Ted Bosworth

Moving in a very different direction from past coronary stent designs, a new device that is being characterized as bioadaptable, as opposed to bioabsorbable, was noninferior to a widely used drug-eluting stent, and associated with several unique vessel functional improvements at 12 months in a randomized controlled trial.

“The device restored vessel motion, which we think is the reason that we saw plaque stabilization and regression,” reported Shigero Saito, MD, director of the catheterization laboratory at Shonan Kamakura (Japan) General Hospital.

The principal features of the bioadaptable design are cobalt-chromium metal helical strands to provide indefinite scaffolding support coupled with a biodegradable sirolimus-containing poly(D,L-lacti-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) topcoat and a biodegradable poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) bottom coat to “uncage” the vessel once these materials are resorbed, said Dr. Saito.

Twelve-month data from the randomized BIOADAPTOR trial, presented as a late breaker at the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions, provide the first evidence that this uncaging of the vessel is an advantage.

Compared head-to-head in a contemporary drug-eluting stent (DES) in a randomized trial, the bioadaptable stent, as predicted in prior studies, “improved hemodynamics and supported plaque stabilization and positive remodeling,” said Dr. Saito.

In BIOADAPTOR, 445 patients in Japan, Germany, Belgium, and New Zealand were randomized to the novel stent, called DynamX, or to the Resolute Onyx. The trial has a planned follow-up of 5 years.

While the primary endpoint at 12 months was noninferiority for target lesion failure (TLF), it was a series of secondary imaging endpoints that suggest an important impact of uncaging the vessel. This includes better vessel function potentially relevant to resistance to restenosis.

As a result of numerically lower TLF in the DynamX group (1.8% vs. 2.8%), the new device easily demonstrated noninferiority at a high level of significance (P < .001). A numerical advantage for most events, including cardiovascular death (0% vs. 0.9%) and target-vessel myocardial infarction (1.4% vs. 1.9%), favored the novel device, but event rates were low in both arms and none of these differences were statistically significant.

However, the secondary imaging analyses at 12 months suggested major differences between the two devices from “uncaging” the vessel.

These differences included a highly significant improvement at 12 months in vessel pulsatility (P < .001) within the DynamX stent relative to the Onyx stent in all measured segments (proximal, mid, and distal).

In addition, compliance remained suppressed relative to both the proximal (P < .001) and distal (P < .001) vessels of patients fitted with Onyx device. Conversely, there was no significant relative difference in this measure among those fitted with the DynamX device.

At 12 months, the plaque volume change behind the stent of noncalcified lesions increased 9% in the Onyx group but was reduced 4% in the DynamX group (P = .028).

While there was a 13% gain overall in percent diameter stenosis within the stent of patients receiving the DynamX device, it was consistently lower than that observed in the Onyx group. This difference was only a trend overall (12.7% vs. 17.3%; P = .051), but the advantage reached significance, favoring DynamX, for the left anterior descending (LAD) artery (12.1% vs. 19.0%; P = .006), small vessels (13.0% vs. 18.3%; P = .045), and long lesions (13.0% vs. 22.9%; P = .008).

The same relative advantage for DynamX was seen on late lumen loss at 6 months. In this case, the overall advantage of DynamX (0.09 vs. 0.25; P = .038) did reach significance, and there was an advantage for the LAD (–0.02 vs. 0.24; P = .007) and long lesions (–0.06 vs. 0.38; P = .016). The difference did not reach significance for small vessels (0.08 vs. 0.26; P = .121).

All of these advantages on the secondary endpoints can be directly attributed to the effect of uncaging the vessel, according to Dr. Saito, who said this new design “addresses the shortcomings” of both previous drug-eluting and biodegradable stents.

Pointing out that the nonplateauing of late events has persisted regardless of stent design after “more than 20 years of innovation in design and materials,” Dr. Saito said all current stents have weaknesses. While biodegradable stents have not improved long-term outcomes relative to DES “as a result of loss of long-term vessel dynamic support,” DES are flawed due to “permanent caging of the vessel and loss of vessel motion and function.”

This novel hybrid design, employing both metal and biodegradable components, “is a completely different concept,” said Ron Waksman, MD, associate director, division of cardiology, Medstar Hospital Center, Washington. He was particularly impressed by the improvements in pulsatility and compliance in target vessels along with the favorable effects on plaque volume.

“The reduction in plaque volume is something we have not seen before. Usually we see the opposite,” Dr. Waksman said.

“Clearly, the Bioadaptor device is not a me-too stent,” he said. He was not surprised that there was no difference in hard outcomes given both the small sample size and the fact that the advantages of uncaging the vessel are likely to accrue over time.

“We need to look at what happens after 1 year. We still have not seen the potential of this device,” he said, adding he was “impressed” by the features of this novel concept. However, he suggested the advantages remain theoretical from the clinical standpoint, advising Dr. Saito that “you still need to demonstrate the clinical benefits.”

Dr. Saito reports a financial relationship with Elixir Medical, which funded the BIOADAPTOR trial. Dr. Waksman reports financial relationships with 19 pharmaceutical companies including those that manufacture cardiovascular stents.

Moving in a very different direction from past coronary stent designs, a new device that is being characterized as bioadaptable, as opposed to bioabsorbable, was noninferior to a widely used drug-eluting stent, and associated with several unique vessel functional improvements at 12 months in a randomized controlled trial.

“The device restored vessel motion, which we think is the reason that we saw plaque stabilization and regression,” reported Shigero Saito, MD, director of the catheterization laboratory at Shonan Kamakura (Japan) General Hospital.

The principal features of the bioadaptable design are cobalt-chromium metal helical strands to provide indefinite scaffolding support coupled with a biodegradable sirolimus-containing poly(D,L-lacti-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) topcoat and a biodegradable poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) bottom coat to “uncage” the vessel once these materials are resorbed, said Dr. Saito.

Twelve-month data from the randomized BIOADAPTOR trial, presented as a late breaker at the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions, provide the first evidence that this uncaging of the vessel is an advantage.

Compared head-to-head in a contemporary drug-eluting stent (DES) in a randomized trial, the bioadaptable stent, as predicted in prior studies, “improved hemodynamics and supported plaque stabilization and positive remodeling,” said Dr. Saito.

In BIOADAPTOR, 445 patients in Japan, Germany, Belgium, and New Zealand were randomized to the novel stent, called DynamX, or to the Resolute Onyx. The trial has a planned follow-up of 5 years.

While the primary endpoint at 12 months was noninferiority for target lesion failure (TLF), it was a series of secondary imaging endpoints that suggest an important impact of uncaging the vessel. This includes better vessel function potentially relevant to resistance to restenosis.

As a result of numerically lower TLF in the DynamX group (1.8% vs. 2.8%), the new device easily demonstrated noninferiority at a high level of significance (P < .001). A numerical advantage for most events, including cardiovascular death (0% vs. 0.9%) and target-vessel myocardial infarction (1.4% vs. 1.9%), favored the novel device, but event rates were low in both arms and none of these differences were statistically significant.

However, the secondary imaging analyses at 12 months suggested major differences between the two devices from “uncaging” the vessel.

These differences included a highly significant improvement at 12 months in vessel pulsatility (P < .001) within the DynamX stent relative to the Onyx stent in all measured segments (proximal, mid, and distal).

In addition, compliance remained suppressed relative to both the proximal (P < .001) and distal (P < .001) vessels of patients fitted with Onyx device. Conversely, there was no significant relative difference in this measure among those fitted with the DynamX device.

At 12 months, the plaque volume change behind the stent of noncalcified lesions increased 9% in the Onyx group but was reduced 4% in the DynamX group (P = .028).

While there was a 13% gain overall in percent diameter stenosis within the stent of patients receiving the DynamX device, it was consistently lower than that observed in the Onyx group. This difference was only a trend overall (12.7% vs. 17.3%; P = .051), but the advantage reached significance, favoring DynamX, for the left anterior descending (LAD) artery (12.1% vs. 19.0%; P = .006), small vessels (13.0% vs. 18.3%; P = .045), and long lesions (13.0% vs. 22.9%; P = .008).

The same relative advantage for DynamX was seen on late lumen loss at 6 months. In this case, the overall advantage of DynamX (0.09 vs. 0.25; P = .038) did reach significance, and there was an advantage for the LAD (–0.02 vs. 0.24; P = .007) and long lesions (–0.06 vs. 0.38; P = .016). The difference did not reach significance for small vessels (0.08 vs. 0.26; P = .121).

All of these advantages on the secondary endpoints can be directly attributed to the effect of uncaging the vessel, according to Dr. Saito, who said this new design “addresses the shortcomings” of both previous drug-eluting and biodegradable stents.

Pointing out that the nonplateauing of late events has persisted regardless of stent design after “more than 20 years of innovation in design and materials,” Dr. Saito said all current stents have weaknesses. While biodegradable stents have not improved long-term outcomes relative to DES “as a result of loss of long-term vessel dynamic support,” DES are flawed due to “permanent caging of the vessel and loss of vessel motion and function.”

This novel hybrid design, employing both metal and biodegradable components, “is a completely different concept,” said Ron Waksman, MD, associate director, division of cardiology, Medstar Hospital Center, Washington. He was particularly impressed by the improvements in pulsatility and compliance in target vessels along with the favorable effects on plaque volume.

“The reduction in plaque volume is something we have not seen before. Usually we see the opposite,” Dr. Waksman said.

“Clearly, the Bioadaptor device is not a me-too stent,” he said. He was not surprised that there was no difference in hard outcomes given both the small sample size and the fact that the advantages of uncaging the vessel are likely to accrue over time.

“We need to look at what happens after 1 year. We still have not seen the potential of this device,” he said, adding he was “impressed” by the features of this novel concept. However, he suggested the advantages remain theoretical from the clinical standpoint, advising Dr. Saito that “you still need to demonstrate the clinical benefits.”

Dr. Saito reports a financial relationship with Elixir Medical, which funded the BIOADAPTOR trial. Dr. Waksman reports financial relationships with 19 pharmaceutical companies including those that manufacture cardiovascular stents.

Moving in a very different direction from past coronary stent designs, a new device that is being characterized as bioadaptable, as opposed to bioabsorbable, was noninferior to a widely used drug-eluting stent, and associated with several unique vessel functional improvements at 12 months in a randomized controlled trial.

“The device restored vessel motion, which we think is the reason that we saw plaque stabilization and regression,” reported Shigero Saito, MD, director of the catheterization laboratory at Shonan Kamakura (Japan) General Hospital.

The principal features of the bioadaptable design are cobalt-chromium metal helical strands to provide indefinite scaffolding support coupled with a biodegradable sirolimus-containing poly(D,L-lacti-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) topcoat and a biodegradable poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) bottom coat to “uncage” the vessel once these materials are resorbed, said Dr. Saito.

Twelve-month data from the randomized BIOADAPTOR trial, presented as a late breaker at the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions, provide the first evidence that this uncaging of the vessel is an advantage.

Compared head-to-head in a contemporary drug-eluting stent (DES) in a randomized trial, the bioadaptable stent, as predicted in prior studies, “improved hemodynamics and supported plaque stabilization and positive remodeling,” said Dr. Saito.

In BIOADAPTOR, 445 patients in Japan, Germany, Belgium, and New Zealand were randomized to the novel stent, called DynamX, or to the Resolute Onyx. The trial has a planned follow-up of 5 years.

While the primary endpoint at 12 months was noninferiority for target lesion failure (TLF), it was a series of secondary imaging endpoints that suggest an important impact of uncaging the vessel. This includes better vessel function potentially relevant to resistance to restenosis.

As a result of numerically lower TLF in the DynamX group (1.8% vs. 2.8%), the new device easily demonstrated noninferiority at a high level of significance (P < .001). A numerical advantage for most events, including cardiovascular death (0% vs. 0.9%) and target-vessel myocardial infarction (1.4% vs. 1.9%), favored the novel device, but event rates were low in both arms and none of these differences were statistically significant.

However, the secondary imaging analyses at 12 months suggested major differences between the two devices from “uncaging” the vessel.

These differences included a highly significant improvement at 12 months in vessel pulsatility (P < .001) within the DynamX stent relative to the Onyx stent in all measured segments (proximal, mid, and distal).

In addition, compliance remained suppressed relative to both the proximal (P < .001) and distal (P < .001) vessels of patients fitted with Onyx device. Conversely, there was no significant relative difference in this measure among those fitted with the DynamX device.

At 12 months, the plaque volume change behind the stent of noncalcified lesions increased 9% in the Onyx group but was reduced 4% in the DynamX group (P = .028).

While there was a 13% gain overall in percent diameter stenosis within the stent of patients receiving the DynamX device, it was consistently lower than that observed in the Onyx group. This difference was only a trend overall (12.7% vs. 17.3%; P = .051), but the advantage reached significance, favoring DynamX, for the left anterior descending (LAD) artery (12.1% vs. 19.0%; P = .006), small vessels (13.0% vs. 18.3%; P = .045), and long lesions (13.0% vs. 22.9%; P = .008).

The same relative advantage for DynamX was seen on late lumen loss at 6 months. In this case, the overall advantage of DynamX (0.09 vs. 0.25; P = .038) did reach significance, and there was an advantage for the LAD (–0.02 vs. 0.24; P = .007) and long lesions (–0.06 vs. 0.38; P = .016). The difference did not reach significance for small vessels (0.08 vs. 0.26; P = .121).

All of these advantages on the secondary endpoints can be directly attributed to the effect of uncaging the vessel, according to Dr. Saito, who said this new design “addresses the shortcomings” of both previous drug-eluting and biodegradable stents.

Pointing out that the nonplateauing of late events has persisted regardless of stent design after “more than 20 years of innovation in design and materials,” Dr. Saito said all current stents have weaknesses. While biodegradable stents have not improved long-term outcomes relative to DES “as a result of loss of long-term vessel dynamic support,” DES are flawed due to “permanent caging of the vessel and loss of vessel motion and function.”

This novel hybrid design, employing both metal and biodegradable components, “is a completely different concept,” said Ron Waksman, MD, associate director, division of cardiology, Medstar Hospital Center, Washington. He was particularly impressed by the improvements in pulsatility and compliance in target vessels along with the favorable effects on plaque volume.

“The reduction in plaque volume is something we have not seen before. Usually we see the opposite,” Dr. Waksman said.

“Clearly, the Bioadaptor device is not a me-too stent,” he said. He was not surprised that there was no difference in hard outcomes given both the small sample size and the fact that the advantages of uncaging the vessel are likely to accrue over time.

“We need to look at what happens after 1 year. We still have not seen the potential of this device,” he said, adding he was “impressed” by the features of this novel concept. However, he suggested the advantages remain theoretical from the clinical standpoint, advising Dr. Saito that “you still need to demonstrate the clinical benefits.”

Dr. Saito reports a financial relationship with Elixir Medical, which funded the BIOADAPTOR trial. Dr. Waksman reports financial relationships with 19 pharmaceutical companies including those that manufacture cardiovascular stents.

Real-world data accumulated in Europe outside of a clinical trial support both the safety and the benefit of two transcatheter edge-to-edge (TEER) devices designed specifically for the treatment of tricuspid regurgitation (TR).

For the TriClip system (Abbott), the data were drawn from a prospective postmarketing registry, and for the EVOQUE system (Edwards Lifesciences), data were generated by a compassionate use program.

The TriClip system is approved and available in Europe, but neither system has regulatory approval in the United States.

The two sets of data, each presented at the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions, are consistent with controlled trials. Each system was associated with high rates of procedural success, low rates of adverse events, and sustained improvements in quality of life.
 

Real-world backup for TRILUMINATE

Presented just days before the pivotal multinational TRILUMINATE trial was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the bRIGHT postmarketing study of the TriClip device demonstrated a procedural rate of success and a subsequent reduction in TR that was at least as good but in a substantially sicker patient population.

“To appreciate these results, you have to put into perspective the baseline TR in our population,” reported Philipp Lurz, MD, PhD, of the Heart Center Leipzig, University of Leipzig, Germany. Whereas only 70% of those randomized in TRILUMINATE had grade 4 (massive) or 5 (torrential) TR, the proportion was 90% in bRIGHT.

The proportion with TR of moderate or less severity was 77% when assessed at 30 days in bRIGHT versus 72%, however, when assessed at 1 year in TRILUMINATE. In addition, procedural success was 99% in both studies even though patients in bRIGHT were on average older and had more comorbidities. At baseline, 80% of bRIGHT patients were in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III or IV heart failure versus 59% of those in TRILUMINATE.

TRILUMINATE data, presented prior to publication at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology earlier this year, did not associate the transcatheter TR repair with a reduction in mortality or a reduction in hospitalization for heart failure, which were the first two of three hierarchical endpoints, but it did show benefit on the third, which was quality of life. As measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), patients in the transcatheter repair group gained 12.3 points versus 0.6 points (P < .001) on medical therapy.

In the bRIGHT registry, patients gained 19 points in the KCCQ score after treatment. By 30 days, the proportion of patients in NHYA class III/IV had fallen from 80% to 20%. The major adverse event rate of 2.5% at 30 days was only modestly higher than the 1.7% rate at 30 days in TRILUMINATE.

“The safety profile remained strong despite the sicker population treated in the registry,” reported Dr. Lurz, whose results were simultaneously published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC).

The bRIGHT registry analysis was based on 511 patients treated at 26 sites in Europe. Dr. Lurz characterized it as “the first prospective, single-arm, open-label, multicenter, postmarket registry to evaluate the safety and performance of any transcatheter tricuspid valve repair system.”

In a panel discussion following the presentation, Nicole Karam, MD, PhD, codirector of the heart valve unit, Hospital Georges Pompidou, Paris, praised a study of TEER tricuspid valve device in the real world, but she pointed out that the question of who to treat remains unanswered. Although symptom relief has value for a condition that can impose large deficits in quality of life, she called for more data to identify optimal candidates, particularly in the persistent absence of a major effect on hard endpoints.

Dr. Lurz agreed. In bRIGHT, predictors of a moderate or less TR at discharge included a smaller tethering distance, a smaller right ventricular end diastolic dimension, a smaller right atrial volume, and a smaller tricuspid annular diameter.

Each of these predictors argues for earlier treatment, he said, even if later treatment in a clinical trial provides a greater likelihood of eventually demonstrating benefits on hard endpoints.

‘Remarkable reduction’

The data from the much smaller compassionate use evaluation of the EVOQUE system generated similar evidence of safety and benefit while also making the point that earlier intervention offers a greater opportunity for preventing irreversible progression. With much longer follow up, the compassionate-use analysis, which involved patients even sicker than those included in bRIGHT, suggested these repairs are durable.

