society of Clinical Oncology focused primarily on neoadjuvant treatment, which I’ll address here.

In the randomized, phase 2 NADIM II clinical trial reported at the meeting, researchers expanded on the results of NADIM published in 2020 in the Lancet Oncology and in May 2022 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology along with CheckMate 816 results published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In each of these three studies, researchers compared nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone (abstract 8501) as a neoadjuvant treatment for resectable stage IIIA NSCLC. In the study reported at ASCO 2022, patients with resectable clinical stage IIIA-B (per American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition) NSCLC and no known EGFR/ALK alterations, were randomized to receive preoperative nivolumab plus chemotherapy (paclitaxel and carboplatin; n = 57) or chemotherapy (n = 29) alone followed by surgery.

The primary endpoint was pathological complete response (pCR); secondary endpoints included major pathological response, safety and tolerability, impact on surgical issues such as delayed or canceled surgeries or length of hospital stay, overall survival and progression free survival. The pCR rate was 36.8% in the neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy arm and 6.9% in the chemotherapy alone arm. (P = .0068). 25% of patients on the nivolumab plus chemo arm had grade 3-4 adverse events, compared with 10.3% in the control arm. 93% of patients on the nivolumab plus chemo arm underwent definitive surgery whereas 69.0% of the patients on the chemo alone arm had definitive surgery. (P = .008)
 

What else did we learn about neoadjuvant treatment at the meeting?

Investigators looking at the optimal number of neoadjuvant cycles (abstract 8500) found that three cycles of sintilimab (an investigational PD-1 inhibitor) produced a numerically higher major pathological response rate, compared with two cycles (when given in concert with platinum-doublet chemotherapy). And, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy does not result in significant survival benefits when compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone (abstract 8503).

Of course, when it comes to resectable NSCLC, the goal of treatment is to increase the cure rate and improve survival. No randomized studies have reported yet on overall survival, probably because they are too immature. Instead, disease-free survival (DFS) or event-free survival (EFS) are often used as surrogate endpoints. Since none of the studies reported at ASCO reported on DFS or EFS, we need to look elsewhere. CheckMate 816 was a phase 3 study which randomized patients with stages IB-IIIA NSCLC to receive neoadjuvant nivolumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy or neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy alone, followed by resection. The median EFS was 31.6 months with nivolumab plus chemotherapy and 20.8 months with chemotherapy alone (P = .005). The percentage of patients with a pCR was 24.0% and 2.2%, respectively (P < .001).

We all know one has to be careful when doing cross-trial comparisons as these studies differ by the percentage of patients with various stages of disease, the type of immunotherapy and chemotherapy used, etc. However, I think we can agree that neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy results in better outcomes than chemotherapy alone.

Of course, resectable NSCLC is, by definition, resectable. And traditionally, resection is followed by adjuvant chemotherapy to eradicate micrometastases. Unfortunately, the current standard of care for completely resected early-stage NSCLC (stage I [tumor ≥ 4 cm] to IIIA) involves adjuvant platinum-based combination chemotherapy which results in only a modest 4%-5% improvement in survival versus observation.

Given these modest results, as in the neoadjuvant space, investigators have looked at the benefit of adding immunotherapy to adjuvant chemotherapy. One such study has been reported. IMpower 010 randomly assigned patients with completely resected stage IB (tumors ≥ 4 cm) to IIIA NSCLC, whose tumor cells expressed at least 1% PD-L1, to receive adjuvant atezolizumab or best supportive care after adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy. In the stage II-IIIA population whose tumors expressed PD-L1 on 1% or more of tumor cells, 3-year DFS rates were 60% and 48% in the atezolizumab and best supportive care arms, respectively (hazard ratio, 0·66 P =·.0039). In all patients in the stage II-IIIA population, the 3-year DFS rates were 56% in the atezolizumab group and 49% in the best supportive care group, (HR, 0.79; P = .020).

KEYNOTE-091, reported at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology, randomized early-stage NSCLC patients following complete resection and adjuvant chemotherapy to pembrolizumab or placebo. Median DFS for the overall population was 53.6 months for patients in the pembro arm versus 42 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.76; P = .0014). Interestingly, the benefit was not seen in patients with PD-L1 with at least 50%, where the 18-month DFS rate was 71.7% in the pembro arm and 70.2% in the placebo arm (HR, 0.82; P = .14). Although the contradictory results of PD-L1 as a biomarker is puzzling, I think we can agree that the addition of immunotherapy following adjuvant chemotherapy improves outcomes compared to adjuvant chemotherapy alone.
 

What to do when a patient presents with resectable disease?

Cross-trial comparisons are fraught with danger. Until we have a phase 3 study comparing concurrent neoadjuvant chemo/immunotherapy with concurrent adjuvant chemo/immunotherapy, I do not think we can answer the question “which is better?” However, there are some caveats to keep in mind when deciding on which approach to recommend to our patients: First, neoadjuvant treatment requires biomarker testing to ensure the patient does not have EGFR or ALK mutations. This will necessitate a delay in the operation. Will patients be willing to wait? Will the surgeon? Or, would patients prefer to proceed with surgery while the results are pending? Yes, neoadjuvant therapy gives you information regarding the pCR rate, but does that help you in subsequent management of the patient? We do not know.

Secondly, the two adjuvant studies used adjuvant chemotherapy followed by adjuvant immunotherapy, as contrasted to the neoadjuvant study which used concurrent chemo/immunotherapy. Given the longer duration of treatment in postoperative sequential adjuvant studies, there tends to be more drop off because of patients being unwilling or unfit postoperatively to receive long courses of therapy. In IMpower 010, 1,269 patients completed adjuvant chemotherapy; 1,005 were randomized, and of the 507 assigned to the atezolizumab/chemo group, only 323 completed treatment.

Finally, we must beware of using neoadjuvant chemo/immunotherapy to “down-stage” a patient. KEYNOTE-091 included patients with IIIA disease and no benefit to adjuvant chemotherapy followed by immunotherapy was found in this subgroup of patients, which leads me to wonder if these patients were appropriately selected as surgical candidates. In the NADIM II trials, 9 of 29 patients on the neoadjuvant chemotherapy were not resected.

So, many questions remain. In addition to the ones we’ve raised, there is a clear and immediate need for predictive and prognostic biomarkers. In the NADIM II trial, PD-L1 expression was a predictive biomarker of response. The pCR rate for patients with a PD-L1 tumor expression of less than 1%, 1%-49%, and 50% or higher was 15%, 41.7%, and 61.1%, respectively. However, in KEYNOTE-091, the benefit was not seen in patients with PD-L1 of at least than 50%, where the 18-month DFS rate was 71.7% in the pembro arm and 70.2% in the placebo arm.

Another possible biomarker: circulating tumor DNA. In the first NADIM study, three low pretreatment levels of ctDNA were significantly associated with improved progression-free survival and overall survival (HR, 0.20 and HR, 0.07, respectively). Although clinical response did not predict survival outcomes, undetectable ctDNA levels after neoadjuvant treatment were significantly associated with progression-free survival and overall survival (HR, 0.26 and HR0.04, respectively). Similarly, in CheckMate 816, clearance of ctDNA was associated with longer EFS in patients with ctDNA clearance than in those without ctDNA clearance in both the nivolumab/chemotherapy group (HR, 0.60) and the chemotherapy-alone group (HR, 0.63).

Hopefully, ASCO 2023 will provide more answers.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation.

We’ve still got some work to do before we can say with authority whether concurrent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and immunotherapy is better than concurrent adjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). While there has been some notable progress in this area, we need phase 3 trials that compare the two therapeutic approaches.

Investigators reporting at the 2022 annual meeting of American Society of Clinical Oncology focused primarily on neoadjuvant treatment, which I’ll address here.

In the randomized, phase 2 NADIM II clinical trial reported at the meeting, researchers expanded on the results of NADIM published in 2020 in the Lancet Oncology and in May 2022 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology along with CheckMate 816 results published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In each of these three studies, researchers compared nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone (abstract 8501) as a neoadjuvant treatment for resectable stage IIIA NSCLC. In the study reported at ASCO 2022, patients with resectable clinical stage IIIA-B (per American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition) NSCLC and no known EGFR/ALK alterations, were randomized to receive preoperative nivolumab plus chemotherapy (paclitaxel and carboplatin; n = 57) or chemotherapy (n = 29) alone followed by surgery.

The primary endpoint was pathological complete response (pCR); secondary endpoints included major pathological response, safety and tolerability, impact on surgical issues such as delayed or canceled surgeries or length of hospital stay, overall survival and progression free survival. The pCR rate was 36.8% in the neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy arm and 6.9% in the chemotherapy alone arm. (P = .0068). 25% of patients on the nivolumab plus chemo arm had grade 3-4 adverse events, compared with 10.3% in the control arm. 93% of patients on the nivolumab plus chemo arm underwent definitive surgery whereas 69.0% of the patients on the chemo alone arm had definitive surgery. (P = .008)
 

What else did we learn about neoadjuvant treatment at the meeting?

Investigators looking at the optimal number of neoadjuvant cycles (abstract 8500) found that three cycles of sintilimab (an investigational PD-1 inhibitor) produced a numerically higher major pathological response rate, compared with two cycles (when given in concert with platinum-doublet chemotherapy). And, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy does not result in significant survival benefits when compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone (abstract 8503).

Of course, when it comes to resectable NSCLC, the goal of treatment is to increase the cure rate and improve survival. No randomized studies have reported yet on overall survival, probably because they are too immature. Instead, disease-free survival (DFS) or event-free survival (EFS) are often used as surrogate endpoints. Since none of the studies reported at ASCO reported on DFS or EFS, we need to look elsewhere. CheckMate 816 was a phase 3 study which randomized patients with stages IB-IIIA NSCLC to receive neoadjuvant nivolumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy or neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy alone, followed by resection. The median EFS was 31.6 months with nivolumab plus chemotherapy and 20.8 months with chemotherapy alone (P = .005). The percentage of patients with a pCR was 24.0% and 2.2%, respectively (P < .001).

We all know one has to be careful when doing cross-trial comparisons as these studies differ by the percentage of patients with various stages of disease, the type of immunotherapy and chemotherapy used, etc. However, I think we can agree that neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy results in better outcomes than chemotherapy alone.

Of course, resectable NSCLC is, by definition, resectable. And traditionally, resection is followed by adjuvant chemotherapy to eradicate micrometastases. Unfortunately, the current standard of care for completely resected early-stage NSCLC (stage I [tumor ≥ 4 cm] to IIIA) involves adjuvant platinum-based combination chemotherapy which results in only a modest 4%-5% improvement in survival versus observation.

Given these modest results, as in the neoadjuvant space, investigators have looked at the benefit of adding immunotherapy to adjuvant chemotherapy. One such study has been reported. IMpower 010 randomly assigned patients with completely resected stage IB (tumors ≥ 4 cm) to IIIA NSCLC, whose tumor cells expressed at least 1% PD-L1, to receive adjuvant atezolizumab or best supportive care after adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy. In the stage II-IIIA population whose tumors expressed PD-L1 on 1% or more of tumor cells, 3-year DFS rates were 60% and 48% in the atezolizumab and best supportive care arms, respectively (hazard ratio, 0·66 P =·.0039). In all patients in the stage II-IIIA population, the 3-year DFS rates were 56% in the atezolizumab group and 49% in the best supportive care group, (HR, 0.79; P = .020).

KEYNOTE-091, reported at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology, randomized early-stage NSCLC patients following complete resection and adjuvant chemotherapy to pembrolizumab or placebo. Median DFS for the overall population was 53.6 months for patients in the pembro arm versus 42 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.76; P = .0014). Interestingly, the benefit was not seen in patients with PD-L1 with at least 50%, where the 18-month DFS rate was 71.7% in the pembro arm and 70.2% in the placebo arm (HR, 0.82; P = .14). Although the contradictory results of PD-L1 as a biomarker is puzzling, I think we can agree that the addition of immunotherapy following adjuvant chemotherapy improves outcomes compared to adjuvant chemotherapy alone.
 

What to do when a patient presents with resectable disease?

Cross-trial comparisons are fraught with danger. Until we have a phase 3 study comparing concurrent neoadjuvant chemo/immunotherapy with concurrent adjuvant chemo/immunotherapy, I do not think we can answer the question “which is better?” However, there are some caveats to keep in mind when deciding on which approach to recommend to our patients: First, neoadjuvant treatment requires biomarker testing to ensure the patient does not have EGFR or ALK mutations. This will necessitate a delay in the operation. Will patients be willing to wait? Will the surgeon? Or, would patients prefer to proceed with surgery while the results are pending? Yes, neoadjuvant therapy gives you information regarding the pCR rate, but does that help you in subsequent management of the patient? We do not know.

Secondly, the two adjuvant studies used adjuvant chemotherapy followed by adjuvant immunotherapy, as contrasted to the neoadjuvant study which used concurrent chemo/immunotherapy. Given the longer duration of treatment in postoperative sequential adjuvant studies, there tends to be more drop off because of patients being unwilling or unfit postoperatively to receive long courses of therapy. In IMpower 010, 1,269 patients completed adjuvant chemotherapy; 1,005 were randomized, and of the 507 assigned to the atezolizumab/chemo group, only 323 completed treatment.

Finally, we must beware of using neoadjuvant chemo/immunotherapy to “down-stage” a patient. KEYNOTE-091 included patients with IIIA disease and no benefit to adjuvant chemotherapy followed by immunotherapy was found in this subgroup of patients, which leads me to wonder if these patients were appropriately selected as surgical candidates. In the NADIM II trials, 9 of 29 patients on the neoadjuvant chemotherapy were not resected.

So, many questions remain. In addition to the ones we’ve raised, there is a clear and immediate need for predictive and prognostic biomarkers. In the NADIM II trial, PD-L1 expression was a predictive biomarker of response. The pCR rate for patients with a PD-L1 tumor expression of less than 1%, 1%-49%, and 50% or higher was 15%, 41.7%, and 61.1%, respectively. However, in KEYNOTE-091, the benefit was not seen in patients with PD-L1 of at least than 50%, where the 18-month DFS rate was 71.7% in the pembro arm and 70.2% in the placebo arm.

