User login
FDA approves first-ever drug for cold agglutinin disease
A new drug has become the first and only treatment for people with cold agglutinin disease (CAD) that is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
CAD is a rare autoimmune hemolytic anemia, affecting about 5,000 people in the United States. It is caused by antibodies binding to the surface of red blood cells, which starts a process that causes the body’s immune system to mistakenly attack healthy red blood cells and cause their rupture (hemolysis). This can lead to severe anemia, which is often treated by blood transfusions.
“For people living with cold agglutinin disease, it is as if their body’s immune system is waging a war on itself. The relentless destruction of healthy red blood cells is a daily, silent reality for people with CAD. For the first time, we have a treatment that targets complement-mediated hemolysis, which is the underlying cause of the red blood cell destruction in many CAD patients,” commented Catherine Broome, MD, associate professor of medicine at Georgetown University Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, in a company press release.
Dr. Broome was the principal investigator in the CARDINAL study, which was the basis for the new approval. In this pivotal study, patients treated with sutimlimab had an improvement in anemia as measured by hemoglobin (Hgb) and bilirubin levels, she commented in the company statement.
The CARDINAL study was a 26-week open-label, single-arm phase 3 study conducted in 24 patients with CAD who had recent history of blood transfusion.
The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite defined as the proportion of patients who achieved normalization of Hgb level greater than or equal to 12 g/dL or demonstrated an increase from baseline in Hgb level greater than or equal to 2 g/dL at the treatment assessment time point (mean value from weeks 23, 25, and 26) and no blood transfusion from weeks 5 through 26.
More than half of the patients (13 of 24, 54%) met the composite primary endpoint criteria, with 17 of 24 (71%) patients remaining transfusion-free after week 5. Most patients (22 of 24, 92%) did not use other CAD-related treatments.
For the secondary measures on disease process, patients enrolled in the trial experienced a mean increase in Hgb level of 2.29 g/dL at week 3 and 3.18 g/dL at the 26-week treatment assessment time points (increasing from the mean baseline level of 8.6 g/dL). In addition, there was a mean reduction in bilirubin levels (n = 14) of -2.23 mg/dL from a mean baseline level of 3.23 mg/dL.
The most common adverse reactions occurring in 10% or more of patients were respiratory tract infection, viral infection, diarrhea, dyspepsia, cough, arthralgia, arthritis, and peripheral edema. Serious adverse reactions were reported in 3 of 24 (13%) patients, and these included streptococcal sepsis and staphylococcal wound infection (n = 1), arthralgia (n = 1), and respiratory tract infection (n = 1).
None of the adverse reactions led to discontinuation of the drug, the company noted. Dosage interruptions due to an adverse reaction occurred in 4 of 24 (17%) patients who received the drug.
The recommended dose is based on body weight (6,500 mg for people 39-75 kg and 7,500 mg for people greater than 75 kg). The drug is administered intravenously weekly for the first 2 weeks with administration every 2 weeks thereafter.
Full prescribing information is available here.
The product is a humanized monoclonal antibody that is designed to selectively target and inhibit C1s in the classical complement pathway, which is part of the innate immune system. By blocking C1s, Enjaymo inhibits the activation of the complement cascade in the immune system and inhibits C1-activated hemolysis in CAD to prevent the abnormal destruction of healthy red blood cells. Enjaymo does not inhibit the lectin and alternative pathways, the company noted.
In the U.S., Enjaymo received FDA breakthrough therapy and orphan drug designation, as well as priority review. The product is awaiting approval in Europe and Japan.
Sanofi says the product is expected to be available in the United States in the coming weeks, with a list price, or wholesale acquisition cost, of $1,800 per vial. Actual costs to patients are generally anticipated to be lower, as the list price does not reflect insurance coverage, copay support, or financial assistance from patient support programs. The company offers support for eligible patients on 1-833-223-2428.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new drug has become the first and only treatment for people with cold agglutinin disease (CAD) that is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
CAD is a rare autoimmune hemolytic anemia, affecting about 5,000 people in the United States. It is caused by antibodies binding to the surface of red blood cells, which starts a process that causes the body’s immune system to mistakenly attack healthy red blood cells and cause their rupture (hemolysis). This can lead to severe anemia, which is often treated by blood transfusions.
“For people living with cold agglutinin disease, it is as if their body’s immune system is waging a war on itself. The relentless destruction of healthy red blood cells is a daily, silent reality for people with CAD. For the first time, we have a treatment that targets complement-mediated hemolysis, which is the underlying cause of the red blood cell destruction in many CAD patients,” commented Catherine Broome, MD, associate professor of medicine at Georgetown University Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, in a company press release.
Dr. Broome was the principal investigator in the CARDINAL study, which was the basis for the new approval. In this pivotal study, patients treated with sutimlimab had an improvement in anemia as measured by hemoglobin (Hgb) and bilirubin levels, she commented in the company statement.
The CARDINAL study was a 26-week open-label, single-arm phase 3 study conducted in 24 patients with CAD who had recent history of blood transfusion.
The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite defined as the proportion of patients who achieved normalization of Hgb level greater than or equal to 12 g/dL or demonstrated an increase from baseline in Hgb level greater than or equal to 2 g/dL at the treatment assessment time point (mean value from weeks 23, 25, and 26) and no blood transfusion from weeks 5 through 26.
More than half of the patients (13 of 24, 54%) met the composite primary endpoint criteria, with 17 of 24 (71%) patients remaining transfusion-free after week 5. Most patients (22 of 24, 92%) did not use other CAD-related treatments.
For the secondary measures on disease process, patients enrolled in the trial experienced a mean increase in Hgb level of 2.29 g/dL at week 3 and 3.18 g/dL at the 26-week treatment assessment time points (increasing from the mean baseline level of 8.6 g/dL). In addition, there was a mean reduction in bilirubin levels (n = 14) of -2.23 mg/dL from a mean baseline level of 3.23 mg/dL.
The most common adverse reactions occurring in 10% or more of patients were respiratory tract infection, viral infection, diarrhea, dyspepsia, cough, arthralgia, arthritis, and peripheral edema. Serious adverse reactions were reported in 3 of 24 (13%) patients, and these included streptococcal sepsis and staphylococcal wound infection (n = 1), arthralgia (n = 1), and respiratory tract infection (n = 1).
None of the adverse reactions led to discontinuation of the drug, the company noted. Dosage interruptions due to an adverse reaction occurred in 4 of 24 (17%) patients who received the drug.
The recommended dose is based on body weight (6,500 mg for people 39-75 kg and 7,500 mg for people greater than 75 kg). The drug is administered intravenously weekly for the first 2 weeks with administration every 2 weeks thereafter.
Full prescribing information is available here.
The product is a humanized monoclonal antibody that is designed to selectively target and inhibit C1s in the classical complement pathway, which is part of the innate immune system. By blocking C1s, Enjaymo inhibits the activation of the complement cascade in the immune system and inhibits C1-activated hemolysis in CAD to prevent the abnormal destruction of healthy red blood cells. Enjaymo does not inhibit the lectin and alternative pathways, the company noted.
In the U.S., Enjaymo received FDA breakthrough therapy and orphan drug designation, as well as priority review. The product is awaiting approval in Europe and Japan.
Sanofi says the product is expected to be available in the United States in the coming weeks, with a list price, or wholesale acquisition cost, of $1,800 per vial. Actual costs to patients are generally anticipated to be lower, as the list price does not reflect insurance coverage, copay support, or financial assistance from patient support programs. The company offers support for eligible patients on 1-833-223-2428.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new drug has become the first and only treatment for people with cold agglutinin disease (CAD) that is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
CAD is a rare autoimmune hemolytic anemia, affecting about 5,000 people in the United States. It is caused by antibodies binding to the surface of red blood cells, which starts a process that causes the body’s immune system to mistakenly attack healthy red blood cells and cause their rupture (hemolysis). This can lead to severe anemia, which is often treated by blood transfusions.
“For people living with cold agglutinin disease, it is as if their body’s immune system is waging a war on itself. The relentless destruction of healthy red blood cells is a daily, silent reality for people with CAD. For the first time, we have a treatment that targets complement-mediated hemolysis, which is the underlying cause of the red blood cell destruction in many CAD patients,” commented Catherine Broome, MD, associate professor of medicine at Georgetown University Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, in a company press release.
Dr. Broome was the principal investigator in the CARDINAL study, which was the basis for the new approval. In this pivotal study, patients treated with sutimlimab had an improvement in anemia as measured by hemoglobin (Hgb) and bilirubin levels, she commented in the company statement.
The CARDINAL study was a 26-week open-label, single-arm phase 3 study conducted in 24 patients with CAD who had recent history of blood transfusion.
The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite defined as the proportion of patients who achieved normalization of Hgb level greater than or equal to 12 g/dL or demonstrated an increase from baseline in Hgb level greater than or equal to 2 g/dL at the treatment assessment time point (mean value from weeks 23, 25, and 26) and no blood transfusion from weeks 5 through 26.
More than half of the patients (13 of 24, 54%) met the composite primary endpoint criteria, with 17 of 24 (71%) patients remaining transfusion-free after week 5. Most patients (22 of 24, 92%) did not use other CAD-related treatments.
For the secondary measures on disease process, patients enrolled in the trial experienced a mean increase in Hgb level of 2.29 g/dL at week 3 and 3.18 g/dL at the 26-week treatment assessment time points (increasing from the mean baseline level of 8.6 g/dL). In addition, there was a mean reduction in bilirubin levels (n = 14) of -2.23 mg/dL from a mean baseline level of 3.23 mg/dL.
The most common adverse reactions occurring in 10% or more of patients were respiratory tract infection, viral infection, diarrhea, dyspepsia, cough, arthralgia, arthritis, and peripheral edema. Serious adverse reactions were reported in 3 of 24 (13%) patients, and these included streptococcal sepsis and staphylococcal wound infection (n = 1), arthralgia (n = 1), and respiratory tract infection (n = 1).
None of the adverse reactions led to discontinuation of the drug, the company noted. Dosage interruptions due to an adverse reaction occurred in 4 of 24 (17%) patients who received the drug.
The recommended dose is based on body weight (6,500 mg for people 39-75 kg and 7,500 mg for people greater than 75 kg). The drug is administered intravenously weekly for the first 2 weeks with administration every 2 weeks thereafter.
Full prescribing information is available here.
The product is a humanized monoclonal antibody that is designed to selectively target and inhibit C1s in the classical complement pathway, which is part of the innate immune system. By blocking C1s, Enjaymo inhibits the activation of the complement cascade in the immune system and inhibits C1-activated hemolysis in CAD to prevent the abnormal destruction of healthy red blood cells. Enjaymo does not inhibit the lectin and alternative pathways, the company noted.
In the U.S., Enjaymo received FDA breakthrough therapy and orphan drug designation, as well as priority review. The product is awaiting approval in Europe and Japan.
Sanofi says the product is expected to be available in the United States in the coming weeks, with a list price, or wholesale acquisition cost, of $1,800 per vial. Actual costs to patients are generally anticipated to be lower, as the list price does not reflect insurance coverage, copay support, or financial assistance from patient support programs. The company offers support for eligible patients on 1-833-223-2428.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA approves 2-month dosing of injectable HIV drug Cabenuva
Cabenuva was first approved by the FDA in January 2021 to be administered once monthly to treat HIV-1 infection in virologically suppressed adults. The medication was the first injectable complete antiretroviral regimen approved by the FDA.
Cabenuva can replace a current treatment in virologically suppressed adults on a stable antiretroviral regimen with no history of treatment failure and no known or suspected resistance to rilpivirine and cabotegravir, the Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson said in a press release. Janssen and ViiV Healthcare codeveloped the injectable antiretroviral medication Cabenuva.
The expanded label approval “marks an important step forward in advancing the treatment landscape for people living with HIV,” said Candice Long, the president of infectious diseases and vaccines at Janssen Therapeutics, in a Feb. 1 press release. “With this milestone, adults living with HIV have a treatment option that further reduces the frequency of medication.”
This expanded approval was based on global clinical trial of 1,045 adults with HIV-1, which found Cabenuva administered every 8 weeks (3 mL dose of both cabotegravir and rilpivirine) to be noninferior to the 4-week regimen (2 mL dose of both medicines). At week 48 of the trial, the proportion of participants with viral loads above 50 copies per milliliter was 1.7% in the 2-month arm and 1.0% in the 1-month arm. The study found that rates of virological suppression were similar for both the 1-month and 2-month regimens (93.5% and 94.3%, respectively).
The most common side effects were injection site reactions, pyrexia, fatigue, headache, musculoskeletal pain, nausea, sleep disorders, dizziness, and rash. Adverse reactions reported in individuals receiving the regimen every 2 months or once monthly were similar. Cabenuva is contraindicated for patients with a hypersensitivity reaction to cabotegravir or rilpivirine or for those receiving carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, phenobarbital, phenytoin, rifabutin, rifampin, rifapentine, St. John’s wort, and more than one dose of systemic dexamethasone.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Cabenuva was first approved by the FDA in January 2021 to be administered once monthly to treat HIV-1 infection in virologically suppressed adults. The medication was the first injectable complete antiretroviral regimen approved by the FDA.
Cabenuva can replace a current treatment in virologically suppressed adults on a stable antiretroviral regimen with no history of treatment failure and no known or suspected resistance to rilpivirine and cabotegravir, the Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson said in a press release. Janssen and ViiV Healthcare codeveloped the injectable antiretroviral medication Cabenuva.
The expanded label approval “marks an important step forward in advancing the treatment landscape for people living with HIV,” said Candice Long, the president of infectious diseases and vaccines at Janssen Therapeutics, in a Feb. 1 press release. “With this milestone, adults living with HIV have a treatment option that further reduces the frequency of medication.”
This expanded approval was based on global clinical trial of 1,045 adults with HIV-1, which found Cabenuva administered every 8 weeks (3 mL dose of both cabotegravir and rilpivirine) to be noninferior to the 4-week regimen (2 mL dose of both medicines). At week 48 of the trial, the proportion of participants with viral loads above 50 copies per milliliter was 1.7% in the 2-month arm and 1.0% in the 1-month arm. The study found that rates of virological suppression were similar for both the 1-month and 2-month regimens (93.5% and 94.3%, respectively).
The most common side effects were injection site reactions, pyrexia, fatigue, headache, musculoskeletal pain, nausea, sleep disorders, dizziness, and rash. Adverse reactions reported in individuals receiving the regimen every 2 months or once monthly were similar. Cabenuva is contraindicated for patients with a hypersensitivity reaction to cabotegravir or rilpivirine or for those receiving carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, phenobarbital, phenytoin, rifabutin, rifampin, rifapentine, St. John’s wort, and more than one dose of systemic dexamethasone.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Cabenuva was first approved by the FDA in January 2021 to be administered once monthly to treat HIV-1 infection in virologically suppressed adults. The medication was the first injectable complete antiretroviral regimen approved by the FDA.
Cabenuva can replace a current treatment in virologically suppressed adults on a stable antiretroviral regimen with no history of treatment failure and no known or suspected resistance to rilpivirine and cabotegravir, the Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson said in a press release. Janssen and ViiV Healthcare codeveloped the injectable antiretroviral medication Cabenuva.
The expanded label approval “marks an important step forward in advancing the treatment landscape for people living with HIV,” said Candice Long, the president of infectious diseases and vaccines at Janssen Therapeutics, in a Feb. 1 press release. “With this milestone, adults living with HIV have a treatment option that further reduces the frequency of medication.”
This expanded approval was based on global clinical trial of 1,045 adults with HIV-1, which found Cabenuva administered every 8 weeks (3 mL dose of both cabotegravir and rilpivirine) to be noninferior to the 4-week regimen (2 mL dose of both medicines). At week 48 of the trial, the proportion of participants with viral loads above 50 copies per milliliter was 1.7% in the 2-month arm and 1.0% in the 1-month arm. The study found that rates of virological suppression were similar for both the 1-month and 2-month regimens (93.5% and 94.3%, respectively).
