Federal Practitioner

States have begun preparing to distribute a COVID-19 vaccine if one is approved, a CDC official said today.

The CDC released guidance for states on Sept. 16 titled COVID-19 Vaccination Program Interim Playbook for Jurisdiction Operations. The document discusses vaccine ordering, storage, and handling and says that states should submit their plans for vaccine distribution to the agency by Oct. 16.

“Every jurisdiction is heavily involved right now in their plan development,” CDC official Janell Routh, MD, told the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices during its Sept. 22 meeting. “It was really impressive to me that, even though the playbook only went out last week, states and jurisdictions have been thinking about this for quite some time.”

However, one committee member suggested that setting a deadline before more safety, efficacy, and storage information is known may be premature.

“I cannot imagine that we will actually know the final storage requirements for this vaccine by Oct. 16, which makes me a little concerned about finalizing state plans,” said Helen “Keipp” Talbot, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn. “We also don’t know the best populations yet when it comes to efficacy and safety.”

Dr. Routh said the CDC is asking states to plan on the basis of assumptions. “We know those plans will constantly be improving, changing, as we learn more information,” Dr. Routh said. States agreed to return a plan 30 days after the playbook was released, which is how the Oct. 16 deadline was established, she said.

States are encouraged to think broadly. Plans may include contingencies for a product that requires ultracold storage or for distributing more than one vaccine product, Dr. Routh said.

“One goal is to be ready on the first day that we can actually distribute vaccine,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during the meeting. “Our colleagues in Operation Warp Speed say that they expect there will be vaccine as early as November, and therefore we need to be ready so there is no delay in distributing that vaccine. And that phase, that early phase, is really close upon us.”

Many states have already developed plans, and the CDC is providing technical assistance as needed to monitor the plans regularly, Dr. Routh said.
 

Key issues identified

From holding pilot meetings with five jurisdictions, officials learned that public confidence in the vaccine is among states’ greatest concerns, Dr. Routh said. In addition, distribution is resource intensive, and social distancing adds logistical complexity.

Specific guidance on whom to vaccinate in the early stages will smooth the process, officials suggested during the pilot meetings. For the first several weeks, vaccine doses may be limited to priority populations, such as health care workers.

“This interim playbook is a living document,” Dr. Routh emphasized. “We definitely plan to update the content regularly as we learn more information about what vaccines and when they will be released.”

During the early stages of COVID-19 vaccination, officials plan to implement an enhanced monitoring program in which vaccine recipients would complete surveys about adverse events, in addition to the traditional vaccine safety monitoring programs that already exist, officials said.
 

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

States have begun preparing to distribute a COVID-19 vaccine if one is approved, a CDC official said today.

The CDC released guidance for states on Sept. 16 titled COVID-19 Vaccination Program Interim Playbook for Jurisdiction Operations. The document discusses vaccine ordering, storage, and handling and says that states should submit their plans for vaccine distribution to the agency by Oct. 16.

“Every jurisdiction is heavily involved right now in their plan development,” CDC official Janell Routh, MD, told the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices during its Sept. 22 meeting. “It was really impressive to me that, even though the playbook only went out last week, states and jurisdictions have been thinking about this for quite some time.”

However, one committee member suggested that setting a deadline before more safety, efficacy, and storage information is known may be premature.

“I cannot imagine that we will actually know the final storage requirements for this vaccine by Oct. 16, which makes me a little concerned about finalizing state plans,” said Helen “Keipp” Talbot, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn. “We also don’t know the best populations yet when it comes to efficacy and safety.”

Dr. Routh said the CDC is asking states to plan on the basis of assumptions. “We know those plans will constantly be improving, changing, as we learn more information,” Dr. Routh said. States agreed to return a plan 30 days after the playbook was released, which is how the Oct. 16 deadline was established, she said.

States are encouraged to think broadly. Plans may include contingencies for a product that requires ultracold storage or for distributing more than one vaccine product, Dr. Routh said.

“One goal is to be ready on the first day that we can actually distribute vaccine,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during the meeting. “Our colleagues in Operation Warp Speed say that they expect there will be vaccine as early as November, and therefore we need to be ready so there is no delay in distributing that vaccine. And that phase, that early phase, is really close upon us.”