In this retrospective analysis of 38 patients treated at eight centers in Europe, the United States, and Canada, the mortality climbed steadily over 2 years of follow-up, reaching 29% at 2 years despite the fact that TR was reduced to < 1% after the procedure and remained durably suppressed at a median follow-up of 520 days.

The tricuspid valve repair with the EVOQUE system “was associated with a remarkable reduction in heart failure symptoms and significant improvement in NYHA functional class up to a maximum of 1,074 days after the intervention,” reported Lukas Stolz, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich.

In the data he presented at EuroPCR, which was published simultaneously as a letter in JACC, he said that favorable reverse remodeling of the right ventricle, which was observed as early as 30 days after the procedure, was maintained at long-term follow up.

The uncontrolled data from the compassionate analysis, like the bRIGHT registry, could not confirm that tricuspid valve repair changes the trajectory of progressive heart disease, but the favorable effects Dr. Stolz reported on cardiovascular function, not just symptoms, support this idea.

Dr. Lutz has financial relationships with Edwards Lifesciences, ReCor, and Abbott, which funded the bRIGHT registry. Dr. Karam reports financial relationships with Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr. Stolz reports no potential conflicts of interest, but other coinvestigators of the retrospective analysis have financial relationships with Edwards Lifesciences, which is developing the EVOQUE system.

Real-world data accumulated in Europe outside of a clinical trial support both the safety and the benefit of two transcatheter edge-to-edge (TEER) devices designed specifically for the treatment of tricuspid regurgitation (TR).

For the TriClip system (Abbott), the data were drawn from a prospective postmarketing registry, and for the EVOQUE system (Edwards Lifesciences), data were generated by a compassionate use program.

The TriClip system is approved and available in Europe, but neither system has regulatory approval in the United States.

The two sets of data, each presented at the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions, are consistent with controlled trials. Each system was associated with high rates of procedural success, low rates of adverse events, and sustained improvements in quality of life.
 

Real-world backup for TRILUMINATE

Presented just days before the pivotal multinational TRILUMINATE trial was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the bRIGHT postmarketing study of the TriClip device demonstrated a procedural rate of success and a subsequent reduction in TR that was at least as good but in a substantially sicker patient population.

“To appreciate these results, you have to put into perspective the baseline TR in our population,” reported Philipp Lurz, MD, PhD, of the Heart Center Leipzig, University of Leipzig, Germany. Whereas only 70% of those randomized in TRILUMINATE had grade 4 (massive) or 5 (torrential) TR, the proportion was 90% in bRIGHT.

The proportion with TR of moderate or less severity was 77% when assessed at 30 days in bRIGHT versus 72%, however, when assessed at 1 year in TRILUMINATE. In addition, procedural success was 99% in both studies even though patients in bRIGHT were on average older and had more comorbidities. At baseline, 80% of bRIGHT patients were in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III or IV heart failure versus 59% of those in TRILUMINATE.

TRILUMINATE data, presented prior to publication at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology earlier this year, did not associate the transcatheter TR repair with a reduction in mortality or a reduction in hospitalization for heart failure, which were the first two of three hierarchical endpoints, but it did show benefit on the third, which was quality of life. As measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), patients in the transcatheter repair group gained 12.3 points versus 0.6 points (P < .001) on medical therapy.

In the bRIGHT registry, patients gained 19 points in the KCCQ score after treatment. By 30 days, the proportion of patients in NHYA class III/IV had fallen from 80% to 20%. The major adverse event rate of 2.5% at 30 days was only modestly higher than the 1.7% rate at 30 days in TRILUMINATE.

“The safety profile remained strong despite the sicker population treated in the registry,” reported Dr. Lurz, whose results were simultaneously published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC).

The bRIGHT registry analysis was based on 511 patients treated at 26 sites in Europe. Dr. Lurz characterized it as “the first prospective, single-arm, open-label, multicenter, postmarket registry to evaluate the safety and performance of any transcatheter tricuspid valve repair system.”

In a panel discussion following the presentation, Nicole Karam, MD, PhD, codirector of the heart valve unit, Hospital Georges Pompidou, Paris, praised a study of TEER tricuspid valve device in the real world, but she pointed out that the question of who to treat remains unanswered. Although symptom relief has value for a condition that can impose large deficits in quality of life, she called for more data to identify optimal candidates, particularly in the persistent absence of a major effect on hard endpoints.

Dr. Lurz agreed. In bRIGHT, predictors of a moderate or less TR at discharge included a smaller tethering distance, a smaller right ventricular end diastolic dimension, a smaller right atrial volume, and a smaller tricuspid annular diameter.

Each of these predictors argues for earlier treatment, he said, even if later treatment in a clinical trial provides a greater likelihood of eventually demonstrating benefits on hard endpoints.

‘Remarkable reduction’

The data from the much smaller compassionate use evaluation of the EVOQUE system generated similar evidence of safety and benefit while also making the point that earlier intervention offers a greater opportunity for preventing irreversible progression. With much longer follow up, the compassionate-use analysis, which involved patients even sicker than those included in bRIGHT, suggested these repairs are durable.

In this retrospective analysis of 38 patients treated at eight centers in Europe, the United States, and Canada, the mortality climbed steadily over 2 years of follow-up, reaching 29% at 2 years despite the fact that TR was reduced to < 1% after the procedure and remained durably suppressed at a median follow-up of 520 days.

The tricuspid valve repair with the EVOQUE system “was associated with a remarkable reduction in heart failure symptoms and significant improvement in NYHA functional class up to a maximum of 1,074 days after the intervention,” reported Lukas Stolz, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich.

In the data he presented at EuroPCR, which was published simultaneously as a letter in JACC, he said that favorable reverse remodeling of the right ventricle, which was observed as early as 30 days after the procedure, was maintained at long-term follow up.

The uncontrolled data from the compassionate analysis, like the bRIGHT registry, could not confirm that tricuspid valve repair changes the trajectory of progressive heart disease, but the favorable effects Dr. Stolz reported on cardiovascular function, not just symptoms, support this idea.

Dr. Lutz has financial relationships with Edwards Lifesciences, ReCor, and Abbott, which funded the bRIGHT registry. Dr. Karam reports financial relationships with Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr. Stolz reports no potential conflicts of interest, but other coinvestigators of the retrospective analysis have financial relationships with Edwards Lifesciences, which is developing the EVOQUE system.

Real-world data accumulated in Europe outside of a clinical trial support both the safety and the benefit of two transcatheter edge-to-edge (TEER) devices designed specifically for the treatment of tricuspid regurgitation (TR).

For the TriClip system (Abbott), the data were drawn from a prospective postmarketing registry, and for the EVOQUE system (Edwards Lifesciences), data were generated by a compassionate use program.

The TriClip system is approved and available in Europe, but neither system has regulatory approval in the United States.

The two sets of data, each presented at the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions, are consistent with controlled trials. Each system was associated with high rates of procedural success, low rates of adverse events, and sustained improvements in quality of life.
 

Real-world backup for TRILUMINATE

Presented just days before the pivotal multinational TRILUMINATE trial was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the bRIGHT postmarketing study of the TriClip device demonstrated a procedural rate of success and a subsequent reduction in TR that was at least as good but in a substantially sicker patient population.

“To appreciate these results, you have to put into perspective the baseline TR in our population,” reported Philipp Lurz, MD, PhD, of the Heart Center Leipzig, University of Leipzig, Germany. Whereas only 70% of those randomized in TRILUMINATE had grade 4 (massive) or 5 (torrential) TR, the proportion was 90% in bRIGHT.

The proportion with TR of moderate or less severity was 77% when assessed at 30 days in bRIGHT versus 72%, however, when assessed at 1 year in TRILUMINATE. In addition, procedural success was 99% in both studies even though patients in bRIGHT were on average older and had more comorbidities. At baseline, 80% of bRIGHT patients were in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III or IV heart failure versus 59% of those in TRILUMINATE.

TRILUMINATE data, presented prior to publication at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology earlier this year, did not associate the transcatheter TR repair with a reduction in mortality or a reduction in hospitalization for heart failure, which were the first two of three hierarchical endpoints, but it did show benefit on the third, which was quality of life. As measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), patients in the transcatheter repair group gained 12.3 points versus 0.6 points (P < .001) on medical therapy.

In the bRIGHT registry, patients gained 19 points in the KCCQ score after treatment. By 30 days, the proportion of patients in NHYA class III/IV had fallen from 80% to 20%. The major adverse event rate of 2.5% at 30 days was only modestly higher than the 1.7% rate at 30 days in TRILUMINATE.

“The safety profile remained strong despite the sicker population treated in the registry,” reported Dr. Lurz, whose results were simultaneously published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC).

The bRIGHT registry analysis was based on 511 patients treated at 26 sites in Europe. Dr. Lurz characterized it as “the first prospective, single-arm, open-label, multicenter, postmarket registry to evaluate the safety and performance of any transcatheter tricuspid valve repair system.”

In a panel discussion following the presentation, Nicole Karam, MD, PhD, codirector of the heart valve unit, Hospital Georges Pompidou, Paris, praised a study of TEER tricuspid valve device in the real world, but she pointed out that the question of who to treat remains unanswered. Although symptom relief has value for a condition that can impose large deficits in quality of life, she called for more data to identify optimal candidates, particularly in the persistent absence of a major effect on hard endpoints.

Dr. Lurz agreed. In bRIGHT, predictors of a moderate or less TR at discharge included a smaller tethering distance, a smaller right ventricular end diastolic dimension, a smaller right atrial volume, and a smaller tricuspid annular diameter.

Each of these predictors argues for earlier treatment, he said, even if later treatment in a clinical trial provides a greater likelihood of eventually demonstrating benefits on hard endpoints.

‘Remarkable reduction’

The data from the much smaller compassionate use evaluation of the EVOQUE system generated similar evidence of safety and benefit while also making the point that earlier intervention offers a greater opportunity for preventing irreversible progression. With much longer follow up, the compassionate-use analysis, which involved patients even sicker than those included in bRIGHT, suggested these repairs are durable.

In this retrospective analysis of 38 patients treated at eight centers in Europe, the United States, and Canada, the mortality climbed steadily over 2 years of follow-up, reaching 29% at 2 years despite the fact that TR was reduced to < 1% after the procedure and remained durably suppressed at a median follow-up of 520 days.

The tricuspid valve repair with the EVOQUE system “was associated with a remarkable reduction in heart failure symptoms and significant improvement in NYHA functional class up to a maximum of 1,074 days after the intervention,” reported Lukas Stolz, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich.

In the data he presented at EuroPCR, which was published simultaneously as a letter in JACC, he said that favorable reverse remodeling of the right ventricle, which was observed as early as 30 days after the procedure, was maintained at long-term follow up.

The uncontrolled data from the compassionate analysis, like the bRIGHT registry, could not confirm that tricuspid valve repair changes the trajectory of progressive heart disease, but the favorable effects Dr. Stolz reported on cardiovascular function, not just symptoms, support this idea.

Dr. Lutz has financial relationships with Edwards Lifesciences, ReCor, and Abbott, which funded the bRIGHT registry. Dr. Karam reports financial relationships with Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr. Stolz reports no potential conflicts of interest, but other coinvestigators of the retrospective analysis have financial relationships with Edwards Lifesciences, which is developing the EVOQUE system.

For patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), adverse outcomes are more common in those who are in cardiogenic shock than those who are not, but the greater risks appear to be completely concentrated in the early period of recovery, suggests a propensity-matched study.

“The landmark analysis we conducted at 4 weeks suggest patients do remarkably well – as good as patients without cardiogenic shock – if they survive through the initial recovery period,” reported Abhijeet Dhoble, MD, associate professor and an interventional cardiologist at McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston.

Their results were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

The study, which drew data from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Replacement (STS/ACC TVR) Registry, looked only at patients who underwent TAVR with the Sapien3 or Sapience3 Ultra device. Patients with CS were propensity matched to Sapien device-treated patients in the registry without CS.

Taken from a pool of 9,348 patients with CS and 299,600 patients without, the matching included a large array of clinically relevant covariates, including age, gender, prior cardiovascular events, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class.

After matching, there were 4,952 patients in each arm. The baseline Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk score was approximately 10.0 in both arms. About half had atrial fibrillation and 90% were in NYHA class III or IV. The median LVEF in both groups was 39.9%.
 

Mortality more than twofold higher in CS patients

At 30 days, outcomes were worse in patients with CS, including the proportion who died (12.9% vs. 4.9%; P < .0001) and the proportion with stroke (3.3% vs. 1.9%; P < .0001).

The only major study endpoint not significantly different, although higher in the CS group, was the rate of readmission (12.0% vs. 11.0%; P = .25).

At 1 year, the differences in the rates of mortality (29.7% vs. 22.6%; P < .0001) and stroke (4.3% vs. 3.1%; P = .0004) had narrowed modestly but remained highly significant. A closer analysis indicated that almost all of the difference in the rate of events occurred prior to hospital discharge.

In fact, mortality (9.9% vs. 2.7%; P < .0001), stroke (2.9% vs. 1.5%; P < .0001), major vascular complications (2.3% vs. 1.9%; P = .0002), life-threatening bleeding (2.5% vs. 0.7%; P < .0001), new dialysis (3.5% vs. 1.1%; P < .0001) and new onset atrial fibrillation (3.8% vs. 1.6%; P < .0001) were all significantly higher in the CS group in this very early time period. By hazard ratio (HR), the risk of a major event prior to leaving the hospital was nearly threefold higher (HR 2.3; P < .0001) in the CS group.

Yet, there was no significant difference in the accumulation of adverse events after discharge. When compared for major events in the landmark analysis, the event curves were essentially superimposable from 30 days to 1 year. During this period, event rates were 19.3% versus 18.5% for CS and non-CS patients (HR 1.07; P = .2640).

The higher rate of events was unrelated to procedural complications, which were very low in both groups and did not differ significantly. Transition to open surgery, annular disruption, aortic dissection, coronary occlusion, and device embolization occurred in < 1% of patients in both groups.
 

Predictors of a poor outcome identified

On multivariate analysis, the predictors of events in the CS patients were comorbidities. Despite propensity matching, being on dialysis, having a permanent pacemaker, or having a mechanical assist device were all independent predictors of mortality risk specific to the CS group.

Age and baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) score were not predictors.

These risk factors deserve consideration when evaluating CS candidates for TAVR, but Dr. Dhoble said that none are absolute contraindications. Rather, he advised that they should be considered in the context of the entire clinical picture, including the expected benefit from TAVR. Indeed, the benefit-to-risk ratio generally favors TAVR in CS patients, particularly those with obstructive CS caused by aortic stenosis, according to Dr. Dhoble.

“Efforts should be made not only to avoid delaying TAVR in such patients but also to prevent CS by early definitive treatment of patients with aortic stenosis,” he said.

These data are useful and important, said Jonathan Schwartz, MD, medical director, interventional cardiology, Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C.

CS candidates for TAVR “are some of the sickest patients we treat. It is nice to finally have some data for this group,” he said. He agreed that CS patients can derive major benefit from TAVR if appropriately selected.

While many CS patients are already considered for TAVR, one source of hesitation has been the exclusion of CS patients from major TAVR trials, said Dr. Dhoble. He hopes these data will provide a framework for clinical decisions.

Ironically, the first TAVR patient and half of the initial series of 38 TAVR patients had CS, noted Alain G. Cribier, MD, director of cardiology, Charles Nicolle Hospital, University of Rouen, France. As the primary investigator of that initial TAVR study, conducted more than 20 years ago, he said he was not surprised by the favorable results of the propensity analysis.

“There is an almost miraculous clinical improvement to be achieved when you succeed with the procedure,” said Dr. Cribier, recounting his own experience. Improvements in LVEF of up to 30% can be achieved “within a day or two or even the first day,” he said.

Dr. Dhoble reports financial relationships with Abbott Vascular and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Schwartz reports that he has financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Cordis, Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr. Cribier reports a financial relationship with Edwards Lifesciences.

For patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), adverse outcomes are more common in those who are in cardiogenic shock than those who are not, but the greater risks appear to be completely concentrated in the early period of recovery, suggests a propensity-matched study.

“The landmark analysis we conducted at 4 weeks suggest patients do remarkably well – as good as patients without cardiogenic shock – if they survive through the initial recovery period,” reported Abhijeet Dhoble, MD, associate professor and an interventional cardiologist at McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston.

Their results were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

The study, which drew data from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Replacement (STS/ACC TVR) Registry, looked only at patients who underwent TAVR with the Sapien3 or Sapience3 Ultra device. Patients with CS were propensity matched to Sapien device-treated patients in the registry without CS.

Taken from a pool of 9,348 patients with CS and 299,600 patients without, the matching included a large array of clinically relevant covariates, including age, gender, prior cardiovascular events, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class.

After matching, there were 4,952 patients in each arm. The baseline Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk score was approximately 10.0 in both arms. About half had atrial fibrillation and 90% were in NYHA class III or IV. The median LVEF in both groups was 39.9%.
 

Mortality more than twofold higher in CS patients

At 30 days, outcomes were worse in patients with CS, including the proportion who died (12.9% vs. 4.9%; P < .0001) and the proportion with stroke (3.3% vs. 1.9%; P < .0001).

The only major study endpoint not significantly different, although higher in the CS group, was the rate of readmission (12.0% vs. 11.0%; P = .25).

At 1 year, the differences in the rates of mortality (29.7% vs. 22.6%; P < .0001) and stroke (4.3% vs. 3.1%; P = .0004) had narrowed modestly but remained highly significant. A closer analysis indicated that almost all of the difference in the rate of events occurred prior to hospital discharge.

In fact, mortality (9.9% vs. 2.7%; P < .0001), stroke (2.9% vs. 1.5%; P < .0001), major vascular complications (2.3% vs. 1.9%; P = .0002), life-threatening bleeding (2.5% vs. 0.7%; P < .0001), new dialysis (3.5% vs. 1.1%; P < .0001) and new onset atrial fibrillation (3.8% vs. 1.6%; P < .0001) were all significantly higher in the CS group in this very early time period. By hazard ratio (HR), the risk of a major event prior to leaving the hospital was nearly threefold higher (HR 2.3; P < .0001) in the CS group.

Yet, there was no significant difference in the accumulation of adverse events after discharge. When compared for major events in the landmark analysis, the event curves were essentially superimposable from 30 days to 1 year. During this period, event rates were 19.3% versus 18.5% for CS and non-CS patients (HR 1.07; P = .2640).

The higher rate of events was unrelated to procedural complications, which were very low in both groups and did not differ significantly. Transition to open surgery, annular disruption, aortic dissection, coronary occlusion, and device embolization occurred in < 1% of patients in both groups.
 