Another possible biomarker: circulating tumor DNA. In the first NADIM study, three low pretreatment levels of ctDNA were significantly associated with improved progression-free survival and overall survival (HR, 0.20 and HR, 0.07, respectively). Although clinical response did not predict survival outcomes, undetectable ctDNA levels after neoadjuvant treatment were significantly associated with progression-free survival and overall survival (HR, 0.26 and HR0.04, respectively). Similarly, in CheckMate 816, clearance of ctDNA was associated with longer EFS in patients with ctDNA clearance than in those without ctDNA clearance in both the nivolumab/chemotherapy group (HR, 0.60) and the chemotherapy-alone group (HR, 0.63).

Hopefully, ASCO 2023 will provide more answers.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation.

We’ve still got some work to do before we can say with authority whether concurrent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and immunotherapy is better than concurrent adjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). While there has been some notable progress in this area, we need phase 3 trials that compare the two therapeutic approaches.

Investigators reporting at the 2022 annual meeting of American Society of Clinical Oncology focused primarily on neoadjuvant treatment, which I’ll address here.

In the randomized, phase 2 NADIM II clinical trial reported at the meeting, researchers expanded on the results of NADIM published in 2020 in the Lancet Oncology and in May 2022 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology along with CheckMate 816 results published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In each of these three studies, researchers compared nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone (abstract 8501) as a neoadjuvant treatment for resectable stage IIIA NSCLC. In the study reported at ASCO 2022, patients with resectable clinical stage IIIA-B (per American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition) NSCLC and no known EGFR/ALK alterations, were randomized to receive preoperative nivolumab plus chemotherapy (paclitaxel and carboplatin; n = 57) or chemotherapy (n = 29) alone followed by surgery.

The primary endpoint was pathological complete response (pCR); secondary endpoints included major pathological response, safety and tolerability, impact on surgical issues such as delayed or canceled surgeries or length of hospital stay, overall survival and progression free survival. The pCR rate was 36.8% in the neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy arm and 6.9% in the chemotherapy alone arm. (P = .0068). 25% of patients on the nivolumab plus chemo arm had grade 3-4 adverse events, compared with 10.3% in the control arm. 93% of patients on the nivolumab plus chemo arm underwent definitive surgery whereas 69.0% of the patients on the chemo alone arm had definitive surgery. (P = .008)
 

What else did we learn about neoadjuvant treatment at the meeting?

Investigators looking at the optimal number of neoadjuvant cycles (abstract 8500) found that three cycles of sintilimab (an investigational PD-1 inhibitor) produced a numerically higher major pathological response rate, compared with two cycles (when given in concert with platinum-doublet chemotherapy). And, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy does not result in significant survival benefits when compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone (abstract 8503).

Of course, when it comes to resectable NSCLC, the goal of treatment is to increase the cure rate and improve survival. No randomized studies have reported yet on overall survival, probably because they are too immature. Instead, disease-free survival (DFS) or event-free survival (EFS) are often used as surrogate endpoints. Since none of the studies reported at ASCO reported on DFS or EFS, we need to look elsewhere. CheckMate 816 was a phase 3 study which randomized patients with stages IB-IIIA NSCLC to receive neoadjuvant nivolumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy or neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy alone, followed by resection. The median EFS was 31.6 months with nivolumab plus chemotherapy and 20.8 months with chemotherapy alone (P = .005). The percentage of patients with a pCR was 24.0% and 2.2%, respectively (P < .001).

We all know one has to be careful when doing cross-trial comparisons as these studies differ by the percentage of patients with various stages of disease, the type of immunotherapy and chemotherapy used, etc. However, I think we can agree that neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy results in better outcomes than chemotherapy alone.

Of course, resectable NSCLC is, by definition, resectable. And traditionally, resection is followed by adjuvant chemotherapy to eradicate micrometastases. Unfortunately, the current standard of care for completely resected early-stage NSCLC (stage I [tumor ≥ 4 cm] to IIIA) involves adjuvant platinum-based combination chemotherapy which results in only a modest 4%-5% improvement in survival versus observation.

Given these modest results, as in the neoadjuvant space, investigators have looked at the benefit of adding immunotherapy to adjuvant chemotherapy. One such study has been reported. IMpower 010 randomly assigned patients with completely resected stage IB (tumors ≥ 4 cm) to IIIA NSCLC, whose tumor cells expressed at least 1% PD-L1, to receive adjuvant atezolizumab or best supportive care after adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy. In the stage II-IIIA population whose tumors expressed PD-L1 on 1% or more of tumor cells, 3-year DFS rates were 60% and 48% in the atezolizumab and best supportive care arms, respectively (hazard ratio, 0·66 P =·.0039). In all patients in the stage II-IIIA population, the 3-year DFS rates were 56% in the atezolizumab group and 49% in the best supportive care group, (HR, 0.79; P = .020).

KEYNOTE-091, reported at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology, randomized early-stage NSCLC patients following complete resection and adjuvant chemotherapy to pembrolizumab or placebo. Median DFS for the overall population was 53.6 months for patients in the pembro arm versus 42 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.76; P = .0014). Interestingly, the benefit was not seen in patients with PD-L1 with at least 50%, where the 18-month DFS rate was 71.7% in the pembro arm and 70.2% in the placebo arm (HR, 0.82; P = .14). Although the contradictory results of PD-L1 as a biomarker is puzzling, I think we can agree that the addition of immunotherapy following adjuvant chemotherapy improves outcomes compared to adjuvant chemotherapy alone.
 

What to do when a patient presents with resectable disease?

Cross-trial comparisons are fraught with danger. Until we have a phase 3 study comparing concurrent neoadjuvant chemo/immunotherapy with concurrent adjuvant chemo/immunotherapy, I do not think we can answer the question “which is better?” However, there are some caveats to keep in mind when deciding on which approach to recommend to our patients: First, neoadjuvant treatment requires biomarker testing to ensure the patient does not have EGFR or ALK mutations. This will necessitate a delay in the operation. Will patients be willing to wait? Will the surgeon? Or, would patients prefer to proceed with surgery while the results are pending? Yes, neoadjuvant therapy gives you information regarding the pCR rate, but does that help you in subsequent management of the patient? We do not know.

Secondly, the two adjuvant studies used adjuvant chemotherapy followed by adjuvant immunotherapy, as contrasted to the neoadjuvant study which used concurrent chemo/immunotherapy. Given the longer duration of treatment in postoperative sequential adjuvant studies, there tends to be more drop off because of patients being unwilling or unfit postoperatively to receive long courses of therapy. In IMpower 010, 1,269 patients completed adjuvant chemotherapy; 1,005 were randomized, and of the 507 assigned to the atezolizumab/chemo group, only 323 completed treatment.

Finally, we must beware of using neoadjuvant chemo/immunotherapy to “down-stage” a patient. KEYNOTE-091 included patients with IIIA disease and no benefit to adjuvant chemotherapy followed by immunotherapy was found in this subgroup of patients, which leads me to wonder if these patients were appropriately selected as surgical candidates. In the NADIM II trials, 9 of 29 patients on the neoadjuvant chemotherapy were not resected.

So, many questions remain. In addition to the ones we’ve raised, there is a clear and immediate need for predictive and prognostic biomarkers. In the NADIM II trial, PD-L1 expression was a predictive biomarker of response. The pCR rate for patients with a PD-L1 tumor expression of less than 1%, 1%-49%, and 50% or higher was 15%, 41.7%, and 61.1%, respectively. However, in KEYNOTE-091, the benefit was not seen in patients with PD-L1 of at least than 50%, where the 18-month DFS rate was 71.7% in the pembro arm and 70.2% in the placebo arm.

Another possible biomarker: circulating tumor DNA. In the first NADIM study, three low pretreatment levels of ctDNA were significantly associated with improved progression-free survival and overall survival (HR, 0.20 and HR, 0.07, respectively). Although clinical response did not predict survival outcomes, undetectable ctDNA levels after neoadjuvant treatment were significantly associated with progression-free survival and overall survival (HR, 0.26 and HR0.04, respectively). Similarly, in CheckMate 816, clearance of ctDNA was associated with longer EFS in patients with ctDNA clearance than in those without ctDNA clearance in both the nivolumab/chemotherapy group (HR, 0.60) and the chemotherapy-alone group (HR, 0.63).

Hopefully, ASCO 2023 will provide more answers.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation.

Three billion dollars: It’s enough to finance the annual out-of-pocket costs for 1 in 7 patients with cancer. It would cover almost half of the National Cancer Institute’s annual budget. And it could fund President Biden’s entire Cancer Moonshot program, with more than a billion to spare.

It’s also how much the United States spends on unused cancer drugs each year, some experts estimate.

Every year in the United States, hospitals and practices discard substantial quantities of expensive oncology drugs.

The reason boils down to inefficient drug packaging. Drug companies typically sell infused drugs in one or two single-dose vial sizes, but patients don’t come in such neat packages. A patient may need 300 mg of a drug that is only sold as 200 mg vials, which means half of a vial will go to waste.

Although most oncology drugs don’t incur substantial waste, even small volumes can translate to millions of dollars a year.

But can this money be saved or reallocated, if only we delivered drugs more efficiently?

Some experts don’t believe that’s possible.

“Attempts to recoup money for discarded drugs wouldn’t happen in a vacuum,” said Robin Yabroff, PhD, MBA, an epidemiologist and scientific vice president of Health Services Research at the American Cancer Society, who was part of a committee commissioned to evaluate the costs associated with discarded drugs.

The potential catch of any widespread effort to seek repayment or reduce the amount of discarded drugs, Dr. Yabroff and colleagues note, is that manufacturers would “simply increase the price of the vial.”

In other words, attempting to fix one problem may lead to another — essentially a whack-a-mole of cancer costs, which are projected to balloon to $246 billion by 2030.  

What this means is without sweeping policies to rein in cancer care costs, oncologists can only do so much. And every little bit counts.

“We are left chipping away at this monster of cancer care costs,” said Adam Binder, MD, a medical oncologist at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Jefferson Health in Philadelphia.
 

Millions spent on “reasonable amount” of waste

Michal Sarfaty, MD, was excited when enfortumab vedotin came on the market to treat advanced urothelial cancer in late 2019.

The cost of the drug, however, tempered her enthusiasm.

Enfortumab vedotin is a “great drug,” said Dr. Sarfaty, an oncologist at the Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel. But it can cost upwards of $500,000 a year for an average-weight man.

Given the expense, Dr. Sarfaty wanted to understand how much of the drug gets thrown away. During a fellowship at Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) Cancer Center in New York, Dr. Sarfaty explored the amount of unused enfortumab vedotin among the 64 patients who received the drug in 2020. She, along with a team at MSK, calculated the price tag of that waste and extrapolated those estimates for patients across the country.

Although waste occurred in almost half of administered doses (367 of 793), only a small volume got discarded — 2.9% per dose, on average.

Multiplying unused milligrams by the cost per milligram, Dr. Sarfaty and colleagues estimated that, for each patient, $3,127 of the drug got discarded. When calculated over the year, the cost came to just over $200,000 at MSK, and nearly $15 million when projected across the approved patient population in the United States.

“Ultimately, we did not see a lot of waste with this specific drug,” Dr. Sarfaty said. “Under 2.9% is considered a reasonable amount, below the 3% threshold Peter Bach, MD, and colleagues recommend. But even with this small amount of waste, the cost per patient and to the system remains notable.”
 

The problem with recouping drug waste

Estimates from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which tracks costs associated with discarded weight-based drugs covered under Medicare Part B, support the notion that small quantities of discarded drugs can still translate to big bucks.

Since 2017, CMS has required healthcare providers to report the volume of drugs discarded from a single-dose vial using a code, known as the JW modifier. The JW modifier means that providers can be reimbursed for the entire vial amount, not just the quantity the patient used.

In 2019, claims data from Medicare Part B showed that 1.85% of discarded rituximab came to $33.3 million. For infliximab, the 1.55% of discarded liquid translated to $15 million, and just 0.36% of discarded pembrolizumab reached $10 million.

However, experts question whether the JW modifier accurately reflects the quantity of drugs discarded.

According to the 2021 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), most physicians don’t use the JW modifier. Among Medicare claims, 16.2% included the JW modifier in 2017 and 16.9% did in 2018.

The rate was significantly lower for private insurance. Of more than 4 million private insurance claims on 77 drugs made in 2017 and 2018, only 3.6% included the JW modifier; 15 of these drugs had no JW claims.

“Although we found that most physicians don’t use the JW modifier, even those who do, don’t use it consistently, even for the same patient,” said Dr. Yabroff, a co-author on the report.

Going a step further, Dr. Yabroff and colleagues argue that even if everyone used the JW modifier as intended, manufacturers would probably increase the price of drugs to compensate for any loss, potentially eliminating savings for payers.

That’s because, in the United States, manufacturers typically base drug prices on a patient and payers’ “willingness to pay for better health,” not on the volume of liquid used. Take a patient who pays $2,000 to receive the dose they need. If that dose is 600 mg but requires using two vials of 400 mg, then “to the patient, the 600-mg dose is worth $2,000, and the remainder has no value whatsoever,” the NASEM authors argue.

The authors parallel this scenario to purchasing a designer coat or dress. If that item requires alterations that remove a section of material, “the customer does not typically get a rebate because all the fabric was not needed,” the NASEM team writes.

But there’s a flaw in this rationale, argues Daniel Goldstein, MD, a medical oncologist at the Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel. A person’s willingness to pay for better health assumes that the price of a drug is based on proper market forces, where a drug’s cost and its effectiveness are in harmony.

“The problem is we’re operating in a broken market where the prices of oncology drugs have no real bearing on their efficacy,” said Dr. Goldstein.

And, as Dr. Bach noted in a 2021 Health Affairs piece, willingness to pay also requires that consumers know what they’re paying and allows them to walk away from an excessively high price.

But neither is a reality.

For one, Dr. Bach explains, companies may lowball the monthly price of a drug. In 2020, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) announced that its new drug Blenrep would carry a list price of $8,277 per vial, or about $23,900 per month for an average 79 kg (175 lb) patient. That price accounts for two vials of the drug. But, according to Dr. Bach, “what GSK left out is that 44% of U.S. adults weigh more than 80 kg, and above that weight, three vials are needed per dose.” That would raise the average monthly cost to $30,479.