The most common side effects were injection site reactions, pyrexia, fatigue, headache, musculoskeletal pain, nausea, sleep disorders, dizziness, and rash. Adverse reactions reported in individuals receiving the regimen every 2 months or once monthly were similar. Cabenuva is contraindicated for patients with a hypersensitivity reaction to cabotegravir or rilpivirine or for those receiving carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, phenobarbital, phenytoin, rifabutin, rifampin, rifapentine, St. John’s wort, and more than one dose of systemic dexamethasone.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Alleviating chemo-related nausea is a huge unmet need
This transcript has been edited for clarity. The transcript and an accompanying video first appeared on Medscape.com.
This is Mark Kris from chilly New York and Memorial Sloan Kettering. Today I want to talk about a recent article in the Journal of Clinical Oncology that reported a study of a new neurokinin-1 antagonist called fosnetupitant. This was a well-conducted trial that demonstrates the noninferiority of IV fosnetupitant when compared with IV fosaprepitant. By their study criteria, fosnetupitant was not inferior.
But my reason for discussing this is that the paper and the trial miss the point for the field right now. Although the authors talk about the prevention of nausea and vomiting in the introduction, in the paper itself and in the abstract results section, there’s not a single mention about the medication’s ability to control nausea, which is the critical issue for our patients today. You have to go into the supplementary data to find it mentioned, and what you find is that the prevention of nausea is 50% for both the control and this new drug. We control nausea in only half of the patients who receive cisplatin in 2022. That is a huge issue.
When you ask patients what are the effects of cancer treatment that they fear most, that concerns them most, it’s nausea and emesis; indeed, nausea has replaced emesis as the biggest concern. And although this trial used emesis as the main endpoint, and it was useful in defining the drug, it was not useful in coming up with a new treatment that addresses a huge need. Further, the authors talk about an advantage to fosnetupitant based on infusion reactions, but it is a difference of 0.3% vs. 3%. They talk about that sort of thing in the abstract and in the discussion section but don’t include nausea as part of the key endpoint of this trial. Again, you had to dig deeply to find out that, frankly, fosnetupitant was no better than the drugs we already have.
The other concerning point is that we do have another drug that works well. If you go to the American Society of Clinical Oncology or National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for patients receiving high dosages of cisplatin, you find a four-drug regimen, including olanzapine, and that was not used here. Why is olanzapine so critical? It’s an available drug, it’s an inexpensive drug, it’s a safe drug, and it improves nausea by 15%.
So they did this huge trial to show noninferiority, and they neglected to give a drug that could deal with the most serious side effect of cancer therapy – nausea – and improve things by 15%.
A challenge to people in this field: We have to do better. Nausea is a big problem. While noninferiority trials can be helpful for drug development, they’re not really helpful for the field. With a problem of this magnitude, we need better drugs to control nausea. In the meantime, I urge you all to follow the guidelines for high doses of cisplatin. Please use the four-drug regimen that is recommended in the guidelines and widely used in the United States. Going forward, make sure that when we expend huge amounts of energy to develop new agents and report them in our medical journals, that we look for ways to advance care where there are significant gaps in our ability to deliver what we want. Delivering better control of nausea is something we all need to be committed to. It’s a huge unmet need, and I hope future trials will address that need. Our patients will be better for it and we’ll be better in that we’re delivering what patients deserve, what they need, and what they ask for.
Mark G. Kris, MD, is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. He reported serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, and Ariad Pharmaceuticals, and has received research grants from Pfizer, PUMA, and Roche/Genentech.
This transcript has been edited for clarity. The transcript and an accompanying video first appeared on Medscape.com.
This is Mark Kris from chilly New York and Memorial Sloan Kettering. Today I want to talk about a recent article in the Journal of Clinical Oncology that reported a study of a new neurokinin-1 antagonist called fosnetupitant. This was a well-conducted trial that demonstrates the noninferiority of IV fosnetupitant when compared with IV fosaprepitant. By their study criteria, fosnetupitant was not inferior.
But my reason for discussing this is that the paper and the trial miss the point for the field right now. Although the authors talk about the prevention of nausea and vomiting in the introduction, in the paper itself and in the abstract results section, there’s not a single mention about the medication’s ability to control nausea, which is the critical issue for our patients today. You have to go into the supplementary data to find it mentioned, and what you find is that the prevention of nausea is 50% for both the control and this new drug. We control nausea in only half of the patients who receive cisplatin in 2022. That is a huge issue.
When you ask patients what are the effects of cancer treatment that they fear most, that concerns them most, it’s nausea and emesis; indeed, nausea has replaced emesis as the biggest concern. And although this trial used emesis as the main endpoint, and it was useful in defining the drug, it was not useful in coming up with a new treatment that addresses a huge need. Further, the authors talk about an advantage to fosnetupitant based on infusion reactions, but it is a difference of 0.3% vs. 3%. They talk about that sort of thing in the abstract and in the discussion section but don’t include nausea as part of the key endpoint of this trial. Again, you had to dig deeply to find out that, frankly, fosnetupitant was no better than the drugs we already have.
The other concerning point is that we do have another drug that works well. If you go to the American Society of Clinical Oncology or National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for patients receiving high dosages of cisplatin, you find a four-drug regimen, including olanzapine, and that was not used here. Why is olanzapine so critical? It’s an available drug, it’s an inexpensive drug, it’s a safe drug, and it improves nausea by 15%.
So they did this huge trial to show noninferiority, and they neglected to give a drug that could deal with the most serious side effect of cancer therapy – nausea – and improve things by 15%.
A challenge to people in this field: We have to do better. Nausea is a big problem. While noninferiority trials can be helpful for drug development, they’re not really helpful for the field. With a problem of this magnitude, we need better drugs to control nausea. In the meantime, I urge you all to follow the guidelines for high doses of cisplatin. Please use the four-drug regimen that is recommended in the guidelines and widely used in the United States. Going forward, make sure that when we expend huge amounts of energy to develop new agents and report them in our medical journals, that we look for ways to advance care where there are significant gaps in our ability to deliver what we want. Delivering better control of nausea is something we all need to be committed to. It’s a huge unmet need, and I hope future trials will address that need. Our patients will be better for it and we’ll be better in that we’re delivering what patients deserve, what they need, and what they ask for.
Mark G. Kris, MD, is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. He reported serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, and Ariad Pharmaceuticals, and has received research grants from Pfizer, PUMA, and Roche/Genentech.
This transcript has been edited for clarity. The transcript and an accompanying video first appeared on Medscape.com.
This is Mark Kris from chilly New York and Memorial Sloan Kettering. Today I want to talk about a recent article in the Journal of Clinical Oncology that reported a study of a new neurokinin-1 antagonist called fosnetupitant. This was a well-conducted trial that demonstrates the noninferiority of IV fosnetupitant when compared with IV fosaprepitant. By their study criteria, fosnetupitant was not inferior.
But my reason for discussing this is that the paper and the trial miss the point for the field right now. Although the authors talk about the prevention of nausea and vomiting in the introduction, in the paper itself and in the abstract results section, there’s not a single mention about the medication’s ability to control nausea, which is the critical issue for our patients today. You have to go into the supplementary data to find it mentioned, and what you find is that the prevention of nausea is 50% for both the control and this new drug. We control nausea in only half of the patients who receive cisplatin in 2022. That is a huge issue.
When you ask patients what are the effects of cancer treatment that they fear most, that concerns them most, it’s nausea and emesis; indeed, nausea has replaced emesis as the biggest concern. And although this trial used emesis as the main endpoint, and it was useful in defining the drug, it was not useful in coming up with a new treatment that addresses a huge need. Further, the authors talk about an advantage to fosnetupitant based on infusion reactions, but it is a difference of 0.3% vs. 3%. They talk about that sort of thing in the abstract and in the discussion section but don’t include nausea as part of the key endpoint of this trial. Again, you had to dig deeply to find out that, frankly, fosnetupitant was no better than the drugs we already have.
The other concerning point is that we do have another drug that works well. If you go to the American Society of Clinical Oncology or National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for patients receiving high dosages of cisplatin, you find a four-drug regimen, including olanzapine, and that was not used here. Why is olanzapine so critical? It’s an available drug, it’s an inexpensive drug, it’s a safe drug, and it improves nausea by 15%.
So they did this huge trial to show noninferiority, and they neglected to give a drug that could deal with the most serious side effect of cancer therapy – nausea – and improve things by 15%.
A challenge to people in this field: We have to do better. Nausea is a big problem. While noninferiority trials can be helpful for drug development, they’re not really helpful for the field. With a problem of this magnitude, we need better drugs to control nausea. In the meantime, I urge you all to follow the guidelines for high doses of cisplatin. Please use the four-drug regimen that is recommended in the guidelines and widely used in the United States. Going forward, make sure that when we expend huge amounts of energy to develop new agents and report them in our medical journals, that we look for ways to advance care where there are significant gaps in our ability to deliver what we want. Delivering better control of nausea is something we all need to be committed to. It’s a huge unmet need, and I hope future trials will address that need. Our patients will be better for it and we’ll be better in that we’re delivering what patients deserve, what they need, and what they ask for.
Mark G. Kris, MD, is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. He reported serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, and Ariad Pharmaceuticals, and has received research grants from Pfizer, PUMA, and Roche/Genentech.
CLL patients ‘cured’: 10 years post infusion, CAR T cells persist
“We can now conclude that CAR T cells can actually cure patients with leukemia based on these results,” said senior author Carl H. June, MD, in a press briefing on the study published in Nature.
“The major finding from this paper is that, 10 years down the road, you can find these [CAR T] cells,” Dr. June, director of the Center for Cellular Immunotherapies, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, added. “The cells have evolved, and that was a big surprise ... but they are still able to kill leukemia cells 10 years after infusion.”
CAR T-cell therapy, in which patients’ own T cells are removed, reprogrammed in a lab to recognize and attack cancer cells, and then infused back into the patients, has transformed treatment of various blood cancers and shows often-remarkable results in achieving remissions.
While the treatment has become a routine therapy for certain leukemias, long-term results on the fate and function of the cells over time has been highly anticipated.
In the first published observations of a 10-year follow-up of patients treated with CAR T cells, Dr. June and colleagues described the findings for two patients, both with CLL, who back in 2010 were among the first to be treated with this groundbreaking therapy at the University of Pennsylvania.
A decade later, the CAR T cells are found to have remained detectable in both patients, who achieved complete remission in their first year of treatment, and both have sustained that remission.
Notably, the cells have evolved over the years – from initially being dominated by killer T cells to being dominated primarily by proliferative CD4-positive CAR T cells – with one of the patients exclusively having CD4-positive cells at year 9.3.
“The killer T cells did the initial heavy lifting of eliminating the tumor, “ first author J. Joseph Melenhorst, PhD, said in an interview.
“Once their job was done, those cells went down to very low levels, but the CD4-positive population persisted,” said Dr. Melenhorst, who established the lab at the University of Pennsylvania to follow patients treated with CAR T-cell therapy. “[This] delayed phase of immune response against cancer is a novel insight, and we were surprised to see it.”
Dr. Melenhorst noted that the clonal makeup of the CD4-positive cells importantly stabilized and became dominated by a small number of clones, suggesting further sustainability.
When one of the two patients, Doug Olson, who participated in the press conference, donated his cells back to the center after 9.3 years, the researchers found that his cells were still capable of destroying leukemia cells in the lab.
“Ten years [post infusion], we can’t find any of the leukemia cells and we still have the CAR T cells that are on patrol and on surveillance for residual leukemia,” Dr. June said.
One challenge of the otherwise desirable elimination of leukemia cells is that some aspects of sustaining CAR T-cell activity become problematic.
“The aspect of how the remission is maintained [is] very hard to study in a patient when there is no leukemia at all,” Dr. June explained. “It could be the last cell was gone within 3 weeks [of treatment], or it could be that the [cancer cells] are coming up like whack-a-moles, and they are killed because these CAR T cells are on patrol.”
Sadly, the other CLL patient, Bill Ludwig, who was first to receive the CAR T-cell treatment, died in 2021 from COVID-19.
Effects in other blood diseases similar?
CAR T-cell therapy is currently approved in the United States for several blood cancers, and whether similar long-term patterns of the cells may be observed in other patient and cancer types remains to be seen, Dr. Melenhorst said.
“I think in CLL we will see something similar, but in other diseases, we have yet to learn,” he said. “It may depend on issues including which domain has been engineered into the CAR.”
While the prospect of some patients being “cured” is exciting, responses to the therapy have generally been mixed. In CLL, for instance, full remissions have been observed to be maintained in about a quarter of patients, with higher rates observed in some lymphomas and pediatric ALL patients, Dr. Melenhorst explained.
The effects of CAR T-cell therapy in solid cancers have so far been more disappointing, with no research centers reproducing the kinds of results that have been seen with blood cancers.
“There appear to be a number of reasons, including that the [solid] tumor is more complex, and these solid cancers have ways to evade the immune system that need to be overcome,” Dr. June explained.
And despite the more encouraging findings in blood cancers, even with those, “the biggest disappointment is that CAR T-cell therapy doesn’t work all the time. It doesn’t work in every patient,” coauthor David Porter, MD, the University of Pennsylvania oncologist who treated the two patients, said in the press briefing.
“I think the importance of the Nature study is that we are starting to learn the mechanisms of why and how this works, so that we can start to get at how to make it work for more people,” Dr. Porter added. “But what we do see is that, when it works, it really is beyond what we expected 10 or 11 years ago.”
Speaking in the press briefing, Mr. Olson described how several weeks after his treatment in 2010, he became very ill with what has become known as the common, short-term side effect of cytokine release syndrome.
However, after Mr. Olson recovered a few days later, Dr. Porter gave him the remarkable news that “we cannot find a single cancer cell. You appear completely free of CLL.”
Mr. Olson reported that he has since lived a “full life,” kept working, and has even run some half-marathons.
Dr. June confided that the current 10-year results far exceed the team’s early expectations for CAR T-cell therapy. “After Doug [initially] signed his informed consent document for this, we thought that the cells would all be gone within a month or 2. The fact that they have survived for 10 years was a major surprise – and a happy one at that.”
Dr. June, Dr. Melenhorst, and Dr. Porter reported holding patents related to CAR T-cell manufacturing and biomarker discovery.
“We can now conclude that CAR T cells can actually cure patients with leukemia based on these results,” said senior author Carl H. June, MD, in a press briefing on the study published in Nature.
“The major finding from this paper is that, 10 years down the road, you can find these [CAR T] cells,” Dr. June, director of the Center for Cellular Immunotherapies, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, added. “The cells have evolved, and that was a big surprise ... but they are still able to kill leukemia cells 10 years after infusion.”
CAR T-cell therapy, in which patients’ own T cells are removed, reprogrammed in a lab to recognize and attack cancer cells, and then infused back into the patients, has transformed treatment of various blood cancers and shows often-remarkable results in achieving remissions.
While the treatment has become a routine therapy for certain leukemias, long-term results on the fate and function of the cells over time has been highly anticipated.
In the first published observations of a 10-year follow-up of patients treated with CAR T cells, Dr. June and colleagues described the findings for two patients, both with CLL, who back in 2010 were among the first to be treated with this groundbreaking therapy at the University of Pennsylvania.
A decade later, the CAR T cells are found to have remained detectable in both patients, who achieved complete remission in their first year of treatment, and both have sustained that remission.
Notably, the cells have evolved over the years – from initially being dominated by killer T cells to being dominated primarily by proliferative CD4-positive CAR T cells – with one of the patients exclusively having CD4-positive cells at year 9.3.