Predictors of a poor outcome identified

On multivariate analysis, the predictors of events in the CS patients were comorbidities. Despite propensity matching, being on dialysis, having a permanent pacemaker, or having a mechanical assist device were all independent predictors of mortality risk specific to the CS group.

Age and baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) score were not predictors.

These risk factors deserve consideration when evaluating CS candidates for TAVR, but Dr. Dhoble said that none are absolute contraindications. Rather, he advised that they should be considered in the context of the entire clinical picture, including the expected benefit from TAVR. Indeed, the benefit-to-risk ratio generally favors TAVR in CS patients, particularly those with obstructive CS caused by aortic stenosis, according to Dr. Dhoble.

“Efforts should be made not only to avoid delaying TAVR in such patients but also to prevent CS by early definitive treatment of patients with aortic stenosis,” he said.

These data are useful and important, said Jonathan Schwartz, MD, medical director, interventional cardiology, Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C.

CS candidates for TAVR “are some of the sickest patients we treat. It is nice to finally have some data for this group,” he said. He agreed that CS patients can derive major benefit from TAVR if appropriately selected.

While many CS patients are already considered for TAVR, one source of hesitation has been the exclusion of CS patients from major TAVR trials, said Dr. Dhoble. He hopes these data will provide a framework for clinical decisions.

Ironically, the first TAVR patient and half of the initial series of 38 TAVR patients had CS, noted Alain G. Cribier, MD, director of cardiology, Charles Nicolle Hospital, University of Rouen, France. As the primary investigator of that initial TAVR study, conducted more than 20 years ago, he said he was not surprised by the favorable results of the propensity analysis.

“There is an almost miraculous clinical improvement to be achieved when you succeed with the procedure,” said Dr. Cribier, recounting his own experience. Improvements in LVEF of up to 30% can be achieved “within a day or two or even the first day,” he said.

Dr. Dhoble reports financial relationships with Abbott Vascular and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Schwartz reports that he has financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Cordis, Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr. Cribier reports a financial relationship with Edwards Lifesciences.

For patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), adverse outcomes are more common in those who are in cardiogenic shock than those who are not, but the greater risks appear to be completely concentrated in the early period of recovery, suggests a propensity-matched study.

“The landmark analysis we conducted at 4 weeks suggest patients do remarkably well – as good as patients without cardiogenic shock – if they survive through the initial recovery period,” reported Abhijeet Dhoble, MD, associate professor and an interventional cardiologist at McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston.

Their results were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

The study, which drew data from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Replacement (STS/ACC TVR) Registry, looked only at patients who underwent TAVR with the Sapien3 or Sapience3 Ultra device. Patients with CS were propensity matched to Sapien device-treated patients in the registry without CS.

Taken from a pool of 9,348 patients with CS and 299,600 patients without, the matching included a large array of clinically relevant covariates, including age, gender, prior cardiovascular events, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class.

After matching, there were 4,952 patients in each arm. The baseline Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk score was approximately 10.0 in both arms. About half had atrial fibrillation and 90% were in NYHA class III or IV. The median LVEF in both groups was 39.9%.
 

Mortality more than twofold higher in CS patients

At 30 days, outcomes were worse in patients with CS, including the proportion who died (12.9% vs. 4.9%; P < .0001) and the proportion with stroke (3.3% vs. 1.9%; P < .0001).

The only major study endpoint not significantly different, although higher in the CS group, was the rate of readmission (12.0% vs. 11.0%; P = .25).

At 1 year, the differences in the rates of mortality (29.7% vs. 22.6%; P < .0001) and stroke (4.3% vs. 3.1%; P = .0004) had narrowed modestly but remained highly significant. A closer analysis indicated that almost all of the difference in the rate of events occurred prior to hospital discharge.

In fact, mortality (9.9% vs. 2.7%; P < .0001), stroke (2.9% vs. 1.5%; P < .0001), major vascular complications (2.3% vs. 1.9%; P = .0002), life-threatening bleeding (2.5% vs. 0.7%; P < .0001), new dialysis (3.5% vs. 1.1%; P < .0001) and new onset atrial fibrillation (3.8% vs. 1.6%; P < .0001) were all significantly higher in the CS group in this very early time period. By hazard ratio (HR), the risk of a major event prior to leaving the hospital was nearly threefold higher (HR 2.3; P < .0001) in the CS group.

Yet, there was no significant difference in the accumulation of adverse events after discharge. When compared for major events in the landmark analysis, the event curves were essentially superimposable from 30 days to 1 year. During this period, event rates were 19.3% versus 18.5% for CS and non-CS patients (HR 1.07; P = .2640).

The higher rate of events was unrelated to procedural complications, which were very low in both groups and did not differ significantly. Transition to open surgery, annular disruption, aortic dissection, coronary occlusion, and device embolization occurred in < 1% of patients in both groups.
 

Predictors of a poor outcome identified

On multivariate analysis, the predictors of events in the CS patients were comorbidities. Despite propensity matching, being on dialysis, having a permanent pacemaker, or having a mechanical assist device were all independent predictors of mortality risk specific to the CS group.

Age and baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) score were not predictors.

These risk factors deserve consideration when evaluating CS candidates for TAVR, but Dr. Dhoble said that none are absolute contraindications. Rather, he advised that they should be considered in the context of the entire clinical picture, including the expected benefit from TAVR. Indeed, the benefit-to-risk ratio generally favors TAVR in CS patients, particularly those with obstructive CS caused by aortic stenosis, according to Dr. Dhoble.

“Efforts should be made not only to avoid delaying TAVR in such patients but also to prevent CS by early definitive treatment of patients with aortic stenosis,” he said.

These data are useful and important, said Jonathan Schwartz, MD, medical director, interventional cardiology, Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C.

CS candidates for TAVR “are some of the sickest patients we treat. It is nice to finally have some data for this group,” he said. He agreed that CS patients can derive major benefit from TAVR if appropriately selected.

While many CS patients are already considered for TAVR, one source of hesitation has been the exclusion of CS patients from major TAVR trials, said Dr. Dhoble. He hopes these data will provide a framework for clinical decisions.

Ironically, the first TAVR patient and half of the initial series of 38 TAVR patients had CS, noted Alain G. Cribier, MD, director of cardiology, Charles Nicolle Hospital, University of Rouen, France. As the primary investigator of that initial TAVR study, conducted more than 20 years ago, he said he was not surprised by the favorable results of the propensity analysis.

“There is an almost miraculous clinical improvement to be achieved when you succeed with the procedure,” said Dr. Cribier, recounting his own experience. Improvements in LVEF of up to 30% can be achieved “within a day or two or even the first day,” he said.

Dr. Dhoble reports financial relationships with Abbott Vascular and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Schwartz reports that he has financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Cordis, Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr. Cribier reports a financial relationship with Edwards Lifesciences.

Even after 3 years of follow-up, redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) performs about as well as the first procedure, whether compared for hard endpoints, such as death and stroke, or for softer endpoints, such as function and quality of life, new registry data suggest.

The findings generally support redo-TAVR with balloon-expandable devices as “a reasonable treatment option for failed transcatheter heart valves,” reported Rajendra Makkar, MD, associate director, Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.

The results were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

Data for this analysis were drawn from 348,338 TAVR procedures with the Edwards balloon-expandable valves in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Replacement Registry.

Of these, 1,216 were redo procedures. In 475 of the cases, the redo was performed in a patient whose first procedure was with an Edwards device. In the remaining 741 cases, the Edwards device replaced a different prosthetic heart valve. The median time to the redo from the first procedure was 26 months.

For the analysis, the redo-TAVRs were compared with native TAVR patients through 1:1 propensity matching employing 35 covariates, such as age, body mass index (BMI), baseline comorbidities, prior cardiovascular procedures, valve size, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score.
 

Low death and stroke rates following TAVR redos

The rates of all-cause death or stroke within hospital (4.7% vs. 3.9%; P = .32) and at 30 days (6.1% vs. 5.9%; P = .77) were numerically but not statistically higher in the redo group.

At 1 year, the rates of death (17.3% vs. 17.7%; P = .961) and stroke (3.3% vs. 3.5%; P = .982) were numerically but not significantly lower among those who underwent a redo procedure.

The secondary endpoints told the same story. The one exception was the higher aortic valve reintervention rate (0.61% vs. 0.09%; P = .03) at 30 days in the redo group. This did reach statistical significance, but Dr. Makkar pointed out rates were very low regardless. The rates climbed in both groups by 1 year (1.09% vs. 0.21%; P = .01).

No other secondary endpoints differed significantly at 30 days or at 1 year. Even though some were numerically higher after redo at 1 year, such as major vascular complications (1.25 vs. 1.60; P = .51), others were lower, such as new-start dialysis (1.62 vs. 0.98; P = .26). All-cause readmission rates at 1 year were nearly identical (32.56% vs. 32.23%; P = .82).

Consistent with the comparable outcomes on the hard endpoints, major and similar improvements were seen in both the redo and the propensity-matched native TAVR patients on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary. The slight advantage for the redo group was not significant at 30 days, but the degree of improvement was greater after the redo than after native TAVR at 1 year (15% vs. 10%; P = .03).

“You bring good news,” said Alain G. Cribier, MD, director of cardiology, Charles Nicolle Hospital, University of Rouen, France. Widely regarded as the father of TAVR for his first-in-human series in 2002, Dr. Cribier said that there are several reassuring take-home messages from this study.

“First, these data tell us that the redo rate is extremely low,” he said, noting that the registry data suggests a risk well below 1%. “Second, we are seeing from this data that there are no more complications [than TAVR in a native valve] if you need to do this.”
 

Redo patients are generally sicker

The propensity matching was designed to eliminate baseline differences for the outcome comparisons, but Dr. Makkar did point out that redo-TAVR patients were sicker than the native TAVR patients. For example, when compared prior to propensity matching, the STS score was higher (8.3 vs. 5.2; P < .01), more patients had atrial fibrillation (47.9% vs. 36.2%; P < .01), and more patients had a prior stroke (15.0% vs. 10.7%; P < .01).

The registry only has follow-up out to 1 year, but participating patients were matched to a claims database to capture outcomes out to 3 years. Mortality rates at long-term follow-up were not significantly different for redo vs. native TAVR (42.2% vs. 40.3% respectively; P = .98); for the entire dataset or when compared in subgroups defined by Edwards valve redo of an Edwards valve (P = .909) or an Edwards valve redo of a non-Edwards device (P = .871).

Whether an early redo, defined as 12 months after the index TAVR procedure, or a late redo, the rate of mortality ranged from approximately 16% to 18% with no significant difference between redo and native TAVR.

A moderator for the late-breaking trials session where these data were presented, Darren Mylotte, MD, a consultant in cardiology for the Galway University Hospitals, Ireland, challenged Dr. Makkar about the potential for selection bias. He said redo patients might be the ones that interventionalists feel confident about helping, making this comparison unrepresentative.

“I think that the selection bias is likely to cut both ways,” Dr. Makkar replied. For many patients with a failed TAVR, he explained that clinicians might think, “There is nothing to be done for this patient except to try a redo.”

Dr. Makkar reports financial relationships with Abbott, Cordis, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr. Cribier reports a financial relationship with Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Mylotte reports no potential conflicts of interest.

Even after 3 years of follow-up, redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) performs about as well as the first procedure, whether compared for hard endpoints, such as death and stroke, or for softer endpoints, such as function and quality of life, new registry data suggest.

The findings generally support redo-TAVR with balloon-expandable devices as “a reasonable treatment option for failed transcatheter heart valves,” reported Rajendra Makkar, MD, associate director, Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.

The results were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

Data for this analysis were drawn from 348,338 TAVR procedures with the Edwards balloon-expandable valves in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Replacement Registry.

Of these, 1,216 were redo procedures. In 475 of the cases, the redo was performed in a patient whose first procedure was with an Edwards device. In the remaining 741 cases, the Edwards device replaced a different prosthetic heart valve. The median time to the redo from the first procedure was 26 months.

For the analysis, the redo-TAVRs were compared with native TAVR patients through 1:1 propensity matching employing 35 covariates, such as age, body mass index (BMI), baseline comorbidities, prior cardiovascular procedures, valve size, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score.
 

Low death and stroke rates following TAVR redos

The rates of all-cause death or stroke within hospital (4.7% vs. 3.9%; P = .32) and at 30 days (6.1% vs. 5.9%; P = .77) were numerically but not statistically higher in the redo group.

At 1 year, the rates of death (17.3% vs. 17.7%; P = .961) and stroke (3.3% vs. 3.5%; P = .982) were numerically but not significantly lower among those who underwent a redo procedure.

The secondary endpoints told the same story. The one exception was the higher aortic valve reintervention rate (0.61% vs. 0.09%; P = .03) at 30 days in the redo group. This did reach statistical significance, but Dr. Makkar pointed out rates were very low regardless. The rates climbed in both groups by 1 year (1.09% vs. 0.21%; P = .01).

No other secondary endpoints differed significantly at 30 days or at 1 year. Even though some were numerically higher after redo at 1 year, such as major vascular complications (1.25 vs. 1.60; P = .51), others were lower, such as new-start dialysis (1.62 vs. 0.98; P = .26). All-cause readmission rates at 1 year were nearly identical (32.56% vs. 32.23%; P = .82).

Consistent with the comparable outcomes on the hard endpoints, major and similar improvements were seen in both the redo and the propensity-matched native TAVR patients on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary. The slight advantage for the redo group was not significant at 30 days, but the degree of improvement was greater after the redo than after native TAVR at 1 year (15% vs. 10%; P = .03).

“You bring good news,” said Alain G. Cribier, MD, director of cardiology, Charles Nicolle Hospital, University of Rouen, France. Widely regarded as the father of TAVR for his first-in-human series in 2002, Dr. Cribier said that there are several reassuring take-home messages from this study.

“First, these data tell us that the redo rate is extremely low,” he said, noting that the registry data suggests a risk well below 1%. “Second, we are seeing from this data that there are no more complications [than TAVR in a native valve] if you need to do this.”
 

Redo patients are generally sicker

The propensity matching was designed to eliminate baseline differences for the outcome comparisons, but Dr. Makkar did point out that redo-TAVR patients were sicker than the native TAVR patients. For example, when compared prior to propensity matching, the STS score was higher (8.3 vs. 5.2; P < .01), more patients had atrial fibrillation (47.9% vs. 36.2%; P < .01), and more patients had a prior stroke (15.0% vs. 10.7%; P < .01).

The registry only has follow-up out to 1 year, but participating patients were matched to a claims database to capture outcomes out to 3 years. Mortality rates at long-term follow-up were not significantly different for redo vs. native TAVR (42.2% vs. 40.3% respectively; P = .98); for the entire dataset or when compared in subgroups defined by Edwards valve redo of an Edwards valve (P = .909) or an Edwards valve redo of a non-Edwards device (P = .871).

Whether an early redo, defined as 12 months after the index TAVR procedure, or a late redo, the rate of mortality ranged from approximately 16% to 18% with no significant difference between redo and native TAVR.

A moderator for the late-breaking trials session where these data were presented, Darren Mylotte, MD, a consultant in cardiology for the Galway University Hospitals, Ireland, challenged Dr. Makkar about the potential for selection bias. He said redo patients might be the ones that interventionalists feel confident about helping, making this comparison unrepresentative.

“I think that the selection bias is likely to cut both ways,” Dr. Makkar replied. For many patients with a failed TAVR, he explained that clinicians might think, “There is nothing to be done for this patient except to try a redo.”

Dr. Makkar reports financial relationships with Abbott, Cordis, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr. Cribier reports a financial relationship with Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Mylotte reports no potential conflicts of interest.

Even after 3 years of follow-up, redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) performs about as well as the first procedure, whether compared for hard endpoints, such as death and stroke, or for softer endpoints, such as function and quality of life, new registry data suggest.

The findings generally support redo-TAVR with balloon-expandable devices as “a reasonable treatment option for failed transcatheter heart valves,” reported Rajendra Makkar, MD, associate director, Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.

The results were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

Data for this analysis were drawn from 348,338 TAVR procedures with the Edwards balloon-expandable valves in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Replacement Registry.

Of these, 1,216 were redo procedures. In 475 of the cases, the redo was performed in a patient whose first procedure was with an Edwards device. In the remaining 741 cases, the Edwards device replaced a different prosthetic heart valve. The median time to the redo from the first procedure was 26 months.

For the analysis, the redo-TAVRs were compared with native TAVR patients through 1:1 propensity matching employing 35 covariates, such as age, body mass index (BMI), baseline comorbidities, prior cardiovascular procedures, valve size, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score.
 

Low death and stroke rates following TAVR redos

The rates of all-cause death or stroke within hospital (4.7% vs. 3.9%; P = .32) and at 30 days (6.1% vs. 5.9%; P = .77) were numerically but not statistically higher in the redo group.

At 1 year, the rates of death (17.3% vs. 17.7%; P = .961) and stroke (3.3% vs. 3.5%; P = .982) were numerically but not significantly lower among those who underwent a redo procedure.

The secondary endpoints told the same story. The one exception was the higher aortic valve reintervention rate (0.61% vs. 0.09%; P = .03) at 30 days in the redo group. This did reach statistical significance, but Dr. Makkar pointed out rates were very low regardless. The rates climbed in both groups by 1 year (1.09% vs. 0.21%; P = .01).

No other secondary endpoints differed significantly at 30 days or at 1 year. Even though some were numerically higher after redo at 1 year, such as major vascular complications (1.25 vs. 1.60; P = .51), others were lower, such as new-start dialysis (1.62 vs. 0.98; P = .26). All-cause readmission rates at 1 year were nearly identical (32.56% vs. 32.23%; P = .82).

Consistent with the comparable outcomes on the hard endpoints, major and similar improvements were seen in both the redo and the propensity-matched native TAVR patients on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary. The slight advantage for the redo group was not significant at 30 days, but the degree of improvement was greater after the redo than after native TAVR at 1 year (15% vs. 10%; P = .03).

“You bring good news,” said Alain G. Cribier, MD, director of cardiology, Charles Nicolle Hospital, University of Rouen, France. Widely regarded as the father of TAVR for his first-in-human series in 2002, Dr. Cribier said that there are several reassuring take-home messages from this study.

“First, these data tell us that the redo rate is extremely low,” he said, noting that the registry data suggests a risk well below 1%. “Second, we are seeing from this data that there are no more complications [than TAVR in a native valve] if you need to do this.”
 