Perhaps more importantly, consumers can’t easily walk away.

“Medicare can’t negotiate prices and is forced to pay what a drug company says,” Dr. Goldstein said. “This is very different to when I buy a coat. If the price is too high, I can walk away.”
 

Fixed dosing: A solution or a new problem?

Efforts to reduce the financial impact of discarded cancer drugs can blow back on physicians, patients, and payers in other unanticipated ways. Take fixed dosing. Although chemotherapy dosing remains weight-based, many targeted therapies — such as nivolumab and pembrolizumab — recently transitioned to a fixed dosing regimen.

Administering a fixed, instead of weight-based, dose eliminates waste but can create new problems.

“Patients with cancer not only tend to get too high a dose of the drug, but costs go up significantly,” said Dr. Goldstein. In a 2017 analysis, Dr. Goldstein and colleagues compared dosing strategies in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer who received pembrolizumab. The team found that the total annual cost of weight-based dosing was $2.6 billion, whereas the cost of the fixed dosing strategy was $3.44 billion — 24% more. In other words, personalized weight-based dosing would save more than $825 million dollars in the United States each year.

A 2020 analysis based in France found a similar cost increase of 26% for fixed dosing of pembrolizumab as well as nivolumab.

“I’ve argued we should go back to weight-based dosing,” Dr. Goldstein said. “Why should we give a higher dose with the same efficacy when that dose will cost significantly more and has the potential to increase adverse events?”
 

Does dose rounding work?

Rose DiMarco, PharmD, BCPS, BCOP, keeps a tight watch on patients being treated at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Jefferson Health in Philadelphia.

Dr. DiMarco educates patients about their treatment plan, reviews their lab results, and monitors them for side effects and drug interactions.

She also thinks a lot about costs.

“We spend about $100,000 a day on oncology drugs, and we want to make sure we’re not being wasteful,” Dr. DiMarco said in an interview.

One major initiative to curb waste and reduce costs at Jefferson has centered on dose rounding, which calculates whether a specific dose can be altered slightly to conserve vials and prevent waste. According to the Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association, a patient can receive up to 10% more or less of a weight-based dose without impacting treatment efficacy.

If, for instance, a patient requires 380 mg, but two vials come to 400 mg, rounding up that dose by approximately 5% means eliminating 20 mg that would go unused. But if that patient requires 420 mg, rounding down about 5% means substantial savings from not opening a new vial.

At Jefferson, Dr. DiMarco and her pharmacy colleagues map out dose ranges for all patients. Anyone who falls inside the 10% may be eligible for dose rounding. Anyone who doesn’t will receive the usual dose.

Although it is a challenge to implement, dose rounding has become standard of care at many cancer centers across the United States and is linked to substantial savings.

A 2018 analysis projected annual savings of $865,000 associated with rounding down eight monoclonal antibodies for patients with metastatic disease at a community cancer center. A more recent analysis from the Mayo Clinic found that dose rounding saved a total of 9,814 drug vials — 4485 of which were cancer drugs and 5329 of which were biologics — and resulted in $7.3 million in savings over 6 months in 2019 — $1.56 million from oncology agents and $5.7 from biologics.

And in a small 2019 analysis, researchers at Jefferson showed dose rounding of one monoclonal antibody saved approximately $30,000 in just 3 months, Dr. DiMarco noted.

“Not only does this process reduce costs and waste, but it also standardizes the preparation of hazardous medications, which can help prevent medication errors,” Dr. DiMarco said.
 

Nibbling around the edges

Despite estimates that scale into the billions of dollars, “drug wastage is just a small part of overall cancer costs,” Dr. Sarfaty said.

Fumiko Chino, MD, a radiation oncologist at MSK, agrees. “When we talk about affordability and cost, we can nibble around the edges of what’s really important,” Dr. Chino said. “Discarded drugs may cost a lot when you consider them in aggregate, but they are not as important as negotiated drug prices, which could substantially reduce overall costs.”

And until drug prices are addressed on a broader policy level, the cost of cancer care likely won’t improve in a meaningful way.

“But for the patient sitting in front of me, my focus will always be to provide the best care possible,” Dr. Binder said.

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

Three billion dollars: It’s enough to finance the annual out-of-pocket costs for 1 in 7 patients with cancer. It would cover almost half of the National Cancer Institute’s annual budget. And it could fund President Biden’s entire Cancer Moonshot program, with more than a billion to spare.

It’s also how much the United States spends on unused cancer drugs each year, some experts estimate.

Every year in the United States, hospitals and practices discard substantial quantities of expensive oncology drugs.

The reason boils down to inefficient drug packaging. Drug companies typically sell infused drugs in one or two single-dose vial sizes, but patients don’t come in such neat packages. A patient may need 300 mg of a drug that is only sold as 200 mg vials, which means half of a vial will go to waste.

Although most oncology drugs don’t incur substantial waste, even small volumes can translate to millions of dollars a year.

But can this money be saved or reallocated, if only we delivered drugs more efficiently?

Some experts don’t believe that’s possible.

“Attempts to recoup money for discarded drugs wouldn’t happen in a vacuum,” said Robin Yabroff, PhD, MBA, an epidemiologist and scientific vice president of Health Services Research at the American Cancer Society, who was part of a committee commissioned to evaluate the costs associated with discarded drugs.

The potential catch of any widespread effort to seek repayment or reduce the amount of discarded drugs, Dr. Yabroff and colleagues note, is that manufacturers would “simply increase the price of the vial.”

In other words, attempting to fix one problem may lead to another — essentially a whack-a-mole of cancer costs, which are projected to balloon to $246 billion by 2030.  

What this means is without sweeping policies to rein in cancer care costs, oncologists can only do so much. And every little bit counts.

“We are left chipping away at this monster of cancer care costs,” said Adam Binder, MD, a medical oncologist at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Jefferson Health in Philadelphia.
 

Millions spent on “reasonable amount” of waste

Michal Sarfaty, MD, was excited when enfortumab vedotin came on the market to treat advanced urothelial cancer in late 2019.

The cost of the drug, however, tempered her enthusiasm.

Enfortumab vedotin is a “great drug,” said Dr. Sarfaty, an oncologist at the Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel. But it can cost upwards of $500,000 a year for an average-weight man.

Given the expense, Dr. Sarfaty wanted to understand how much of the drug gets thrown away. During a fellowship at Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) Cancer Center in New York, Dr. Sarfaty explored the amount of unused enfortumab vedotin among the 64 patients who received the drug in 2020. She, along with a team at MSK, calculated the price tag of that waste and extrapolated those estimates for patients across the country.

Although waste occurred in almost half of administered doses (367 of 793), only a small volume got discarded — 2.9% per dose, on average.

Multiplying unused milligrams by the cost per milligram, Dr. Sarfaty and colleagues estimated that, for each patient, $3,127 of the drug got discarded. When calculated over the year, the cost came to just over $200,000 at MSK, and nearly $15 million when projected across the approved patient population in the United States.

“Ultimately, we did not see a lot of waste with this specific drug,” Dr. Sarfaty said. “Under 2.9% is considered a reasonable amount, below the 3% threshold Peter Bach, MD, and colleagues recommend. But even with this small amount of waste, the cost per patient and to the system remains notable.”
 

The problem with recouping drug waste

Estimates from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which tracks costs associated with discarded weight-based drugs covered under Medicare Part B, support the notion that small quantities of discarded drugs can still translate to big bucks.

Since 2017, CMS has required healthcare providers to report the volume of drugs discarded from a single-dose vial using a code, known as the JW modifier. The JW modifier means that providers can be reimbursed for the entire vial amount, not just the quantity the patient used.

In 2019, claims data from Medicare Part B showed that 1.85% of discarded rituximab came to $33.3 million. For infliximab, the 1.55% of discarded liquid translated to $15 million, and just 0.36% of discarded pembrolizumab reached $10 million.

However, experts question whether the JW modifier accurately reflects the quantity of drugs discarded.

According to the 2021 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), most physicians don’t use the JW modifier. Among Medicare claims, 16.2% included the JW modifier in 2017 and 16.9% did in 2018.

The rate was significantly lower for private insurance. Of more than 4 million private insurance claims on 77 drugs made in 2017 and 2018, only 3.6% included the JW modifier; 15 of these drugs had no JW claims.

“Although we found that most physicians don’t use the JW modifier, even those who do, don’t use it consistently, even for the same patient,” said Dr. Yabroff, a co-author on the report.

Going a step further, Dr. Yabroff and colleagues argue that even if everyone used the JW modifier as intended, manufacturers would probably increase the price of drugs to compensate for any loss, potentially eliminating savings for payers.

That’s because, in the United States, manufacturers typically base drug prices on a patient and payers’ “willingness to pay for better health,” not on the volume of liquid used. Take a patient who pays $2,000 to receive the dose they need. If that dose is 600 mg but requires using two vials of 400 mg, then “to the patient, the 600-mg dose is worth $2,000, and the remainder has no value whatsoever,” the NASEM authors argue.

The authors parallel this scenario to purchasing a designer coat or dress. If that item requires alterations that remove a section of material, “the customer does not typically get a rebate because all the fabric was not needed,” the NASEM team writes.

But there’s a flaw in this rationale, argues Daniel Goldstein, MD, a medical oncologist at the Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel. A person’s willingness to pay for better health assumes that the price of a drug is based on proper market forces, where a drug’s cost and its effectiveness are in harmony.

“The problem is we’re operating in a broken market where the prices of oncology drugs have no real bearing on their efficacy,” said Dr. Goldstein.

And, as Dr. Bach noted in a 2021 Health Affairs piece, willingness to pay also requires that consumers know what they’re paying and allows them to walk away from an excessively high price.

But neither is a reality.

For one, Dr. Bach explains, companies may lowball the monthly price of a drug. In 2020, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) announced that its new drug Blenrep would carry a list price of $8,277 per vial, or about $23,900 per month for an average 79 kg (175 lb) patient. That price accounts for two vials of the drug. But, according to Dr. Bach, “what GSK left out is that 44% of U.S. adults weigh more than 80 kg, and above that weight, three vials are needed per dose.” That would raise the average monthly cost to $30,479.

Perhaps more importantly, consumers can’t easily walk away.

“Medicare can’t negotiate prices and is forced to pay what a drug company says,” Dr. Goldstein said. “This is very different to when I buy a coat. If the price is too high, I can walk away.”
 

Fixed dosing: A solution or a new problem?

Efforts to reduce the financial impact of discarded cancer drugs can blow back on physicians, patients, and payers in other unanticipated ways. Take fixed dosing. Although chemotherapy dosing remains weight-based, many targeted therapies — such as nivolumab and pembrolizumab — recently transitioned to a fixed dosing regimen.

Administering a fixed, instead of weight-based, dose eliminates waste but can create new problems.

“Patients with cancer not only tend to get too high a dose of the drug, but costs go up significantly,” said Dr. Goldstein. In a 2017 analysis, Dr. Goldstein and colleagues compared dosing strategies in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer who received pembrolizumab. The team found that the total annual cost of weight-based dosing was $2.6 billion, whereas the cost of the fixed dosing strategy was $3.44 billion — 24% more. In other words, personalized weight-based dosing would save more than $825 million dollars in the United States each year.

A 2020 analysis based in France found a similar cost increase of 26% for fixed dosing of pembrolizumab as well as nivolumab.

“I’ve argued we should go back to weight-based dosing,” Dr. Goldstein said. “Why should we give a higher dose with the same efficacy when that dose will cost significantly more and has the potential to increase adverse events?”
 

Does dose rounding work?

Rose DiMarco, PharmD, BCPS, BCOP, keeps a tight watch on patients being treated at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Jefferson Health in Philadelphia.

Dr. DiMarco educates patients about their treatment plan, reviews their lab results, and monitors them for side effects and drug interactions.

She also thinks a lot about costs.

“We spend about $100,000 a day on oncology drugs, and we want to make sure we’re not being wasteful,” Dr. DiMarco said in an interview.

One major initiative to curb waste and reduce costs at Jefferson has centered on dose rounding, which calculates whether a specific dose can be altered slightly to conserve vials and prevent waste. According to the Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association, a patient can receive up to 10% more or less of a weight-based dose without impacting treatment efficacy.

If, for instance, a patient requires 380 mg, but two vials come to 400 mg, rounding up that dose by approximately 5% means eliminating 20 mg that would go unused. But if that patient requires 420 mg, rounding down about 5% means substantial savings from not opening a new vial.

At Jefferson, Dr. DiMarco and her pharmacy colleagues map out dose ranges for all patients. Anyone who falls inside the 10% may be eligible for dose rounding. Anyone who doesn’t will receive the usual dose.

Although it is a challenge to implement, dose rounding has become standard of care at many cancer centers across the United States and is linked to substantial savings.

A 2018 analysis projected annual savings of $865,000 associated with rounding down eight monoclonal antibodies for patients with metastatic disease at a community cancer center. A more recent analysis from the Mayo Clinic found that dose rounding saved a total of 9,814 drug vials — 4485 of which were cancer drugs and 5329 of which were biologics — and resulted in $7.3 million in savings over 6 months in 2019 — $1.56 million from oncology agents and $5.7 from biologics.

And in a small 2019 analysis, researchers at Jefferson showed dose rounding of one monoclonal antibody saved approximately $30,000 in just 3 months, Dr. DiMarco noted.

“Not only does this process reduce costs and waste, but it also standardizes the preparation of hazardous medications, which can help prevent medication errors,” Dr. DiMarco said.
 

Nibbling around the edges

Despite estimates that scale into the billions of dollars, “drug wastage is just a small part of overall cancer costs,” Dr. Sarfaty said.

Fumiko Chino, MD, a radiation oncologist at MSK, agrees. “When we talk about affordability and cost, we can nibble around the edges of what’s really important,” Dr. Chino said. “Discarded drugs may cost a lot when you consider them in aggregate, but they are not as important as negotiated drug prices, which could substantially reduce overall costs.”

And until drug prices are addressed on a broader policy level, the cost of cancer care likely won’t improve in a meaningful way.

“But for the patient sitting in front of me, my focus will always be to provide the best care possible,” Dr. Binder said.