Many states have already developed plans, and the CDC is providing technical assistance as needed to monitor the plans regularly, Dr. Routh said.
 

Key issues identified

From holding pilot meetings with five jurisdictions, officials learned that public confidence in the vaccine is among states’ greatest concerns, Dr. Routh said. In addition, distribution is resource intensive, and social distancing adds logistical complexity.

Specific guidance on whom to vaccinate in the early stages will smooth the process, officials suggested during the pilot meetings. For the first several weeks, vaccine doses may be limited to priority populations, such as health care workers.

“This interim playbook is a living document,” Dr. Routh emphasized. “We definitely plan to update the content regularly as we learn more information about what vaccines and when they will be released.”

During the early stages of COVID-19 vaccination, officials plan to implement an enhanced monitoring program in which vaccine recipients would complete surveys about adverse events, in addition to the traditional vaccine safety monitoring programs that already exist, officials said.
 

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

States have begun preparing to distribute a COVID-19 vaccine if one is approved, a CDC official said today.

The CDC released guidance for states on Sept. 16 titled COVID-19 Vaccination Program Interim Playbook for Jurisdiction Operations. The document discusses vaccine ordering, storage, and handling and says that states should submit their plans for vaccine distribution to the agency by Oct. 16.

“Every jurisdiction is heavily involved right now in their plan development,” CDC official Janell Routh, MD, told the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices during its Sept. 22 meeting. “It was really impressive to me that, even though the playbook only went out last week, states and jurisdictions have been thinking about this for quite some time.”

However, one committee member suggested that setting a deadline before more safety, efficacy, and storage information is known may be premature.

“I cannot imagine that we will actually know the final storage requirements for this vaccine by Oct. 16, which makes me a little concerned about finalizing state plans,” said Helen “Keipp” Talbot, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn. “We also don’t know the best populations yet when it comes to efficacy and safety.”

Dr. Routh said the CDC is asking states to plan on the basis of assumptions. “We know those plans will constantly be improving, changing, as we learn more information,” Dr. Routh said. States agreed to return a plan 30 days after the playbook was released, which is how the Oct. 16 deadline was established, she said.

States are encouraged to think broadly. Plans may include contingencies for a product that requires ultracold storage or for distributing more than one vaccine product, Dr. Routh said.

“One goal is to be ready on the first day that we can actually distribute vaccine,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during the meeting. “Our colleagues in Operation Warp Speed say that they expect there will be vaccine as early as November, and therefore we need to be ready so there is no delay in distributing that vaccine. And that phase, that early phase, is really close upon us.”

Many states have already developed plans, and the CDC is providing technical assistance as needed to monitor the plans regularly, Dr. Routh said.
 

Key issues identified

From holding pilot meetings with five jurisdictions, officials learned that public confidence in the vaccine is among states’ greatest concerns, Dr. Routh said. In addition, distribution is resource intensive, and social distancing adds logistical complexity.

Specific guidance on whom to vaccinate in the early stages will smooth the process, officials suggested during the pilot meetings. For the first several weeks, vaccine doses may be limited to priority populations, such as health care workers.

“This interim playbook is a living document,” Dr. Routh emphasized. “We definitely plan to update the content regularly as we learn more information about what vaccines and when they will be released.”

During the early stages of COVID-19 vaccination, officials plan to implement an enhanced monitoring program in which vaccine recipients would complete surveys about adverse events, in addition to the traditional vaccine safety monitoring programs that already exist, officials said.
 

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

Current American and European guidelines recommending long-term beta-blocker therapy following an acute MI appear to be obsolete in the modern reperfusion era, suggests an analysis of Danish registry data.

Those guidelines are based on old randomized trials of beta-blocker therapy conducted prior to introduction of routine percutaneous coronary intervention and modern multidrug optimal medical therapy for acute MI. There have been no prospective controlled studies in the reperfusion era. And a new Danish national observational study strongly suggests it’s time to reexamine the beta-blocker recommendation, Anders Holt, MD, said at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“Stable, optimally treated MI patients do not seem to benefit from beta-blocker treatment exceeding 3 months post hospitalization – bearing in mind this doesn’t apply to patients with other indications for beta-blockers, like heart failure or atrial fibrillation,” said Dr. Holt of Copenhagen University Hospital.