Redo patients are generally sicker

The propensity matching was designed to eliminate baseline differences for the outcome comparisons, but Dr. Makkar did point out that redo-TAVR patients were sicker than the native TAVR patients. For example, when compared prior to propensity matching, the STS score was higher (8.3 vs. 5.2; P < .01), more patients had atrial fibrillation (47.9% vs. 36.2%; P < .01), and more patients had a prior stroke (15.0% vs. 10.7%; P < .01).

The registry only has follow-up out to 1 year, but participating patients were matched to a claims database to capture outcomes out to 3 years. Mortality rates at long-term follow-up were not significantly different for redo vs. native TAVR (42.2% vs. 40.3% respectively; P = .98); for the entire dataset or when compared in subgroups defined by Edwards valve redo of an Edwards valve (P = .909) or an Edwards valve redo of a non-Edwards device (P = .871).

Whether an early redo, defined as 12 months after the index TAVR procedure, or a late redo, the rate of mortality ranged from approximately 16% to 18% with no significant difference between redo and native TAVR.

A moderator for the late-breaking trials session where these data were presented, Darren Mylotte, MD, a consultant in cardiology for the Galway University Hospitals, Ireland, challenged Dr. Makkar about the potential for selection bias. He said redo patients might be the ones that interventionalists feel confident about helping, making this comparison unrepresentative.

“I think that the selection bias is likely to cut both ways,” Dr. Makkar replied. For many patients with a failed TAVR, he explained that clinicians might think, “There is nothing to be done for this patient except to try a redo.”

Dr. Makkar reports financial relationships with Abbott, Cordis, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr. Cribier reports a financial relationship with Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Mylotte reports no potential conflicts of interest.

BOSTON – In emergency department stroke consultations, the National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) alone does not appear to be a reliable guide for ordering diagnostic tests for a large vessel occlusion (LVO), according to large body of data presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

If the goal is not to miss any LVOs, there is no NIHSS score below which these do not occur, according to Theresa Sevilis, DO, regional medical director, TeleSpecialists, Fort Myers, Fla.

For example, her evaluation of a large and nationally representative dataset shows that more than 10% of the LVOs eventually identified and accepted for intervention would be missed with a cutoff of NIHSS score of 6 or higher. Moving the cutoff NIHSS score to 4 or greater, 6% of LVOs among the 23,166 strokes evaluated would have gone undetected.

“The current guidelines do not address low NIHSS score largely due to a paucity of data,” according to Dr. Sevilis, who showed data indicating that there is great variation among institutions in regard to ordering computed tomography angiography (CTA). She indicated that CTA is the current imaging standard for detecting LVO.
 

Large prospective dataset

The data for this study were derived from the TeleCare database, which captures acute stroke consultations in the emergency departments in 227 facilities in 27 states. Stroke consultations over a 6-month period from July through December 2021 were evaluated. The prospectively collected data were subjected to a multivariate analysis to determine the odds ratio for a CTA performed and LVO found at each NIHSS score of 0 to 5. Scores 6 or above served as the reference.

“Only consults performed within 24 hours [of presentation] were included,” Dr. Sevilis said.

After excluding cases in which no NIHSS score was captured, which represented less than 1% of cases, more than 10,500 cases underwent CTA, providing a rate of 45.5%. The rate of CTA for the whole dataset was 45.5%. Of the study population, 24.6% had a NIHSS score of 6 or above.

“When you are discussing when to perform CTA in patients with a low NIHSS score, you are discussing the majority of patients,” Dr. Sevilis said.

Of those with a NIHSS stroke of 6 or below, 28.2% had a score of 0. Not surprisingly, these were the least likely to have a CTA performed on the basis of an odds ratio of 0.14 and the least likely to have a LVO detected (OR, 0.1). With the exception of a NIHSS stroke score of 1, the likelihood of CTA and LVO climbed incrementally with higher stroke scores. These odds ratios were, respectively, 0.16 and 0.09 for a score of 1; 0.27 and 0.16 for a score of 2; 0.33 and 0.14 for a score of 3; 0.49 and 0.24 for a score of 4; and 0.71 and 0.27 for a score of 5.

In the group with NIHSS score of 6 or above, 24.1% were found to have an LVO. Of these, the proportion accepted for a mechanical thrombectomy was less than half. The intervention acceptance rate for mechanical intervention among LVOs in patients with lower NIHSS scores again fell incrementally by score. The acceptance rate was about 35% among LVO patients with a NIHSS score of 3 or 4 and 25% for those with a score of 0-2.

The interpretation of these data “depends on goals,” Dr. Sevilis said. “If the goal is to not miss a single LVO, then it is important to consider the balance between benefits and risks.”
 

No consistent cutoff

In participating facilities, the protocol for considering CTA to detect and treat LVOs ranges from neurologist choice to cutoffs of NIHSS scores of 2, 4, and 6, according to Dr. Sevilis. Where the data suggest that a cutoff of 4 or above might be reasonable, she said that NIHSS scoring is not a useful tool for those “who do not want to miss any LVOs.”

These data are based on emergency room stroke consultations and not on confirmed strokes,” Dr. Sevilis emphasized. Indeed, she noted that the final discharge diagnosis was not available. Recognizing that the analysis was not performed on a population with confirmed strokes is particularly important for understanding the limited rate of CTAs performed even in those with relatively high NIHSS scores. She noted this could be explained by many different reasons, including suspicion of hemorrhage or clinical features that took the workup in a different direction.
 

Reconsidering protocols

Based on the large sample size, Dr. Sevilis contended that it is likely that these data are representative, but she considers this study a first step toward considering protocols and developing guidelines for addressing stroke alerts in the emergency department.

A more important step will be ongoing trials designed specifically to generate data to answer this question. Pascal Jabbour, MD, chief of the division of neurovascular and endovascular neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals, Philadelphia, is participating in one of these trials. He agreed with the premise that better evidence-based criteria are needed when evaluating acute stroke patients with a potential LVO.

The trial in which he is a coinvestigator, called ENDOLOW, is testing the hypothesis that outcomes will be better if acute stroke patients with a LVO and a low baseline NIHSS score (< 5) are treated with immediate thrombectomy rather than medical management. If this hypothesis is confirmed in the randomized ENDOLOW, it will provide an evidence basis for an approach already being practiced at some centers.

“There should be a very low threshold for CTA,” said Dr. Jabbour in an interview. This imaging “takes less than 2 minutes and it can provide the basis for a life-saving endovascular thrombectomy if a LVO is found.”

It is already well known that LVO is not restricted only to patients with an elevated NIHSS score, he said.

For determining whether to order a CTA, “I do not agree with NIHSS score of 6 or above. There is no absolute number below which risk of missing a LVO is eliminated,” Dr. Jabbour said. He also argued against relying on NIHSS score without considering other clinical features, particularly cortical signs, which should raise suspicion of a LVO regardless of NIHSS score.

One problem is that NIHSS scores are not static. Decompensation can be rapid with the NIHSS score quickly climbing. When this happens, the delay in treatment might lead to a preventable adverse outcome.

“There is a change in the paradigm now that we have more evidence of a benefit from aggressive treatment in the right candidates,” according to Dr. Jabbour, referring to the recently published SELECT2 trial. In that trial, on which Dr. Jabbour served as a coauthor, patients with LVO and large territory infarct were randomized to thrombectomy or medical care within 24 hours of a stroke. It was stopped early for efficacy because of the increased functional independence (20% vs. 7%) in the surgical intervention group.

If the ongoing trials establish better criteria for ruling in or out the presence of LVO in patients with acute stroke, Dr. Jabbour predicted that guidelines will be written to standardize practice.

Dr. Sevilis reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Jabbour has financial relationships with Cerenovus, Medtronic, and Microvention.
 

BOSTON – In emergency department stroke consultations, the National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) alone does not appear to be a reliable guide for ordering diagnostic tests for a large vessel occlusion (LVO), according to large body of data presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

If the goal is not to miss any LVOs, there is no NIHSS score below which these do not occur, according to Theresa Sevilis, DO, regional medical director, TeleSpecialists, Fort Myers, Fla.

For example, her evaluation of a large and nationally representative dataset shows that more than 10% of the LVOs eventually identified and accepted for intervention would be missed with a cutoff of NIHSS score of 6 or higher. Moving the cutoff NIHSS score to 4 or greater, 6% of LVOs among the 23,166 strokes evaluated would have gone undetected.

“The current guidelines do not address low NIHSS score largely due to a paucity of data,” according to Dr. Sevilis, who showed data indicating that there is great variation among institutions in regard to ordering computed tomography angiography (CTA). She indicated that CTA is the current imaging standard for detecting LVO.
 

Large prospective dataset

The data for this study were derived from the TeleCare database, which captures acute stroke consultations in the emergency departments in 227 facilities in 27 states. Stroke consultations over a 6-month period from July through December 2021 were evaluated. The prospectively collected data were subjected to a multivariate analysis to determine the odds ratio for a CTA performed and LVO found at each NIHSS score of 0 to 5. Scores 6 or above served as the reference.

“Only consults performed within 24 hours [of presentation] were included,” Dr. Sevilis said.

After excluding cases in which no NIHSS score was captured, which represented less than 1% of cases, more than 10,500 cases underwent CTA, providing a rate of 45.5%. The rate of CTA for the whole dataset was 45.5%. Of the study population, 24.6% had a NIHSS score of 6 or above.

“When you are discussing when to perform CTA in patients with a low NIHSS score, you are discussing the majority of patients,” Dr. Sevilis said.

Of those with a NIHSS stroke of 6 or below, 28.2% had a score of 0. Not surprisingly, these were the least likely to have a CTA performed on the basis of an odds ratio of 0.14 and the least likely to have a LVO detected (OR, 0.1). With the exception of a NIHSS stroke score of 1, the likelihood of CTA and LVO climbed incrementally with higher stroke scores. These odds ratios were, respectively, 0.16 and 0.09 for a score of 1; 0.27 and 0.16 for a score of 2; 0.33 and 0.14 for a score of 3; 0.49 and 0.24 for a score of 4; and 0.71 and 0.27 for a score of 5.

In the group with NIHSS score of 6 or above, 24.1% were found to have an LVO. Of these, the proportion accepted for a mechanical thrombectomy was less than half. The intervention acceptance rate for mechanical intervention among LVOs in patients with lower NIHSS scores again fell incrementally by score. The acceptance rate was about 35% among LVO patients with a NIHSS score of 3 or 4 and 25% for those with a score of 0-2.

The interpretation of these data “depends on goals,” Dr. Sevilis said. “If the goal is to not miss a single LVO, then it is important to consider the balance between benefits and risks.”
 

No consistent cutoff

In participating facilities, the protocol for considering CTA to detect and treat LVOs ranges from neurologist choice to cutoffs of NIHSS scores of 2, 4, and 6, according to Dr. Sevilis. Where the data suggest that a cutoff of 4 or above might be reasonable, she said that NIHSS scoring is not a useful tool for those “who do not want to miss any LVOs.”

These data are based on emergency room stroke consultations and not on confirmed strokes,” Dr. Sevilis emphasized. Indeed, she noted that the final discharge diagnosis was not available. Recognizing that the analysis was not performed on a population with confirmed strokes is particularly important for understanding the limited rate of CTAs performed even in those with relatively high NIHSS scores. She noted this could be explained by many different reasons, including suspicion of hemorrhage or clinical features that took the workup in a different direction.
 

Reconsidering protocols

Based on the large sample size, Dr. Sevilis contended that it is likely that these data are representative, but she considers this study a first step toward considering protocols and developing guidelines for addressing stroke alerts in the emergency department.

A more important step will be ongoing trials designed specifically to generate data to answer this question. Pascal Jabbour, MD, chief of the division of neurovascular and endovascular neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals, Philadelphia, is participating in one of these trials. He agreed with the premise that better evidence-based criteria are needed when evaluating acute stroke patients with a potential LVO.

The trial in which he is a coinvestigator, called ENDOLOW, is testing the hypothesis that outcomes will be better if acute stroke patients with a LVO and a low baseline NIHSS score (< 5) are treated with immediate thrombectomy rather than medical management. If this hypothesis is confirmed in the randomized ENDOLOW, it will provide an evidence basis for an approach already being practiced at some centers.

“There should be a very low threshold for CTA,” said Dr. Jabbour in an interview. This imaging “takes less than 2 minutes and it can provide the basis for a life-saving endovascular thrombectomy if a LVO is found.”

It is already well known that LVO is not restricted only to patients with an elevated NIHSS score, he said.

For determining whether to order a CTA, “I do not agree with NIHSS score of 6 or above. There is no absolute number below which risk of missing a LVO is eliminated,” Dr. Jabbour said. He also argued against relying on NIHSS score without considering other clinical features, particularly cortical signs, which should raise suspicion of a LVO regardless of NIHSS score.

One problem is that NIHSS scores are not static. Decompensation can be rapid with the NIHSS score quickly climbing. When this happens, the delay in treatment might lead to a preventable adverse outcome.

“There is a change in the paradigm now that we have more evidence of a benefit from aggressive treatment in the right candidates,” according to Dr. Jabbour, referring to the recently published SELECT2 trial. In that trial, on which Dr. Jabbour served as a coauthor, patients with LVO and large territory infarct were randomized to thrombectomy or medical care within 24 hours of a stroke. It was stopped early for efficacy because of the increased functional independence (20% vs. 7%) in the surgical intervention group.

If the ongoing trials establish better criteria for ruling in or out the presence of LVO in patients with acute stroke, Dr. Jabbour predicted that guidelines will be written to standardize practice.

Dr. Sevilis reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Jabbour has financial relationships with Cerenovus, Medtronic, and Microvention.
 

BOSTON – In emergency department stroke consultations, the National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) alone does not appear to be a reliable guide for ordering diagnostic tests for a large vessel occlusion (LVO), according to large body of data presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

If the goal is not to miss any LVOs, there is no NIHSS score below which these do not occur, according to Theresa Sevilis, DO, regional medical director, TeleSpecialists, Fort Myers, Fla.

For example, her evaluation of a large and nationally representative dataset shows that more than 10% of the LVOs eventually identified and accepted for intervention would be missed with a cutoff of NIHSS score of 6 or higher. Moving the cutoff NIHSS score to 4 or greater, 6% of LVOs among the 23,166 strokes evaluated would have gone undetected.

“The current guidelines do not address low NIHSS score largely due to a paucity of data,” according to Dr. Sevilis, who showed data indicating that there is great variation among institutions in regard to ordering computed tomography angiography (CTA). She indicated that CTA is the current imaging standard for detecting LVO.
 

Large prospective dataset

The data for this study were derived from the TeleCare database, which captures acute stroke consultations in the emergency departments in 227 facilities in 27 states. Stroke consultations over a 6-month period from July through December 2021 were evaluated. The prospectively collected data were subjected to a multivariate analysis to determine the odds ratio for a CTA performed and LVO found at each NIHSS score of 0 to 5. Scores 6 or above served as the reference.

“Only consults performed within 24 hours [of presentation] were included,” Dr. Sevilis said.

After excluding cases in which no NIHSS score was captured, which represented less than 1% of cases, more than 10,500 cases underwent CTA, providing a rate of 45.5%. The rate of CTA for the whole dataset was 45.5%. Of the study population, 24.6% had a NIHSS score of 6 or above.

“When you are discussing when to perform CTA in patients with a low NIHSS score, you are discussing the majority of patients,” Dr. Sevilis said.

Of those with a NIHSS stroke of 6 or below, 28.2% had a score of 0. Not surprisingly, these were the least likely to have a CTA performed on the basis of an odds ratio of 0.14 and the least likely to have a LVO detected (OR, 0.1). With the exception of a NIHSS stroke score of 1, the likelihood of CTA and LVO climbed incrementally with higher stroke scores. These odds ratios were, respectively, 0.16 and 0.09 for a score of 1; 0.27 and 0.16 for a score of 2; 0.33 and 0.14 for a score of 3; 0.49 and 0.24 for a score of 4; and 0.71 and 0.27 for a score of 5.

In the group with NIHSS score of 6 or above, 24.1% were found to have an LVO. Of these, the proportion accepted for a mechanical thrombectomy was less than half. The intervention acceptance rate for mechanical intervention among LVOs in patients with lower NIHSS scores again fell incrementally by score. The acceptance rate was about 35% among LVO patients with a NIHSS score of 3 or 4 and 25% for those with a score of 0-2.

The interpretation of these data “depends on goals,” Dr. Sevilis said. “If the goal is to not miss a single LVO, then it is important to consider the balance between benefits and risks.”
 

No consistent cutoff

In participating facilities, the protocol for considering CTA to detect and treat LVOs ranges from neurologist choice to cutoffs of NIHSS scores of 2, 4, and 6, according to Dr. Sevilis. Where the data suggest that a cutoff of 4 or above might be reasonable, she said that NIHSS scoring is not a useful tool for those “who do not want to miss any LVOs.”

These data are based on emergency room stroke consultations and not on confirmed strokes,” Dr. Sevilis emphasized. Indeed, she noted that the final discharge diagnosis was not available. Recognizing that the analysis was not performed on a population with confirmed strokes is particularly important for understanding the limited rate of CTAs performed even in those with relatively high NIHSS scores. She noted this could be explained by many different reasons, including suspicion of hemorrhage or clinical features that took the workup in a different direction.
 

Reconsidering protocols

Based on the large sample size, Dr. Sevilis contended that it is likely that these data are representative, but she considers this study a first step toward considering protocols and developing guidelines for addressing stroke alerts in the emergency department.

A more important step will be ongoing trials designed specifically to generate data to answer this question. Pascal Jabbour, MD, chief of the division of neurovascular and endovascular neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals, Philadelphia, is participating in one of these trials. He agreed with the premise that better evidence-based criteria are needed when evaluating acute stroke patients with a potential LVO.

The trial in which he is a coinvestigator, called ENDOLOW, is testing the hypothesis that outcomes will be better if acute stroke patients with a LVO and a low baseline NIHSS score (< 5) are treated with immediate thrombectomy rather than medical management. If this hypothesis is confirmed in the randomized ENDOLOW, it will provide an evidence basis for an approach already being practiced at some centers.

“There should be a very low threshold for CTA,” said Dr. Jabbour in an interview. This imaging “takes less than 2 minutes and it can provide the basis for a life-saving endovascular thrombectomy if a LVO is found.”

It is already well known that LVO is not restricted only to patients with an elevated NIHSS score, he said.

For determining whether to order a CTA, “I do not agree with NIHSS score of 6 or above. There is no absolute number below which risk of missing a LVO is eliminated,” Dr. Jabbour said. He also argued against relying on NIHSS score without considering other clinical features, particularly cortical signs, which should raise suspicion of a LVO regardless of NIHSS score.

One problem is that NIHSS scores are not static. Decompensation can be rapid with the NIHSS score quickly climbing. When this happens, the delay in treatment might lead to a preventable adverse outcome.