“The killer T cells did the initial heavy lifting of eliminating the tumor, “ first author J. Joseph Melenhorst, PhD, said in an interview.
“Once their job was done, those cells went down to very low levels, but the CD4-positive population persisted,” said Dr. Melenhorst, who established the lab at the University of Pennsylvania to follow patients treated with CAR T-cell therapy. “[This] delayed phase of immune response against cancer is a novel insight, and we were surprised to see it.”
Dr. Melenhorst noted that the clonal makeup of the CD4-positive cells importantly stabilized and became dominated by a small number of clones, suggesting further sustainability.
When one of the two patients, Doug Olson, who participated in the press conference, donated his cells back to the center after 9.3 years, the researchers found that his cells were still capable of destroying leukemia cells in the lab.
“Ten years [post infusion], we can’t find any of the leukemia cells and we still have the CAR T cells that are on patrol and on surveillance for residual leukemia,” Dr. June said.
One challenge of the otherwise desirable elimination of leukemia cells is that some aspects of sustaining CAR T-cell activity become problematic.
“The aspect of how the remission is maintained [is] very hard to study in a patient when there is no leukemia at all,” Dr. June explained. “It could be the last cell was gone within 3 weeks [of treatment], or it could be that the [cancer cells] are coming up like whack-a-moles, and they are killed because these CAR T cells are on patrol.”
Sadly, the other CLL patient, Bill Ludwig, who was first to receive the CAR T-cell treatment, died in 2021 from COVID-19.
Effects in other blood diseases similar?
CAR T-cell therapy is currently approved in the United States for several blood cancers, and whether similar long-term patterns of the cells may be observed in other patient and cancer types remains to be seen, Dr. Melenhorst said.
“I think in CLL we will see something similar, but in other diseases, we have yet to learn,” he said. “It may depend on issues including which domain has been engineered into the CAR.”
While the prospect of some patients being “cured” is exciting, responses to the therapy have generally been mixed. In CLL, for instance, full remissions have been observed to be maintained in about a quarter of patients, with higher rates observed in some lymphomas and pediatric ALL patients, Dr. Melenhorst explained.
The effects of CAR T-cell therapy in solid cancers have so far been more disappointing, with no research centers reproducing the kinds of results that have been seen with blood cancers.
“There appear to be a number of reasons, including that the [solid] tumor is more complex, and these solid cancers have ways to evade the immune system that need to be overcome,” Dr. June explained.
And despite the more encouraging findings in blood cancers, even with those, “the biggest disappointment is that CAR T-cell therapy doesn’t work all the time. It doesn’t work in every patient,” coauthor David Porter, MD, the University of Pennsylvania oncologist who treated the two patients, said in the press briefing.
“I think the importance of the Nature study is that we are starting to learn the mechanisms of why and how this works, so that we can start to get at how to make it work for more people,” Dr. Porter added. “But what we do see is that, when it works, it really is beyond what we expected 10 or 11 years ago.”
Speaking in the press briefing, Mr. Olson described how several weeks after his treatment in 2010, he became very ill with what has become known as the common, short-term side effect of cytokine release syndrome.
However, after Mr. Olson recovered a few days later, Dr. Porter gave him the remarkable news that “we cannot find a single cancer cell. You appear completely free of CLL.”
Mr. Olson reported that he has since lived a “full life,” kept working, and has even run some half-marathons.
Dr. June confided that the current 10-year results far exceed the team’s early expectations for CAR T-cell therapy. “After Doug [initially] signed his informed consent document for this, we thought that the cells would all be gone within a month or 2. The fact that they have survived for 10 years was a major surprise – and a happy one at that.”
Dr. June, Dr. Melenhorst, and Dr. Porter reported holding patents related to CAR T-cell manufacturing and biomarker discovery.
“We can now conclude that CAR T cells can actually cure patients with leukemia based on these results,” said senior author Carl H. June, MD, in a press briefing on the study published in Nature.
“The major finding from this paper is that, 10 years down the road, you can find these [CAR T] cells,” Dr. June, director of the Center for Cellular Immunotherapies, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, added. “The cells have evolved, and that was a big surprise ... but they are still able to kill leukemia cells 10 years after infusion.”
CAR T-cell therapy, in which patients’ own T cells are removed, reprogrammed in a lab to recognize and attack cancer cells, and then infused back into the patients, has transformed treatment of various blood cancers and shows often-remarkable results in achieving remissions.
While the treatment has become a routine therapy for certain leukemias, long-term results on the fate and function of the cells over time has been highly anticipated.
In the first published observations of a 10-year follow-up of patients treated with CAR T cells, Dr. June and colleagues described the findings for two patients, both with CLL, who back in 2010 were among the first to be treated with this groundbreaking therapy at the University of Pennsylvania.
A decade later, the CAR T cells are found to have remained detectable in both patients, who achieved complete remission in their first year of treatment, and both have sustained that remission.
Notably, the cells have evolved over the years – from initially being dominated by killer T cells to being dominated primarily by proliferative CD4-positive CAR T cells – with one of the patients exclusively having CD4-positive cells at year 9.3.
“The killer T cells did the initial heavy lifting of eliminating the tumor, “ first author J. Joseph Melenhorst, PhD, said in an interview.
“Once their job was done, those cells went down to very low levels, but the CD4-positive population persisted,” said Dr. Melenhorst, who established the lab at the University of Pennsylvania to follow patients treated with CAR T-cell therapy. “[This] delayed phase of immune response against cancer is a novel insight, and we were surprised to see it.”
Dr. Melenhorst noted that the clonal makeup of the CD4-positive cells importantly stabilized and became dominated by a small number of clones, suggesting further sustainability.
When one of the two patients, Doug Olson, who participated in the press conference, donated his cells back to the center after 9.3 years, the researchers found that his cells were still capable of destroying leukemia cells in the lab.
“Ten years [post infusion], we can’t find any of the leukemia cells and we still have the CAR T cells that are on patrol and on surveillance for residual leukemia,” Dr. June said.
One challenge of the otherwise desirable elimination of leukemia cells is that some aspects of sustaining CAR T-cell activity become problematic.
“The aspect of how the remission is maintained [is] very hard to study in a patient when there is no leukemia at all,” Dr. June explained. “It could be the last cell was gone within 3 weeks [of treatment], or it could be that the [cancer cells] are coming up like whack-a-moles, and they are killed because these CAR T cells are on patrol.”
Sadly, the other CLL patient, Bill Ludwig, who was first to receive the CAR T-cell treatment, died in 2021 from COVID-19.
Effects in other blood diseases similar?
CAR T-cell therapy is currently approved in the United States for several blood cancers, and whether similar long-term patterns of the cells may be observed in other patient and cancer types remains to be seen, Dr. Melenhorst said.
“I think in CLL we will see something similar, but in other diseases, we have yet to learn,” he said. “It may depend on issues including which domain has been engineered into the CAR.”
While the prospect of some patients being “cured” is exciting, responses to the therapy have generally been mixed. In CLL, for instance, full remissions have been observed to be maintained in about a quarter of patients, with higher rates observed in some lymphomas and pediatric ALL patients, Dr. Melenhorst explained.
The effects of CAR T-cell therapy in solid cancers have so far been more disappointing, with no research centers reproducing the kinds of results that have been seen with blood cancers.
“There appear to be a number of reasons, including that the [solid] tumor is more complex, and these solid cancers have ways to evade the immune system that need to be overcome,” Dr. June explained.
And despite the more encouraging findings in blood cancers, even with those, “the biggest disappointment is that CAR T-cell therapy doesn’t work all the time. It doesn’t work in every patient,” coauthor David Porter, MD, the University of Pennsylvania oncologist who treated the two patients, said in the press briefing.
“I think the importance of the Nature study is that we are starting to learn the mechanisms of why and how this works, so that we can start to get at how to make it work for more people,” Dr. Porter added. “But what we do see is that, when it works, it really is beyond what we expected 10 or 11 years ago.”
Speaking in the press briefing, Mr. Olson described how several weeks after his treatment in 2010, he became very ill with what has become known as the common, short-term side effect of cytokine release syndrome.
However, after Mr. Olson recovered a few days later, Dr. Porter gave him the remarkable news that “we cannot find a single cancer cell. You appear completely free of CLL.”
Mr. Olson reported that he has since lived a “full life,” kept working, and has even run some half-marathons.
Dr. June confided that the current 10-year results far exceed the team’s early expectations for CAR T-cell therapy. “After Doug [initially] signed his informed consent document for this, we thought that the cells would all be gone within a month or 2. The fact that they have survived for 10 years was a major surprise – and a happy one at that.”
Dr. June, Dr. Melenhorst, and Dr. Porter reported holding patents related to CAR T-cell manufacturing and biomarker discovery.
FROM NATURE
OTC melatonin supplement use rises fivefold over 20 years
, a new study finds, although only 2% of a recent group of survey respondents said they had taken the sleep aid within the past month.
The findings, reported Feb. 1 in a research letter in the Journal of the American Medical Association, suggest that “millions of U.S. individuals are using melatonin,” study coauthor Naima Covassin, PhD, an associate consultant at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told this news organization. “It is important to ask patients who report sleep problems whether they consume melatonin supplements, and these findings should certainly prompt more research in this area.”
The supplements boost the levels of melatonin, a hormone that is linked to the sleep-wake cycle. “Melatonin facilitates our ability to fall asleep at our bedtime by decreasing the natural early evening circadian arousal that helps keep us alert despite our having been awake since the morning,” said David N. Neubauer, MD, a sleep specialist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “It isn’t so much that melatonin is sedating, but rather that it turns off arousal.”
For the new study, researchers tracked data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 1999-2000 to 2017-2018 and focused on respondents aged 20 and older (n = 55,021, mean age, 47.5, 52% women). As the researchers noted, response rates dipped mightily from a high of 84% in 2001-2002 to just 51.9% in 2017-2018.
The study found that the overall reported weighted prevalence of melatonin use grew from 0.4% (95% confidence interval, 0.2%-1.0%) in 1999-2000 to 2.1% (95% CI, 1.5%-2.9%) in 2017-2018 (linear P = .004). In 93.9% of cases of reported melatonin use, the surveyors confirmed it by checking for supplement bottles.
“These trends were similar in men and women and across age groups,” Dr. Covassin said. “We also found that use of more than 5 mg/day melatonin was not reported till 2005-2006, and it has been increasing since.”
Melatonin supplements are now available in tablets, capsules, gummies, powders, liquids, sprays, and other formulations. Users can even buy CBD-melatonin combos.
The survey doesn’t explore why the respondents used melatonin nor whether they thought it actually helped them. “The study was designed to evaluate the breadth of use of melatonin, rather than its effectiveness as a sleep aid,” Dr. Covassin said.
Dr. Neubauer, who wasn’t associated with the study, said the research seems valid. According to him, melatonin use has likely grown because of marketing and a higher number of products. He added that melatonin products are being manufactured at higher doses, although melatonin has a flat dose-response curve. “Higher doses typically do not have a greater effect,” he said.
According to Dr. Covassin, melatonin is generally considered to be safe, although side effects such as fatigue, dizziness, and headaches have been reported in clinical trials. “This is especially evident when high doses are administered,” Dr. Covassin said. “Other potentially more harmful consequences have also been noted. For instance, it has been found that acute administration of melatonin may decrease glucose tolerance, which may be especially problematic in patients with preexisting vulnerabilities such in those with diabetes. There are also very limited data on whether sustained use is safe in the long run.”
Moving forward, Dr. Covassin said, “we are interested in better understanding consumption of melatonin supplements across different populations as well as the impact of chronic use.”
The study authors are supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, National Institutes of Health, Sleep Number Corporation (to Mayo Clinic), the Alice Sheets Marriott Professorship, and the Mayo Clinic Marie Ingalls Research Career Development Award.
Dr. Covassin and Dr. Neubauer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Study coauthor Virend K. Somers, MD, PhD, reports having served as a consultant for Respicardia, Baker Tilly, Bayer, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals and serving on the Sleep Number Research Advisory Board.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, a new study finds, although only 2% of a recent group of survey respondents said they had taken the sleep aid within the past month.
The findings, reported Feb. 1 in a research letter in the Journal of the American Medical Association, suggest that “millions of U.S. individuals are using melatonin,” study coauthor Naima Covassin, PhD, an associate consultant at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told this news organization. “It is important to ask patients who report sleep problems whether they consume melatonin supplements, and these findings should certainly prompt more research in this area.”
The supplements boost the levels of melatonin, a hormone that is linked to the sleep-wake cycle. “Melatonin facilitates our ability to fall asleep at our bedtime by decreasing the natural early evening circadian arousal that helps keep us alert despite our having been awake since the morning,” said David N. Neubauer, MD, a sleep specialist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “It isn’t so much that melatonin is sedating, but rather that it turns off arousal.”
For the new study, researchers tracked data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 1999-2000 to 2017-2018 and focused on respondents aged 20 and older (n = 55,021, mean age, 47.5, 52% women). As the researchers noted, response rates dipped mightily from a high of 84% in 2001-2002 to just 51.9% in 2017-2018.
The study found that the overall reported weighted prevalence of melatonin use grew from 0.4% (95% confidence interval, 0.2%-1.0%) in 1999-2000 to 2.1% (95% CI, 1.5%-2.9%) in 2017-2018 (linear P = .004). In 93.9% of cases of reported melatonin use, the surveyors confirmed it by checking for supplement bottles.
“These trends were similar in men and women and across age groups,” Dr. Covassin said. “We also found that use of more than 5 mg/day melatonin was not reported till 2005-2006, and it has been increasing since.”
Melatonin supplements are now available in tablets, capsules, gummies, powders, liquids, sprays, and other formulations. Users can even buy CBD-melatonin combos.
The survey doesn’t explore why the respondents used melatonin nor whether they thought it actually helped them. “The study was designed to evaluate the breadth of use of melatonin, rather than its effectiveness as a sleep aid,” Dr. Covassin said.
Dr. Neubauer, who wasn’t associated with the study, said the research seems valid. According to him, melatonin use has likely grown because of marketing and a higher number of products. He added that melatonin products are being manufactured at higher doses, although melatonin has a flat dose-response curve. “Higher doses typically do not have a greater effect,” he said.
According to Dr. Covassin, melatonin is generally considered to be safe, although side effects such as fatigue, dizziness, and headaches have been reported in clinical trials. “This is especially evident when high doses are administered,” Dr. Covassin said. “Other potentially more harmful consequences have also been noted. For instance, it has been found that acute administration of melatonin may decrease glucose tolerance, which may be especially problematic in patients with preexisting vulnerabilities such in those with diabetes. There are also very limited data on whether sustained use is safe in the long run.”
Moving forward, Dr. Covassin said, “we are interested in better understanding consumption of melatonin supplements across different populations as well as the impact of chronic use.”
The study authors are supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, National Institutes of Health, Sleep Number Corporation (to Mayo Clinic), the Alice Sheets Marriott Professorship, and the Mayo Clinic Marie Ingalls Research Career Development Award.
Dr. Covassin and Dr. Neubauer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Study coauthor Virend K. Somers, MD, PhD, reports having served as a consultant for Respicardia, Baker Tilly, Bayer, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals and serving on the Sleep Number Research Advisory Board.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, a new study finds, although only 2% of a recent group of survey respondents said they had taken the sleep aid within the past month.
The findings, reported Feb. 1 in a research letter in the Journal of the American Medical Association, suggest that “millions of U.S. individuals are using melatonin,” study coauthor Naima Covassin, PhD, an associate consultant at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told this news organization. “It is important to ask patients who report sleep problems whether they consume melatonin supplements, and these findings should certainly prompt more research in this area.”
The supplements boost the levels of melatonin, a hormone that is linked to the sleep-wake cycle. “Melatonin facilitates our ability to fall asleep at our bedtime by decreasing the natural early evening circadian arousal that helps keep us alert despite our having been awake since the morning,” said David N. Neubauer, MD, a sleep specialist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “It isn’t so much that melatonin is sedating, but rather that it turns off arousal.”