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

Three billion dollars: It’s enough to finance the annual out-of-pocket costs for 1 in 7 patients with cancer. It would cover almost half of the National Cancer Institute’s annual budget. And it could fund President Biden’s entire Cancer Moonshot program, with more than a billion to spare.

It’s also how much the United States spends on unused cancer drugs each year, some experts estimate.

Every year in the United States, hospitals and practices discard substantial quantities of expensive oncology drugs.

The reason boils down to inefficient drug packaging. Drug companies typically sell infused drugs in one or two single-dose vial sizes, but patients don’t come in such neat packages. A patient may need 300 mg of a drug that is only sold as 200 mg vials, which means half of a vial will go to waste.

Although most oncology drugs don’t incur substantial waste, even small volumes can translate to millions of dollars a year.

But can this money be saved or reallocated, if only we delivered drugs more efficiently?

Some experts don’t believe that’s possible.

“Attempts to recoup money for discarded drugs wouldn’t happen in a vacuum,” said Robin Yabroff, PhD, MBA, an epidemiologist and scientific vice president of Health Services Research at the American Cancer Society, who was part of a committee commissioned to evaluate the costs associated with discarded drugs.

The potential catch of any widespread effort to seek repayment or reduce the amount of discarded drugs, Dr. Yabroff and colleagues note, is that manufacturers would “simply increase the price of the vial.”

In other words, attempting to fix one problem may lead to another — essentially a whack-a-mole of cancer costs, which are projected to balloon to $246 billion by 2030.  

What this means is without sweeping policies to rein in cancer care costs, oncologists can only do so much. And every little bit counts.

“We are left chipping away at this monster of cancer care costs,” said Adam Binder, MD, a medical oncologist at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Jefferson Health in Philadelphia.
 

Millions spent on “reasonable amount” of waste

Michal Sarfaty, MD, was excited when enfortumab vedotin came on the market to treat advanced urothelial cancer in late 2019.

The cost of the drug, however, tempered her enthusiasm.

Enfortumab vedotin is a “great drug,” said Dr. Sarfaty, an oncologist at the Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel. But it can cost upwards of $500,000 a year for an average-weight man.

Given the expense, Dr. Sarfaty wanted to understand how much of the drug gets thrown away. During a fellowship at Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) Cancer Center in New York, Dr. Sarfaty explored the amount of unused enfortumab vedotin among the 64 patients who received the drug in 2020. She, along with a team at MSK, calculated the price tag of that waste and extrapolated those estimates for patients across the country.

Although waste occurred in almost half of administered doses (367 of 793), only a small volume got discarded — 2.9% per dose, on average.

Multiplying unused milligrams by the cost per milligram, Dr. Sarfaty and colleagues estimated that, for each patient, $3,127 of the drug got discarded. When calculated over the year, the cost came to just over $200,000 at MSK, and nearly $15 million when projected across the approved patient population in the United States.

“Ultimately, we did not see a lot of waste with this specific drug,” Dr. Sarfaty said. “Under 2.9% is considered a reasonable amount, below the 3% threshold Peter Bach, MD, and colleagues recommend. But even with this small amount of waste, the cost per patient and to the system remains notable.”
 

The problem with recouping drug waste

Estimates from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which tracks costs associated with discarded weight-based drugs covered under Medicare Part B, support the notion that small quantities of discarded drugs can still translate to big bucks.

Since 2017, CMS has required healthcare providers to report the volume of drugs discarded from a single-dose vial using a code, known as the JW modifier. The JW modifier means that providers can be reimbursed for the entire vial amount, not just the quantity the patient used.

In 2019, claims data from Medicare Part B showed that 1.85% of discarded rituximab came to $33.3 million. For infliximab, the 1.55% of discarded liquid translated to $15 million, and just 0.36% of discarded pembrolizumab reached $10 million.

However, experts question whether the JW modifier accurately reflects the quantity of drugs discarded.

According to the 2021 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), most physicians don’t use the JW modifier. Among Medicare claims, 16.2% included the JW modifier in 2017 and 16.9% did in 2018.

The rate was significantly lower for private insurance. Of more than 4 million private insurance claims on 77 drugs made in 2017 and 2018, only 3.6% included the JW modifier; 15 of these drugs had no JW claims.

“Although we found that most physicians don’t use the JW modifier, even those who do, don’t use it consistently, even for the same patient,” said Dr. Yabroff, a co-author on the report.

Going a step further, Dr. Yabroff and colleagues argue that even if everyone used the JW modifier as intended, manufacturers would probably increase the price of drugs to compensate for any loss, potentially eliminating savings for payers.

That’s because, in the United States, manufacturers typically base drug prices on a patient and payers’ “willingness to pay for better health,” not on the volume of liquid used. Take a patient who pays $2,000 to receive the dose they need. If that dose is 600 mg but requires using two vials of 400 mg, then “to the patient, the 600-mg dose is worth $2,000, and the remainder has no value whatsoever,” the NASEM authors argue.

The authors parallel this scenario to purchasing a designer coat or dress. If that item requires alterations that remove a section of material, “the customer does not typically get a rebate because all the fabric was not needed,” the NASEM team writes.

But there’s a flaw in this rationale, argues Daniel Goldstein, MD, a medical oncologist at the Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel. A person’s willingness to pay for better health assumes that the price of a drug is based on proper market forces, where a drug’s cost and its effectiveness are in harmony.

“The problem is we’re operating in a broken market where the prices of oncology drugs have no real bearing on their efficacy,” said Dr. Goldstein.

And, as Dr. Bach noted in a 2021 Health Affairs piece, willingness to pay also requires that consumers know what they’re paying and allows them to walk away from an excessively high price.

But neither is a reality.

For one, Dr. Bach explains, companies may lowball the monthly price of a drug. In 2020, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) announced that its new drug Blenrep would carry a list price of $8,277 per vial, or about $23,900 per month for an average 79 kg (175 lb) patient. That price accounts for two vials of the drug. But, according to Dr. Bach, “what GSK left out is that 44% of U.S. adults weigh more than 80 kg, and above that weight, three vials are needed per dose.” That would raise the average monthly cost to $30,479.

Perhaps more importantly, consumers can’t easily walk away.

“Medicare can’t negotiate prices and is forced to pay what a drug company says,” Dr. Goldstein said. “This is very different to when I buy a coat. If the price is too high, I can walk away.”
 

Fixed dosing: A solution or a new problem?

Efforts to reduce the financial impact of discarded cancer drugs can blow back on physicians, patients, and payers in other unanticipated ways. Take fixed dosing. Although chemotherapy dosing remains weight-based, many targeted therapies — such as nivolumab and pembrolizumab — recently transitioned to a fixed dosing regimen.

Administering a fixed, instead of weight-based, dose eliminates waste but can create new problems.

“Patients with cancer not only tend to get too high a dose of the drug, but costs go up significantly,” said Dr. Goldstein. In a 2017 analysis, Dr. Goldstein and colleagues compared dosing strategies in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer who received pembrolizumab. The team found that the total annual cost of weight-based dosing was $2.6 billion, whereas the cost of the fixed dosing strategy was $3.44 billion — 24% more. In other words, personalized weight-based dosing would save more than $825 million dollars in the United States each year.

A 2020 analysis based in France found a similar cost increase of 26% for fixed dosing of pembrolizumab as well as nivolumab.

“I’ve argued we should go back to weight-based dosing,” Dr. Goldstein said. “Why should we give a higher dose with the same efficacy when that dose will cost significantly more and has the potential to increase adverse events?”
 

Does dose rounding work?

Rose DiMarco, PharmD, BCPS, BCOP, keeps a tight watch on patients being treated at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Jefferson Health in Philadelphia.

Dr. DiMarco educates patients about their treatment plan, reviews their lab results, and monitors them for side effects and drug interactions.

She also thinks a lot about costs.

“We spend about $100,000 a day on oncology drugs, and we want to make sure we’re not being wasteful,” Dr. DiMarco said in an interview.

One major initiative to curb waste and reduce costs at Jefferson has centered on dose rounding, which calculates whether a specific dose can be altered slightly to conserve vials and prevent waste. According to the Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association, a patient can receive up to 10% more or less of a weight-based dose without impacting treatment efficacy.

If, for instance, a patient requires 380 mg, but two vials come to 400 mg, rounding up that dose by approximately 5% means eliminating 20 mg that would go unused. But if that patient requires 420 mg, rounding down about 5% means substantial savings from not opening a new vial.

At Jefferson, Dr. DiMarco and her pharmacy colleagues map out dose ranges for all patients. Anyone who falls inside the 10% may be eligible for dose rounding. Anyone who doesn’t will receive the usual dose.

Although it is a challenge to implement, dose rounding has become standard of care at many cancer centers across the United States and is linked to substantial savings.

A 2018 analysis projected annual savings of $865,000 associated with rounding down eight monoclonal antibodies for patients with metastatic disease at a community cancer center. A more recent analysis from the Mayo Clinic found that dose rounding saved a total of 9,814 drug vials — 4485 of which were cancer drugs and 5329 of which were biologics — and resulted in $7.3 million in savings over 6 months in 2019 — $1.56 million from oncology agents and $5.7 from biologics.

And in a small 2019 analysis, researchers at Jefferson showed dose rounding of one monoclonal antibody saved approximately $30,000 in just 3 months, Dr. DiMarco noted.

“Not only does this process reduce costs and waste, but it also standardizes the preparation of hazardous medications, which can help prevent medication errors,” Dr. DiMarco said.
 

Nibbling around the edges

Despite estimates that scale into the billions of dollars, “drug wastage is just a small part of overall cancer costs,” Dr. Sarfaty said.

Fumiko Chino, MD, a radiation oncologist at MSK, agrees. “When we talk about affordability and cost, we can nibble around the edges of what’s really important,” Dr. Chino said. “Discarded drugs may cost a lot when you consider them in aggregate, but they are not as important as negotiated drug prices, which could substantially reduce overall costs.”

And until drug prices are addressed on a broader policy level, the cost of cancer care likely won’t improve in a meaningful way.

“But for the patient sitting in front of me, my focus will always be to provide the best care possible,” Dr. Binder said.

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

DENVER – Monoclonal antibodies, antivirals, immunomodulators, and pulmonary arterial vasodilators top the list of drugs that were most frequently implicated as causes of headaches in a federal side effect database that anyone can contribute to, according to a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“Surprising findings included the significant number of immunosuppressants and immunomodulators present in the data,” study lead author Brett Musialowicz, a medical student at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswich, N.J., said in an interview. “Additionally, our data provides evidence that suggests that several medications belonging to these drug classes were less likely to be associated with medication-induced headaches,” raising questions about the mechanism.

Drugs most frequently linked to headaches

The researchers launched their study to better understand headache as a side effect of medication use, Mr. Musialowicz said. They analyzed entries from the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System for the period from July 2018 to March 2020 and listed the top 30 most commonly reported medications linked to headaches and their reported odds ratio. According to a website devoted to pharmacovigilance training, ROR refers to “the odds of a certain event occurring with your medicinal product, compared with the odds of the same event occurring with all other medicinal products in the database.”

After generic and brand name data was consolidated, the drug most frequently linked to headaches was apremilast with 8,672 reports, followed by adalimumab (5,357), tofacitinib (4,276), fingolimod (4,123), and etanercept (4,111). These drugs treat autoimmune disorders such as psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, and Crohn’s disease.

The other drugs in the top 15 ranked by frequency are treatments for hepatitis C (4 drugs), pulmonary arterial hypertension (4 drugs), arthritis (1 drug), and asthma (1 drug).

Of the top 30 drugs most frequently linked to headaches, the pulmonary hypertension drug epoprostenol – ranked 23rd – had the highest ROR at 12.8. The next highest were the hepatitis C drugs glecaprevir and pibrentasvir, tied at 10th in the frequency analysis and both with an ROR of 9.4.

“Pulmonary arterial dilators and vasodilators are believed to cause headaches by sensitizing extracranial arteries. Clinical evidence suggests there a vascular component to some types of headache,” Mr. Musialowicz said. “Monoclonal antibodies are suggested to cause headache by means of an immune response. Several monoclonal antibodies are in trials targeting [the calcitonin gene-related peptide] receptor, which is believed to be involved in migraine headache. These trials will help further elucidate the mechanisms of headache and potential drugs to treat these conditions.”
 

Is the data useful?

Stewart Tepper, MD, a neurologist at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., who’s familiar with the study findings, discounted the new research in an interview. He noted that any member of the public can contribute to the federal database of adverse effects (drug manufacturers are required to contribute to it), and the data says nothing about denominators.

“It’s not a reasonable way to evaluate adverse effects, to just have everyone and their uncle saying ‘This particular drug did this to me.’ It’s not in any way useful,” he said. However, he added that the database sometimes “gives you a bit of a signal so you can go back and try to get scientifically collected data.”

When asked to respond, study coauthor and neurologist Pengfei (Phil) Zhang, MD, of Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, noted that the FDA created the database “for a reason.” He also noted that the researchers used a statistical analysis technique – ROR – that was invented to adjust for weaknesses in databases.

No study funding is reported. Mr. Musialowicz reported no disclosures. Dr. Zhang has received honorarium from Alder Biopharmaceuticals, Board Vitals, and Fieve Clinical Research. He collaborates with Headache Science Incorporated without receiving financial support, and he has ownership interest in Cymbeline. Another author reports research grant support from the American Epilepsy Society and the New Jersey Health Foundation. Dr. Tepper reported multiple disclosures.
 

DENVER – Monoclonal antibodies, antivirals, immunomodulators, and pulmonary arterial vasodilators top the list of drugs that were most frequently implicated as causes of headaches in a federal side effect database that anyone can contribute to, according to a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“Surprising findings included the significant number of immunosuppressants and immunomodulators present in the data,” study lead author Brett Musialowicz, a medical student at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswich, N.J., said in an interview. “Additionally, our data provides evidence that suggests that several medications belonging to these drug classes were less likely to be associated with medication-induced headaches,” raising questions about the mechanism.

Drugs most frequently linked to headaches

The researchers launched their study to better understand headache as a side effect of medication use, Mr. Musialowicz said. They analyzed entries from the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System for the period from July 2018 to March 2020 and listed the top 30 most commonly reported medications linked to headaches and their reported odds ratio. According to a website devoted to pharmacovigilance training, ROR refers to “the odds of a certain event occurring with your medicinal product, compared with the odds of the same event occurring with all other medicinal products in the database.”