“There is a change in the paradigm now that we have more evidence of a benefit from aggressive treatment in the right candidates,” according to Dr. Jabbour, referring to the recently published SELECT2 trial. In that trial, on which Dr. Jabbour served as a coauthor, patients with LVO and large territory infarct were randomized to thrombectomy or medical care within 24 hours of a stroke. It was stopped early for efficacy because of the increased functional independence (20% vs. 7%) in the surgical intervention group.

If the ongoing trials establish better criteria for ruling in or out the presence of LVO in patients with acute stroke, Dr. Jabbour predicted that guidelines will be written to standardize practice.

Dr. Sevilis reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Jabbour has financial relationships with Cerenovus, Medtronic, and Microvention.
 

BOSTON – In patients with radiologically isolated syndrome (RIS) predictive of multiple sclerosis (MS), teriflunomide reduced the risk of a demyelinating event by more than 60% over a 2-year period, according to a double-blind, phase 3 trial presented in the Emerging Science session of the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“These data add to the evidence that early immunomodulation offers clinical benefit even in the presymptomatic phase of MS,” reported Christine Lebrun-Frenay, MD, PhD, head of inflammatory neurological disorders research unit, University of Nice, France. This is the second study to show a benefit from a disease-modifying therapy in asymptomatic RIS patients. The ARISE study, which was presented at the 2022 European Committee for Treatment and Research in MS and has now been published, compared 240 mg of twice-daily dimethyl fumarate with placebo. Dimethyl fumarate was associated with an 82% (hazard ratio, 0.18; P = .007) reduction in the risk of a first demyelinating event after 96 weeks of follow-up.
 

TERIS trial data

In the new study, called TERIS, the design and outcomes were similar to the ARISE study. Eighty-nine patients meeting standard criteria for RIS were randomized to 14 mg of once-daily teriflunomide or placebo. The majority (71%) were female, and the mean age was 39.8 years. At the time of RIS diagnosis, the mean age was 38 years. At study entry, standardized MRI studies were performed of the brain and spinal cord.

During 2 years of follow-up, 8 of 28 demyelinating events were observed in the active treatment group. The remaining 20 occurred in the placebo group. This translated to a 63% reduction (HR, 0.37; P = .018) in favor of teriflunomide. When graphed, the curves separated at about 6 months and then widened progressively over time.

Distinct from clinically isolated syndrome (CIS), which describes individuals who have a symptomatic episode consistent with a demyelinating event, RIS is based primarily on an MRI that shows lesions highly suggestive of MS. Neither confirms the MS diagnosis, but both are associated with a high likelihood of eventually meeting MS diagnostic criteria. The ARISE and TERIS studies now support therapy to delay demyelinating events.

“With more and more people having brain scans for various reasons, such as headache or head trauma, more of these cases are being discovered,” Dr. Lebrun-Frenay said.
 

Caution warranted when interpreting the findings

The data support the theory that treatment should begin early in patients with a high likelihood of developing symptomatic MS on the basis of brain lesions. It is logical to assume that preventing damage to the myelin will reduce or delay permanent symptoms and permanent neurologic impairment, but Dr. Lebrun-Frenay suggested that the available data from ARISE and TERIS are not practice changing even though both were multicenter double-blind trials.

“More data from larger groups of patients are needed to confirm the findings,” she said. She expressed concern about not adhering to strict criteria to diagnosis RIS.

“It is important that medical professionals are cautious,” she said, citing the risk of misdiagnosis of pathology of MRI that leads to treatment of patients with a low risk of developing symptomatic MS.

Teriflunomide and dimethyl fumarate, which have long been available as first-line therapies in relapsing-remitting MS, are generally well tolerated. In the TERIS and ARISE studies, mild or moderate events occurred more commonly in the active treatment than the placebo arms, but there were no serious adverse events. However, both can produce more serious adverse events, which, in the case of teriflunomide, include liver toxicity leading to injury and liver failure.
 

Challenging the traditional definition of MS

The author of the ARISE study, Darin T. Okuda, MD, a professor of neurology at the UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, indicated that his study, now reinforced by the TERIS study, challenges the definition of MS.

“Both ARISE and TERIS demonstrated a significant reduction in seminal clinical event rates related to inflammatory demyelination,” Dr. Okuda said in an interview. They provide evidence that patients are at high risk of the demyelinating events that characterize MS. Given the potential difficulty for accessing therapies of benefit, “how we define multiple sclerosis is highly important.”

“Individuals of younger age with abnormal spinal cord MRI studies along with other paraclinical features related to risk for a first event may be the most ideal group to treat,” he said. However, he agreed with Dr. Lebrun-Frenay that it is not yet clear which RIS patients are the most appropriate candidates.

“Gaining a more refined sense of who we should treat will require more work,” he said.

These data are likely to change the orientation toward RIS, according to Melina Hosseiny, MD, department of radiology, University of California, Los Angeles, Medical Center. She noted that the relationship between RIS and increased risk of MS has long been recognized, and the risk increases with specific features on imaging.

“Studies have shown that spinal cord lesions are associated with a greater than 50% chance of converting to MS,” said Dr. Hosseiny, who was the lead author of a review article on RIS. “Identifying such imaging findings can help identify patients who may benefit from disease-modifying medications.”

Dr. Lebrun-Frenay reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Okuda has financial relationships with Alexion, Biogen, Celgene, EMD Serono, Genzyme, TG Therapeutics, and VielaBio. Dr. Hosseiny reports no potential conflicts of interest.

BOSTON – In patients with radiologically isolated syndrome (RIS) predictive of multiple sclerosis (MS), teriflunomide reduced the risk of a demyelinating event by more than 60% over a 2-year period, according to a double-blind, phase 3 trial presented in the Emerging Science session of the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“These data add to the evidence that early immunomodulation offers clinical benefit even in the presymptomatic phase of MS,” reported Christine Lebrun-Frenay, MD, PhD, head of inflammatory neurological disorders research unit, University of Nice, France. This is the second study to show a benefit from a disease-modifying therapy in asymptomatic RIS patients. The ARISE study, which was presented at the 2022 European Committee for Treatment and Research in MS and has now been published, compared 240 mg of twice-daily dimethyl fumarate with placebo. Dimethyl fumarate was associated with an 82% (hazard ratio, 0.18; P = .007) reduction in the risk of a first demyelinating event after 96 weeks of follow-up.
 

TERIS trial data

In the new study, called TERIS, the design and outcomes were similar to the ARISE study. Eighty-nine patients meeting standard criteria for RIS were randomized to 14 mg of once-daily teriflunomide or placebo. The majority (71%) were female, and the mean age was 39.8 years. At the time of RIS diagnosis, the mean age was 38 years. At study entry, standardized MRI studies were performed of the brain and spinal cord.

During 2 years of follow-up, 8 of 28 demyelinating events were observed in the active treatment group. The remaining 20 occurred in the placebo group. This translated to a 63% reduction (HR, 0.37; P = .018) in favor of teriflunomide. When graphed, the curves separated at about 6 months and then widened progressively over time.

Distinct from clinically isolated syndrome (CIS), which describes individuals who have a symptomatic episode consistent with a demyelinating event, RIS is based primarily on an MRI that shows lesions highly suggestive of MS. Neither confirms the MS diagnosis, but both are associated with a high likelihood of eventually meeting MS diagnostic criteria. The ARISE and TERIS studies now support therapy to delay demyelinating events.

“With more and more people having brain scans for various reasons, such as headache or head trauma, more of these cases are being discovered,” Dr. Lebrun-Frenay said.
 

Caution warranted when interpreting the findings

The data support the theory that treatment should begin early in patients with a high likelihood of developing symptomatic MS on the basis of brain lesions. It is logical to assume that preventing damage to the myelin will reduce or delay permanent symptoms and permanent neurologic impairment, but Dr. Lebrun-Frenay suggested that the available data from ARISE and TERIS are not practice changing even though both were multicenter double-blind trials.

“More data from larger groups of patients are needed to confirm the findings,” she said. She expressed concern about not adhering to strict criteria to diagnosis RIS.

“It is important that medical professionals are cautious,” she said, citing the risk of misdiagnosis of pathology of MRI that leads to treatment of patients with a low risk of developing symptomatic MS.

Teriflunomide and dimethyl fumarate, which have long been available as first-line therapies in relapsing-remitting MS, are generally well tolerated. In the TERIS and ARISE studies, mild or moderate events occurred more commonly in the active treatment than the placebo arms, but there were no serious adverse events. However, both can produce more serious adverse events, which, in the case of teriflunomide, include liver toxicity leading to injury and liver failure.
 

Challenging the traditional definition of MS

The author of the ARISE study, Darin T. Okuda, MD, a professor of neurology at the UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, indicated that his study, now reinforced by the TERIS study, challenges the definition of MS.

“Both ARISE and TERIS demonstrated a significant reduction in seminal clinical event rates related to inflammatory demyelination,” Dr. Okuda said in an interview. They provide evidence that patients are at high risk of the demyelinating events that characterize MS. Given the potential difficulty for accessing therapies of benefit, “how we define multiple sclerosis is highly important.”

“Individuals of younger age with abnormal spinal cord MRI studies along with other paraclinical features related to risk for a first event may be the most ideal group to treat,” he said. However, he agreed with Dr. Lebrun-Frenay that it is not yet clear which RIS patients are the most appropriate candidates.

“Gaining a more refined sense of who we should treat will require more work,” he said.

These data are likely to change the orientation toward RIS, according to Melina Hosseiny, MD, department of radiology, University of California, Los Angeles, Medical Center. She noted that the relationship between RIS and increased risk of MS has long been recognized, and the risk increases with specific features on imaging.

“Studies have shown that spinal cord lesions are associated with a greater than 50% chance of converting to MS,” said Dr. Hosseiny, who was the lead author of a review article on RIS. “Identifying such imaging findings can help identify patients who may benefit from disease-modifying medications.”

Dr. Lebrun-Frenay reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Okuda has financial relationships with Alexion, Biogen, Celgene, EMD Serono, Genzyme, TG Therapeutics, and VielaBio. Dr. Hosseiny reports no potential conflicts of interest.

BOSTON – In patients with radiologically isolated syndrome (RIS) predictive of multiple sclerosis (MS), teriflunomide reduced the risk of a demyelinating event by more than 60% over a 2-year period, according to a double-blind, phase 3 trial presented in the Emerging Science session of the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“These data add to the evidence that early immunomodulation offers clinical benefit even in the presymptomatic phase of MS,” reported Christine Lebrun-Frenay, MD, PhD, head of inflammatory neurological disorders research unit, University of Nice, France. This is the second study to show a benefit from a disease-modifying therapy in asymptomatic RIS patients. The ARISE study, which was presented at the 2022 European Committee for Treatment and Research in MS and has now been published, compared 240 mg of twice-daily dimethyl fumarate with placebo. Dimethyl fumarate was associated with an 82% (hazard ratio, 0.18; P = .007) reduction in the risk of a first demyelinating event after 96 weeks of follow-up.
 

TERIS trial data

In the new study, called TERIS, the design and outcomes were similar to the ARISE study. Eighty-nine patients meeting standard criteria for RIS were randomized to 14 mg of once-daily teriflunomide or placebo. The majority (71%) were female, and the mean age was 39.8 years. At the time of RIS diagnosis, the mean age was 38 years. At study entry, standardized MRI studies were performed of the brain and spinal cord.

During 2 years of follow-up, 8 of 28 demyelinating events were observed in the active treatment group. The remaining 20 occurred in the placebo group. This translated to a 63% reduction (HR, 0.37; P = .018) in favor of teriflunomide. When graphed, the curves separated at about 6 months and then widened progressively over time.

Distinct from clinically isolated syndrome (CIS), which describes individuals who have a symptomatic episode consistent with a demyelinating event, RIS is based primarily on an MRI that shows lesions highly suggestive of MS. Neither confirms the MS diagnosis, but both are associated with a high likelihood of eventually meeting MS diagnostic criteria. The ARISE and TERIS studies now support therapy to delay demyelinating events.

“With more and more people having brain scans for various reasons, such as headache or head trauma, more of these cases are being discovered,” Dr. Lebrun-Frenay said.
 

Caution warranted when interpreting the findings

The data support the theory that treatment should begin early in patients with a high likelihood of developing symptomatic MS on the basis of brain lesions. It is logical to assume that preventing damage to the myelin will reduce or delay permanent symptoms and permanent neurologic impairment, but Dr. Lebrun-Frenay suggested that the available data from ARISE and TERIS are not practice changing even though both were multicenter double-blind trials.

“More data from larger groups of patients are needed to confirm the findings,” she said. She expressed concern about not adhering to strict criteria to diagnosis RIS.

“It is important that medical professionals are cautious,” she said, citing the risk of misdiagnosis of pathology of MRI that leads to treatment of patients with a low risk of developing symptomatic MS.

Teriflunomide and dimethyl fumarate, which have long been available as first-line therapies in relapsing-remitting MS, are generally well tolerated. In the TERIS and ARISE studies, mild or moderate events occurred more commonly in the active treatment than the placebo arms, but there were no serious adverse events. However, both can produce more serious adverse events, which, in the case of teriflunomide, include liver toxicity leading to injury and liver failure.
 

Challenging the traditional definition of MS

The author of the ARISE study, Darin T. Okuda, MD, a professor of neurology at the UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, indicated that his study, now reinforced by the TERIS study, challenges the definition of MS.

“Both ARISE and TERIS demonstrated a significant reduction in seminal clinical event rates related to inflammatory demyelination,” Dr. Okuda said in an interview. They provide evidence that patients are at high risk of the demyelinating events that characterize MS. Given the potential difficulty for accessing therapies of benefit, “how we define multiple sclerosis is highly important.”

“Individuals of younger age with abnormal spinal cord MRI studies along with other paraclinical features related to risk for a first event may be the most ideal group to treat,” he said. However, he agreed with Dr. Lebrun-Frenay that it is not yet clear which RIS patients are the most appropriate candidates.

“Gaining a more refined sense of who we should treat will require more work,” he said.

These data are likely to change the orientation toward RIS, according to Melina Hosseiny, MD, department of radiology, University of California, Los Angeles, Medical Center. She noted that the relationship between RIS and increased risk of MS has long been recognized, and the risk increases with specific features on imaging.

“Studies have shown that spinal cord lesions are associated with a greater than 50% chance of converting to MS,” said Dr. Hosseiny, who was the lead author of a review article on RIS. “Identifying such imaging findings can help identify patients who may benefit from disease-modifying medications.”

Dr. Lebrun-Frenay reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Okuda has financial relationships with Alexion, Biogen, Celgene, EMD Serono, Genzyme, TG Therapeutics, and VielaBio. Dr. Hosseiny reports no potential conflicts of interest.

BOSTON – A novel levodopa/carbidopa delivery system fitted to a retainer worn in the mouth appears to achieve the advantages of continuous drug delivery without the need for surgery or external pumps, according to an early clinical experience described in the Emerging Science session at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

Icahn School of Medicine

On this device, the attenuation of levodopa fluctuations “translated into dramatic improvements in clinical behavior, including highly significant reductions in OFF time and an increase in ON time with no dyskinesias,” reported C. Warren Olanow, MD, who is a chairman emeritus of the department of neurology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and now an employee of the company developing this new device.
 

A novel strategy

Numerous studies have demonstrated that reductions in the troughs of plasma levodopa associated with oral dosing result in longer ON time with fewer dyskinesias, according to Dr. Olanow, who explained this has led to strategies for numerous strategies to achieve continuous delivery. A device that delivers levodopa into the stomach through a surgically implanted catheter has already received regulatory approval. Other devices delivering levodopa subcutaneously are in development, but Dr. Olanow said each of these has had limitations.

“The problem with these approaches is they are associated with potentially serious side effects and they require the patient to wear a cumbersome device,” he explained. Relative to the subcutaneous delivery systems, which have been associated with injection site reactions that include painful nodules, and the surgically implanted devices, which also require an external pump, the latest strategy avoids both disadvantages.

Called DopaFuse, the experimental device is designed to deliver the levodopa and carbidopa into the mouth through a micropump within a wearable retainer. Dr. Olanow said that previous experimental studies demonstrated that small doses of levodopa delivered by mouth to the gastrointestinal system reduce levodopa plasma variability. This early clinical study supports that premise. Levodopa delivered into the mouth by way of a propellant in the retainer-mounted pump improved clinical endpoints.
 

Encouraging trial results

In the study, 16 patients between the ages of 30 and 75 with Parkinson’s disease were enrolled. On day 1, they received an oral dose of levodopa/carbidopa consistent with their current treatment. On day 2, levodopa/carbidopa was delivered through the retainer-mounted device at equivalent doses. On day 3, they received a single morning oral dose and the received the remainder of their levodopa/carbidopa regimen through the device. On days 4 to 14, they received treatment in the same schedule as day 3.

When pharmacokinetics of levodopa on day 3 were compared with those on day 1, the fluctuation index and coefficient of levodopa concentration variability was reduced to a degree that was highly statistically significant (P < .0001). This, in turn, correlated with “striking” reductions in OFF time with equally statistically significant improvement in ON time and ON time without dyskinesias, according to Dr. Olanow.

Relative to an OFF time of 3.2 hours on day 1, the OFF time of 1.6 hours on day 3 represented a 50% reduction (P < .0001). ON time improved from 12.8 hours to 14.5 hours (P < .001). ON time without dyskinesias improved numerically from 8.8 hours to 9.6 hours.

“There were also improvements in activities of daily living when patients were on DopaFuse, which is a hard endpoint to reach in a study with such a small sample size,” Dr. Olanow reported.

There were no serious adverse events. Three patients reported vomiting and two patients each reported headache, but these events were mild and all resolved within a day. Three patients reported buccal lesions, but these also resolved within a day.

“Some patients reported trouble with speaking in the beginning but at the end of the study, patients were reporting that it was easier to speak because of the motor improvements,” Dr. Olanow said.

Overall, the device was well tolerated by the subjects, providing the evidence for the next stages of clinical studies, reported Dr. Olanow.

“If this turns out to be what we hope it is, it will allow us to deliver levodopa without motor complications, without need for a surgical procedure, and without the risk of subcutaneous lesions,” Dr. Olanow said.
 

More delivery strategies are needed

This device is in an early phase of development, but several specialists in Parkinson’s disease agreed that there is a need for more strategies to provide continuous levodopa in patients with advancing symptoms. Stuart Isaacson, MD, director, Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders Center of Boca Raton, Fla., is among them.