For the new study, researchers tracked data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 1999-2000 to 2017-2018 and focused on respondents aged 20 and older (n = 55,021, mean age, 47.5, 52% women). As the researchers noted, response rates dipped mightily from a high of 84% in 2001-2002 to just 51.9% in 2017-2018.
The study found that the overall reported weighted prevalence of melatonin use grew from 0.4% (95% confidence interval, 0.2%-1.0%) in 1999-2000 to 2.1% (95% CI, 1.5%-2.9%) in 2017-2018 (linear P = .004). In 93.9% of cases of reported melatonin use, the surveyors confirmed it by checking for supplement bottles.
“These trends were similar in men and women and across age groups,” Dr. Covassin said. “We also found that use of more than 5 mg/day melatonin was not reported till 2005-2006, and it has been increasing since.”
Melatonin supplements are now available in tablets, capsules, gummies, powders, liquids, sprays, and other formulations. Users can even buy CBD-melatonin combos.
The survey doesn’t explore why the respondents used melatonin nor whether they thought it actually helped them. “The study was designed to evaluate the breadth of use of melatonin, rather than its effectiveness as a sleep aid,” Dr. Covassin said.
Dr. Neubauer, who wasn’t associated with the study, said the research seems valid. According to him, melatonin use has likely grown because of marketing and a higher number of products. He added that melatonin products are being manufactured at higher doses, although melatonin has a flat dose-response curve. “Higher doses typically do not have a greater effect,” he said.
According to Dr. Covassin, melatonin is generally considered to be safe, although side effects such as fatigue, dizziness, and headaches have been reported in clinical trials. “This is especially evident when high doses are administered,” Dr. Covassin said. “Other potentially more harmful consequences have also been noted. For instance, it has been found that acute administration of melatonin may decrease glucose tolerance, which may be especially problematic in patients with preexisting vulnerabilities such in those with diabetes. There are also very limited data on whether sustained use is safe in the long run.”
Moving forward, Dr. Covassin said, “we are interested in better understanding consumption of melatonin supplements across different populations as well as the impact of chronic use.”
The study authors are supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, National Institutes of Health, Sleep Number Corporation (to Mayo Clinic), the Alice Sheets Marriott Professorship, and the Mayo Clinic Marie Ingalls Research Career Development Award.
Dr. Covassin and Dr. Neubauer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Study coauthor Virend K. Somers, MD, PhD, reports having served as a consultant for Respicardia, Baker Tilly, Bayer, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals and serving on the Sleep Number Research Advisory Board.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA
Newly approved drug improves sleep onset in insomnia
In the first of two studies, a 50-mg dose of daridorexant was associated with a reduction in latency to persistent sleep (LPS) of 11.7 minutes at month 3 versus placebo. The drug also was associated with improved daytime function.
Based on these results, the Food and Drug Administration approved daridorexant for the treatment of insomnia in adults earlier in January.
“The study shows that it is a really good drug that works differently from most other drugs,” said Emmanuel Mignot, MD, PhD, professor of sleep medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. “It’s more specific to sleep,” Dr. Mignot added.
The findings were published in the February issue of The Lancet Neurology.
Two trials, three doses
Daridorexant is a dual orexin receptor antagonist intended to reduce excessive wakefulness. The investigators hypothesized that, because of its therapeutic target, the drug would not cause sleepiness on the morning after administration.
To examine daridorexant’s safety and efficacy, the researchers conducted two double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trials. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, had moderate to severe insomnia disorder, and had a self-reported history of disturbed sleep at least 3 nights per week for at least 3 months before screening.
In study 1, investigators randomly assigned participants in groups of equal size to daridorexant 25 mg, 50 mg, or placebo. In study 2, participants were randomly assigned to daridorexant 10 mg, 25 mg, or placebo.
During a placebo run-in period, participants underwent polysomnography on two consecutive nights to define baseline values. At the end of months 1 and 3 of the treatment period, participants again underwent 2 nights of polysomnography. A final night of polysomnography occurred during the placebo run-out period.
Self-assessments included the Insomnia Daytime Symptoms and Impacts Questionnaire (IDSIQ). This questionnaire, to which participants responded daily, is designed to measure the daytime impairments related to insomnia. The IDSIQ questions focus on sleepiness, mood, alertness, and cognition.
The study’s primary endpoints were change from baseline in wake after sleep onset (WASO) and LPS at months 1 and 3. Secondary endpoints were change from baseline in self-reported total sleep time and change in the IDSIQ sleepiness domain score at months 1 and 3.
The investigators enrolled 930 participants in study 1 and 924 in study 2. In each study, more than two-thirds of participants were women, 39% were aged 65 or older, and demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups.
Dose-dependent effects
At month 1 in study 1, WASO was reduced by 22.8 minutes (P < .0001) in patients who received the 50-mg dose and by 12.2 minutes (P < .0001) in the 25-mg dose. At month 3, WASO was reduced by 18.3 minutes (P < .0001) in those assigned to 50 mg and by 11.9 minutes (P < .0001) in those assigned to 25 mg.
LPS was reduced by 11.4 minutes (P < .0001) at month 1 and by 11.7 minutes (P < .0001) at month 3 with the 50-mg dose versus placebo. LPS was reduced by 8.3 minutes (P = .0005) at month 1 and by 7.6 minutes (P = .0015) at month 3 with the 25-mg dose versus placebo.
At both time points, self-reported total sleep time was significantly increased and the IDSIQ sleepiness score significantly improved with the 50-mg dose. The 25-mg dose was associated with significant improvements in self-reported total sleep time at both time points, but not with significant improvements in IDSIQ sleepiness score.
In study 2, the 25-mg dose was associated with significant reductions in WASO at month 1 (11.6 minutes, P = .0001) and month 3 (10.3 minutes, P = .0028) compared with placebo. The 25-mg dose was not associated with significant differences in LPS at either time point, however.
Similarly, the 25-mg dose was associated with improvements in self-reported total sleep time, but not with the IDSIQ sleepiness score. The 10-mg dose was not associated with improvements on any endpoint compared with placebo.
Longer studies needed
In an accompanying editorial, Kai Spiegelhalder, PhD, University of Freiburg, Germany, and colleagues pointed out that although insomnia disorder is defined by self-reported difficulty initiating or maintaining sleep, none of the primary or secondary endpoints in these trials addressed these symptoms.
However, Dr. Mignot noted the use of the IDSIQ scale is the most interesting aspect of the study. Although difficulty with concentration and mood impairment are major symptoms of insomnia, they are often neglected. “This drug was reversing the daytime impairment that insomniacs have,” said Dr. Mignot. “We now need to systematically study people not only for the effect on sleep, but also that it makes them feel better the day after.”
He added that most of the current hypnotics were not developed to treat insomnia. Daridorexant, in contrast, targets the wake-promoting orexin system. “It works more selectively on sleep and not on other things. Most of the other sleeping pills have more complex effects on the brain,” Dr. Mignot said.
Commenting on the study, John Winkelman, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the low prevalence of side effects associated with daridorexant was remarkable. “This is not what most of the benzodiazepine receptor agonists looked like,” said Dr. Winkelman, who was not involved with the research.
Many insomnia drugs affect transmitter systems that are widespread in the brain, thus provoking side effects. But orexin-receptor antagonists “don’t seem to produce a lot of side effects,” he noted.
Although the study duration was reasonable, longer studies will be necessary, he added. “And it would be nice to see comparative data. Prescribers want to see some context.” said Dr. Winkelman.
The study was funded by Idorsia Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Mignot reported receiving research or clinical trial funding from Axsome, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Avadel, Apple, Huami, Sunovion, and Takeda. He has also received consulting fees or speakers’ conference reimbursement from Idorsia, Centessa Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Avadel, Dreem, and Takeda. Dr. Winkelman has consulted for Idorsia and has participated in investigator-initiated studies supported by Merck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In the first of two studies, a 50-mg dose of daridorexant was associated with a reduction in latency to persistent sleep (LPS) of 11.7 minutes at month 3 versus placebo. The drug also was associated with improved daytime function.
Based on these results, the Food and Drug Administration approved daridorexant for the treatment of insomnia in adults earlier in January.
“The study shows that it is a really good drug that works differently from most other drugs,” said Emmanuel Mignot, MD, PhD, professor of sleep medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. “It’s more specific to sleep,” Dr. Mignot added.
The findings were published in the February issue of The Lancet Neurology.
Two trials, three doses
Daridorexant is a dual orexin receptor antagonist intended to reduce excessive wakefulness. The investigators hypothesized that, because of its therapeutic target, the drug would not cause sleepiness on the morning after administration.
To examine daridorexant’s safety and efficacy, the researchers conducted two double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trials. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, had moderate to severe insomnia disorder, and had a self-reported history of disturbed sleep at least 3 nights per week for at least 3 months before screening.
In study 1, investigators randomly assigned participants in groups of equal size to daridorexant 25 mg, 50 mg, or placebo. In study 2, participants were randomly assigned to daridorexant 10 mg, 25 mg, or placebo.
During a placebo run-in period, participants underwent polysomnography on two consecutive nights to define baseline values. At the end of months 1 and 3 of the treatment period, participants again underwent 2 nights of polysomnography. A final night of polysomnography occurred during the placebo run-out period.
Self-assessments included the Insomnia Daytime Symptoms and Impacts Questionnaire (IDSIQ). This questionnaire, to which participants responded daily, is designed to measure the daytime impairments related to insomnia. The IDSIQ questions focus on sleepiness, mood, alertness, and cognition.
The study’s primary endpoints were change from baseline in wake after sleep onset (WASO) and LPS at months 1 and 3. Secondary endpoints were change from baseline in self-reported total sleep time and change in the IDSIQ sleepiness domain score at months 1 and 3.
The investigators enrolled 930 participants in study 1 and 924 in study 2. In each study, more than two-thirds of participants were women, 39% were aged 65 or older, and demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups.
Dose-dependent effects
At month 1 in study 1, WASO was reduced by 22.8 minutes (P < .0001) in patients who received the 50-mg dose and by 12.2 minutes (P < .0001) in the 25-mg dose. At month 3, WASO was reduced by 18.3 minutes (P < .0001) in those assigned to 50 mg and by 11.9 minutes (P < .0001) in those assigned to 25 mg.
LPS was reduced by 11.4 minutes (P < .0001) at month 1 and by 11.7 minutes (P < .0001) at month 3 with the 50-mg dose versus placebo. LPS was reduced by 8.3 minutes (P = .0005) at month 1 and by 7.6 minutes (P = .0015) at month 3 with the 25-mg dose versus placebo.
At both time points, self-reported total sleep time was significantly increased and the IDSIQ sleepiness score significantly improved with the 50-mg dose. The 25-mg dose was associated with significant improvements in self-reported total sleep time at both time points, but not with significant improvements in IDSIQ sleepiness score.
In study 2, the 25-mg dose was associated with significant reductions in WASO at month 1 (11.6 minutes, P = .0001) and month 3 (10.3 minutes, P = .0028) compared with placebo. The 25-mg dose was not associated with significant differences in LPS at either time point, however.
Similarly, the 25-mg dose was associated with improvements in self-reported total sleep time, but not with the IDSIQ sleepiness score. The 10-mg dose was not associated with improvements on any endpoint compared with placebo.
Longer studies needed
In an accompanying editorial, Kai Spiegelhalder, PhD, University of Freiburg, Germany, and colleagues pointed out that although insomnia disorder is defined by self-reported difficulty initiating or maintaining sleep, none of the primary or secondary endpoints in these trials addressed these symptoms.
However, Dr. Mignot noted the use of the IDSIQ scale is the most interesting aspect of the study. Although difficulty with concentration and mood impairment are major symptoms of insomnia, they are often neglected. “This drug was reversing the daytime impairment that insomniacs have,” said Dr. Mignot. “We now need to systematically study people not only for the effect on sleep, but also that it makes them feel better the day after.”
He added that most of the current hypnotics were not developed to treat insomnia. Daridorexant, in contrast, targets the wake-promoting orexin system. “It works more selectively on sleep and not on other things. Most of the other sleeping pills have more complex effects on the brain,” Dr. Mignot said.
Commenting on the study, John Winkelman, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the low prevalence of side effects associated with daridorexant was remarkable. “This is not what most of the benzodiazepine receptor agonists looked like,” said Dr. Winkelman, who was not involved with the research.
Many insomnia drugs affect transmitter systems that are widespread in the brain, thus provoking side effects. But orexin-receptor antagonists “don’t seem to produce a lot of side effects,” he noted.
Although the study duration was reasonable, longer studies will be necessary, he added. “And it would be nice to see comparative data. Prescribers want to see some context.” said Dr. Winkelman.
The study was funded by Idorsia Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Mignot reported receiving research or clinical trial funding from Axsome, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Avadel, Apple, Huami, Sunovion, and Takeda. He has also received consulting fees or speakers’ conference reimbursement from Idorsia, Centessa Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Avadel, Dreem, and Takeda. Dr. Winkelman has consulted for Idorsia and has participated in investigator-initiated studies supported by Merck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In the first of two studies, a 50-mg dose of daridorexant was associated with a reduction in latency to persistent sleep (LPS) of 11.7 minutes at month 3 versus placebo. The drug also was associated with improved daytime function.
Based on these results, the Food and Drug Administration approved daridorexant for the treatment of insomnia in adults earlier in January.
“The study shows that it is a really good drug that works differently from most other drugs,” said Emmanuel Mignot, MD, PhD, professor of sleep medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. “It’s more specific to sleep,” Dr. Mignot added.
The findings were published in the February issue of The Lancet Neurology.
Two trials, three doses
Daridorexant is a dual orexin receptor antagonist intended to reduce excessive wakefulness. The investigators hypothesized that, because of its therapeutic target, the drug would not cause sleepiness on the morning after administration.
To examine daridorexant’s safety and efficacy, the researchers conducted two double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trials. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, had moderate to severe insomnia disorder, and had a self-reported history of disturbed sleep at least 3 nights per week for at least 3 months before screening.
In study 1, investigators randomly assigned participants in groups of equal size to daridorexant 25 mg, 50 mg, or placebo. In study 2, participants were randomly assigned to daridorexant 10 mg, 25 mg, or placebo.
During a placebo run-in period, participants underwent polysomnography on two consecutive nights to define baseline values. At the end of months 1 and 3 of the treatment period, participants again underwent 2 nights of polysomnography. A final night of polysomnography occurred during the placebo run-out period.
Self-assessments included the Insomnia Daytime Symptoms and Impacts Questionnaire (IDSIQ). This questionnaire, to which participants responded daily, is designed to measure the daytime impairments related to insomnia. The IDSIQ questions focus on sleepiness, mood, alertness, and cognition.
The study’s primary endpoints were change from baseline in wake after sleep onset (WASO) and LPS at months 1 and 3. Secondary endpoints were change from baseline in self-reported total sleep time and change in the IDSIQ sleepiness domain score at months 1 and 3.
The investigators enrolled 930 participants in study 1 and 924 in study 2. In each study, more than two-thirds of participants were women, 39% were aged 65 or older, and demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups.
Dose-dependent effects
At month 1 in study 1, WASO was reduced by 22.8 minutes (P < .0001) in patients who received the 50-mg dose and by 12.2 minutes (P < .0001) in the 25-mg dose. At month 3, WASO was reduced by 18.3 minutes (P < .0001) in those assigned to 50 mg and by 11.9 minutes (P < .0001) in those assigned to 25 mg.
LPS was reduced by 11.4 minutes (P < .0001) at month 1 and by 11.7 minutes (P < .0001) at month 3 with the 50-mg dose versus placebo. LPS was reduced by 8.3 minutes (P = .0005) at month 1 and by 7.6 minutes (P = .0015) at month 3 with the 25-mg dose versus placebo.