After generic and brand name data was consolidated, the drug most frequently linked to headaches was apremilast with 8,672 reports, followed by adalimumab (5,357), tofacitinib (4,276), fingolimod (4,123), and etanercept (4,111). These drugs treat autoimmune disorders such as psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, and Crohn’s disease.

The other drugs in the top 15 ranked by frequency are treatments for hepatitis C (4 drugs), pulmonary arterial hypertension (4 drugs), arthritis (1 drug), and asthma (1 drug).

Of the top 30 drugs most frequently linked to headaches, the pulmonary hypertension drug epoprostenol – ranked 23rd – had the highest ROR at 12.8. The next highest were the hepatitis C drugs glecaprevir and pibrentasvir, tied at 10th in the frequency analysis and both with an ROR of 9.4.

“Pulmonary arterial dilators and vasodilators are believed to cause headaches by sensitizing extracranial arteries. Clinical evidence suggests there a vascular component to some types of headache,” Mr. Musialowicz said. “Monoclonal antibodies are suggested to cause headache by means of an immune response. Several monoclonal antibodies are in trials targeting [the calcitonin gene-related peptide] receptor, which is believed to be involved in migraine headache. These trials will help further elucidate the mechanisms of headache and potential drugs to treat these conditions.”
 

Is the data useful?

Stewart Tepper, MD, a neurologist at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., who’s familiar with the study findings, discounted the new research in an interview. He noted that any member of the public can contribute to the federal database of adverse effects (drug manufacturers are required to contribute to it), and the data says nothing about denominators.

“It’s not a reasonable way to evaluate adverse effects, to just have everyone and their uncle saying ‘This particular drug did this to me.’ It’s not in any way useful,” he said. However, he added that the database sometimes “gives you a bit of a signal so you can go back and try to get scientifically collected data.”

When asked to respond, study coauthor and neurologist Pengfei (Phil) Zhang, MD, of Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, noted that the FDA created the database “for a reason.” He also noted that the researchers used a statistical analysis technique – ROR – that was invented to adjust for weaknesses in databases.

No study funding is reported. Mr. Musialowicz reported no disclosures. Dr. Zhang has received honorarium from Alder Biopharmaceuticals, Board Vitals, and Fieve Clinical Research. He collaborates with Headache Science Incorporated without receiving financial support, and he has ownership interest in Cymbeline. Another author reports research grant support from the American Epilepsy Society and the New Jersey Health Foundation. Dr. Tepper reported multiple disclosures.
 

DENVER – Monoclonal antibodies, antivirals, immunomodulators, and pulmonary arterial vasodilators top the list of drugs that were most frequently implicated as causes of headaches in a federal side effect database that anyone can contribute to, according to a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“Surprising findings included the significant number of immunosuppressants and immunomodulators present in the data,” study lead author Brett Musialowicz, a medical student at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswich, N.J., said in an interview. “Additionally, our data provides evidence that suggests that several medications belonging to these drug classes were less likely to be associated with medication-induced headaches,” raising questions about the mechanism.

Drugs most frequently linked to headaches

The researchers launched their study to better understand headache as a side effect of medication use, Mr. Musialowicz said. They analyzed entries from the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System for the period from July 2018 to March 2020 and listed the top 30 most commonly reported medications linked to headaches and their reported odds ratio. According to a website devoted to pharmacovigilance training, ROR refers to “the odds of a certain event occurring with your medicinal product, compared with the odds of the same event occurring with all other medicinal products in the database.”

After generic and brand name data was consolidated, the drug most frequently linked to headaches was apremilast with 8,672 reports, followed by adalimumab (5,357), tofacitinib (4,276), fingolimod (4,123), and etanercept (4,111). These drugs treat autoimmune disorders such as psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, and Crohn’s disease.

The other drugs in the top 15 ranked by frequency are treatments for hepatitis C (4 drugs), pulmonary arterial hypertension (4 drugs), arthritis (1 drug), and asthma (1 drug).

Of the top 30 drugs most frequently linked to headaches, the pulmonary hypertension drug epoprostenol – ranked 23rd – had the highest ROR at 12.8. The next highest were the hepatitis C drugs glecaprevir and pibrentasvir, tied at 10th in the frequency analysis and both with an ROR of 9.4.

“Pulmonary arterial dilators and vasodilators are believed to cause headaches by sensitizing extracranial arteries. Clinical evidence suggests there a vascular component to some types of headache,” Mr. Musialowicz said. “Monoclonal antibodies are suggested to cause headache by means of an immune response. Several monoclonal antibodies are in trials targeting [the calcitonin gene-related peptide] receptor, which is believed to be involved in migraine headache. These trials will help further elucidate the mechanisms of headache and potential drugs to treat these conditions.”
 

Is the data useful?

Stewart Tepper, MD, a neurologist at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., who’s familiar with the study findings, discounted the new research in an interview. He noted that any member of the public can contribute to the federal database of adverse effects (drug manufacturers are required to contribute to it), and the data says nothing about denominators.

“It’s not a reasonable way to evaluate adverse effects, to just have everyone and their uncle saying ‘This particular drug did this to me.’ It’s not in any way useful,” he said. However, he added that the database sometimes “gives you a bit of a signal so you can go back and try to get scientifically collected data.”

When asked to respond, study coauthor and neurologist Pengfei (Phil) Zhang, MD, of Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, noted that the FDA created the database “for a reason.” He also noted that the researchers used a statistical analysis technique – ROR – that was invented to adjust for weaknesses in databases.

No study funding is reported. Mr. Musialowicz reported no disclosures. Dr. Zhang has received honorarium from Alder Biopharmaceuticals, Board Vitals, and Fieve Clinical Research. He collaborates with Headache Science Incorporated without receiving financial support, and he has ownership interest in Cymbeline. Another author reports research grant support from the American Epilepsy Society and the New Jersey Health Foundation. Dr. Tepper reported multiple disclosures.
 

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – The latest updates on COVID-19 vaccination response among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who are treated with disease-modifying therapy (DMT) show that, if patients do contract the virus, cases are mild and serious infections are rare.

However, vaccine antibody response remains lower with anti-CD20 therapies.

One of several late-breaking studies on these issues that were presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers included more than 100 patients with MS who were treated with a variety of DMTs.

Results showed that the rate of antibody response was just 55% among those treated with anti-CD20 therapies versus 83% for those treated with other DMTs, including sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulators (S1Ps).

Consistent with what has been observed in other studies, “vaccine antibody responses were slightly lower in B cell–depleted patients than with other therapies,” senior author Rahul Dave, MD, director of the INOVA MS and Neuroimmunology Center, Inova Neurosciences Institute, the University of Virginia, Fairfax, said in an interview.
 

Vaccine response

The investigators sought to assess detailed vaccine responses in 134 patients with MS. Serum COVID antibody measures were conducted approximately 3 weeks to 4 months after vaccination – and mostly after the initial vaccination.

The antibody response rate was significantly lower with anti-CD20 treatments (55%) than with all other DMTs examined (83%), including S1Ps, immunomodulators, immunosuppressive drugs, interferon B, anti-CD52, and natalizumab (P < .01).

The highest prevalence of antibody response was observed among those taking immunomodulators; responses occurred among 91% of patients taking teriflunomide and among 93% of those taking fumarates.

Among those treated with anti-CD20 therapy, antibody responses correlated with higher baseline immunoglobulin levels (P = .01) and shorter durations of therapy.

“We found that longer total duration of therapy and lower immunoglobulin levels tended to correlate with decreases in immune responses,” said Dr. Dave.

“Interestingly, the timing between vaccination versus administration of [anti-CD20 drug] ocrelizumab did not seem to be impactful with regards to antibody responses,” Dr. Dave noted. He added that this is contrary to some past studies that showed benefits if the vaccination could be completed prior to starting ocrelizumab.

Sixteen participants tested polymerase chain reaction positive for COVID during the previous 12 months. Although most infections were described as mild and self-limited, four of the patients received outpatient monoclonal antibody therapy, and one required hospitalization because of COVID.

“I think it is notable and reassuring that, overall, our patients had mild courses. This is consistent with the vaccines ‘working,’ and is true even in patients on high-efficacy immunosuppressants that partially abrogate antibody responses,” Dr. Dave said.

He added that he reassures patients who need high-efficacy therapies that “they should use them.”

That being said, as in the general population, even vaccinated patients can get COVID. “You can be sick and feel terrible, but in general, hospitalization numbers are way down compared to 2 years ago. We are seeing the same trends in MS patients, including the B cell–depleted patients,” he said.

“To get at the question whether B cell–depleted patients behave exactly the same as the general population, or even [with] other DMTs, we will need large, multicenter, prospective datasets,” said Dr. Dave.
 

Favorable findings

Two other late-breaking posters at the meeting provided updates regarding antibody responses among patients receiving S1Ps. There has been concern that S1Ps may blunt antibody responses to COVID vaccinations.

The concern is in regard to their unique mechanisms of sequestering circulating lymphocytes, particularly the older, nonselective S1P receptor modulator fingolimod, said the author of one of the studies, Daniel Kantor, MD, president emeritus of the Florida Society of Neurology and founding president of the Medical Partnership 4 MS+.

“It appears the issues with fingolimod might relate to the level of white blood cell sequestration, [which is] greater in fingolimod than the newer S1P receptor modulators, and/or the result of S1P4 receptor modulation, which is not seen with the newer, selective medications,” Dr. Kantor said in an interview.

In a prospective observational trial of patients with relapsing MS, among 30 participants who were treated with ozanimod, the mean increase in IgG antibody titer 4 weeks after either of the two available mRNA vaccines was 232.73 AU/mL versus a mean increase of 526.59 AU/mL among 30 non–ozanimod/DMT-treated patients.

To date, only three patients in the study were taking ocrelizumab; for those patients, the mean increase in IgG titers was 0.633.

Despite the lower antibody titers in the ozanimod-treated patients, which Dr. Kantor noted are generally regarded as protective, all but one of the patients had positive results on T-Detect, which was indicative of vaccine protection.

“In this study, [relapsing] MS patients treated with ozanimod had an antibody and T-cell response to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines,” he reported. “This trial is ongoing, with 48 weeks of follow-up expected in December 2022.”
 

Ponesimod results

In the other S1P modulator-related late-breaking study, Janssen Research and Development reported on antibody responses of patients who were treated with the S1P drug ponesimod in the phase 2 AC-058B202 study.

The median exposure to ponesimod at time of vaccination was 10.7 years (range, 9.8-11.8 years). There were 134 patients in the study. Of those, both prevaccination and postvaccination blood samples from 49 patients were tested for spike antibody concentrations.

Among those participants, 40 (81.6%) met the definition of response to the COVID-19 vaccination, defined as seroconversion in the case of negative prevaccination antibody testing or a fourfold antibody concentration increase in the case of a positive prevaccination antibody result.

Of the 38 antibody-negative participants, 33 (86.8%) achieved seroconversion post vaccination.

A total of 20 participants reported having had prevaccine COVID, while 17 had postvaccination COVID.

None of the cases were serious, severe, or fatal, and none led to permanent treatment discontinuation.

“In patients with RMS on ponesimod, the majority (> 80%) appear to develop a measurable SARS-CoV-2 humoral response after COVID-19 vaccination,” the authors, led by Janice Wong, of Janssen Research and Development, wrote.

“Further investigations on the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccination in MS patients on ponesimod are warranted,” they added.

In a final study from Genentech, of 4848 patients with MS who were fully vaccinated during the Delta and Omicron waves, 1.3% had a COVID-related hospitalization. In addition, rate of severe SARS-CoV-2 infections was very low (0.6%); there were fewer than 10 infections in each subgroup of DMTs. These patients included 585 (17%) who were treated with ocrelizumab, 238 (7%) who were treated with S1P receptor modulators, 33 (1%) who were treated with interferons, 1,004 (29%) who were treated with other DMTs, and 1,574 (46%) for whom no DMTs were recorded.

“We can conclude from this study that the characteristics of people with MS with more severe COVID-19 outcomes resemble those observed in the general population,” such as in those who are older or have higher rates of comorbidities, Preeti Bajaj, team lead of HEOR, Neuroscience, at Genentech, said in an interview. “We believe [ocrelizumab] treatment decisions should be made between a patient and their treating neurologist or other medical professional based on a benefit-risk assessment specific to the individual patient.”
 

Concerns remain

In a comment, Bruce A. C. Cree, MD, PhD, professor of clinical neurology and clinical research director at the Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, described the overall data on vaccine efficacy on anti-CD20s as “discouraging” and said he is adjusting his own recommendations for these patients.

“Repeated vaccinations do not seem to stimulate humoral responses in B cell–depleted patients,” said Dr. Cree, who was not involved with the research.

“In my personal practice, I have been suspending dosing in my patients to allow for B-cell reconstitution to occur followed by revaccination,” he added.

Regarding the S1P drugs, he noted that, aside from fingolimod, “the antibody response frequency seems to be better than initial reports. However, the index values are low and may not be protective.”

Overall, the take-home message for patients with MS who are taking DMTs should be, “all patients treated with S1P modulators or anti-C20 antibodies should be vaccinated and boosted,” Dr. Cree said.

“In some cases, temporary interruption of treatment might be useful to help develop robust responses to vaccinations,” he added.

Dr. Dave reported no financial relationships regarding the poster but is a paid speaker/consultant for Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Biogen, Alexion, Genentech, Horizon, and Sanofi for their MS & NMO therapies. Dr. Kantor’s research was supported by a grant from BMS; he is a consultant for Biogen, BMS, and Janssen. Dr. Cree reported that he is an unpaid consultant for BMS, the manufacturer of ozanimod.

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

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – The latest updates on COVID-19 vaccination response among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who are treated with disease-modifying therapy (DMT) show that, if patients do contract the virus, cases are mild and serious infections are rare.

However, vaccine antibody response remains lower with anti-CD20 therapies.

One of several late-breaking studies on these issues that were presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers included more than 100 patients with MS who were treated with a variety of DMTs.

Results showed that the rate of antibody response was just 55% among those treated with anti-CD20 therapies versus 83% for those treated with other DMTs, including sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulators (S1Ps).