“Novel delivery devices that can provide more continuous levodopa delivery would be an important therapeutic advance,” Dr. Isaacson said. He called levodopa “the cornerstone of treatment through the course of Parkinson’s disease,” but more physiologic dosing in advancing disease has been a challenge.

“While there are many therapies currently available to manage OFF time, many people living with Parkinson’s disease continue to spend only half of their waking day with good ON time,” he added.

The currently approved method of delivering continuous levodopa through a surgically placed catheter into the gastrointestinal system is effective, but has limitations, according to Aaron L. Ellenbogen, MD, a neurologist at Beaumont Hospital, Farmington Hills, Mich.

“One of the challenges with the current treatment landscape of Parkinson’s disease is that medication can be absorbed variably through the gastrointestinal system,” he said. “As the disease progresses, this often becomes more troublesome.” Although this new device is likely to share this issue, Dr. Ellenbogen said that several devices might be useful to match patients with the one that works best for them.

Dr. Olanow is the founder and CEO of Clintrex Research Corporation, through which he also serves as chief medical officer of SynAgile, the company developing DopaFuse. Dr. Isaacson has financial relationships with more than 30 companies, including those that produce levodopa and levodopa delivery systems. Dr. Ellenbogen has financial relationships with Allergan, Acorda, Supernus, and Teva.

BOSTON – A novel levodopa/carbidopa delivery system fitted to a retainer worn in the mouth appears to achieve the advantages of continuous drug delivery without the need for surgery or external pumps, according to an early clinical experience described in the Emerging Science session at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

Icahn School of Medicine

On this device, the attenuation of levodopa fluctuations “translated into dramatic improvements in clinical behavior, including highly significant reductions in OFF time and an increase in ON time with no dyskinesias,” reported C. Warren Olanow, MD, who is a chairman emeritus of the department of neurology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and now an employee of the company developing this new device.
 

A novel strategy

Numerous studies have demonstrated that reductions in the troughs of plasma levodopa associated with oral dosing result in longer ON time with fewer dyskinesias, according to Dr. Olanow, who explained this has led to strategies for numerous strategies to achieve continuous delivery. A device that delivers levodopa into the stomach through a surgically implanted catheter has already received regulatory approval. Other devices delivering levodopa subcutaneously are in development, but Dr. Olanow said each of these has had limitations.

“The problem with these approaches is they are associated with potentially serious side effects and they require the patient to wear a cumbersome device,” he explained. Relative to the subcutaneous delivery systems, which have been associated with injection site reactions that include painful nodules, and the surgically implanted devices, which also require an external pump, the latest strategy avoids both disadvantages.

Called DopaFuse, the experimental device is designed to deliver the levodopa and carbidopa into the mouth through a micropump within a wearable retainer. Dr. Olanow said that previous experimental studies demonstrated that small doses of levodopa delivered by mouth to the gastrointestinal system reduce levodopa plasma variability. This early clinical study supports that premise. Levodopa delivered into the mouth by way of a propellant in the retainer-mounted pump improved clinical endpoints.
 

Encouraging trial results

In the study, 16 patients between the ages of 30 and 75 with Parkinson’s disease were enrolled. On day 1, they received an oral dose of levodopa/carbidopa consistent with their current treatment. On day 2, levodopa/carbidopa was delivered through the retainer-mounted device at equivalent doses. On day 3, they received a single morning oral dose and the received the remainder of their levodopa/carbidopa regimen through the device. On days 4 to 14, they received treatment in the same schedule as day 3.

When pharmacokinetics of levodopa on day 3 were compared with those on day 1, the fluctuation index and coefficient of levodopa concentration variability was reduced to a degree that was highly statistically significant (P < .0001). This, in turn, correlated with “striking” reductions in OFF time with equally statistically significant improvement in ON time and ON time without dyskinesias, according to Dr. Olanow.

Relative to an OFF time of 3.2 hours on day 1, the OFF time of 1.6 hours on day 3 represented a 50% reduction (P < .0001). ON time improved from 12.8 hours to 14.5 hours (P < .001). ON time without dyskinesias improved numerically from 8.8 hours to 9.6 hours.

“There were also improvements in activities of daily living when patients were on DopaFuse, which is a hard endpoint to reach in a study with such a small sample size,” Dr. Olanow reported.

There were no serious adverse events. Three patients reported vomiting and two patients each reported headache, but these events were mild and all resolved within a day. Three patients reported buccal lesions, but these also resolved within a day.

“Some patients reported trouble with speaking in the beginning but at the end of the study, patients were reporting that it was easier to speak because of the motor improvements,” Dr. Olanow said.

Overall, the device was well tolerated by the subjects, providing the evidence for the next stages of clinical studies, reported Dr. Olanow.

“If this turns out to be what we hope it is, it will allow us to deliver levodopa without motor complications, without need for a surgical procedure, and without the risk of subcutaneous lesions,” Dr. Olanow said.
 

More delivery strategies are needed

This device is in an early phase of development, but several specialists in Parkinson’s disease agreed that there is a need for more strategies to provide continuous levodopa in patients with advancing symptoms. Stuart Isaacson, MD, director, Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders Center of Boca Raton, Fla., is among them.

“Novel delivery devices that can provide more continuous levodopa delivery would be an important therapeutic advance,” Dr. Isaacson said. He called levodopa “the cornerstone of treatment through the course of Parkinson’s disease,” but more physiologic dosing in advancing disease has been a challenge.

“While there are many therapies currently available to manage OFF time, many people living with Parkinson’s disease continue to spend only half of their waking day with good ON time,” he added.

The currently approved method of delivering continuous levodopa through a surgically placed catheter into the gastrointestinal system is effective, but has limitations, according to Aaron L. Ellenbogen, MD, a neurologist at Beaumont Hospital, Farmington Hills, Mich.

“One of the challenges with the current treatment landscape of Parkinson’s disease is that medication can be absorbed variably through the gastrointestinal system,” he said. “As the disease progresses, this often becomes more troublesome.” Although this new device is likely to share this issue, Dr. Ellenbogen said that several devices might be useful to match patients with the one that works best for them.

Dr. Olanow is the founder and CEO of Clintrex Research Corporation, through which he also serves as chief medical officer of SynAgile, the company developing DopaFuse. Dr. Isaacson has financial relationships with more than 30 companies, including those that produce levodopa and levodopa delivery systems. Dr. Ellenbogen has financial relationships with Allergan, Acorda, Supernus, and Teva.

BOSTON – A novel levodopa/carbidopa delivery system fitted to a retainer worn in the mouth appears to achieve the advantages of continuous drug delivery without the need for surgery or external pumps, according to an early clinical experience described in the Emerging Science session at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

Icahn School of Medicine

On this device, the attenuation of levodopa fluctuations “translated into dramatic improvements in clinical behavior, including highly significant reductions in OFF time and an increase in ON time with no dyskinesias,” reported C. Warren Olanow, MD, who is a chairman emeritus of the department of neurology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and now an employee of the company developing this new device.
 

A novel strategy

Numerous studies have demonstrated that reductions in the troughs of plasma levodopa associated with oral dosing result in longer ON time with fewer dyskinesias, according to Dr. Olanow, who explained this has led to strategies for numerous strategies to achieve continuous delivery. A device that delivers levodopa into the stomach through a surgically implanted catheter has already received regulatory approval. Other devices delivering levodopa subcutaneously are in development, but Dr. Olanow said each of these has had limitations.

“The problem with these approaches is they are associated with potentially serious side effects and they require the patient to wear a cumbersome device,” he explained. Relative to the subcutaneous delivery systems, which have been associated with injection site reactions that include painful nodules, and the surgically implanted devices, which also require an external pump, the latest strategy avoids both disadvantages.

Called DopaFuse, the experimental device is designed to deliver the levodopa and carbidopa into the mouth through a micropump within a wearable retainer. Dr. Olanow said that previous experimental studies demonstrated that small doses of levodopa delivered by mouth to the gastrointestinal system reduce levodopa plasma variability. This early clinical study supports that premise. Levodopa delivered into the mouth by way of a propellant in the retainer-mounted pump improved clinical endpoints.
 

Encouraging trial results

In the study, 16 patients between the ages of 30 and 75 with Parkinson’s disease were enrolled. On day 1, they received an oral dose of levodopa/carbidopa consistent with their current treatment. On day 2, levodopa/carbidopa was delivered through the retainer-mounted device at equivalent doses. On day 3, they received a single morning oral dose and the received the remainder of their levodopa/carbidopa regimen through the device. On days 4 to 14, they received treatment in the same schedule as day 3.

When pharmacokinetics of levodopa on day 3 were compared with those on day 1, the fluctuation index and coefficient of levodopa concentration variability was reduced to a degree that was highly statistically significant (P < .0001). This, in turn, correlated with “striking” reductions in OFF time with equally statistically significant improvement in ON time and ON time without dyskinesias, according to Dr. Olanow.

Relative to an OFF time of 3.2 hours on day 1, the OFF time of 1.6 hours on day 3 represented a 50% reduction (P < .0001). ON time improved from 12.8 hours to 14.5 hours (P < .001). ON time without dyskinesias improved numerically from 8.8 hours to 9.6 hours.

“There were also improvements in activities of daily living when patients were on DopaFuse, which is a hard endpoint to reach in a study with such a small sample size,” Dr. Olanow reported.

There were no serious adverse events. Three patients reported vomiting and two patients each reported headache, but these events were mild and all resolved within a day. Three patients reported buccal lesions, but these also resolved within a day.

“Some patients reported trouble with speaking in the beginning but at the end of the study, patients were reporting that it was easier to speak because of the motor improvements,” Dr. Olanow said.

Overall, the device was well tolerated by the subjects, providing the evidence for the next stages of clinical studies, reported Dr. Olanow.

“If this turns out to be what we hope it is, it will allow us to deliver levodopa without motor complications, without need for a surgical procedure, and without the risk of subcutaneous lesions,” Dr. Olanow said.
 

More delivery strategies are needed

This device is in an early phase of development, but several specialists in Parkinson’s disease agreed that there is a need for more strategies to provide continuous levodopa in patients with advancing symptoms. Stuart Isaacson, MD, director, Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders Center of Boca Raton, Fla., is among them.

“Novel delivery devices that can provide more continuous levodopa delivery would be an important therapeutic advance,” Dr. Isaacson said. He called levodopa “the cornerstone of treatment through the course of Parkinson’s disease,” but more physiologic dosing in advancing disease has been a challenge.

“While there are many therapies currently available to manage OFF time, many people living with Parkinson’s disease continue to spend only half of their waking day with good ON time,” he added.

The currently approved method of delivering continuous levodopa through a surgically placed catheter into the gastrointestinal system is effective, but has limitations, according to Aaron L. Ellenbogen, MD, a neurologist at Beaumont Hospital, Farmington Hills, Mich.

“One of the challenges with the current treatment landscape of Parkinson’s disease is that medication can be absorbed variably through the gastrointestinal system,” he said. “As the disease progresses, this often becomes more troublesome.” Although this new device is likely to share this issue, Dr. Ellenbogen said that several devices might be useful to match patients with the one that works best for them.

Dr. Olanow is the founder and CEO of Clintrex Research Corporation, through which he also serves as chief medical officer of SynAgile, the company developing DopaFuse. Dr. Isaacson has financial relationships with more than 30 companies, including those that produce levodopa and levodopa delivery systems. Dr. Ellenbogen has financial relationships with Allergan, Acorda, Supernus, and Teva.

BOSTON – In patients with primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS), machine learning can predict progression with reasonable accuracy on the basis of the blood transcriptome, according to a proof-of-concept study presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

The accuracy was sufficient for the lead author of the study, Michael Gurevich, PhD, head of the Neuroimmunological Laboratory in the Multiple Sclerosis Center of Sheba Medical Center in Ramat Gan, Israel, to say that it is already clinically viable even as the tool is still evolving.

“We are looking at larger sample sizes to improve the accuracy and generalizability of our model, but we can use it now to inform treatment decisions,” Dr. Gurevich said.

In patients with PPMS who have a highly variable course, the model predicts disability progression with an accuracy of approximately 70%, according to the data he presented. He said he believes this is already at a level that it is meaningful for a risk-to-benefit calculation when considering treatment.
 

Machine learning analyzes blood samples

The study pursues the concept that the genetic information governing highly complex pathophysiological processes is contained in RNA sequencing. While multimodal omics generate data that are too complex for human pattern recognition, there is a growing body of evidence, including that provided by this study, to suggest that machine learning can employ these same RNA profiles and predict disease activity.

In this study, blood samples were collected from patients who participated in the phase 3 clinical ORATORIO trial that led to approval of ocrelizumab for PPMS. Analyses were conducted only on blood samples from those randomized to placebo, who, like those in the active treatment arm, were evaluated at baseline and at 12-week intervals for more than 2 years.

After development of a prediction model and creation of a training dataset, machine learning was applied to the deep sequencing of the blood transcriptome data for predicting two endpoints. One was disease progression at 120 weeks defined as a 1 point or more increase in the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) among patients with confirmed disability progression for at least 12 weeks (12W-CDP).

The other was change at 120 weeks in brain morphology defined as a 1% or more reduction in brain volume (120W PBVC).

The peripheral blood samples were subjected to RNA sequencing analysis (RNA-Seq) using commercially available analysis techniques. The prediction model for the disability endpoint was based on data generated from the blood transcriptome of 135 patients of which 53 (39%) met the endpoint at 120 weeks. The prediction model for the change in brain morphology was based on the blood transcriptome from 94 patients of which 63 (67%) met the endpoint.

On the basis of 10 genes that most significantly differentiated those who met the disability endpoint from those who did not, machine recognition of patterns after training was able to predict correctly the outcome in 70.9%. The sensitivity was 55.6%, and the specificity was 79.0%. The positive and negative predictive values were 59.0% and 76.8%, respectively.

On the basis of the 12 genes the most significantly differentiated those that reached the 120W PBVC endpoint from those who did not, machine learning resulted in a correct prediction of outcomes in 75.1%. The sensitivity was 78.1%, and the specificity was 66.7%. The positive and negative predictive values were 83.3% and 58.8%, respectively

Typical of a PPMS trial population, the mean age of the patients was about 44 years. The mean disease duration was about 6 years. The majority of patients had an EDSS score below 5.5 at baseline. The baseline T2 lesion number was approximately 50.

If further validated by others and in larger studies, this type of information could play a valuable role in PPMS management, according to Dr. Gurevich. Now that there is an approved therapy for PPMS, it can help clinicians and patients determine whether to initiate treatment early to address the high risk of progression or delay treatment that might not be needed.
 

A useful tool

In the field of MS, most of the studies performed with machine learning have focused on the analysis of radiological images. However, others are now looking at the blood transcriptome as a potential path to better classifying a highly complex disease with substantial heterogeneity in presentation, progression, and outcome.

For example, machine learning of the blood transcriptome has also shown high accuracy in the diagnosis and classification of MS in patients with clinically isolated syndrome (CIS). One study, published in Cell Reports Medicine, was led by Cinthia Farina, PhD, Institute of Experimental Neurology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan.

Although she did not hear the presentation by Dr. Gurevich, Dr. Farina is enthusiastic about the potential for machine learning to help manage MS through the analysis of the blood transcriptome. “I do believe that transcriptomics in peripheral immune cells may become a useful tool for MS diagnosis and prognosis,” she said.

In her own study, in which machine learning algorithms were developed and trained on the basis of peripheral blood from patients with CIS, the tool proved accurate with a strong potential for being incorporated into routine clinical management.

“Machine learning applied to the blood transcriptomes was extremely efficient with a 95.6% accuracy in discriminating PPMS from RRMS [relapsing-remitting] MS,” she reported.

Dr. Gurevich has no potential financial conflicts of interest to report. He reported funding for the study was provided by Roche. Dr. Farina reports financial relationships with Merck-Serono, Novartis, and Teva.

BOSTON – In patients with primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS), machine learning can predict progression with reasonable accuracy on the basis of the blood transcriptome, according to a proof-of-concept study presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

The accuracy was sufficient for the lead author of the study, Michael Gurevich, PhD, head of the Neuroimmunological Laboratory in the Multiple Sclerosis Center of Sheba Medical Center in Ramat Gan, Israel, to say that it is already clinically viable even as the tool is still evolving.

“We are looking at larger sample sizes to improve the accuracy and generalizability of our model, but we can use it now to inform treatment decisions,” Dr. Gurevich said.

In patients with PPMS who have a highly variable course, the model predicts disability progression with an accuracy of approximately 70%, according to the data he presented. He said he believes this is already at a level that it is meaningful for a risk-to-benefit calculation when considering treatment.
 

Machine learning analyzes blood samples

The study pursues the concept that the genetic information governing highly complex pathophysiological processes is contained in RNA sequencing. While multimodal omics generate data that are too complex for human pattern recognition, there is a growing body of evidence, including that provided by this study, to suggest that machine learning can employ these same RNA profiles and predict disease activity.

In this study, blood samples were collected from patients who participated in the phase 3 clinical ORATORIO trial that led to approval of ocrelizumab for PPMS. Analyses were conducted only on blood samples from those randomized to placebo, who, like those in the active treatment arm, were evaluated at baseline and at 12-week intervals for more than 2 years.

After development of a prediction model and creation of a training dataset, machine learning was applied to the deep sequencing of the blood transcriptome data for predicting two endpoints. One was disease progression at 120 weeks defined as a 1 point or more increase in the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) among patients with confirmed disability progression for at least 12 weeks (12W-CDP).

The other was change at 120 weeks in brain morphology defined as a 1% or more reduction in brain volume (120W PBVC).

The peripheral blood samples were subjected to RNA sequencing analysis (RNA-Seq) using commercially available analysis techniques. The prediction model for the disability endpoint was based on data generated from the blood transcriptome of 135 patients of which 53 (39%) met the endpoint at 120 weeks. The prediction model for the change in brain morphology was based on the blood transcriptome from 94 patients of which 63 (67%) met the endpoint.

On the basis of 10 genes that most significantly differentiated those who met the disability endpoint from those who did not, machine recognition of patterns after training was able to predict correctly the outcome in 70.9%. The sensitivity was 55.6%, and the specificity was 79.0%. The positive and negative predictive values were 59.0% and 76.8%, respectively.

On the basis of the 12 genes the most significantly differentiated those that reached the 120W PBVC endpoint from those who did not, machine learning resulted in a correct prediction of outcomes in 75.1%. The sensitivity was 78.1%, and the specificity was 66.7%. The positive and negative predictive values were 83.3% and 58.8%, respectively

Typical of a PPMS trial population, the mean age of the patients was about 44 years. The mean disease duration was about 6 years. The majority of patients had an EDSS score below 5.5 at baseline. The baseline T2 lesion number was approximately 50.