At both time points, self-reported total sleep time was significantly increased and the IDSIQ sleepiness score significantly improved with the 50-mg dose. The 25-mg dose was associated with significant improvements in self-reported total sleep time at both time points, but not with significant improvements in IDSIQ sleepiness score.
In study 2, the 25-mg dose was associated with significant reductions in WASO at month 1 (11.6 minutes, P = .0001) and month 3 (10.3 minutes, P = .0028) compared with placebo. The 25-mg dose was not associated with significant differences in LPS at either time point, however.
Similarly, the 25-mg dose was associated with improvements in self-reported total sleep time, but not with the IDSIQ sleepiness score. The 10-mg dose was not associated with improvements on any endpoint compared with placebo.
Longer studies needed
In an accompanying editorial, Kai Spiegelhalder, PhD, University of Freiburg, Germany, and colleagues pointed out that although insomnia disorder is defined by self-reported difficulty initiating or maintaining sleep, none of the primary or secondary endpoints in these trials addressed these symptoms.
However, Dr. Mignot noted the use of the IDSIQ scale is the most interesting aspect of the study. Although difficulty with concentration and mood impairment are major symptoms of insomnia, they are often neglected. “This drug was reversing the daytime impairment that insomniacs have,” said Dr. Mignot. “We now need to systematically study people not only for the effect on sleep, but also that it makes them feel better the day after.”
He added that most of the current hypnotics were not developed to treat insomnia. Daridorexant, in contrast, targets the wake-promoting orexin system. “It works more selectively on sleep and not on other things. Most of the other sleeping pills have more complex effects on the brain,” Dr. Mignot said.
Commenting on the study, John Winkelman, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the low prevalence of side effects associated with daridorexant was remarkable. “This is not what most of the benzodiazepine receptor agonists looked like,” said Dr. Winkelman, who was not involved with the research.
Many insomnia drugs affect transmitter systems that are widespread in the brain, thus provoking side effects. But orexin-receptor antagonists “don’t seem to produce a lot of side effects,” he noted.
Although the study duration was reasonable, longer studies will be necessary, he added. “And it would be nice to see comparative data. Prescribers want to see some context.” said Dr. Winkelman.
The study was funded by Idorsia Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Mignot reported receiving research or clinical trial funding from Axsome, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Avadel, Apple, Huami, Sunovion, and Takeda. He has also received consulting fees or speakers’ conference reimbursement from Idorsia, Centessa Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Avadel, Dreem, and Takeda. Dr. Winkelman has consulted for Idorsia and has participated in investigator-initiated studies supported by Merck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE LANCET NEUROLOGY
Confirmed: Pembro plus chemo as first-line standard of care for esophageal cancer
An interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-590 study, published in 2020, found that the combination of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy in the first-line setting proved superior to chemotherapy alone in all outcome measures.
The updated analysis, which adds 12 months of follow-up data, shows “first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy continued to provide clinically meaningful benefits in all patients with locally advanced and metastatic esophageal cancer, including [gastroesophageal junction] adenocarcinoma,” said lead author Jean-Philippe Metges, MD, of the CHU Brest-Institut de Cancerologie et d’Hematologie ARPEGO Network, Brest, France.
Similar quality of life and safety data were also observed with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Dr. Metges added.
“These longer-term data further support first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as a new standard of care in patients with locally advanced and metastatic esophageal cancer,” he said.
The updated analysis was presented at the 2022 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.
Pembro for esophageal cancer
Pembrolizumab first received regulatory approval in 2019 as monotherapy in the second-line setting to treat recurrent locally advanced or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus in tumors with programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression.
In response to the interim KEYNOTE-590 data, the FDA expanded the indication in 2021, granting accelerated approval for pembrolizumab in combination with platinum and fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy in the first-line setting for patients who were not candidates for surgical resection or definitive chemoradiotherapy.
The updated KEYNOTE-590 data lend greater weight for the use of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line standard of care in advanced esophageal cancer.
In the analysis, a total of 749 eligible patients with previously untreated locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), adenocarcinoma, or Siewert type 1 esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma, regardless of PD-L1 status, were randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo plus 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin once every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles.
The authors evaluated overall survival in all patients as well as subgroups including those with ESCC, ESCC PD-L1 combined positive score ≥10 tumors, and PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumors. The research team also looked at progression-free survival in most groups and overall response rate, duration of response, safety, and health-related quality of life.
Treatment continued until progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal, or until 2 years, with no crossover permitted.
At the median follow-up of 34.8 months, median overall survival was longer for all patients receiving the combination therapy (hazard ratio, 0.73) as well as patients with ESCC (HR, 0.73), ESCC CPS ≥10 (HR, 0.59), CPS ≥10 (HR, 0.64), and adenocarcinoma (HR, 0.73).
For progression-free survival, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was superior in all patients (HR, 0.64), the ESCC group (HR, 0.65), as well as the PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumor group (HR, 0.51).
The 24-month overall survival in all patients was also notably higher for those receiving the combination therapy – 26.3% versus 16.1% – as was 24-month progression-free survival – 11.6% versus 3.3%.
The overall response rate was 45.0% in the combination group, with 25 complete responses (6.7%), versus 29.3% in the control group, with 9 complete responses (2.4%). The median duration of response was 8.3 months in the combination group versus 6.0 months in the chemotherapy group. About 20% of patients in the combination group had a response rate lasting 24 months or longer, compared with 6% who received chemotherapy alone.
As for safety, grade 3-5 drug-related adverse events were similar in both arms – 72% for the combination versus 68% for chemotherapy alone. However, more patients in the combination group discontinued treatment because of drug-related adverse events – 21% versus 12%.
No additional or surprise adverse events occurred with the longer follow-up, plus quality of life was comparable between groups, Dr. Metges noted.
Stefano Cascinu, MD, Università Vita-Salute, San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, who was not involved in the analysis, reiterated that this update confirms the findings from earlier analyses and shows a benefit across all subgroups.
“One of the most relevant findings was that 20% of patients were responding for more than 24 months,” he said. “It is also important that a similar quality of life was maintained.”
Although Dr. Cascinu emphasized that this is a landmark trial in advanced esophageal and gastric cancers, he indicated to several points that remain to be investigated. These include the reproducibility of the findings in common clinical situations – such as a patient with impaired performance status, malnutrition, or peritoneal involvement – as well as the role of PD-L1.
The efficacy of the combination therapy across all subgroups led to a wide FDA approval, though the European Medicines Agency limited its approval to patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumors.
“Even though all subgroups did well, patients with [PD-L1] CPS ≥10 did better,” said Dr. Cascinu. “[And] in reality, the benefit may only be driven by a specific subpopulation.”
Dr. Cascinu added: “PD-L1 may be a negative biomarker and may be informative about the magnitude of benefit. This may be useful to discuss with patients regarding the expected benefit [of this therapeutic option].”
The study was supported by Merck & Co. Dr. Metges reported receiving payment for travel, accommodations, expenses from Amgen, LEO Pharma, and MSD Oncology, and receiving honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, and Syncore. Dr. Cascinu has disclosed honoraria from BMS, Lilly, MSD Oncology, and others, as well as a consulting or advisory role for many of these same manufacturers and serving on the speakers’ bureau of Lilly and SERVIER. The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
An interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-590 study, published in 2020, found that the combination of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy in the first-line setting proved superior to chemotherapy alone in all outcome measures.
The updated analysis, which adds 12 months of follow-up data, shows “first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy continued to provide clinically meaningful benefits in all patients with locally advanced and metastatic esophageal cancer, including [gastroesophageal junction] adenocarcinoma,” said lead author Jean-Philippe Metges, MD, of the CHU Brest-Institut de Cancerologie et d’Hematologie ARPEGO Network, Brest, France.
Similar quality of life and safety data were also observed with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Dr. Metges added.
“These longer-term data further support first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as a new standard of care in patients with locally advanced and metastatic esophageal cancer,” he said.
The updated analysis was presented at the 2022 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.
Pembro for esophageal cancer
Pembrolizumab first received regulatory approval in 2019 as monotherapy in the second-line setting to treat recurrent locally advanced or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus in tumors with programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression.
In response to the interim KEYNOTE-590 data, the FDA expanded the indication in 2021, granting accelerated approval for pembrolizumab in combination with platinum and fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy in the first-line setting for patients who were not candidates for surgical resection or definitive chemoradiotherapy.
The updated KEYNOTE-590 data lend greater weight for the use of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line standard of care in advanced esophageal cancer.
In the analysis, a total of 749 eligible patients with previously untreated locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), adenocarcinoma, or Siewert type 1 esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma, regardless of PD-L1 status, were randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo plus 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin once every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles.
The authors evaluated overall survival in all patients as well as subgroups including those with ESCC, ESCC PD-L1 combined positive score ≥10 tumors, and PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumors. The research team also looked at progression-free survival in most groups and overall response rate, duration of response, safety, and health-related quality of life.
Treatment continued until progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal, or until 2 years, with no crossover permitted.
At the median follow-up of 34.8 months, median overall survival was longer for all patients receiving the combination therapy (hazard ratio, 0.73) as well as patients with ESCC (HR, 0.73), ESCC CPS ≥10 (HR, 0.59), CPS ≥10 (HR, 0.64), and adenocarcinoma (HR, 0.73).
For progression-free survival, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was superior in all patients (HR, 0.64), the ESCC group (HR, 0.65), as well as the PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumor group (HR, 0.51).
The 24-month overall survival in all patients was also notably higher for those receiving the combination therapy – 26.3% versus 16.1% – as was 24-month progression-free survival – 11.6% versus 3.3%.
The overall response rate was 45.0% in the combination group, with 25 complete responses (6.7%), versus 29.3% in the control group, with 9 complete responses (2.4%). The median duration of response was 8.3 months in the combination group versus 6.0 months in the chemotherapy group. About 20% of patients in the combination group had a response rate lasting 24 months or longer, compared with 6% who received chemotherapy alone.
As for safety, grade 3-5 drug-related adverse events were similar in both arms – 72% for the combination versus 68% for chemotherapy alone. However, more patients in the combination group discontinued treatment because of drug-related adverse events – 21% versus 12%.
No additional or surprise adverse events occurred with the longer follow-up, plus quality of life was comparable between groups, Dr. Metges noted.
Stefano Cascinu, MD, Università Vita-Salute, San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, who was not involved in the analysis, reiterated that this update confirms the findings from earlier analyses and shows a benefit across all subgroups.
“One of the most relevant findings was that 20% of patients were responding for more than 24 months,” he said. “It is also important that a similar quality of life was maintained.”
Although Dr. Cascinu emphasized that this is a landmark trial in advanced esophageal and gastric cancers, he indicated to several points that remain to be investigated. These include the reproducibility of the findings in common clinical situations – such as a patient with impaired performance status, malnutrition, or peritoneal involvement – as well as the role of PD-L1.
The efficacy of the combination therapy across all subgroups led to a wide FDA approval, though the European Medicines Agency limited its approval to patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumors.
“Even though all subgroups did well, patients with [PD-L1] CPS ≥10 did better,” said Dr. Cascinu. “[And] in reality, the benefit may only be driven by a specific subpopulation.”
Dr. Cascinu added: “PD-L1 may be a negative biomarker and may be informative about the magnitude of benefit. This may be useful to discuss with patients regarding the expected benefit [of this therapeutic option].”
The study was supported by Merck & Co. Dr. Metges reported receiving payment for travel, accommodations, expenses from Amgen, LEO Pharma, and MSD Oncology, and receiving honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, and Syncore. Dr. Cascinu has disclosed honoraria from BMS, Lilly, MSD Oncology, and others, as well as a consulting or advisory role for many of these same manufacturers and serving on the speakers’ bureau of Lilly and SERVIER. The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
An interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-590 study, published in 2020, found that the combination of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy in the first-line setting proved superior to chemotherapy alone in all outcome measures.
The updated analysis, which adds 12 months of follow-up data, shows “first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy continued to provide clinically meaningful benefits in all patients with locally advanced and metastatic esophageal cancer, including [gastroesophageal junction] adenocarcinoma,” said lead author Jean-Philippe Metges, MD, of the CHU Brest-Institut de Cancerologie et d’Hematologie ARPEGO Network, Brest, France.
Similar quality of life and safety data were also observed with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Dr. Metges added.
“These longer-term data further support first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as a new standard of care in patients with locally advanced and metastatic esophageal cancer,” he said.
The updated analysis was presented at the 2022 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.
Pembro for esophageal cancer
Pembrolizumab first received regulatory approval in 2019 as monotherapy in the second-line setting to treat recurrent locally advanced or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus in tumors with programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression.
In response to the interim KEYNOTE-590 data, the FDA expanded the indication in 2021, granting accelerated approval for pembrolizumab in combination with platinum and fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy in the first-line setting for patients who were not candidates for surgical resection or definitive chemoradiotherapy.
The updated KEYNOTE-590 data lend greater weight for the use of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line standard of care in advanced esophageal cancer.
In the analysis, a total of 749 eligible patients with previously untreated locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), adenocarcinoma, or Siewert type 1 esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma, regardless of PD-L1 status, were randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo plus 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin once every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles.
The authors evaluated overall survival in all patients as well as subgroups including those with ESCC, ESCC PD-L1 combined positive score ≥10 tumors, and PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumors. The research team also looked at progression-free survival in most groups and overall response rate, duration of response, safety, and health-related quality of life.
Treatment continued until progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal, or until 2 years, with no crossover permitted.
At the median follow-up of 34.8 months, median overall survival was longer for all patients receiving the combination therapy (hazard ratio, 0.73) as well as patients with ESCC (HR, 0.73), ESCC CPS ≥10 (HR, 0.59), CPS ≥10 (HR, 0.64), and adenocarcinoma (HR, 0.73).
For progression-free survival, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was superior in all patients (HR, 0.64), the ESCC group (HR, 0.65), as well as the PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumor group (HR, 0.51).
The 24-month overall survival in all patients was also notably higher for those receiving the combination therapy – 26.3% versus 16.1% – as was 24-month progression-free survival – 11.6% versus 3.3%.
The overall response rate was 45.0% in the combination group, with 25 complete responses (6.7%), versus 29.3% in the control group, with 9 complete responses (2.4%). The median duration of response was 8.3 months in the combination group versus 6.0 months in the chemotherapy group. About 20% of patients in the combination group had a response rate lasting 24 months or longer, compared with 6% who received chemotherapy alone.
As for safety, grade 3-5 drug-related adverse events were similar in both arms – 72% for the combination versus 68% for chemotherapy alone. However, more patients in the combination group discontinued treatment because of drug-related adverse events – 21% versus 12%.
No additional or surprise adverse events occurred with the longer follow-up, plus quality of life was comparable between groups, Dr. Metges noted.
Stefano Cascinu, MD, Università Vita-Salute, San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, who was not involved in the analysis, reiterated that this update confirms the findings from earlier analyses and shows a benefit across all subgroups.
“One of the most relevant findings was that 20% of patients were responding for more than 24 months,” he said. “It is also important that a similar quality of life was maintained.”
Although Dr. Cascinu emphasized that this is a landmark trial in advanced esophageal and gastric cancers, he indicated to several points that remain to be investigated. These include the reproducibility of the findings in common clinical situations – such as a patient with impaired performance status, malnutrition, or peritoneal involvement – as well as the role of PD-L1.
The efficacy of the combination therapy across all subgroups led to a wide FDA approval, though the European Medicines Agency limited its approval to patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumors.
“Even though all subgroups did well, patients with [PD-L1] CPS ≥10 did better,” said Dr. Cascinu. “[And] in reality, the benefit may only be driven by a specific subpopulation.”