Consistent with what has been observed in other studies, “vaccine antibody responses were slightly lower in B cell–depleted patients than with other therapies,” senior author Rahul Dave, MD, director of the INOVA MS and Neuroimmunology Center, Inova Neurosciences Institute, the University of Virginia, Fairfax, said in an interview.
 

Vaccine response

The investigators sought to assess detailed vaccine responses in 134 patients with MS. Serum COVID antibody measures were conducted approximately 3 weeks to 4 months after vaccination – and mostly after the initial vaccination.

The antibody response rate was significantly lower with anti-CD20 treatments (55%) than with all other DMTs examined (83%), including S1Ps, immunomodulators, immunosuppressive drugs, interferon B, anti-CD52, and natalizumab (P < .01).

The highest prevalence of antibody response was observed among those taking immunomodulators; responses occurred among 91% of patients taking teriflunomide and among 93% of those taking fumarates.

Among those treated with anti-CD20 therapy, antibody responses correlated with higher baseline immunoglobulin levels (P = .01) and shorter durations of therapy.

“We found that longer total duration of therapy and lower immunoglobulin levels tended to correlate with decreases in immune responses,” said Dr. Dave.

“Interestingly, the timing between vaccination versus administration of [anti-CD20 drug] ocrelizumab did not seem to be impactful with regards to antibody responses,” Dr. Dave noted. He added that this is contrary to some past studies that showed benefits if the vaccination could be completed prior to starting ocrelizumab.

Sixteen participants tested polymerase chain reaction positive for COVID during the previous 12 months. Although most infections were described as mild and self-limited, four of the patients received outpatient monoclonal antibody therapy, and one required hospitalization because of COVID.

“I think it is notable and reassuring that, overall, our patients had mild courses. This is consistent with the vaccines ‘working,’ and is true even in patients on high-efficacy immunosuppressants that partially abrogate antibody responses,” Dr. Dave said.

He added that he reassures patients who need high-efficacy therapies that “they should use them.”

That being said, as in the general population, even vaccinated patients can get COVID. “You can be sick and feel terrible, but in general, hospitalization numbers are way down compared to 2 years ago. We are seeing the same trends in MS patients, including the B cell–depleted patients,” he said.

“To get at the question whether B cell–depleted patients behave exactly the same as the general population, or even [with] other DMTs, we will need large, multicenter, prospective datasets,” said Dr. Dave.
 

Favorable findings

Two other late-breaking posters at the meeting provided updates regarding antibody responses among patients receiving S1Ps. There has been concern that S1Ps may blunt antibody responses to COVID vaccinations.

The concern is in regard to their unique mechanisms of sequestering circulating lymphocytes, particularly the older, nonselective S1P receptor modulator fingolimod, said the author of one of the studies, Daniel Kantor, MD, president emeritus of the Florida Society of Neurology and founding president of the Medical Partnership 4 MS+.

“It appears the issues with fingolimod might relate to the level of white blood cell sequestration, [which is] greater in fingolimod than the newer S1P receptor modulators, and/or the result of S1P4 receptor modulation, which is not seen with the newer, selective medications,” Dr. Kantor said in an interview.

In a prospective observational trial of patients with relapsing MS, among 30 participants who were treated with ozanimod, the mean increase in IgG antibody titer 4 weeks after either of the two available mRNA vaccines was 232.73 AU/mL versus a mean increase of 526.59 AU/mL among 30 non–ozanimod/DMT-treated patients.

To date, only three patients in the study were taking ocrelizumab; for those patients, the mean increase in IgG titers was 0.633.

Despite the lower antibody titers in the ozanimod-treated patients, which Dr. Kantor noted are generally regarded as protective, all but one of the patients had positive results on T-Detect, which was indicative of vaccine protection.

“In this study, [relapsing] MS patients treated with ozanimod had an antibody and T-cell response to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines,” he reported. “This trial is ongoing, with 48 weeks of follow-up expected in December 2022.”
 

Ponesimod results

In the other S1P modulator-related late-breaking study, Janssen Research and Development reported on antibody responses of patients who were treated with the S1P drug ponesimod in the phase 2 AC-058B202 study.

The median exposure to ponesimod at time of vaccination was 10.7 years (range, 9.8-11.8 years). There were 134 patients in the study. Of those, both prevaccination and postvaccination blood samples from 49 patients were tested for spike antibody concentrations.

Among those participants, 40 (81.6%) met the definition of response to the COVID-19 vaccination, defined as seroconversion in the case of negative prevaccination antibody testing or a fourfold antibody concentration increase in the case of a positive prevaccination antibody result.

Of the 38 antibody-negative participants, 33 (86.8%) achieved seroconversion post vaccination.

A total of 20 participants reported having had prevaccine COVID, while 17 had postvaccination COVID.

None of the cases were serious, severe, or fatal, and none led to permanent treatment discontinuation.

“In patients with RMS on ponesimod, the majority (> 80%) appear to develop a measurable SARS-CoV-2 humoral response after COVID-19 vaccination,” the authors, led by Janice Wong, of Janssen Research and Development, wrote.

“Further investigations on the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccination in MS patients on ponesimod are warranted,” they added.

In a final study from Genentech, of 4848 patients with MS who were fully vaccinated during the Delta and Omicron waves, 1.3% had a COVID-related hospitalization. In addition, rate of severe SARS-CoV-2 infections was very low (0.6%); there were fewer than 10 infections in each subgroup of DMTs. These patients included 585 (17%) who were treated with ocrelizumab, 238 (7%) who were treated with S1P receptor modulators, 33 (1%) who were treated with interferons, 1,004 (29%) who were treated with other DMTs, and 1,574 (46%) for whom no DMTs were recorded.

“We can conclude from this study that the characteristics of people with MS with more severe COVID-19 outcomes resemble those observed in the general population,” such as in those who are older or have higher rates of comorbidities, Preeti Bajaj, team lead of HEOR, Neuroscience, at Genentech, said in an interview. “We believe [ocrelizumab] treatment decisions should be made between a patient and their treating neurologist or other medical professional based on a benefit-risk assessment specific to the individual patient.”
 

Concerns remain

In a comment, Bruce A. C. Cree, MD, PhD, professor of clinical neurology and clinical research director at the Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, described the overall data on vaccine efficacy on anti-CD20s as “discouraging” and said he is adjusting his own recommendations for these patients.

“Repeated vaccinations do not seem to stimulate humoral responses in B cell–depleted patients,” said Dr. Cree, who was not involved with the research.

“In my personal practice, I have been suspending dosing in my patients to allow for B-cell reconstitution to occur followed by revaccination,” he added.

Regarding the S1P drugs, he noted that, aside from fingolimod, “the antibody response frequency seems to be better than initial reports. However, the index values are low and may not be protective.”

Overall, the take-home message for patients with MS who are taking DMTs should be, “all patients treated with S1P modulators or anti-C20 antibodies should be vaccinated and boosted,” Dr. Cree said.

“In some cases, temporary interruption of treatment might be useful to help develop robust responses to vaccinations,” he added.

Dr. Dave reported no financial relationships regarding the poster but is a paid speaker/consultant for Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Biogen, Alexion, Genentech, Horizon, and Sanofi for their MS & NMO therapies. Dr. Kantor’s research was supported by a grant from BMS; he is a consultant for Biogen, BMS, and Janssen. Dr. Cree reported that he is an unpaid consultant for BMS, the manufacturer of ozanimod.

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

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – The latest updates on COVID-19 vaccination response among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who are treated with disease-modifying therapy (DMT) show that, if patients do contract the virus, cases are mild and serious infections are rare.

However, vaccine antibody response remains lower with anti-CD20 therapies.

One of several late-breaking studies on these issues that were presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers included more than 100 patients with MS who were treated with a variety of DMTs.

Results showed that the rate of antibody response was just 55% among those treated with anti-CD20 therapies versus 83% for those treated with other DMTs, including sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulators (S1Ps).

Consistent with what has been observed in other studies, “vaccine antibody responses were slightly lower in B cell–depleted patients than with other therapies,” senior author Rahul Dave, MD, director of the INOVA MS and Neuroimmunology Center, Inova Neurosciences Institute, the University of Virginia, Fairfax, said in an interview.
 

Vaccine response

The investigators sought to assess detailed vaccine responses in 134 patients with MS. Serum COVID antibody measures were conducted approximately 3 weeks to 4 months after vaccination – and mostly after the initial vaccination.

The antibody response rate was significantly lower with anti-CD20 treatments (55%) than with all other DMTs examined (83%), including S1Ps, immunomodulators, immunosuppressive drugs, interferon B, anti-CD52, and natalizumab (P < .01).

The highest prevalence of antibody response was observed among those taking immunomodulators; responses occurred among 91% of patients taking teriflunomide and among 93% of those taking fumarates.

Among those treated with anti-CD20 therapy, antibody responses correlated with higher baseline immunoglobulin levels (P = .01) and shorter durations of therapy.

“We found that longer total duration of therapy and lower immunoglobulin levels tended to correlate with decreases in immune responses,” said Dr. Dave.

“Interestingly, the timing between vaccination versus administration of [anti-CD20 drug] ocrelizumab did not seem to be impactful with regards to antibody responses,” Dr. Dave noted. He added that this is contrary to some past studies that showed benefits if the vaccination could be completed prior to starting ocrelizumab.

Sixteen participants tested polymerase chain reaction positive for COVID during the previous 12 months. Although most infections were described as mild and self-limited, four of the patients received outpatient monoclonal antibody therapy, and one required hospitalization because of COVID.

“I think it is notable and reassuring that, overall, our patients had mild courses. This is consistent with the vaccines ‘working,’ and is true even in patients on high-efficacy immunosuppressants that partially abrogate antibody responses,” Dr. Dave said.

He added that he reassures patients who need high-efficacy therapies that “they should use them.”

That being said, as in the general population, even vaccinated patients can get COVID. “You can be sick and feel terrible, but in general, hospitalization numbers are way down compared to 2 years ago. We are seeing the same trends in MS patients, including the B cell–depleted patients,” he said.

“To get at the question whether B cell–depleted patients behave exactly the same as the general population, or even [with] other DMTs, we will need large, multicenter, prospective datasets,” said Dr. Dave.
 

Favorable findings

Two other late-breaking posters at the meeting provided updates regarding antibody responses among patients receiving S1Ps. There has been concern that S1Ps may blunt antibody responses to COVID vaccinations.

The concern is in regard to their unique mechanisms of sequestering circulating lymphocytes, particularly the older, nonselective S1P receptor modulator fingolimod, said the author of one of the studies, Daniel Kantor, MD, president emeritus of the Florida Society of Neurology and founding president of the Medical Partnership 4 MS+.

“It appears the issues with fingolimod might relate to the level of white blood cell sequestration, [which is] greater in fingolimod than the newer S1P receptor modulators, and/or the result of S1P4 receptor modulation, which is not seen with the newer, selective medications,” Dr. Kantor said in an interview.

In a prospective observational trial of patients with relapsing MS, among 30 participants who were treated with ozanimod, the mean increase in IgG antibody titer 4 weeks after either of the two available mRNA vaccines was 232.73 AU/mL versus a mean increase of 526.59 AU/mL among 30 non–ozanimod/DMT-treated patients.

To date, only three patients in the study were taking ocrelizumab; for those patients, the mean increase in IgG titers was 0.633.

Despite the lower antibody titers in the ozanimod-treated patients, which Dr. Kantor noted are generally regarded as protective, all but one of the patients had positive results on T-Detect, which was indicative of vaccine protection.

“In this study, [relapsing] MS patients treated with ozanimod had an antibody and T-cell response to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines,” he reported. “This trial is ongoing, with 48 weeks of follow-up expected in December 2022.”
 

Ponesimod results

In the other S1P modulator-related late-breaking study, Janssen Research and Development reported on antibody responses of patients who were treated with the S1P drug ponesimod in the phase 2 AC-058B202 study.

The median exposure to ponesimod at time of vaccination was 10.7 years (range, 9.8-11.8 years). There were 134 patients in the study. Of those, both prevaccination and postvaccination blood samples from 49 patients were tested for spike antibody concentrations.

Among those participants, 40 (81.6%) met the definition of response to the COVID-19 vaccination, defined as seroconversion in the case of negative prevaccination antibody testing or a fourfold antibody concentration increase in the case of a positive prevaccination antibody result.

Of the 38 antibody-negative participants, 33 (86.8%) achieved seroconversion post vaccination.

A total of 20 participants reported having had prevaccine COVID, while 17 had postvaccination COVID.

None of the cases were serious, severe, or fatal, and none led to permanent treatment discontinuation.

“In patients with RMS on ponesimod, the majority (> 80%) appear to develop a measurable SARS-CoV-2 humoral response after COVID-19 vaccination,” the authors, led by Janice Wong, of Janssen Research and Development, wrote.

“Further investigations on the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccination in MS patients on ponesimod are warranted,” they added.

In a final study from Genentech, of 4848 patients with MS who were fully vaccinated during the Delta and Omicron waves, 1.3% had a COVID-related hospitalization. In addition, rate of severe SARS-CoV-2 infections was very low (0.6%); there were fewer than 10 infections in each subgroup of DMTs. These patients included 585 (17%) who were treated with ocrelizumab, 238 (7%) who were treated with S1P receptor modulators, 33 (1%) who were treated with interferons, 1,004 (29%) who were treated with other DMTs, and 1,574 (46%) for whom no DMTs were recorded.

“We can conclude from this study that the characteristics of people with MS with more severe COVID-19 outcomes resemble those observed in the general population,” such as in those who are older or have higher rates of comorbidities, Preeti Bajaj, team lead of HEOR, Neuroscience, at Genentech, said in an interview. “We believe [ocrelizumab] treatment decisions should be made between a patient and their treating neurologist or other medical professional based on a benefit-risk assessment specific to the individual patient.”
 

Concerns remain

In a comment, Bruce A. C. Cree, MD, PhD, professor of clinical neurology and clinical research director at the Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, described the overall data on vaccine efficacy on anti-CD20s as “discouraging” and said he is adjusting his own recommendations for these patients.

“Repeated vaccinations do not seem to stimulate humoral responses in B cell–depleted patients,” said Dr. Cree, who was not involved with the research.