His analysis of Danish national registry data on more than 30,000 patients hospitalized for acute MI during 2003-2018 earned him the annual ESC Young Investigator Award in Population Science.

Frontline Medical News

“This was a crisp and clear presentation of a very creative use of observational epidemiology to try to understand the length of therapy that may or may not be appropriate,” commented award session cochair Paul M. Ridker, MD, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

Dr. Holt reported on 30,177 patients optimally treated for a first MI in Danish hospitals during 2003-2018, none of whom had a prior indication or contraindication for beta-blocker therapy. “Optimally treated” meant they underwent percutaneous coronary revascularization and were discharged on a statin and aspirin. As a study requirement, all had to be stable 90 days post hospitalization, at which point 24,770 of the patients were on long-term beta-blocker therapy, and 5,407 (18%) were not. The two groups were comparable in terms of age, sex, comorbidities, and baseline medications. All patients were followed through the registries for a maximum of 3 years, the duration of beta-blocker therapy post MI recommended in American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines. (The Danish Society of Cardiology recommends 2 years.)

At 3 years post MI, there was no between-group difference in a composite outcome comprising cardiovascular death, recurrent MI, heart failure, stroke, angina, or a cardiac procedure, with a rate of 22.9% in the beta-blocker group and 21.6% in patients not on long-term beta-blocker therapy. The rate of recurrent MI was identical at 6.7% in both groups. Cardiovascular death occurred during 3 years of follow-up in 1.4% of patients on beta-blocker therapy and 1.7% who weren’t, a nonsignificant difference.

“We saw no evidence of any cardioprotective effect, but no increased risk of adverse events resulting in hospitalization, either,” Dr. Holt observed. “I would like to acknowledge that no evidence of effect does not necessarily equal evidence of no effect, but even if there was an effect we can with fair certainty say that it’s probably quite minimal.”

He noted that the Danish registry data indicates that each year since 2012 has shown a growing trend for Danish patients to dispense with long-term beta-blocker therapy after an acute MI.

“This might indicate we are nudging toward a change in practice, where more physicians are thinking that long-term beta-blocker therapy might not be indicated for all MI patients in the reperfusion era,” according to Dr. Holt.

Asked by the four-judge award panel about the possibility of unmeasured confounding in this observational study, Dr Holt responded: “I would be very cautious about asking patients to stop beta-blocker therapy after 3 months just based on this observational data. We can’t speak to causality in an observational study.” But he added that “well-designed observational studies provide valuable data regarding this topic and should not be ignored. They should possibly influence the guidelines and the designs for upcoming randomized trials.”

He conducted several supplementary analyses designed to address the possibility of unevenly distributed unmeasured confounding in the registry study. These analyses proved reassuring. A positive exposure control analysis compared 3-year outcomes in patients who remained on long-term statin therapy and those who didn’t. As expected, outcomes were significantly better in those who did: a 3-year composite outcome rate of 22.1%, compared with 32.1% in patients not on a statin; a cardiovascular death rate of 1.3% with and 2.1% without statin therapy; a recurrent MI rate of 6.6%, compared with 10.1% without a statin; and a 2.8% all-cause mortality with and 5.4% without statin therapy.

In contrast, all-cause mortality was unaffected by whether or not patients were on long-term beta-blocker therapy. And in a negative exposure outcome analysis, no association was found between beta-blocker therapy and the risk of hospitalization for pneumonia, as to be expected if the beta-blocker and no-beta-blocker groups were comparable in key respects.

Dr. Holt reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study.

[email protected]

Current American and European guidelines recommending long-term beta-blocker therapy following an acute MI appear to be obsolete in the modern reperfusion era, suggests an analysis of Danish registry data.

Those guidelines are based on old randomized trials of beta-blocker therapy conducted prior to introduction of routine percutaneous coronary intervention and modern multidrug optimal medical therapy for acute MI. There have been no prospective controlled studies in the reperfusion era. And a new Danish national observational study strongly suggests it’s time to reexamine the beta-blocker recommendation, Anders Holt, MD, said at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“Stable, optimally treated MI patients do not seem to benefit from beta-blocker treatment exceeding 3 months post hospitalization – bearing in mind this doesn’t apply to patients with other indications for beta-blockers, like heart failure or atrial fibrillation,” said Dr. Holt of Copenhagen University Hospital.