Dr. Cascinu added: “PD-L1 may be a negative biomarker and may be informative about the magnitude of benefit. This may be useful to discuss with patients regarding the expected benefit [of this therapeutic option].”
The study was supported by Merck & Co. Dr. Metges reported receiving payment for travel, accommodations, expenses from Amgen, LEO Pharma, and MSD Oncology, and receiving honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, and Syncore. Dr. Cascinu has disclosed honoraria from BMS, Lilly, MSD Oncology, and others, as well as a consulting or advisory role for many of these same manufacturers and serving on the speakers’ bureau of Lilly and SERVIER. The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM GI CANCERS SYMPOSIUM 2022
ICIs for NSCLC: Patients with ILD show greater risk
, a systematic review and meta-analysis indicated.
“Patients with preexisting ILD, especially symptomatic ILD, are frequently excluded from clinical trials so almost all the patients [we analyzed] were diagnosed with mild preexisting ILD,” said Yuan Cheng, MD, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.
“At this stage, we think that mild ILD is not a contraindication to the use of anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) and anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) treatment for patients with NSCLC but whether ICIs can be used in patients with moderate to severe ILD needs further study,” she added.
The study was published online Jan. 10 in the journal CHEST.
Ten studies
A total of 179 patients from 10 studies were included in the review and meta-analysis. Among these, six were retrospective case-control studies, one was a retrospective noncontrolled study and three were prospective, noncontrolled clinical trials. “All the included studies were from East Asian countries,” the authors noted.
Preexisting ILD was diagnosed by use of CT or high-resolution CT. The mean age of patients was 71 years (range, 33-85 years), 87% were male and 96% of the cohort had a history of smoking. Approximately one-quarter of patients with ILD had usual interstitial pneumonitis (UIP); about the same percentage had possible UIP; one-third were diagnosed with inconsistent UIP; 14% had nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP); and 6% had indeterminate UIP.
Patients received ICIs either as first-, second-, or third-line or higher therapy and all were treated with ICI monotherapy by way of either nivolumab (Opdivo), pembrolizumab (Keytruda), or atezolizumab (Tecentriq). About 10% of patients had a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of less than 1%, one-quarter had a PD-L1 TPS of 1%-49%, and approximately two-thirds had a TPS of 50% or greater.
Objective response rates
Some 35% of patients with both NSCLC and preexisting ILD achieved an objective response rate (ORR) to ICI therapy and almost two-thirds of patients achieved disease control. However, there was considerable heterogeneity in ORRs between the studies where it ranged from 5.9% to 70%, the authors cautioned.
On meta-analysis, the pooled ORR was 34% (95% confidence interval, 20%-47%) but again, with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 75.9%). However, on meta-analysis of eligible studies, patients with NSCLC who had preexisting ILD were 99% more likely to achieve an ORR compared to those without ILD (odds ratio, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.31-3.00), the investigators pointed out.
The disease control rate (DCR) also varied considerably between studies from a low of 33.3% to a high of 100%, they added. On meta-analysis, the pooled DCR was 66% (95% CI, 56%-75%). “Meanwhile, in patients without preexisting ILD, the crude ORR and pooled ORR were 24.3% and 24% (95% CI, 17%-31%), respectively” – again with significant heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 87.4%).
In contrast to the ORR, there was no difference in the DCR between the two groups, with no evidence of heterogeneity. There were no significant differences between the two groups in either median progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS). In patients with NSCLC and preexisting ILD, median PFS ranged from 1.4 to 8 months whereas median OS ranged from 15.6 to 27.8 months.
For those without preexisting ILD, the median PFS ranged from 2.3 to 8.1 months while median OS ranged from 17.4 to 25.5 months.
ICI safety
In patients with NSCLC and preexisting ILD, the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAes) of any grade was 56.7%, whereas the incidence of irAEs grade 3 and higher was 27.7%. “Among the 179 patients included in the studies, 45 developed any grade of CIP, corresponding to a crude incidence of 25.1%,” the authors noted – very similar to the pooled incidence of 27% on meta-analysis.
The pooled incidence of grade 3 and higher CIP in the same group of patients was 15%. The median time from initiation of ICIs to the development of CIP ranged from 31 to 74 days, but 88% of patients who developed CIP improved with appropriate treatment. In patients with NSCLC who did not have ILD, the pooled incidence of CIP was 10% (95% CI, 6%-13%), again with significant heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 78.8%). “Generally, CIP can be managed through ICI discontinuation with or without steroid administration,” the authors noted.
However, even if most CIP can be easily managed, “the incidence of severe CIP is higher [in NSCLC patients with preexisting ILD] than in other populations,” Dr. Chen observed. “So patients with preexisting ILD should be closely monitored during ICI therapy,” she added.
Indeed, compared with patients without preexisting ILD, grade 3 or higher CIP in patients with the dual diagnosis was significantly higher at an OR of 3.23 (95%, 2.06-5.06), the investigators emphasized.
A limitation to the review and systematic meta-analysis included the fact that none of the studies analyzed were randomized clinical trials and most of the studies were retrospective and had several other shortcomings.
Umbrella diagnosis
Asked to comment on the review, Karthik Suresh, MD, associate professor of medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, pointed out that ILD is really an “umbrella” diagnosis that a few hundred diseases fit under, so the first question he and members of his multidisciplinary team ask is: What is the nature of the ILD in this patient? What is the actual underlying etiology?
It could, for example, be that the patient has undergone prior chemotherapy or radiation therapy and has developed ILD as a result, as Dr. Suresh and his coauthor, Jarushka Naidoo, MD, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, pointed out in their paper on how to approach patients with preexisting lung disease to avoid ICI toxicities. “We’ll go back to their prior CT scans and can see the ILD has been there for years – it’s stable and the patient’s lung function is not changing,” Dr. Suresh related to this news organization.
“That’s a very different story from a [patients] whom there are new interstitial changes, who are progressing and who are symptomatic,” he noted. Essentially, what Dr. Suresh and his team members want to know is: What is the specific subdiagnosis of this disease, how severe is it, and is it progressing? Then they need to take the tumor itself into consideration.
“Some tumors have high PD-L1 expression, others have low PD-L1 expression so response to immunotherapy is usually very different based on tumor histology,” Dr. Suresh pointed out. Thus, the next question that needs to be addressed is: What is the expected response of the tumor to ICI therapy? If a tumor is exquisitely sensitive to immunotherapy, “that changes the game,” Dr. Suresh said, “whereas with other tumors, the oncologist might say there may be some benefit but it won’t be dramatic.”
The third risk factor for ICI toxicity that needs to be evaluated is the patient’s general cardiopulmonary status – for example, if a patient has mild, even moderate, ILD but is still walking 3 miles a day, has no heart problems, and is doing fine. Another patient with the same severity of disease in turn may have mild heart failure, be relatively debilitated, and sedentary: “Performance status also plays a big role in determining treatment,” Dr. Suresh emphasized.
The presence of other pulmonary conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease – common in patients with NSCLC – has to be taken into account, too. Lastly, clinicians need to ask themselves if there are any alternative therapies that might work just as well if not better than ICI therapy for this particular patient. If the patient has had genomic testing, results might indicate that the tumor has a mutation that may respond well to targeted therapies. “We put all these factors out on the table,” Dr. Suresh said.
“And you obviously have to involve the patient, too, so they understand the risks of ICI therapy and together we decide, ‘Yes, this patient with ILD should get immunotherapy or no, they should not,’ “ he said.
The study had no specific funding. The study authors and Dr. Suresh have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, a systematic review and meta-analysis indicated.
“Patients with preexisting ILD, especially symptomatic ILD, are frequently excluded from clinical trials so almost all the patients [we analyzed] were diagnosed with mild preexisting ILD,” said Yuan Cheng, MD, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.
“At this stage, we think that mild ILD is not a contraindication to the use of anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) and anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) treatment for patients with NSCLC but whether ICIs can be used in patients with moderate to severe ILD needs further study,” she added.
The study was published online Jan. 10 in the journal CHEST.
Ten studies
A total of 179 patients from 10 studies were included in the review and meta-analysis. Among these, six were retrospective case-control studies, one was a retrospective noncontrolled study and three were prospective, noncontrolled clinical trials. “All the included studies were from East Asian countries,” the authors noted.
Preexisting ILD was diagnosed by use of CT or high-resolution CT. The mean age of patients was 71 years (range, 33-85 years), 87% were male and 96% of the cohort had a history of smoking. Approximately one-quarter of patients with ILD had usual interstitial pneumonitis (UIP); about the same percentage had possible UIP; one-third were diagnosed with inconsistent UIP; 14% had nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP); and 6% had indeterminate UIP.
Patients received ICIs either as first-, second-, or third-line or higher therapy and all were treated with ICI monotherapy by way of either nivolumab (Opdivo), pembrolizumab (Keytruda), or atezolizumab (Tecentriq). About 10% of patients had a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of less than 1%, one-quarter had a PD-L1 TPS of 1%-49%, and approximately two-thirds had a TPS of 50% or greater.
Objective response rates
Some 35% of patients with both NSCLC and preexisting ILD achieved an objective response rate (ORR) to ICI therapy and almost two-thirds of patients achieved disease control. However, there was considerable heterogeneity in ORRs between the studies where it ranged from 5.9% to 70%, the authors cautioned.
On meta-analysis, the pooled ORR was 34% (95% confidence interval, 20%-47%) but again, with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 75.9%). However, on meta-analysis of eligible studies, patients with NSCLC who had preexisting ILD were 99% more likely to achieve an ORR compared to those without ILD (odds ratio, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.31-3.00), the investigators pointed out.
The disease control rate (DCR) also varied considerably between studies from a low of 33.3% to a high of 100%, they added. On meta-analysis, the pooled DCR was 66% (95% CI, 56%-75%). “Meanwhile, in patients without preexisting ILD, the crude ORR and pooled ORR were 24.3% and 24% (95% CI, 17%-31%), respectively” – again with significant heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 87.4%).
In contrast to the ORR, there was no difference in the DCR between the two groups, with no evidence of heterogeneity. There were no significant differences between the two groups in either median progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS). In patients with NSCLC and preexisting ILD, median PFS ranged from 1.4 to 8 months whereas median OS ranged from 15.6 to 27.8 months.
For those without preexisting ILD, the median PFS ranged from 2.3 to 8.1 months while median OS ranged from 17.4 to 25.5 months.
ICI safety
In patients with NSCLC and preexisting ILD, the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAes) of any grade was 56.7%, whereas the incidence of irAEs grade 3 and higher was 27.7%. “Among the 179 patients included in the studies, 45 developed any grade of CIP, corresponding to a crude incidence of 25.1%,” the authors noted – very similar to the pooled incidence of 27% on meta-analysis.
The pooled incidence of grade 3 and higher CIP in the same group of patients was 15%. The median time from initiation of ICIs to the development of CIP ranged from 31 to 74 days, but 88% of patients who developed CIP improved with appropriate treatment. In patients with NSCLC who did not have ILD, the pooled incidence of CIP was 10% (95% CI, 6%-13%), again with significant heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 78.8%). “Generally, CIP can be managed through ICI discontinuation with or without steroid administration,” the authors noted.
However, even if most CIP can be easily managed, “the incidence of severe CIP is higher [in NSCLC patients with preexisting ILD] than in other populations,” Dr. Chen observed. “So patients with preexisting ILD should be closely monitored during ICI therapy,” she added.
Indeed, compared with patients without preexisting ILD, grade 3 or higher CIP in patients with the dual diagnosis was significantly higher at an OR of 3.23 (95%, 2.06-5.06), the investigators emphasized.
A limitation to the review and systematic meta-analysis included the fact that none of the studies analyzed were randomized clinical trials and most of the studies were retrospective and had several other shortcomings.
Umbrella diagnosis
Asked to comment on the review, Karthik Suresh, MD, associate professor of medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, pointed out that ILD is really an “umbrella” diagnosis that a few hundred diseases fit under, so the first question he and members of his multidisciplinary team ask is: What is the nature of the ILD in this patient? What is the actual underlying etiology?
It could, for example, be that the patient has undergone prior chemotherapy or radiation therapy and has developed ILD as a result, as Dr. Suresh and his coauthor, Jarushka Naidoo, MD, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, pointed out in their paper on how to approach patients with preexisting lung disease to avoid ICI toxicities. “We’ll go back to their prior CT scans and can see the ILD has been there for years – it’s stable and the patient’s lung function is not changing,” Dr. Suresh related to this news organization.
“That’s a very different story from a [patients] whom there are new interstitial changes, who are progressing and who are symptomatic,” he noted. Essentially, what Dr. Suresh and his team members want to know is: What is the specific subdiagnosis of this disease, how severe is it, and is it progressing? Then they need to take the tumor itself into consideration.
“Some tumors have high PD-L1 expression, others have low PD-L1 expression so response to immunotherapy is usually very different based on tumor histology,” Dr. Suresh pointed out. Thus, the next question that needs to be addressed is: What is the expected response of the tumor to ICI therapy? If a tumor is exquisitely sensitive to immunotherapy, “that changes the game,” Dr. Suresh said, “whereas with other tumors, the oncologist might say there may be some benefit but it won’t be dramatic.”
The third risk factor for ICI toxicity that needs to be evaluated is the patient’s general cardiopulmonary status – for example, if a patient has mild, even moderate, ILD but is still walking 3 miles a day, has no heart problems, and is doing fine. Another patient with the same severity of disease in turn may have mild heart failure, be relatively debilitated, and sedentary: “Performance status also plays a big role in determining treatment,” Dr. Suresh emphasized.
The presence of other pulmonary conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease – common in patients with NSCLC – has to be taken into account, too. Lastly, clinicians need to ask themselves if there are any alternative therapies that might work just as well if not better than ICI therapy for this particular patient. If the patient has had genomic testing, results might indicate that the tumor has a mutation that may respond well to targeted therapies. “We put all these factors out on the table,” Dr. Suresh said.
“And you obviously have to involve the patient, too, so they understand the risks of ICI therapy and together we decide, ‘Yes, this patient with ILD should get immunotherapy or no, they should not,’ “ he said.
The study had no specific funding. The study authors and Dr. Suresh have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, a systematic review and meta-analysis indicated.
“Patients with preexisting ILD, especially symptomatic ILD, are frequently excluded from clinical trials so almost all the patients [we analyzed] were diagnosed with mild preexisting ILD,” said Yuan Cheng, MD, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.
“At this stage, we think that mild ILD is not a contraindication to the use of anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) and anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) treatment for patients with NSCLC but whether ICIs can be used in patients with moderate to severe ILD needs further study,” she added.
The study was published online Jan. 10 in the journal CHEST.
Ten studies
A total of 179 patients from 10 studies were included in the review and meta-analysis. Among these, six were retrospective case-control studies, one was a retrospective noncontrolled study and three were prospective, noncontrolled clinical trials. “All the included studies were from East Asian countries,” the authors noted.
Preexisting ILD was diagnosed by use of CT or high-resolution CT. The mean age of patients was 71 years (range, 33-85 years), 87% were male and 96% of the cohort had a history of smoking. Approximately one-quarter of patients with ILD had usual interstitial pneumonitis (UIP); about the same percentage had possible UIP; one-third were diagnosed with inconsistent UIP; 14% had nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP); and 6% had indeterminate UIP.
Patients received ICIs either as first-, second-, or third-line or higher therapy and all were treated with ICI monotherapy by way of either nivolumab (Opdivo), pembrolizumab (Keytruda), or atezolizumab (Tecentriq). About 10% of patients had a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of less than 1%, one-quarter had a PD-L1 TPS of 1%-49%, and approximately two-thirds had a TPS of 50% or greater.