If further validated by others and in larger studies, this type of information could play a valuable role in PPMS management, according to Dr. Gurevich. Now that there is an approved therapy for PPMS, it can help clinicians and patients determine whether to initiate treatment early to address the high risk of progression or delay treatment that might not be needed.
 

A useful tool

In the field of MS, most of the studies performed with machine learning have focused on the analysis of radiological images. However, others are now looking at the blood transcriptome as a potential path to better classifying a highly complex disease with substantial heterogeneity in presentation, progression, and outcome.

For example, machine learning of the blood transcriptome has also shown high accuracy in the diagnosis and classification of MS in patients with clinically isolated syndrome (CIS). One study, published in Cell Reports Medicine, was led by Cinthia Farina, PhD, Institute of Experimental Neurology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan.

Although she did not hear the presentation by Dr. Gurevich, Dr. Farina is enthusiastic about the potential for machine learning to help manage MS through the analysis of the blood transcriptome. “I do believe that transcriptomics in peripheral immune cells may become a useful tool for MS diagnosis and prognosis,” she said.

In her own study, in which machine learning algorithms were developed and trained on the basis of peripheral blood from patients with CIS, the tool proved accurate with a strong potential for being incorporated into routine clinical management.

“Machine learning applied to the blood transcriptomes was extremely efficient with a 95.6% accuracy in discriminating PPMS from RRMS [relapsing-remitting] MS,” she reported.

Dr. Gurevich has no potential financial conflicts of interest to report. He reported funding for the study was provided by Roche. Dr. Farina reports financial relationships with Merck-Serono, Novartis, and Teva.

BOSTON – In patients with primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS), machine learning can predict progression with reasonable accuracy on the basis of the blood transcriptome, according to a proof-of-concept study presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

The accuracy was sufficient for the lead author of the study, Michael Gurevich, PhD, head of the Neuroimmunological Laboratory in the Multiple Sclerosis Center of Sheba Medical Center in Ramat Gan, Israel, to say that it is already clinically viable even as the tool is still evolving.

“We are looking at larger sample sizes to improve the accuracy and generalizability of our model, but we can use it now to inform treatment decisions,” Dr. Gurevich said.

In patients with PPMS who have a highly variable course, the model predicts disability progression with an accuracy of approximately 70%, according to the data he presented. He said he believes this is already at a level that it is meaningful for a risk-to-benefit calculation when considering treatment.
 

Machine learning analyzes blood samples

The study pursues the concept that the genetic information governing highly complex pathophysiological processes is contained in RNA sequencing. While multimodal omics generate data that are too complex for human pattern recognition, there is a growing body of evidence, including that provided by this study, to suggest that machine learning can employ these same RNA profiles and predict disease activity.

In this study, blood samples were collected from patients who participated in the phase 3 clinical ORATORIO trial that led to approval of ocrelizumab for PPMS. Analyses were conducted only on blood samples from those randomized to placebo, who, like those in the active treatment arm, were evaluated at baseline and at 12-week intervals for more than 2 years.

After development of a prediction model and creation of a training dataset, machine learning was applied to the deep sequencing of the blood transcriptome data for predicting two endpoints. One was disease progression at 120 weeks defined as a 1 point or more increase in the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) among patients with confirmed disability progression for at least 12 weeks (12W-CDP).

The other was change at 120 weeks in brain morphology defined as a 1% or more reduction in brain volume (120W PBVC).

The peripheral blood samples were subjected to RNA sequencing analysis (RNA-Seq) using commercially available analysis techniques. The prediction model for the disability endpoint was based on data generated from the blood transcriptome of 135 patients of which 53 (39%) met the endpoint at 120 weeks. The prediction model for the change in brain morphology was based on the blood transcriptome from 94 patients of which 63 (67%) met the endpoint.

On the basis of 10 genes that most significantly differentiated those who met the disability endpoint from those who did not, machine recognition of patterns after training was able to predict correctly the outcome in 70.9%. The sensitivity was 55.6%, and the specificity was 79.0%. The positive and negative predictive values were 59.0% and 76.8%, respectively.

On the basis of the 12 genes the most significantly differentiated those that reached the 120W PBVC endpoint from those who did not, machine learning resulted in a correct prediction of outcomes in 75.1%. The sensitivity was 78.1%, and the specificity was 66.7%. The positive and negative predictive values were 83.3% and 58.8%, respectively

Typical of a PPMS trial population, the mean age of the patients was about 44 years. The mean disease duration was about 6 years. The majority of patients had an EDSS score below 5.5 at baseline. The baseline T2 lesion number was approximately 50.

If further validated by others and in larger studies, this type of information could play a valuable role in PPMS management, according to Dr. Gurevich. Now that there is an approved therapy for PPMS, it can help clinicians and patients determine whether to initiate treatment early to address the high risk of progression or delay treatment that might not be needed.
 

A useful tool

In the field of MS, most of the studies performed with machine learning have focused on the analysis of radiological images. However, others are now looking at the blood transcriptome as a potential path to better classifying a highly complex disease with substantial heterogeneity in presentation, progression, and outcome.

For example, machine learning of the blood transcriptome has also shown high accuracy in the diagnosis and classification of MS in patients with clinically isolated syndrome (CIS). One study, published in Cell Reports Medicine, was led by Cinthia Farina, PhD, Institute of Experimental Neurology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan.

Although she did not hear the presentation by Dr. Gurevich, Dr. Farina is enthusiastic about the potential for machine learning to help manage MS through the analysis of the blood transcriptome. “I do believe that transcriptomics in peripheral immune cells may become a useful tool for MS diagnosis and prognosis,” she said.

In her own study, in which machine learning algorithms were developed and trained on the basis of peripheral blood from patients with CIS, the tool proved accurate with a strong potential for being incorporated into routine clinical management.

“Machine learning applied to the blood transcriptomes was extremely efficient with a 95.6% accuracy in discriminating PPMS from RRMS [relapsing-remitting] MS,” she reported.

Dr. Gurevich has no potential financial conflicts of interest to report. He reported funding for the study was provided by Roche. Dr. Farina reports financial relationships with Merck-Serono, Novartis, and Teva.

BOSTON – Becker (BMD) and Duchenne muscle dystrophy (DMD) progress largely from irreversible contraction-induced injury of skeletal muscles, making the very positive interim results of an early-phase trial with a drug that prevents these injuries worth attention.

The phase 1b data in BMD, presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, were sufficiently promising that controlled phase 2 trials in both BMD and DMD are already enrolling, reported Joanne Donovan, MD, PhD, an adjunct professor at Boston University and chief medical officer of Edgewise Therapeutics, the company developing the drug.
 

Phase 1 study

Early phase studies are largely focused on safety, but the 6-month interim data of a 12-month study showed rapid reductions in multiple biomarkers of muscle injury, reductions in anti-inflammatory markers, proteomic changes consistent with sustained effects, and a trend for functional improvement in muscle dystrophies.

Moreover, the evidence of a clinical effect was achieved in adult patients with a North Star Ambulatory Assessment (NSAA) score of 15, signifying advanced disease. Only 12 patients were enrolled and there were no controls, but objective evidence of a favorable effect was generated by highly significant reductions in creatine kinase (CK) and fast skeletal muscle (TNNI2) troponin, which are both biomarkers commonly used to track muscular dystrophy progression.

In patients with BMD or DMD, a lack of dystrophin is a key pathogenic feature, according to Dr. Donovan. She explained that dystrophin in muscles connects contractile proteins to membranes and surrounding matrix. In the presence of dystrophin, muscle fibers support each other, but when this protein is absent, contraction causes injury.

The drug in development, currently identified as EDG-5506, is a selective fast myosin inhibitor. This agent was shown to prevent the muscle injury caused by lack of dystrophin in animal models of muscular dystrophy and is now showing the same effect in humans. Preservation of muscle is critical to preventing BMD and DMD progression according to several sets of data, according to Dr. Donovan.

For one, it has been shown that BMD or DMD patients with relatively preserved function as defined by a NSAA score above 32 have minimal muscle damage. As NSAA scores fall below 32 points, muscle mass diminishes and fat accumulates. In natural history studies of BMD, there is a 1.2-point decline in NSAA score over 5 years, and this tracks with muscle loss and not with other variables, such as patient age.

“Progression depends on the degree of muscle loss,” Dr. Donovan stated, providing the rationale for moving forward with EDG-5506.
 

Proof of concept

In experimental studies, modulation of fast myelin provided complete protection against muscle injury while preserving its contractile function, and this translated into protection against loss of function. Phase 1 studies in BMD patients and healthy controls have already provided evidence that EDG-5506 is well tolerated and safe, but the new phase 1b provides a proof of concept for its ability to inhibit muscle injury in BMD patients.

In this study, called ARCH, 12 adults 18 years of age or older with a dystrophin mutation and a BMD phenotype who could complete a 100-meter timed test were enrolled. The median age at entry was 32 years. Several patients had participated in a previous phase 1 safety study. The daily starting dose of 10 mg was increased from 10 mg to 15 mg at 2 months. The dose was increased again to 20 mg at 6 months, but the data presented by Dr. Donovan were restricted to the first 6 months.

At the interim 6-month analysis, creatine kinase was reduced by 40% and TINN2 was reduced by 84% (both P < 0.001). The significant reductions in these biomarkers and others, such as myoglobin, were mostly achieved within the first month, although further reductions were observed for some biomarkers subsequently.

The NSAA score at 6 months improved on average by about 1 point on treatment. Natural history studies of BMD predict a 1-point reduction in NSAA score over this period of time. The modest improvements from baseline in pain scores at 1 month were sustained at 6 months.

On the basis of a proteomic analysis, 125 proteins mostly associated with metabolic pathways consistent with muscle injury were found to be altered in BMD patients relative to healthy controls. The majority of these proteins, whether assessed collectively or individually, normalized after 1 to 2 months of treatment with EDG-5506 and have remained stable during follow-up to date, according to Dr. Donovan.

As in previous studies, the drug was well tolerated. The three most common treatment-emergent events were dizziness, somnolence, and headache. Each was reported by about 25% of patients, but no patient discontinued therapy as a result of adverse events.
 

Findings deemed ‘a big deal’

These data, despite the small number of patients in the study and the limited follow-up, “are a big deal,” according to Nicholas E. Johnson, MD, division chief, neuromuscular disorders, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond. He pointed out that there are no effective treatments currently for BMD, and the mechanism of action is plausible.

“I am excited about the potential of this treatment, although we clearly need longer follow-up and more patients evaluated on this treatment,” Dr. Johnson said. He said that clinicians with BMD patients should be aware of the phase 2 trial that is now recruiting adult subjects.

“Becker muscular dystrophy is highly disabling. As disease advances, most patients have very limited function,” said Dr. Johnson, emphasizing the urgent unmet need for an effective therapy.

Dr. Donovan is a full time employee of Edgewise Therapeutics, which funded this study. Dr. Johnson has financial relationships with Acceleron, Arthex, AveXis, Avidity, Biogen, Dyne Therapeutics, Entrada, Juvena, ML Bio, Sarepta Therapeutics, Triplet Therapeutics, and Vertex Pharma.
 

BOSTON – Becker (BMD) and Duchenne muscle dystrophy (DMD) progress largely from irreversible contraction-induced injury of skeletal muscles, making the very positive interim results of an early-phase trial with a drug that prevents these injuries worth attention.

The phase 1b data in BMD, presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, were sufficiently promising that controlled phase 2 trials in both BMD and DMD are already enrolling, reported Joanne Donovan, MD, PhD, an adjunct professor at Boston University and chief medical officer of Edgewise Therapeutics, the company developing the drug.
 

Phase 1 study

Early phase studies are largely focused on safety, but the 6-month interim data of a 12-month study showed rapid reductions in multiple biomarkers of muscle injury, reductions in anti-inflammatory markers, proteomic changes consistent with sustained effects, and a trend for functional improvement in muscle dystrophies.

Moreover, the evidence of a clinical effect was achieved in adult patients with a North Star Ambulatory Assessment (NSAA) score of 15, signifying advanced disease. Only 12 patients were enrolled and there were no controls, but objective evidence of a favorable effect was generated by highly significant reductions in creatine kinase (CK) and fast skeletal muscle (TNNI2) troponin, which are both biomarkers commonly used to track muscular dystrophy progression.

In patients with BMD or DMD, a lack of dystrophin is a key pathogenic feature, according to Dr. Donovan. She explained that dystrophin in muscles connects contractile proteins to membranes and surrounding matrix. In the presence of dystrophin, muscle fibers support each other, but when this protein is absent, contraction causes injury.

The drug in development, currently identified as EDG-5506, is a selective fast myosin inhibitor. This agent was shown to prevent the muscle injury caused by lack of dystrophin in animal models of muscular dystrophy and is now showing the same effect in humans. Preservation of muscle is critical to preventing BMD and DMD progression according to several sets of data, according to Dr. Donovan.

For one, it has been shown that BMD or DMD patients with relatively preserved function as defined by a NSAA score above 32 have minimal muscle damage. As NSAA scores fall below 32 points, muscle mass diminishes and fat accumulates. In natural history studies of BMD, there is a 1.2-point decline in NSAA score over 5 years, and this tracks with muscle loss and not with other variables, such as patient age.

“Progression depends on the degree of muscle loss,” Dr. Donovan stated, providing the rationale for moving forward with EDG-5506.
 

Proof of concept

In experimental studies, modulation of fast myelin provided complete protection against muscle injury while preserving its contractile function, and this translated into protection against loss of function. Phase 1 studies in BMD patients and healthy controls have already provided evidence that EDG-5506 is well tolerated and safe, but the new phase 1b provides a proof of concept for its ability to inhibit muscle injury in BMD patients.

In this study, called ARCH, 12 adults 18 years of age or older with a dystrophin mutation and a BMD phenotype who could complete a 100-meter timed test were enrolled. The median age at entry was 32 years. Several patients had participated in a previous phase 1 safety study. The daily starting dose of 10 mg was increased from 10 mg to 15 mg at 2 months. The dose was increased again to 20 mg at 6 months, but the data presented by Dr. Donovan were restricted to the first 6 months.

At the interim 6-month analysis, creatine kinase was reduced by 40% and TINN2 was reduced by 84% (both P < 0.001). The significant reductions in these biomarkers and others, such as myoglobin, were mostly achieved within the first month, although further reductions were observed for some biomarkers subsequently.

The NSAA score at 6 months improved on average by about 1 point on treatment. Natural history studies of BMD predict a 1-point reduction in NSAA score over this period of time. The modest improvements from baseline in pain scores at 1 month were sustained at 6 months.

On the basis of a proteomic analysis, 125 proteins mostly associated with metabolic pathways consistent with muscle injury were found to be altered in BMD patients relative to healthy controls. The majority of these proteins, whether assessed collectively or individually, normalized after 1 to 2 months of treatment with EDG-5506 and have remained stable during follow-up to date, according to Dr. Donovan.

As in previous studies, the drug was well tolerated. The three most common treatment-emergent events were dizziness, somnolence, and headache. Each was reported by about 25% of patients, but no patient discontinued therapy as a result of adverse events.
 

Findings deemed ‘a big deal’

These data, despite the small number of patients in the study and the limited follow-up, “are a big deal,” according to Nicholas E. Johnson, MD, division chief, neuromuscular disorders, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond. He pointed out that there are no effective treatments currently for BMD, and the mechanism of action is plausible.

“I am excited about the potential of this treatment, although we clearly need longer follow-up and more patients evaluated on this treatment,” Dr. Johnson said. He said that clinicians with BMD patients should be aware of the phase 2 trial that is now recruiting adult subjects.

“Becker muscular dystrophy is highly disabling. As disease advances, most patients have very limited function,” said Dr. Johnson, emphasizing the urgent unmet need for an effective therapy.

Dr. Donovan is a full time employee of Edgewise Therapeutics, which funded this study. Dr. Johnson has financial relationships with Acceleron, Arthex, AveXis, Avidity, Biogen, Dyne Therapeutics, Entrada, Juvena, ML Bio, Sarepta Therapeutics, Triplet Therapeutics, and Vertex Pharma.
 

BOSTON – Becker (BMD) and Duchenne muscle dystrophy (DMD) progress largely from irreversible contraction-induced injury of skeletal muscles, making the very positive interim results of an early-phase trial with a drug that prevents these injuries worth attention.

The phase 1b data in BMD, presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, were sufficiently promising that controlled phase 2 trials in both BMD and DMD are already enrolling, reported Joanne Donovan, MD, PhD, an adjunct professor at Boston University and chief medical officer of Edgewise Therapeutics, the company developing the drug.
 

Phase 1 study

Early phase studies are largely focused on safety, but the 6-month interim data of a 12-month study showed rapid reductions in multiple biomarkers of muscle injury, reductions in anti-inflammatory markers, proteomic changes consistent with sustained effects, and a trend for functional improvement in muscle dystrophies.

Moreover, the evidence of a clinical effect was achieved in adult patients with a North Star Ambulatory Assessment (NSAA) score of 15, signifying advanced disease. Only 12 patients were enrolled and there were no controls, but objective evidence of a favorable effect was generated by highly significant reductions in creatine kinase (CK) and fast skeletal muscle (TNNI2) troponin, which are both biomarkers commonly used to track muscular dystrophy progression.

In patients with BMD or DMD, a lack of dystrophin is a key pathogenic feature, according to Dr. Donovan. She explained that dystrophin in muscles connects contractile proteins to membranes and surrounding matrix. In the presence of dystrophin, muscle fibers support each other, but when this protein is absent, contraction causes injury.

The drug in development, currently identified as EDG-5506, is a selective fast myosin inhibitor. This agent was shown to prevent the muscle injury caused by lack of dystrophin in animal models of muscular dystrophy and is now showing the same effect in humans. Preservation of muscle is critical to preventing BMD and DMD progression according to several sets of data, according to Dr. Donovan.

For one, it has been shown that BMD or DMD patients with relatively preserved function as defined by a NSAA score above 32 have minimal muscle damage. As NSAA scores fall below 32 points, muscle mass diminishes and fat accumulates. In natural history studies of BMD, there is a 1.2-point decline in NSAA score over 5 years, and this tracks with muscle loss and not with other variables, such as patient age.

“Progression depends on the degree of muscle loss,” Dr. Donovan stated, providing the rationale for moving forward with EDG-5506.
 

Proof of concept

In experimental studies, modulation of fast myelin provided complete protection against muscle injury while preserving its contractile function, and this translated into protection against loss of function. Phase 1 studies in BMD patients and healthy controls have already provided evidence that EDG-5506 is well tolerated and safe, but the new phase 1b provides a proof of concept for its ability to inhibit muscle injury in BMD patients.