“In my personal practice, I have been suspending dosing in my patients to allow for B-cell reconstitution to occur followed by revaccination,” he added.

Regarding the S1P drugs, he noted that, aside from fingolimod, “the antibody response frequency seems to be better than initial reports. However, the index values are low and may not be protective.”

Overall, the take-home message for patients with MS who are taking DMTs should be, “all patients treated with S1P modulators or anti-C20 antibodies should be vaccinated and boosted,” Dr. Cree said.

“In some cases, temporary interruption of treatment might be useful to help develop robust responses to vaccinations,” he added.

Dr. Dave reported no financial relationships regarding the poster but is a paid speaker/consultant for Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Biogen, Alexion, Genentech, Horizon, and Sanofi for their MS & NMO therapies. Dr. Kantor’s research was supported by a grant from BMS; he is a consultant for Biogen, BMS, and Janssen. Dr. Cree reported that he is an unpaid consultant for BMS, the manufacturer of ozanimod.

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

Patients with type 2 diabetes who received empagliflozin, a sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, were almost 40% less likely to have a kidney stone than patients who received placebo during a median 1.5 years of treatment.

These findings are from an analysis of pooled data from phase 1-4 clinical trials of empagliflozin for blood glucose control in 15,081 patients with type 2 diabetes.  

Priyadarshini Balasubramanian, MD, presented the study as a poster at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society; the study also was published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

The researchers acknowledge this was a retrospective, post-hoc analysis and that urolithiasis – a stone in the urinary tract, which includes nephrolithiasis, a kidney stone – was an adverse event, not a primary or secondary outcome.

Also, the stone composition, which might help explain how the drug may affect stone formation, is unknown.

Therefore, “dedicated randomized prospective clinical trials are needed to confirm these initial observations in patients both with and without type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Balasubramanian, a clinical fellow in the section of endocrinology & metabolism, department of internal medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

However, “if this association is proven, empagliflozin may be used to decrease the risk of kidney stones at least in those with type 2 diabetes, but maybe also in those without diabetes,” Dr. Balasubramanian said in an interview.

Further trials are also needed to determine if this is a class effect, which is likely, she speculated, and to unravel the potential mechanism.

This is important because of the prevalence of kidney stones, which affect up to 15% of the general population and 15%-20% of patients with diabetes, she explained.
 

‘Provocative’ earlier findings

The current study was prompted by a recent observational study by Kasper B. Kristensen, MD, PhD, and colleagues.

Because SGLT2 inhibitors increase urinary glucose excretion through reduced renal reabsorption of glucose leading to osmotic diuresis and increased urinary flow, they hypothesized that these therapies “may reduce the risk of upper urinary tract stones (nephrolithiasis) by reducing the concentration of lithogenic substances in urine.” 

Using data from Danish Health registries, they matched 12,325 individuals newly prescribed an SGLT2 inhibitor 1:1 with patients newly prescribed a glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP1) agonist, another new class of drugs for treating type 2 diabetes.

They found a hazard ratio of 0.51 (95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.71) for incident nephrolithiasis and a hazard ratio of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.48-0.97) for recurrent nephrolithiasis for patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors versus GLP-1 agonists.

These findings are “striking,” according to Dr. Balasubramanian and colleagues. However, “these data, while provocative, were entirely retrospective and therefore possibly prone to bias,” they add.
 

Pooled data from 20 trials

The current study analyzed data from 20 randomized controlled trials of glycemic control in type 2 diabetes, in which 10,177 patients had received empagliflozin 10 mg or 25 mg and 4,904 patients had received placebo.

Most patients (46.5%) had participated in the EMPA-REG OUTCOMES trial, which also had the longest follow-up (2.6 years).

The researchers identified patients with a new stone from the urinary tract (including the kidney, ureter, and urethra). Patients had received either the study drug for a median of 543 days or placebo for a median of 549 days.

During treatment, 104 of 10,177 patients in the pooled empagliflozin groups and 79 of 4,904 patients in the pooled placebo groups developed a stone in the urinary tract.

This was equivalent to 0.63 new urinary-tract stones per 100 patient-years in the pooled empagliflozin groups versus 1.01 new urinary-tract stones per 100 patient-years in the pooled placebo groups.

The incidence rate ratio was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.48-0.86), in favor of empagliflozin.

When the analysis was restricted to new kidney stones, the results were similar: 75 of 10,177 patients in the pooled empagliflozin groups and 57 of 4,904 patients in the pooled placebo groups developed a kidney stone.

This was equivalent to 0.45 new kidney stones per 100 patient-years in the pooled empagliflozin groups versus 0.72 new kidney stones per 100 patient-years in the pooled placebo groups.

The IRR was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.46-0.92), in favor of empagliflozin.
 

Upcoming small RCT in adults without diabetes

Invited to comment on the new study, Dr. Kristensen said: “The reduced risk of SGLT2 inhibitors towards nephrolithiasis is now reported in at least two studies with different methodology, different populations, and different exposure and outcome definitions.”

“I agree that randomized clinical trials designed specifically to confirm these findings appear warranted,” added Dr. Kristensen, from the Institute of Public Health, Clinical Pharmacology, Pharmacy, and Environmental Medicine, University of Southern Denmark in Odense.

There is a need for studies in patients with and without diabetes, he added, especially ones that focus on prevention of nephrolithiasis in patients with kidney stone disease.

A new trial should shed further light on this.

Results are expected by the end of 2022 for SWEETSTONE (Impact of the SGLT2 Inhibitor Empagliflozin on Urinary Supersaturations in Kidney Stone Formers), a randomized, double-blind crossover exploratory study in 46 patients without diabetes.

This should provide preliminary data to “establish the relevance for larger trials assessing the prophylactic potential of empagliflozin in kidney stone disease,” according to an article on the trial protocol recently published in BMJ.

The trials included in the pooled dataset were funded by Boehringer Ingelheim or the Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly Diabetes Alliance. Dr. Balasubramanian has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with type 2 diabetes who received empagliflozin, a sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, were almost 40% less likely to have a kidney stone than patients who received placebo during a median 1.5 years of treatment.

These findings are from an analysis of pooled data from phase 1-4 clinical trials of empagliflozin for blood glucose control in 15,081 patients with type 2 diabetes.  

Priyadarshini Balasubramanian, MD, presented the study as a poster at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society; the study also was published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

The researchers acknowledge this was a retrospective, post-hoc analysis and that urolithiasis – a stone in the urinary tract, which includes nephrolithiasis, a kidney stone – was an adverse event, not a primary or secondary outcome.

Also, the stone composition, which might help explain how the drug may affect stone formation, is unknown.

Therefore, “dedicated randomized prospective clinical trials are needed to confirm these initial observations in patients both with and without type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Balasubramanian, a clinical fellow in the section of endocrinology & metabolism, department of internal medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

However, “if this association is proven, empagliflozin may be used to decrease the risk of kidney stones at least in those with type 2 diabetes, but maybe also in those without diabetes,” Dr. Balasubramanian said in an interview.

Further trials are also needed to determine if this is a class effect, which is likely, she speculated, and to unravel the potential mechanism.

This is important because of the prevalence of kidney stones, which affect up to 15% of the general population and 15%-20% of patients with diabetes, she explained.
 

‘Provocative’ earlier findings

The current study was prompted by a recent observational study by Kasper B. Kristensen, MD, PhD, and colleagues.

Because SGLT2 inhibitors increase urinary glucose excretion through reduced renal reabsorption of glucose leading to osmotic diuresis and increased urinary flow, they hypothesized that these therapies “may reduce the risk of upper urinary tract stones (nephrolithiasis) by reducing the concentration of lithogenic substances in urine.” 

Using data from Danish Health registries, they matched 12,325 individuals newly prescribed an SGLT2 inhibitor 1:1 with patients newly prescribed a glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP1) agonist, another new class of drugs for treating type 2 diabetes.

They found a hazard ratio of 0.51 (95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.71) for incident nephrolithiasis and a hazard ratio of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.48-0.97) for recurrent nephrolithiasis for patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors versus GLP-1 agonists.

These findings are “striking,” according to Dr. Balasubramanian and colleagues. However, “these data, while provocative, were entirely retrospective and therefore possibly prone to bias,” they add.
 

Pooled data from 20 trials

The current study analyzed data from 20 randomized controlled trials of glycemic control in type 2 diabetes, in which 10,177 patients had received empagliflozin 10 mg or 25 mg and 4,904 patients had received placebo.

Most patients (46.5%) had participated in the EMPA-REG OUTCOMES trial, which also had the longest follow-up (2.6 years).

The researchers identified patients with a new stone from the urinary tract (including the kidney, ureter, and urethra). Patients had received either the study drug for a median of 543 days or placebo for a median of 549 days.

During treatment, 104 of 10,177 patients in the pooled empagliflozin groups and 79 of 4,904 patients in the pooled placebo groups developed a stone in the urinary tract.

This was equivalent to 0.63 new urinary-tract stones per 100 patient-years in the pooled empagliflozin groups versus 1.01 new urinary-tract stones per 100 patient-years in the pooled placebo groups.

The incidence rate ratio was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.48-0.86), in favor of empagliflozin.

When the analysis was restricted to new kidney stones, the results were similar: 75 of 10,177 patients in the pooled empagliflozin groups and 57 of 4,904 patients in the pooled placebo groups developed a kidney stone.

This was equivalent to 0.45 new kidney stones per 100 patient-years in the pooled empagliflozin groups versus 0.72 new kidney stones per 100 patient-years in the pooled placebo groups.

The IRR was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.46-0.92), in favor of empagliflozin.
 

Upcoming small RCT in adults without diabetes

Invited to comment on the new study, Dr. Kristensen said: “The reduced risk of SGLT2 inhibitors towards nephrolithiasis is now reported in at least two studies with different methodology, different populations, and different exposure and outcome definitions.”

“I agree that randomized clinical trials designed specifically to confirm these findings appear warranted,” added Dr. Kristensen, from the Institute of Public Health, Clinical Pharmacology, Pharmacy, and Environmental Medicine, University of Southern Denmark in Odense.

There is a need for studies in patients with and without diabetes, he added, especially ones that focus on prevention of nephrolithiasis in patients with kidney stone disease.

A new trial should shed further light on this.

Results are expected by the end of 2022 for SWEETSTONE (Impact of the SGLT2 Inhibitor Empagliflozin on Urinary Supersaturations in Kidney Stone Formers), a randomized, double-blind crossover exploratory study in 46 patients without diabetes.

This should provide preliminary data to “establish the relevance for larger trials assessing the prophylactic potential of empagliflozin in kidney stone disease,” according to an article on the trial protocol recently published in BMJ.

The trials included in the pooled dataset were funded by Boehringer Ingelheim or the Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly Diabetes Alliance. Dr. Balasubramanian has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with type 2 diabetes who received empagliflozin, a sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, were almost 40% less likely to have a kidney stone than patients who received placebo during a median 1.5 years of treatment.

These findings are from an analysis of pooled data from phase 1-4 clinical trials of empagliflozin for blood glucose control in 15,081 patients with type 2 diabetes.  

Priyadarshini Balasubramanian, MD, presented the study as a poster at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society; the study also was published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

The researchers acknowledge this was a retrospective, post-hoc analysis and that urolithiasis – a stone in the urinary tract, which includes nephrolithiasis, a kidney stone – was an adverse event, not a primary or secondary outcome.

Also, the stone composition, which might help explain how the drug may affect stone formation, is unknown.

Therefore, “dedicated randomized prospective clinical trials are needed to confirm these initial observations in patients both with and without type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Balasubramanian, a clinical fellow in the section of endocrinology & metabolism, department of internal medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

However, “if this association is proven, empagliflozin may be used to decrease the risk of kidney stones at least in those with type 2 diabetes, but maybe also in those without diabetes,” Dr. Balasubramanian said in an interview.

Further trials are also needed to determine if this is a class effect, which is likely, she speculated, and to unravel the potential mechanism.

This is important because of the prevalence of kidney stones, which affect up to 15% of the general population and 15%-20% of patients with diabetes, she explained.
 

‘Provocative’ earlier findings

The current study was prompted by a recent observational study by Kasper B. Kristensen, MD, PhD, and colleagues.

Because SGLT2 inhibitors increase urinary glucose excretion through reduced renal reabsorption of glucose leading to osmotic diuresis and increased urinary flow, they hypothesized that these therapies “may reduce the risk of upper urinary tract stones (nephrolithiasis) by reducing the concentration of lithogenic substances in urine.” 

Using data from Danish Health registries, they matched 12,325 individuals newly prescribed an SGLT2 inhibitor 1:1 with patients newly prescribed a glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP1) agonist, another new class of drugs for treating type 2 diabetes.

They found a hazard ratio of 0.51 (95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.71) for incident nephrolithiasis and a hazard ratio of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.48-0.97) for recurrent nephrolithiasis for patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors versus GLP-1 agonists.

These findings are “striking,” according to Dr. Balasubramanian and colleagues. However, “these data, while provocative, were entirely retrospective and therefore possibly prone to bias,” they add.
 

Pooled data from 20 trials

The current study analyzed data from 20 randomized controlled trials of glycemic control in type 2 diabetes, in which 10,177 patients had received empagliflozin 10 mg or 25 mg and 4,904 patients had received placebo.

Most patients (46.5%) had participated in the EMPA-REG OUTCOMES trial, which also had the longest follow-up (2.6 years).

The researchers identified patients with a new stone from the urinary tract (including the kidney, ureter, and urethra). Patients had received either the study drug for a median of 543 days or placebo for a median of 549 days.

During treatment, 104 of 10,177 patients in the pooled empagliflozin groups and 79 of 4,904 patients in the pooled placebo groups developed a stone in the urinary tract.

This was equivalent to 0.63 new urinary-tract stones per 100 patient-years in the pooled empagliflozin groups versus 1.01 new urinary-tract stones per 100 patient-years in the pooled placebo groups.

The incidence rate ratio was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.48-0.86), in favor of empagliflozin.

When the analysis was restricted to new kidney stones, the results were similar: 75 of 10,177 patients in the pooled empagliflozin groups and 57 of 4,904 patients in the pooled placebo groups developed a kidney stone.

This was equivalent to 0.45 new kidney stones per 100 patient-years in the pooled empagliflozin groups versus 0.72 new kidney stones per 100 patient-years in the pooled placebo groups.