Objective response rates
Some 35% of patients with both NSCLC and preexisting ILD achieved an objective response rate (ORR) to ICI therapy and almost two-thirds of patients achieved disease control. However, there was considerable heterogeneity in ORRs between the studies where it ranged from 5.9% to 70%, the authors cautioned.
On meta-analysis, the pooled ORR was 34% (95% confidence interval, 20%-47%) but again, with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 75.9%). However, on meta-analysis of eligible studies, patients with NSCLC who had preexisting ILD were 99% more likely to achieve an ORR compared to those without ILD (odds ratio, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.31-3.00), the investigators pointed out.
The disease control rate (DCR) also varied considerably between studies from a low of 33.3% to a high of 100%, they added. On meta-analysis, the pooled DCR was 66% (95% CI, 56%-75%). “Meanwhile, in patients without preexisting ILD, the crude ORR and pooled ORR were 24.3% and 24% (95% CI, 17%-31%), respectively” – again with significant heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 87.4%).
In contrast to the ORR, there was no difference in the DCR between the two groups, with no evidence of heterogeneity. There were no significant differences between the two groups in either median progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS). In patients with NSCLC and preexisting ILD, median PFS ranged from 1.4 to 8 months whereas median OS ranged from 15.6 to 27.8 months.
For those without preexisting ILD, the median PFS ranged from 2.3 to 8.1 months while median OS ranged from 17.4 to 25.5 months.
ICI safety
In patients with NSCLC and preexisting ILD, the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAes) of any grade was 56.7%, whereas the incidence of irAEs grade 3 and higher was 27.7%. “Among the 179 patients included in the studies, 45 developed any grade of CIP, corresponding to a crude incidence of 25.1%,” the authors noted – very similar to the pooled incidence of 27% on meta-analysis.
The pooled incidence of grade 3 and higher CIP in the same group of patients was 15%. The median time from initiation of ICIs to the development of CIP ranged from 31 to 74 days, but 88% of patients who developed CIP improved with appropriate treatment. In patients with NSCLC who did not have ILD, the pooled incidence of CIP was 10% (95% CI, 6%-13%), again with significant heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 78.8%). “Generally, CIP can be managed through ICI discontinuation with or without steroid administration,” the authors noted.
However, even if most CIP can be easily managed, “the incidence of severe CIP is higher [in NSCLC patients with preexisting ILD] than in other populations,” Dr. Chen observed. “So patients with preexisting ILD should be closely monitored during ICI therapy,” she added.
Indeed, compared with patients without preexisting ILD, grade 3 or higher CIP in patients with the dual diagnosis was significantly higher at an OR of 3.23 (95%, 2.06-5.06), the investigators emphasized.
A limitation to the review and systematic meta-analysis included the fact that none of the studies analyzed were randomized clinical trials and most of the studies were retrospective and had several other shortcomings.
Umbrella diagnosis
Asked to comment on the review, Karthik Suresh, MD, associate professor of medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, pointed out that ILD is really an “umbrella” diagnosis that a few hundred diseases fit under, so the first question he and members of his multidisciplinary team ask is: What is the nature of the ILD in this patient? What is the actual underlying etiology?
It could, for example, be that the patient has undergone prior chemotherapy or radiation therapy and has developed ILD as a result, as Dr. Suresh and his coauthor, Jarushka Naidoo, MD, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, pointed out in their paper on how to approach patients with preexisting lung disease to avoid ICI toxicities. “We’ll go back to their prior CT scans and can see the ILD has been there for years – it’s stable and the patient’s lung function is not changing,” Dr. Suresh related to this news organization.
“That’s a very different story from a [patients] whom there are new interstitial changes, who are progressing and who are symptomatic,” he noted. Essentially, what Dr. Suresh and his team members want to know is: What is the specific subdiagnosis of this disease, how severe is it, and is it progressing? Then they need to take the tumor itself into consideration.
“Some tumors have high PD-L1 expression, others have low PD-L1 expression so response to immunotherapy is usually very different based on tumor histology,” Dr. Suresh pointed out. Thus, the next question that needs to be addressed is: What is the expected response of the tumor to ICI therapy? If a tumor is exquisitely sensitive to immunotherapy, “that changes the game,” Dr. Suresh said, “whereas with other tumors, the oncologist might say there may be some benefit but it won’t be dramatic.”
The third risk factor for ICI toxicity that needs to be evaluated is the patient’s general cardiopulmonary status – for example, if a patient has mild, even moderate, ILD but is still walking 3 miles a day, has no heart problems, and is doing fine. Another patient with the same severity of disease in turn may have mild heart failure, be relatively debilitated, and sedentary: “Performance status also plays a big role in determining treatment,” Dr. Suresh emphasized.
The presence of other pulmonary conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease – common in patients with NSCLC – has to be taken into account, too. Lastly, clinicians need to ask themselves if there are any alternative therapies that might work just as well if not better than ICI therapy for this particular patient. If the patient has had genomic testing, results might indicate that the tumor has a mutation that may respond well to targeted therapies. “We put all these factors out on the table,” Dr. Suresh said.
“And you obviously have to involve the patient, too, so they understand the risks of ICI therapy and together we decide, ‘Yes, this patient with ILD should get immunotherapy or no, they should not,’ “ he said.
The study had no specific funding. The study authors and Dr. Suresh have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Ketamine versus ECT for depression: First head-to-head results
Intravenous ketamine is effective for treating depression but is inferior to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), new research suggests.
In the first head-to-head trial, ECT was more effective than intravenous ketamine in hospitalized patients with severe depression, with higher remission rates and a greater reduction in symptoms.
However, ketamine led to remission in nearly half of participants and is a “valuable” option for treating severe depression, particularly in younger patients, the investigators noted.
The high rate of remission for ketamine infusion “indicates that it definitely can be used in a clinical setting, but it is more probable that a patient will achieve remission with ECT compared to ketamine,” principal investigator Pouya Movahed Rad, MD, PhD (pharmacology), senior consultant and researcher in psychiatry, Lund (Sweden) University, said in an interview.
Results of the KetECT study were recently published online in the International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology.
Primary focus on remission
The parallel, open-label, noninferiority study included 186 patients aged 18-85 years who were hospitalized with severe unipolar depression and had a score of at least 20 on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS).
Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to thrice-weekly infusions of racemic ketamine (0.5 mg/kg over 40 minutes) or ECT. All patients continued to take their antidepressant medication during the study. The primary outcome was remission, defined as a MADRS score of 10 or less.
Results showed the remission rate was significantly higher in the ECT group than in the ketamine group (63% vs. 46%, respectively; P = .026). The 95% confidence interval of the difference in remission rates was estimated between 2% and 30%.
Both ketamine and ECT required a median of six treatment sessions to induce remission.
Post-hoc analysis indicated that age was a factor in the findings. In the ECT group, remission was significantly more likely in older patients (51-85 years), compared with younger patients (18-50 years), with remission rates of 77% and 50%, respectively.
But the opposite was true in the ketamine group, with significantly higher remission rates in younger versus older patients (61% vs. 37%).
The study results also support the safety and efficacy of ketamine in patients with psychotic depression, which was present in 15% of patients in the ECT group and 18% of those in the ketamine group.
In this subgroup, half of patients with psychotic depression remitted after ketamine, with no indications of adverse reactions particular for these patients. The remission rate with ECT was 79%.
During the 12-month follow-up period, rate of relapse among remitters was similar at 64% in the ECT group and 70% in the ketamine group (log rank P = .44).
Let the patient decide
As expected, ECT and ketamine had distinct side effect profiles. Subjectively reported prolonged amnesia was more common with ECT and reports of dissociative side effects, anxiety, blurred vision, euphoria, vertigo, and diplopia (double vision) were more common with ketamine.
“Dissociative symptoms were, as expected, observed during treatment with ketamine, but they were brief and in the majority of cases mild and tolerable,” Dr. Movahed Rad said.
The investigators noted that participating study sites all had long-time experience with ECT but no experience administering ketamine.
“Staffs, and some patients, were familiar with side effects common to ECT but were less prepared for the adverse psychological effects of ketamine. This, and knowing ECT was available after the study, probably contributed to the higher dropout rate in the ketamine group,” they wrote.
If both ECT and ketamine are available, “the patient’s preference should, of course, be taken in account when choosing treatment,” said Dr. Movahed Rad.
“ or other somatic risk factor. Patients who have not responded to ECT or have had unacceptable side effects should be offered ketamine infusion and vice versa,” he added.
A good alternative
Commenting on the findings, Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, said the data confirm ECT is highly effective for treatment-resistant depression and show that “newcomer” intravenous ketamine also performs “exceptionally well.”
“This is an extremely important study that really establishes the efficacy of ketamine in a very difficult to treat population,” added Dr. McIntyre, who was not involved in the research.
He added that this “rigorous, well-designed study addresses a critical question” about the comparative efficacy of ECT and intravenous ketamine. It also makes “quite a strong statement about the efficacy of ketamine in younger people.”
He cautioned, however, that this study represents the “first data point and, of course, is not the final word on the topic. There are other studies currently still ongoing that are also comparing ECT to IV ketamine and we’ll look forward to seeing the results.”
The fact that 15%-20% of the study patients had psychotic depression is also noteworthy, said Dr. McIntyre.
“We’ve been hesitant to use ketamine in these patients, I think for obvious reasons, but we recently published a paper showing that it is safe and very effective in these patients,” he said.
Having ketamine as a treatment option is important because the majority of patients who could benefit from ECT decline it, often because of the stigma associated with the procedure, which is often portrayed negatively in films and other media.
“I have been recommending ECT almost every day of my professional life and 98 times out of 100 people say: ‘Thanks but no thanks.’ That’s a problem because ECT is so effective,” Dr. McIntyre said.
The study was funded by the Swedish Research Council, Crafoord Foundation, Skåne Regional Council, Königska Foundation, Lions Forskningsfond Skåne, and the OM Perssons donation foundation. Dr. Movahed Rad has received lecturer honoraria from Lundbeck. Dr. McIntyre has received research grant support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research/Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases/Chinese National Natural Research Foundation and speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, and other companies. McIntyre is also CEO of AltMed.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Intravenous ketamine is effective for treating depression but is inferior to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), new research suggests.
In the first head-to-head trial, ECT was more effective than intravenous ketamine in hospitalized patients with severe depression, with higher remission rates and a greater reduction in symptoms.
However, ketamine led to remission in nearly half of participants and is a “valuable” option for treating severe depression, particularly in younger patients, the investigators noted.
The high rate of remission for ketamine infusion “indicates that it definitely can be used in a clinical setting, but it is more probable that a patient will achieve remission with ECT compared to ketamine,” principal investigator Pouya Movahed Rad, MD, PhD (pharmacology), senior consultant and researcher in psychiatry, Lund (Sweden) University, said in an interview.
Results of the KetECT study were recently published online in the International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology.
Primary focus on remission
The parallel, open-label, noninferiority study included 186 patients aged 18-85 years who were hospitalized with severe unipolar depression and had a score of at least 20 on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS).
Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to thrice-weekly infusions of racemic ketamine (0.5 mg/kg over 40 minutes) or ECT. All patients continued to take their antidepressant medication during the study. The primary outcome was remission, defined as a MADRS score of 10 or less.
Results showed the remission rate was significantly higher in the ECT group than in the ketamine group (63% vs. 46%, respectively; P = .026). The 95% confidence interval of the difference in remission rates was estimated between 2% and 30%.
Both ketamine and ECT required a median of six treatment sessions to induce remission.
Post-hoc analysis indicated that age was a factor in the findings. In the ECT group, remission was significantly more likely in older patients (51-85 years), compared with younger patients (18-50 years), with remission rates of 77% and 50%, respectively.
But the opposite was true in the ketamine group, with significantly higher remission rates in younger versus older patients (61% vs. 37%).
The study results also support the safety and efficacy of ketamine in patients with psychotic depression, which was present in 15% of patients in the ECT group and 18% of those in the ketamine group.
In this subgroup, half of patients with psychotic depression remitted after ketamine, with no indications of adverse reactions particular for these patients. The remission rate with ECT was 79%.
During the 12-month follow-up period, rate of relapse among remitters was similar at 64% in the ECT group and 70% in the ketamine group (log rank P = .44).
Let the patient decide
As expected, ECT and ketamine had distinct side effect profiles. Subjectively reported prolonged amnesia was more common with ECT and reports of dissociative side effects, anxiety, blurred vision, euphoria, vertigo, and diplopia (double vision) were more common with ketamine.
“Dissociative symptoms were, as expected, observed during treatment with ketamine, but they were brief and in the majority of cases mild and tolerable,” Dr. Movahed Rad said.
The investigators noted that participating study sites all had long-time experience with ECT but no experience administering ketamine.
“Staffs, and some patients, were familiar with side effects common to ECT but were less prepared for the adverse psychological effects of ketamine. This, and knowing ECT was available after the study, probably contributed to the higher dropout rate in the ketamine group,” they wrote.
If both ECT and ketamine are available, “the patient’s preference should, of course, be taken in account when choosing treatment,” said Dr. Movahed Rad.
“ or other somatic risk factor. Patients who have not responded to ECT or have had unacceptable side effects should be offered ketamine infusion and vice versa,” he added.
A good alternative
Commenting on the findings, Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, said the data confirm ECT is highly effective for treatment-resistant depression and show that “newcomer” intravenous ketamine also performs “exceptionally well.”
“This is an extremely important study that really establishes the efficacy of ketamine in a very difficult to treat population,” added Dr. McIntyre, who was not involved in the research.
He added that this “rigorous, well-designed study addresses a critical question” about the comparative efficacy of ECT and intravenous ketamine. It also makes “quite a strong statement about the efficacy of ketamine in younger people.”
He cautioned, however, that this study represents the “first data point and, of course, is not the final word on the topic. There are other studies currently still ongoing that are also comparing ECT to IV ketamine and we’ll look forward to seeing the results.”
The fact that 15%-20% of the study patients had psychotic depression is also noteworthy, said Dr. McIntyre.
“We’ve been hesitant to use ketamine in these patients, I think for obvious reasons, but we recently published a paper showing that it is safe and very effective in these patients,” he said.
Having ketamine as a treatment option is important because the majority of patients who could benefit from ECT decline it, often because of the stigma associated with the procedure, which is often portrayed negatively in films and other media.
“I have been recommending ECT almost every day of my professional life and 98 times out of 100 people say: ‘Thanks but no thanks.’ That’s a problem because ECT is so effective,” Dr. McIntyre said.
The study was funded by the Swedish Research Council, Crafoord Foundation, Skåne Regional Council, Königska Foundation, Lions Forskningsfond Skåne, and the OM Perssons donation foundation. Dr. Movahed Rad has received lecturer honoraria from Lundbeck. Dr. McIntyre has received research grant support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research/Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases/Chinese National Natural Research Foundation and speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, and other companies. McIntyre is also CEO of AltMed.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Intravenous ketamine is effective for treating depression but is inferior to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), new research suggests.
In the first head-to-head trial, ECT was more effective than intravenous ketamine in hospitalized patients with severe depression, with higher remission rates and a greater reduction in symptoms.
However, ketamine led to remission in nearly half of participants and is a “valuable” option for treating severe depression, particularly in younger patients, the investigators noted.
The high rate of remission for ketamine infusion “indicates that it definitely can be used in a clinical setting, but it is more probable that a patient will achieve remission with ECT compared to ketamine,” principal investigator Pouya Movahed Rad, MD, PhD (pharmacology), senior consultant and researcher in psychiatry, Lund (Sweden) University, said in an interview.
Results of the KetECT study were recently published online in the International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology.
Primary focus on remission
The parallel, open-label, noninferiority study included 186 patients aged 18-85 years who were hospitalized with severe unipolar depression and had a score of at least 20 on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS).
Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to thrice-weekly infusions of racemic ketamine (0.5 mg/kg over 40 minutes) or ECT. All patients continued to take their antidepressant medication during the study. The primary outcome was remission, defined as a MADRS score of 10 or less.