In this study, called ARCH, 12 adults 18 years of age or older with a dystrophin mutation and a BMD phenotype who could complete a 100-meter timed test were enrolled. The median age at entry was 32 years. Several patients had participated in a previous phase 1 safety study. The daily starting dose of 10 mg was increased from 10 mg to 15 mg at 2 months. The dose was increased again to 20 mg at 6 months, but the data presented by Dr. Donovan were restricted to the first 6 months.

At the interim 6-month analysis, creatine kinase was reduced by 40% and TINN2 was reduced by 84% (both P < 0.001). The significant reductions in these biomarkers and others, such as myoglobin, were mostly achieved within the first month, although further reductions were observed for some biomarkers subsequently.

The NSAA score at 6 months improved on average by about 1 point on treatment. Natural history studies of BMD predict a 1-point reduction in NSAA score over this period of time. The modest improvements from baseline in pain scores at 1 month were sustained at 6 months.

On the basis of a proteomic analysis, 125 proteins mostly associated with metabolic pathways consistent with muscle injury were found to be altered in BMD patients relative to healthy controls. The majority of these proteins, whether assessed collectively or individually, normalized after 1 to 2 months of treatment with EDG-5506 and have remained stable during follow-up to date, according to Dr. Donovan.

As in previous studies, the drug was well tolerated. The three most common treatment-emergent events were dizziness, somnolence, and headache. Each was reported by about 25% of patients, but no patient discontinued therapy as a result of adverse events.
 

Findings deemed ‘a big deal’

These data, despite the small number of patients in the study and the limited follow-up, “are a big deal,” according to Nicholas E. Johnson, MD, division chief, neuromuscular disorders, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond. He pointed out that there are no effective treatments currently for BMD, and the mechanism of action is plausible.

“I am excited about the potential of this treatment, although we clearly need longer follow-up and more patients evaluated on this treatment,” Dr. Johnson said. He said that clinicians with BMD patients should be aware of the phase 2 trial that is now recruiting adult subjects.

“Becker muscular dystrophy is highly disabling. As disease advances, most patients have very limited function,” said Dr. Johnson, emphasizing the urgent unmet need for an effective therapy.

Dr. Donovan is a full time employee of Edgewise Therapeutics, which funded this study. Dr. Johnson has financial relationships with Acceleron, Arthex, AveXis, Avidity, Biogen, Dyne Therapeutics, Entrada, Juvena, ML Bio, Sarepta Therapeutics, Triplet Therapeutics, and Vertex Pharma.
 

BOSTON – A new subcutaneous system for infusing levodopa-carbidopa continuously over 24 hours to control Parkinson’s disease met its primary and secondary endpoints in a double-blind, double-dummy phase 3 multicenter trial presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

When compared with optimized oral immediate-release medication, the delivery system, called ND0612 (NeuroDerm, Rehovot, Israel), improved ON time without troublesome dyskinesias while improving symptoms according to ratings from both patients and clinicians, according to Alberto J. Espay, MD, professor of neurology and director of the Gardner Family Center for Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders, University of Cincinnati.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

The new delivery system addresses the challenge of reducing the variability in levodopa plasma concentrations, a major factor in motor fluctuations and diminishing benefit from orally administered drug, according to Dr. Espay. He said that continuous infusion strategies have long been sought as a method to preserve levodopa efficacy.
 

BouNDless findings

There were two phases to this multinational trial, called BouNDless. In the first, an open-label run-in phase, 381 patients with Parkinson’s disease were dose titrated for optimization of oral immediate-release levodopa and carbidopa. They were then optimized for the same drugs delivered with ND0612. The study was conducted over 12 weeks; 122 patients left the study after this phase due to adverse events, lack of efficacy, or withdrawal of consent.

In the second phase, the 259 remaining patients were randomized to the continuous infusion arm or to immediate release oral therapy. In this double-blind, double-dummy phase, those randomized to the ND0612 infusion also received oral placebos. Those randomized to oral therapy received a placebo infusion. Efficacy and safety were assessed at the end of 12 weeks.

At the end of phase 1, the ON time increased by about 3 hours when levodopa-carbidopa dosing was optimized on either delivery method. Dr. Espay attributed the improvement to the value of optimized dosing even in patients with relatively advanced disease.

However, for the purposes of the double-blind comparison, this improvement in ON time provided a new baseline for comparison of the two delivery methods. This is important for interpreting the primary result, which was a 1.72-hour difference in ON time at the end of the study. The difference was created when ON time was maintained with ND0612 continuous drug delivery but eroded in the group randomized to oral immediate-release treatment.

Several secondary endpoints supported the greater efficacy of continuous subcutaneous delivery. These included lower OFF time (0.50 vs. 1.90 hours), less accumulation of disability on the United Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale part II-M-EDL (-0.30 vs. +2.75 points), and greater improvement on the Patient Global Impression of Change (+0.31 vs. +0.70 points), and the Clinical Global Impression of change (+0.31 vs. +0.77 points). The differences were highly statistically significant (all P < .0001).

The patients participating in the double-blind phase of the study were similar with a mean age of 63.5 years in both groups and time since Parkinson’s disease diagnosis (> 9 years). The median ON time without troublesome dyskinesias was about 12 hours at baseline in both groups and the median OFF time was about 3.5 hours.

The higher rate of treatment-related adverse events in the ND0612 group (67.2% vs. 52.7%) was largely explained by the greater rate of infusion site reactions (57.0% vs. 42.7%). The rates of severe reactions in the two groups were the same (0.8%), but both mild (43.8% vs. 36.6%) and moderate (12.5% vs. 5.3%) reactions occurred more commonly in the group receiving active therapy.

“Infusion reactions are the Achilles heel of all subcutaneous therapies,” acknowledged Dr. Espay, who expects other infusion systems in development to share this risk. He suggested that the clinical impact can be attenuated to some degree by rotating infusion sites.
 

BeyoND extension study

Data from an open-label extension (OLE) of the phase 2b BeyoND trial were also presented at the AAN meeting and generated generally similar results. Largely a safety study, there was no active control in the initial BeyoND or the BeyoND OLE. In BeyoND, the improvement in ON time from baseline was even greater than that seen in BouNDless, but, again, the optimization of dosing in the BouNDless run-in established a greater baseline of disease control.

In the OLE of BeyoND, presented by Aaron Ellenbogen, DO, a neurologist in Farmington, Mich., one of the notable findings was the retention of patients. After 2 years of follow-up, 82% completed at least 2 years of follow-up and 66.7% have now remained on treatment for at least 3 years. Dr. Ellenbogen maintains that this retention rate provides compelling evidence of a favorable benefit-to-risk ratio.
 

Fulfilling an unmet need

The favorable efficacy data from this trial represent “a big advance,” according to Ihtsham Ul Haq, MD, chief, movement disorders division, University of Miami, who was reached for comment. He noted that continuous infusion delivery has been anticipated for some time, and he expects these types of systems to fulfill an unmet need.

“This will be a useful option in a carefully selected group of patients,” said Dr. Haq, who considers the types of improvement in ON time to be highly clinically meaningful.

However, he cautioned that the nodules created by injection site reactions might limit the utility of this treatment option in at least some patients. Wearing the external device might also be a limiting factor for some patients.

In complex Parkinson’s disease, a stage that can be reached fairly rapidly in some patients but might take 15 years or more in others, all of the options involve a careful benefit-to-risk calculation, according to Dr. Haq. Deep brain stimulation is among the most effective options, but continuous infusion might appeal to some patients for delaying this procedure or as an alternative.

“We need multiple options for these types of patients, and it appears that continuous infusion will be one of them,” Dr. Haq said.

Dr. Espay has financial relationships with Acadia, Acorda, Amneal, AskBio, Bexion, Kyowa Kirin, Neuroderm, Neurocrine, and Sunovion. Dr. Ellenbogen has financial relationships with Allergan, Acorda, Supernus, and Teva. Dr. Haq reports no potential conflicts of interest.

BOSTON – A new subcutaneous system for infusing levodopa-carbidopa continuously over 24 hours to control Parkinson’s disease met its primary and secondary endpoints in a double-blind, double-dummy phase 3 multicenter trial presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

When compared with optimized oral immediate-release medication, the delivery system, called ND0612 (NeuroDerm, Rehovot, Israel), improved ON time without troublesome dyskinesias while improving symptoms according to ratings from both patients and clinicians, according to Alberto J. Espay, MD, professor of neurology and director of the Gardner Family Center for Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders, University of Cincinnati.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

The new delivery system addresses the challenge of reducing the variability in levodopa plasma concentrations, a major factor in motor fluctuations and diminishing benefit from orally administered drug, according to Dr. Espay. He said that continuous infusion strategies have long been sought as a method to preserve levodopa efficacy.
 

BouNDless findings

There were two phases to this multinational trial, called BouNDless. In the first, an open-label run-in phase, 381 patients with Parkinson’s disease were dose titrated for optimization of oral immediate-release levodopa and carbidopa. They were then optimized for the same drugs delivered with ND0612. The study was conducted over 12 weeks; 122 patients left the study after this phase due to adverse events, lack of efficacy, or withdrawal of consent.

In the second phase, the 259 remaining patients were randomized to the continuous infusion arm or to immediate release oral therapy. In this double-blind, double-dummy phase, those randomized to the ND0612 infusion also received oral placebos. Those randomized to oral therapy received a placebo infusion. Efficacy and safety were assessed at the end of 12 weeks.

At the end of phase 1, the ON time increased by about 3 hours when levodopa-carbidopa dosing was optimized on either delivery method. Dr. Espay attributed the improvement to the value of optimized dosing even in patients with relatively advanced disease.

However, for the purposes of the double-blind comparison, this improvement in ON time provided a new baseline for comparison of the two delivery methods. This is important for interpreting the primary result, which was a 1.72-hour difference in ON time at the end of the study. The difference was created when ON time was maintained with ND0612 continuous drug delivery but eroded in the group randomized to oral immediate-release treatment.

Several secondary endpoints supported the greater efficacy of continuous subcutaneous delivery. These included lower OFF time (0.50 vs. 1.90 hours), less accumulation of disability on the United Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale part II-M-EDL (-0.30 vs. +2.75 points), and greater improvement on the Patient Global Impression of Change (+0.31 vs. +0.70 points), and the Clinical Global Impression of change (+0.31 vs. +0.77 points). The differences were highly statistically significant (all P < .0001).

The patients participating in the double-blind phase of the study were similar with a mean age of 63.5 years in both groups and time since Parkinson’s disease diagnosis (> 9 years). The median ON time without troublesome dyskinesias was about 12 hours at baseline in both groups and the median OFF time was about 3.5 hours.

The higher rate of treatment-related adverse events in the ND0612 group (67.2% vs. 52.7%) was largely explained by the greater rate of infusion site reactions (57.0% vs. 42.7%). The rates of severe reactions in the two groups were the same (0.8%), but both mild (43.8% vs. 36.6%) and moderate (12.5% vs. 5.3%) reactions occurred more commonly in the group receiving active therapy.

“Infusion reactions are the Achilles heel of all subcutaneous therapies,” acknowledged Dr. Espay, who expects other infusion systems in development to share this risk. He suggested that the clinical impact can be attenuated to some degree by rotating infusion sites.
 

BeyoND extension study

Data from an open-label extension (OLE) of the phase 2b BeyoND trial were also presented at the AAN meeting and generated generally similar results. Largely a safety study, there was no active control in the initial BeyoND or the BeyoND OLE. In BeyoND, the improvement in ON time from baseline was even greater than that seen in BouNDless, but, again, the optimization of dosing in the BouNDless run-in established a greater baseline of disease control.

In the OLE of BeyoND, presented by Aaron Ellenbogen, DO, a neurologist in Farmington, Mich., one of the notable findings was the retention of patients. After 2 years of follow-up, 82% completed at least 2 years of follow-up and 66.7% have now remained on treatment for at least 3 years. Dr. Ellenbogen maintains that this retention rate provides compelling evidence of a favorable benefit-to-risk ratio.
 

Fulfilling an unmet need

The favorable efficacy data from this trial represent “a big advance,” according to Ihtsham Ul Haq, MD, chief, movement disorders division, University of Miami, who was reached for comment. He noted that continuous infusion delivery has been anticipated for some time, and he expects these types of systems to fulfill an unmet need.

“This will be a useful option in a carefully selected group of patients,” said Dr. Haq, who considers the types of improvement in ON time to be highly clinically meaningful.

However, he cautioned that the nodules created by injection site reactions might limit the utility of this treatment option in at least some patients. Wearing the external device might also be a limiting factor for some patients.

In complex Parkinson’s disease, a stage that can be reached fairly rapidly in some patients but might take 15 years or more in others, all of the options involve a careful benefit-to-risk calculation, according to Dr. Haq. Deep brain stimulation is among the most effective options, but continuous infusion might appeal to some patients for delaying this procedure or as an alternative.

“We need multiple options for these types of patients, and it appears that continuous infusion will be one of them,” Dr. Haq said.

Dr. Espay has financial relationships with Acadia, Acorda, Amneal, AskBio, Bexion, Kyowa Kirin, Neuroderm, Neurocrine, and Sunovion. Dr. Ellenbogen has financial relationships with Allergan, Acorda, Supernus, and Teva. Dr. Haq reports no potential conflicts of interest.

BOSTON – A new subcutaneous system for infusing levodopa-carbidopa continuously over 24 hours to control Parkinson’s disease met its primary and secondary endpoints in a double-blind, double-dummy phase 3 multicenter trial presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

When compared with optimized oral immediate-release medication, the delivery system, called ND0612 (NeuroDerm, Rehovot, Israel), improved ON time without troublesome dyskinesias while improving symptoms according to ratings from both patients and clinicians, according to Alberto J. Espay, MD, professor of neurology and director of the Gardner Family Center for Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders, University of Cincinnati.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

The new delivery system addresses the challenge of reducing the variability in levodopa plasma concentrations, a major factor in motor fluctuations and diminishing benefit from orally administered drug, according to Dr. Espay. He said that continuous infusion strategies have long been sought as a method to preserve levodopa efficacy.
 

BouNDless findings

There were two phases to this multinational trial, called BouNDless. In the first, an open-label run-in phase, 381 patients with Parkinson’s disease were dose titrated for optimization of oral immediate-release levodopa and carbidopa. They were then optimized for the same drugs delivered with ND0612. The study was conducted over 12 weeks; 122 patients left the study after this phase due to adverse events, lack of efficacy, or withdrawal of consent.

In the second phase, the 259 remaining patients were randomized to the continuous infusion arm or to immediate release oral therapy. In this double-blind, double-dummy phase, those randomized to the ND0612 infusion also received oral placebos. Those randomized to oral therapy received a placebo infusion. Efficacy and safety were assessed at the end of 12 weeks.

At the end of phase 1, the ON time increased by about 3 hours when levodopa-carbidopa dosing was optimized on either delivery method. Dr. Espay attributed the improvement to the value of optimized dosing even in patients with relatively advanced disease.

However, for the purposes of the double-blind comparison, this improvement in ON time provided a new baseline for comparison of the two delivery methods. This is important for interpreting the primary result, which was a 1.72-hour difference in ON time at the end of the study. The difference was created when ON time was maintained with ND0612 continuous drug delivery but eroded in the group randomized to oral immediate-release treatment.

Several secondary endpoints supported the greater efficacy of continuous subcutaneous delivery. These included lower OFF time (0.50 vs. 1.90 hours), less accumulation of disability on the United Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale part II-M-EDL (-0.30 vs. +2.75 points), and greater improvement on the Patient Global Impression of Change (+0.31 vs. +0.70 points), and the Clinical Global Impression of change (+0.31 vs. +0.77 points). The differences were highly statistically significant (all P < .0001).

The patients participating in the double-blind phase of the study were similar with a mean age of 63.5 years in both groups and time since Parkinson’s disease diagnosis (> 9 years). The median ON time without troublesome dyskinesias was about 12 hours at baseline in both groups and the median OFF time was about 3.5 hours.

The higher rate of treatment-related adverse events in the ND0612 group (67.2% vs. 52.7%) was largely explained by the greater rate of infusion site reactions (57.0% vs. 42.7%). The rates of severe reactions in the two groups were the same (0.8%), but both mild (43.8% vs. 36.6%) and moderate (12.5% vs. 5.3%) reactions occurred more commonly in the group receiving active therapy.

“Infusion reactions are the Achilles heel of all subcutaneous therapies,” acknowledged Dr. Espay, who expects other infusion systems in development to share this risk. He suggested that the clinical impact can be attenuated to some degree by rotating infusion sites.
 

BeyoND extension study

Data from an open-label extension (OLE) of the phase 2b BeyoND trial were also presented at the AAN meeting and generated generally similar results. Largely a safety study, there was no active control in the initial BeyoND or the BeyoND OLE. In BeyoND, the improvement in ON time from baseline was even greater than that seen in BouNDless, but, again, the optimization of dosing in the BouNDless run-in established a greater baseline of disease control.

In the OLE of BeyoND, presented by Aaron Ellenbogen, DO, a neurologist in Farmington, Mich., one of the notable findings was the retention of patients. After 2 years of follow-up, 82% completed at least 2 years of follow-up and 66.7% have now remained on treatment for at least 3 years. Dr. Ellenbogen maintains that this retention rate provides compelling evidence of a favorable benefit-to-risk ratio.
 

Fulfilling an unmet need

The favorable efficacy data from this trial represent “a big advance,” according to Ihtsham Ul Haq, MD, chief, movement disorders division, University of Miami, who was reached for comment. He noted that continuous infusion delivery has been anticipated for some time, and he expects these types of systems to fulfill an unmet need.

“This will be a useful option in a carefully selected group of patients,” said Dr. Haq, who considers the types of improvement in ON time to be highly clinically meaningful.

However, he cautioned that the nodules created by injection site reactions might limit the utility of this treatment option in at least some patients. Wearing the external device might also be a limiting factor for some patients.

In complex Parkinson’s disease, a stage that can be reached fairly rapidly in some patients but might take 15 years or more in others, all of the options involve a careful benefit-to-risk calculation, according to Dr. Haq. Deep brain stimulation is among the most effective options, but continuous infusion might appeal to some patients for delaying this procedure or as an alternative.

“We need multiple options for these types of patients, and it appears that continuous infusion will be one of them,” Dr. Haq said.

Dr. Espay has financial relationships with Acadia, Acorda, Amneal, AskBio, Bexion, Kyowa Kirin, Neuroderm, Neurocrine, and Sunovion. Dr. Ellenbogen has financial relationships with Allergan, Acorda, Supernus, and Teva. Dr. Haq reports no potential conflicts of interest.