The IRR was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.46-0.92), in favor of empagliflozin.
 

Upcoming small RCT in adults without diabetes

Invited to comment on the new study, Dr. Kristensen said: “The reduced risk of SGLT2 inhibitors towards nephrolithiasis is now reported in at least two studies with different methodology, different populations, and different exposure and outcome definitions.”

“I agree that randomized clinical trials designed specifically to confirm these findings appear warranted,” added Dr. Kristensen, from the Institute of Public Health, Clinical Pharmacology, Pharmacy, and Environmental Medicine, University of Southern Denmark in Odense.

There is a need for studies in patients with and without diabetes, he added, especially ones that focus on prevention of nephrolithiasis in patients with kidney stone disease.

A new trial should shed further light on this.

Results are expected by the end of 2022 for SWEETSTONE (Impact of the SGLT2 Inhibitor Empagliflozin on Urinary Supersaturations in Kidney Stone Formers), a randomized, double-blind crossover exploratory study in 46 patients without diabetes.

This should provide preliminary data to “establish the relevance for larger trials assessing the prophylactic potential of empagliflozin in kidney stone disease,” according to an article on the trial protocol recently published in BMJ.

The trials included in the pooled dataset were funded by Boehringer Ingelheim or the Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly Diabetes Alliance. Dr. Balasubramanian has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory panel has rejected the atypical antipsychotic pimavanserin (Nuplazid, Acadia Pharmaceuticals) for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease psychosis (ADP).

In a 9-3 vote, the Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee (PDAC) found that the drug’s manufacturer failed to offer convincing evidence of its efficacy in patients with ADP.

The June 17 rejection was the second rejection in as many years for a new indication for pimavanserin, which was approved in 2016 for Parkinson’s disease psychosis (PDP).

In April 2021, the FDA denied Acadia’s supplemental new drug application to expand the drug’s indication to include the treatment of all dementia-related psychosis, regardless of the underlying cause of dementia, citing issues with two studies the company presented as evidence of efficacy.

Waldemarus/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Lack of efficacy

Pimavanserin is a selective serotonin inverse agonist and antagonist preferentially targeting 5-HT2A receptors, which are thought to play an important role in psychosis, schizophrenia, depression, and other neuropsychiatric disorders.

When it rejected Acadia’s original, broader application for pimavanserin for all dementia-related psychosis, the FDA found that the HARMONY phase 3 trial, previously covered by this news organization, was underpowered to assess efficacy in specific dementia patient subgroups and lacked statistical significance of efficacy in patients with AD. In addition, it noted that overall findings appeared to be driven by results in patients with Parkinson’s disease dementia, a condition already covered by the approved indication.

The FDA found that the second study, referred to in the June 17 hearing as Study 019, which was also previously reported by this news organization, was not “an adequate and well-controlled study.”

Specifically, the agency raised concerns about “protocol deviations,” such as the inclusion of patients who lacked clear documentation that psychotic symptoms developed after an AD diagnosis had been established and patients who received exclusionary medications at the time of randomization.

Discussions between Acadia and the FDA continued over the past year, with the company submitting new analyses and responses. An FDA briefing document published in advance of the committee meeting seemed to suggest the agency was satisfied with Acadia’s response.
 

Lack of diversity

The advisory committee disagreed, pointing to the same concerns raised last year. Members raised concerns about patient diversity in the HARMONY trial, which included an almost entirely White and mostly male study population.

In addition, although the findings at 26 weeks did demonstrate a marked improvement in psychosis symptoms overall, committee members noted that, again, those findings were largely driven by efficacy in patients with Parkinson’s disease dementia, for which the drug is already approved.

When discussing the phase 2 Study 019, the committee noted that while the study met the primary outcome of improvement in psychosis at 6 weeks, those positive responses were not found at any other timepoint in the 12-week study.  

“While it might have had a positive numerical effect in the study, the evidence is really not there to support it,” Dr. Follmann said.

Dr. Follmann and other committee members called for additional trials that focus on patients with Alzheimer’s disease, have a longer follow-up, and include more gender and racial diversity in the study population. They also called for more information about any off-label use of pimavanserin for ADP since it was approved for PDP in 2016.
 

An unmet need

Most individuals who testified during the public comment period pleaded with the committee to vote in favor of the new indication, sharing stories of family members and patients with ADP.

“I have been caring for and studying patients with Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias for more than 30 years, and I can tell you very simply that if left untreated, psychosis has significant and sometimes devastating consequences for our patients,” said Pierre Tariot, MD, director of the Banner Alzheimer’s Institute and a research professor of psychiatry at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, and an investigator on the HARMONY trial.

Those on the committee who voted against the application were quick to agree that lack of an approved treatment for ADP presents a hardship.

“I’m a neurologist who has cared for patients for more than 20 years,” said Madhav R. Thambisetty, MD, PhD, senior investigator for the National Institute on Aging and an adjunct professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore. “I recognize the unmet need in the field, I just think that the unmet need should not be a justification to cut corners.”

The committee did not focus on drug safety or unmet need in its deliberations, although information on both were presented during the meeting.

Commenting on his “no” vote, PDAC member Walter S. Dunn, MD, PhD, assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of Interventional Psychiatry Service at West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Medical Center, said he hopes that the FDA will consider those issues more broadly as they complete their review.

“The questions before the committee have been narrow and precise, so I trust the agency will take a broader approach in their final decision about approval,” Dr. Dunn said.

Commenting on the decision, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer, Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, called the news disappointing, “but while the unmet need for a treatment for ADP is clear, it is vital that approved treatments meet stringent safety and efficacy criteria so we can offer patients medications with clear benefits.”

The FDA will make its final decision by August 4.

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

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory panel has rejected the atypical antipsychotic pimavanserin (Nuplazid, Acadia Pharmaceuticals) for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease psychosis (ADP).

In a 9-3 vote, the Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee (PDAC) found that the drug’s manufacturer failed to offer convincing evidence of its efficacy in patients with ADP.

The June 17 rejection was the second rejection in as many years for a new indication for pimavanserin, which was approved in 2016 for Parkinson’s disease psychosis (PDP).

In April 2021, the FDA denied Acadia’s supplemental new drug application to expand the drug’s indication to include the treatment of all dementia-related psychosis, regardless of the underlying cause of dementia, citing issues with two studies the company presented as evidence of efficacy.

Waldemarus/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Lack of efficacy

Pimavanserin is a selective serotonin inverse agonist and antagonist preferentially targeting 5-HT2A receptors, which are thought to play an important role in psychosis, schizophrenia, depression, and other neuropsychiatric disorders.

When it rejected Acadia’s original, broader application for pimavanserin for all dementia-related psychosis, the FDA found that the HARMONY phase 3 trial, previously covered by this news organization, was underpowered to assess efficacy in specific dementia patient subgroups and lacked statistical significance of efficacy in patients with AD. In addition, it noted that overall findings appeared to be driven by results in patients with Parkinson’s disease dementia, a condition already covered by the approved indication.

The FDA found that the second study, referred to in the June 17 hearing as Study 019, which was also previously reported by this news organization, was not “an adequate and well-controlled study.”

Specifically, the agency raised concerns about “protocol deviations,” such as the inclusion of patients who lacked clear documentation that psychotic symptoms developed after an AD diagnosis had been established and patients who received exclusionary medications at the time of randomization.

Discussions between Acadia and the FDA continued over the past year, with the company submitting new analyses and responses. An FDA briefing document published in advance of the committee meeting seemed to suggest the agency was satisfied with Acadia’s response.
 

Lack of diversity

The advisory committee disagreed, pointing to the same concerns raised last year. Members raised concerns about patient diversity in the HARMONY trial, which included an almost entirely White and mostly male study population.

In addition, although the findings at 26 weeks did demonstrate a marked improvement in psychosis symptoms overall, committee members noted that, again, those findings were largely driven by efficacy in patients with Parkinson’s disease dementia, for which the drug is already approved.

When discussing the phase 2 Study 019, the committee noted that while the study met the primary outcome of improvement in psychosis at 6 weeks, those positive responses were not found at any other timepoint in the 12-week study.  

“While it might have had a positive numerical effect in the study, the evidence is really not there to support it,” Dr. Follmann said.

Dr. Follmann and other committee members called for additional trials that focus on patients with Alzheimer’s disease, have a longer follow-up, and include more gender and racial diversity in the study population. They also called for more information about any off-label use of pimavanserin for ADP since it was approved for PDP in 2016.
 

An unmet need

Most individuals who testified during the public comment period pleaded with the committee to vote in favor of the new indication, sharing stories of family members and patients with ADP.

“I have been caring for and studying patients with Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias for more than 30 years, and I can tell you very simply that if left untreated, psychosis has significant and sometimes devastating consequences for our patients,” said Pierre Tariot, MD, director of the Banner Alzheimer’s Institute and a research professor of psychiatry at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, and an investigator on the HARMONY trial.

Those on the committee who voted against the application were quick to agree that lack of an approved treatment for ADP presents a hardship.

“I’m a neurologist who has cared for patients for more than 20 years,” said Madhav R. Thambisetty, MD, PhD, senior investigator for the National Institute on Aging and an adjunct professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore. “I recognize the unmet need in the field, I just think that the unmet need should not be a justification to cut corners.”

The committee did not focus on drug safety or unmet need in its deliberations, although information on both were presented during the meeting.

Commenting on his “no” vote, PDAC member Walter S. Dunn, MD, PhD, assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of Interventional Psychiatry Service at West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Medical Center, said he hopes that the FDA will consider those issues more broadly as they complete their review.

“The questions before the committee have been narrow and precise, so I trust the agency will take a broader approach in their final decision about approval,” Dr. Dunn said.

Commenting on the decision, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer, Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, called the news disappointing, “but while the unmet need for a treatment for ADP is clear, it is vital that approved treatments meet stringent safety and efficacy criteria so we can offer patients medications with clear benefits.”

The FDA will make its final decision by August 4.

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

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory panel has rejected the atypical antipsychotic pimavanserin (Nuplazid, Acadia Pharmaceuticals) for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease psychosis (ADP).

In a 9-3 vote, the Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee (PDAC) found that the drug’s manufacturer failed to offer convincing evidence of its efficacy in patients with ADP.

The June 17 rejection was the second rejection in as many years for a new indication for pimavanserin, which was approved in 2016 for Parkinson’s disease psychosis (PDP).

In April 2021, the FDA denied Acadia’s supplemental new drug application to expand the drug’s indication to include the treatment of all dementia-related psychosis, regardless of the underlying cause of dementia, citing issues with two studies the company presented as evidence of efficacy.

Waldemarus/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Lack of efficacy

Pimavanserin is a selective serotonin inverse agonist and antagonist preferentially targeting 5-HT2A receptors, which are thought to play an important role in psychosis, schizophrenia, depression, and other neuropsychiatric disorders.

When it rejected Acadia’s original, broader application for pimavanserin for all dementia-related psychosis, the FDA found that the HARMONY phase 3 trial, previously covered by this news organization, was underpowered to assess efficacy in specific dementia patient subgroups and lacked statistical significance of efficacy in patients with AD. In addition, it noted that overall findings appeared to be driven by results in patients with Parkinson’s disease dementia, a condition already covered by the approved indication.

The FDA found that the second study, referred to in the June 17 hearing as Study 019, which was also previously reported by this news organization, was not “an adequate and well-controlled study.”

Specifically, the agency raised concerns about “protocol deviations,” such as the inclusion of patients who lacked clear documentation that psychotic symptoms developed after an AD diagnosis had been established and patients who received exclusionary medications at the time of randomization.

Discussions between Acadia and the FDA continued over the past year, with the company submitting new analyses and responses. An FDA briefing document published in advance of the committee meeting seemed to suggest the agency was satisfied with Acadia’s response.
 

Lack of diversity

The advisory committee disagreed, pointing to the same concerns raised last year. Members raised concerns about patient diversity in the HARMONY trial, which included an almost entirely White and mostly male study population.

In addition, although the findings at 26 weeks did demonstrate a marked improvement in psychosis symptoms overall, committee members noted that, again, those findings were largely driven by efficacy in patients with Parkinson’s disease dementia, for which the drug is already approved.

When discussing the phase 2 Study 019, the committee noted that while the study met the primary outcome of improvement in psychosis at 6 weeks, those positive responses were not found at any other timepoint in the 12-week study.  

“While it might have had a positive numerical effect in the study, the evidence is really not there to support it,” Dr. Follmann said.

Dr. Follmann and other committee members called for additional trials that focus on patients with Alzheimer’s disease, have a longer follow-up, and include more gender and racial diversity in the study population. They also called for more information about any off-label use of pimavanserin for ADP since it was approved for PDP in 2016.
 

An unmet need

Most individuals who testified during the public comment period pleaded with the committee to vote in favor of the new indication, sharing stories of family members and patients with ADP.

“I have been caring for and studying patients with Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias for more than 30 years, and I can tell you very simply that if left untreated, psychosis has significant and sometimes devastating consequences for our patients,” said Pierre Tariot, MD, director of the Banner Alzheimer’s Institute and a research professor of psychiatry at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, and an investigator on the HARMONY trial.

Those on the committee who voted against the application were quick to agree that lack of an approved treatment for ADP presents a hardship.

“I’m a neurologist who has cared for patients for more than 20 years,” said Madhav R. Thambisetty, MD, PhD, senior investigator for the National Institute on Aging and an adjunct professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore. “I recognize the unmet need in the field, I just think that the unmet need should not be a justification to cut corners.”

The committee did not focus on drug safety or unmet need in its deliberations, although information on both were presented during the meeting.

Commenting on his “no” vote, PDAC member Walter S. Dunn, MD, PhD, assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of Interventional Psychiatry Service at West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Medical Center, said he hopes that the FDA will consider those issues more broadly as they complete their review.

“The questions before the committee have been narrow and precise, so I trust the agency will take a broader approach in their final decision about approval,” Dr. Dunn said.

Commenting on the decision, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer, Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, called the news disappointing, “but while the unmet need for a treatment for ADP is clear, it is vital that approved treatments meet stringent safety and efficacy criteria so we can offer patients medications with clear benefits.”

The FDA will make its final decision by August 4.

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