Results showed the remission rate was significantly higher in the ECT group than in the ketamine group (63% vs. 46%, respectively; P = .026). The 95% confidence interval of the difference in remission rates was estimated between 2% and 30%.
Both ketamine and ECT required a median of six treatment sessions to induce remission.
Post-hoc analysis indicated that age was a factor in the findings. In the ECT group, remission was significantly more likely in older patients (51-85 years), compared with younger patients (18-50 years), with remission rates of 77% and 50%, respectively.
But the opposite was true in the ketamine group, with significantly higher remission rates in younger versus older patients (61% vs. 37%).
The study results also support the safety and efficacy of ketamine in patients with psychotic depression, which was present in 15% of patients in the ECT group and 18% of those in the ketamine group.
In this subgroup, half of patients with psychotic depression remitted after ketamine, with no indications of adverse reactions particular for these patients. The remission rate with ECT was 79%.
During the 12-month follow-up period, rate of relapse among remitters was similar at 64% in the ECT group and 70% in the ketamine group (log rank P = .44).
Let the patient decide
As expected, ECT and ketamine had distinct side effect profiles. Subjectively reported prolonged amnesia was more common with ECT and reports of dissociative side effects, anxiety, blurred vision, euphoria, vertigo, and diplopia (double vision) were more common with ketamine.
“Dissociative symptoms were, as expected, observed during treatment with ketamine, but they were brief and in the majority of cases mild and tolerable,” Dr. Movahed Rad said.
The investigators noted that participating study sites all had long-time experience with ECT but no experience administering ketamine.
“Staffs, and some patients, were familiar with side effects common to ECT but were less prepared for the adverse psychological effects of ketamine. This, and knowing ECT was available after the study, probably contributed to the higher dropout rate in the ketamine group,” they wrote.
If both ECT and ketamine are available, “the patient’s preference should, of course, be taken in account when choosing treatment,” said Dr. Movahed Rad.
“ or other somatic risk factor. Patients who have not responded to ECT or have had unacceptable side effects should be offered ketamine infusion and vice versa,” he added.
A good alternative
Commenting on the findings, Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, said the data confirm ECT is highly effective for treatment-resistant depression and show that “newcomer” intravenous ketamine also performs “exceptionally well.”
“This is an extremely important study that really establishes the efficacy of ketamine in a very difficult to treat population,” added Dr. McIntyre, who was not involved in the research.
He added that this “rigorous, well-designed study addresses a critical question” about the comparative efficacy of ECT and intravenous ketamine. It also makes “quite a strong statement about the efficacy of ketamine in younger people.”
He cautioned, however, that this study represents the “first data point and, of course, is not the final word on the topic. There are other studies currently still ongoing that are also comparing ECT to IV ketamine and we’ll look forward to seeing the results.”
The fact that 15%-20% of the study patients had psychotic depression is also noteworthy, said Dr. McIntyre.
“We’ve been hesitant to use ketamine in these patients, I think for obvious reasons, but we recently published a paper showing that it is safe and very effective in these patients,” he said.
Having ketamine as a treatment option is important because the majority of patients who could benefit from ECT decline it, often because of the stigma associated with the procedure, which is often portrayed negatively in films and other media.
“I have been recommending ECT almost every day of my professional life and 98 times out of 100 people say: ‘Thanks but no thanks.’ That’s a problem because ECT is so effective,” Dr. McIntyre said.
The study was funded by the Swedish Research Council, Crafoord Foundation, Skåne Regional Council, Königska Foundation, Lions Forskningsfond Skåne, and the OM Perssons donation foundation. Dr. Movahed Rad has received lecturer honoraria from Lundbeck. Dr. McIntyre has received research grant support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research/Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases/Chinese National Natural Research Foundation and speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, and other companies. McIntyre is also CEO of AltMed.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY
Ketamine an ‘intriguing new therapy’ for alcoholism
Three weekly infusions of the dissociative anesthetic ketamine coupled with mindfulness-based relapse prevention therapy may help adults with alcohol use disorder (AUD) maintain abstinence, new research suggests.
Preliminary results from a phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial show ketamine was well tolerated and, compared with placebo, associated with more days of abstinence from alcohol at 6 months.
The results suggest ketamine plus psychological therapy may be a “new, relatively brief treatment that has long lasting effects in AUD,” Celia Morgan, PhD, professor of psychopharmacology, University of Exeter, United Kingdom, told this news organization.
The study was published online Jan. 11 in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
Target depression
Depressive symptoms are common in patients under treatment for AUD and increase relapse risk.
“Ketamine may support alcohol abstinence by temporarily alleviating depressive symptoms during the high-risk relapse period in the weeks after detoxification,” the investigators note.
Ketamine may also provide a “temporary boost to synaptogenesis and neurogenesis, which may allow psychological therapies and new strategies for managing addiction to embed more readily,” they add.
To test these theories, the researchers recruited 96 adults (mean age, 44 years, 35 women) with severe AUD to participate in the trial.
All participants had to abstain from alcohol for at least 24 hours before the trial started and have a reading of 0.0 on a breath alcohol test at the baseline visit.
Participants were randomly allocated to one of four groups:
1. three weekly ketamine infusions of 0.8 mg/kg IV over 40 minutes plus psychological therapy
2. three saline infusions plus psychological therapy
3. three ketamine infusions plus alcohol education
4. three saline infusions plus alcohol education
The primary outcome was self-reported percentage of days abstinent, as well as confirmed alcohol relapse at 6-month follow-up.
(mean difference, 10.1%; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-19.0), “although confidence intervals were wide, consistent with a proof-of-concept study,” the authors note.
The greatest reduction in total days off alcohol occurred in the ketamine plus relapse-prevention therapy group compared with the saline plus alcohol education group (mean difference, 15.9%; 95% CI, 3.8-28.1).
There was no significant difference in relapse rate between the ketamine and placebo groups. No serious adverse effects were reported in any participant.
Growing evidence
These findings support some other studies that have also suggested a benefit of ketamine in AUD.
As reported by this news organization, one recent study found a single infusion of ketamine combined with counseling may help alcohol-dependent patients curb their drinking.
A separate study showed that a single dose of ketamine plus therapy that focused on reactivating drinking-related “maladaptive reward memories” reduced drinking urges and alcohol intake more than just ketamine or a placebo infusion alone.
“That ketamine can reduce both alcohol use and depression in AUD is encouraging therapeutically,” the researchers write.
“While a clear link between depression and AUD is acknowledged, alcohol and mental health services still struggle to meet the needs of dual-diagnosis patients, so ketamine may represent a solution to this long-standing comorbidity,” they add.
Dr. Morgan said in an interview that adjunctive ketamine with relapse-prevention therapy is “currently being delivered in Awakn Clinics in the U.K. and Norway, but we need to conduct the phase 3 trial in order to make the treatment more widely accessible.”
An ‘Intriguing new therapy’
Reached for comment, Timothy Brennan, MD, MPH, chief of clinical services, Addiction Institute of Mount Sinai, New York, said ketamine “continues to be an intriguing new therapy for a variety of mental health conditions.”
“Unfortunately, the study did not show any difference in rates of relapse to alcohol, though an improvement in days of abstinence is certainly noteworthy,” Dr. Brennan said in an interview.
“Because this was just a proof-of-concept study and did not compare ketamine to any FDA-approved pharmacotherapy for alcohol, it remains too early to recommend ketamine infusions to those suffering from alcohol use disorder,” he cautioned.
The study was supported by the Medical Research Council. Dr. Morgan has received royalties for KARE (Ketamine for Reduction of Alcoholic Relapse) therapy license distribution. KARE therapy is licensed from University of Exeter to Awakn Life Sciences. Dr. Morgan has received research funding from Awakn Life Sciences and has served as a consultant for Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Other coauthors have disclosed relationships with industry; the full list can be found with the original article. Dr. Brennan has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Three weekly infusions of the dissociative anesthetic ketamine coupled with mindfulness-based relapse prevention therapy may help adults with alcohol use disorder (AUD) maintain abstinence, new research suggests.
Preliminary results from a phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial show ketamine was well tolerated and, compared with placebo, associated with more days of abstinence from alcohol at 6 months.
The results suggest ketamine plus psychological therapy may be a “new, relatively brief treatment that has long lasting effects in AUD,” Celia Morgan, PhD, professor of psychopharmacology, University of Exeter, United Kingdom, told this news organization.
The study was published online Jan. 11 in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
Target depression
Depressive symptoms are common in patients under treatment for AUD and increase relapse risk.
“Ketamine may support alcohol abstinence by temporarily alleviating depressive symptoms during the high-risk relapse period in the weeks after detoxification,” the investigators note.
Ketamine may also provide a “temporary boost to synaptogenesis and neurogenesis, which may allow psychological therapies and new strategies for managing addiction to embed more readily,” they add.
To test these theories, the researchers recruited 96 adults (mean age, 44 years, 35 women) with severe AUD to participate in the trial.
All participants had to abstain from alcohol for at least 24 hours before the trial started and have a reading of 0.0 on a breath alcohol test at the baseline visit.
Participants were randomly allocated to one of four groups:
1. three weekly ketamine infusions of 0.8 mg/kg IV over 40 minutes plus psychological therapy
2. three saline infusions plus psychological therapy
3. three ketamine infusions plus alcohol education
4. three saline infusions plus alcohol education
The primary outcome was self-reported percentage of days abstinent, as well as confirmed alcohol relapse at 6-month follow-up.
(mean difference, 10.1%; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-19.0), “although confidence intervals were wide, consistent with a proof-of-concept study,” the authors note.
The greatest reduction in total days off alcohol occurred in the ketamine plus relapse-prevention therapy group compared with the saline plus alcohol education group (mean difference, 15.9%; 95% CI, 3.8-28.1).
There was no significant difference in relapse rate between the ketamine and placebo groups. No serious adverse effects were reported in any participant.
Growing evidence
These findings support some other studies that have also suggested a benefit of ketamine in AUD.
As reported by this news organization, one recent study found a single infusion of ketamine combined with counseling may help alcohol-dependent patients curb their drinking.
A separate study showed that a single dose of ketamine plus therapy that focused on reactivating drinking-related “maladaptive reward memories” reduced drinking urges and alcohol intake more than just ketamine or a placebo infusion alone.
“That ketamine can reduce both alcohol use and depression in AUD is encouraging therapeutically,” the researchers write.
“While a clear link between depression and AUD is acknowledged, alcohol and mental health services still struggle to meet the needs of dual-diagnosis patients, so ketamine may represent a solution to this long-standing comorbidity,” they add.
Dr. Morgan said in an interview that adjunctive ketamine with relapse-prevention therapy is “currently being delivered in Awakn Clinics in the U.K. and Norway, but we need to conduct the phase 3 trial in order to make the treatment more widely accessible.”
An ‘Intriguing new therapy’
Reached for comment, Timothy Brennan, MD, MPH, chief of clinical services, Addiction Institute of Mount Sinai, New York, said ketamine “continues to be an intriguing new therapy for a variety of mental health conditions.”
“Unfortunately, the study did not show any difference in rates of relapse to alcohol, though an improvement in days of abstinence is certainly noteworthy,” Dr. Brennan said in an interview.
“Because this was just a proof-of-concept study and did not compare ketamine to any FDA-approved pharmacotherapy for alcohol, it remains too early to recommend ketamine infusions to those suffering from alcohol use disorder,” he cautioned.
The study was supported by the Medical Research Council. Dr. Morgan has received royalties for KARE (Ketamine for Reduction of Alcoholic Relapse) therapy license distribution. KARE therapy is licensed from University of Exeter to Awakn Life Sciences. Dr. Morgan has received research funding from Awakn Life Sciences and has served as a consultant for Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Other coauthors have disclosed relationships with industry; the full list can be found with the original article. Dr. Brennan has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Three weekly infusions of the dissociative anesthetic ketamine coupled with mindfulness-based relapse prevention therapy may help adults with alcohol use disorder (AUD) maintain abstinence, new research suggests.
Preliminary results from a phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial show ketamine was well tolerated and, compared with placebo, associated with more days of abstinence from alcohol at 6 months.
The results suggest ketamine plus psychological therapy may be a “new, relatively brief treatment that has long lasting effects in AUD,” Celia Morgan, PhD, professor of psychopharmacology, University of Exeter, United Kingdom, told this news organization.
The study was published online Jan. 11 in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
Target depression
Depressive symptoms are common in patients under treatment for AUD and increase relapse risk.
“Ketamine may support alcohol abstinence by temporarily alleviating depressive symptoms during the high-risk relapse period in the weeks after detoxification,” the investigators note.
Ketamine may also provide a “temporary boost to synaptogenesis and neurogenesis, which may allow psychological therapies and new strategies for managing addiction to embed more readily,” they add.
To test these theories, the researchers recruited 96 adults (mean age, 44 years, 35 women) with severe AUD to participate in the trial.
All participants had to abstain from alcohol for at least 24 hours before the trial started and have a reading of 0.0 on a breath alcohol test at the baseline visit.
Participants were randomly allocated to one of four groups:
1. three weekly ketamine infusions of 0.8 mg/kg IV over 40 minutes plus psychological therapy
2. three saline infusions plus psychological therapy
3. three ketamine infusions plus alcohol education
4. three saline infusions plus alcohol education
The primary outcome was self-reported percentage of days abstinent, as well as confirmed alcohol relapse at 6-month follow-up.
(mean difference, 10.1%; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-19.0), “although confidence intervals were wide, consistent with a proof-of-concept study,” the authors note.
The greatest reduction in total days off alcohol occurred in the ketamine plus relapse-prevention therapy group compared with the saline plus alcohol education group (mean difference, 15.9%; 95% CI, 3.8-28.1).
There was no significant difference in relapse rate between the ketamine and placebo groups. No serious adverse effects were reported in any participant.
Growing evidence
These findings support some other studies that have also suggested a benefit of ketamine in AUD.
As reported by this news organization, one recent study found a single infusion of ketamine combined with counseling may help alcohol-dependent patients curb their drinking.
A separate study showed that a single dose of ketamine plus therapy that focused on reactivating drinking-related “maladaptive reward memories” reduced drinking urges and alcohol intake more than just ketamine or a placebo infusion alone.
“That ketamine can reduce both alcohol use and depression in AUD is encouraging therapeutically,” the researchers write.
“While a clear link between depression and AUD is acknowledged, alcohol and mental health services still struggle to meet the needs of dual-diagnosis patients, so ketamine may represent a solution to this long-standing comorbidity,” they add.
Dr. Morgan said in an interview that adjunctive ketamine with relapse-prevention therapy is “currently being delivered in Awakn Clinics in the U.K. and Norway, but we need to conduct the phase 3 trial in order to make the treatment more widely accessible.”
An ‘Intriguing new therapy’
Reached for comment, Timothy Brennan, MD, MPH, chief of clinical services, Addiction Institute of Mount Sinai, New York, said ketamine “continues to be an intriguing new therapy for a variety of mental health conditions.”
“Unfortunately, the study did not show any difference in rates of relapse to alcohol, though an improvement in days of abstinence is certainly noteworthy,” Dr. Brennan said in an interview.
“Because this was just a proof-of-concept study and did not compare ketamine to any FDA-approved pharmacotherapy for alcohol, it remains too early to recommend ketamine infusions to those suffering from alcohol use disorder,” he cautioned.
The study was supported by the Medical Research Council. Dr. Morgan has received royalties for KARE (Ketamine for Reduction of Alcoholic Relapse) therapy license distribution. KARE therapy is licensed from University of Exeter to Awakn Life Sciences. Dr. Morgan has received research funding from Awakn Life Sciences and has served as a consultant for Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Other coauthors have disclosed relationships with industry; the full list can be found with the original article. Dr. Brennan has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.