His analysis of Danish national registry data on more than 30,000 patients hospitalized for acute MI during 2003-2018 earned him the annual ESC Young Investigator Award in Population Science.

Frontline Medical News

“This was a crisp and clear presentation of a very creative use of observational epidemiology to try to understand the length of therapy that may or may not be appropriate,” commented award session cochair Paul M. Ridker, MD, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

Dr. Holt reported on 30,177 patients optimally treated for a first MI in Danish hospitals during 2003-2018, none of whom had a prior indication or contraindication for beta-blocker therapy. “Optimally treated” meant they underwent percutaneous coronary revascularization and were discharged on a statin and aspirin. As a study requirement, all had to be stable 90 days post hospitalization, at which point 24,770 of the patients were on long-term beta-blocker therapy, and 5,407 (18%) were not. The two groups were comparable in terms of age, sex, comorbidities, and baseline medications. All patients were followed through the registries for a maximum of 3 years, the duration of beta-blocker therapy post MI recommended in American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines. (The Danish Society of Cardiology recommends 2 years.)

At 3 years post MI, there was no between-group difference in a composite outcome comprising cardiovascular death, recurrent MI, heart failure, stroke, angina, or a cardiac procedure, with a rate of 22.9% in the beta-blocker group and 21.6% in patients not on long-term beta-blocker therapy. The rate of recurrent MI was identical at 6.7% in both groups. Cardiovascular death occurred during 3 years of follow-up in 1.4% of patients on beta-blocker therapy and 1.7% who weren’t, a nonsignificant difference.

“We saw no evidence of any cardioprotective effect, but no increased risk of adverse events resulting in hospitalization, either,” Dr. Holt observed. “I would like to acknowledge that no evidence of effect does not necessarily equal evidence of no effect, but even if there was an effect we can with fair certainty say that it’s probably quite minimal.”

He noted that the Danish registry data indicates that each year since 2012 has shown a growing trend for Danish patients to dispense with long-term beta-blocker therapy after an acute MI.

“This might indicate we are nudging toward a change in practice, where more physicians are thinking that long-term beta-blocker therapy might not be indicated for all MI patients in the reperfusion era,” according to Dr. Holt.

Asked by the four-judge award panel about the possibility of unmeasured confounding in this observational study, Dr Holt responded: “I would be very cautious about asking patients to stop beta-blocker therapy after 3 months just based on this observational data. We can’t speak to causality in an observational study.” But he added that “well-designed observational studies provide valuable data regarding this topic and should not be ignored. They should possibly influence the guidelines and the designs for upcoming randomized trials.”

He conducted several supplementary analyses designed to address the possibility of unevenly distributed unmeasured confounding in the registry study. These analyses proved reassuring. A positive exposure control analysis compared 3-year outcomes in patients who remained on long-term statin therapy and those who didn’t. As expected, outcomes were significantly better in those who did: a 3-year composite outcome rate of 22.1%, compared with 32.1% in patients not on a statin; a cardiovascular death rate of 1.3% with and 2.1% without statin therapy; a recurrent MI rate of 6.6%, compared with 10.1% without a statin; and a 2.8% all-cause mortality with and 5.4% without statin therapy.

In contrast, all-cause mortality was unaffected by whether or not patients were on long-term beta-blocker therapy. And in a negative exposure outcome analysis, no association was found between beta-blocker therapy and the risk of hospitalization for pneumonia, as to be expected if the beta-blocker and no-beta-blocker groups were comparable in key respects.

Dr. Holt reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study.

[email protected]

Current American and European guidelines recommending long-term beta-blocker therapy following an acute MI appear to be obsolete in the modern reperfusion era, suggests an analysis of Danish registry data.

Those guidelines are based on old randomized trials of beta-blocker therapy conducted prior to introduction of routine percutaneous coronary intervention and modern multidrug optimal medical therapy for acute MI. There have been no prospective controlled studies in the reperfusion era. And a new Danish national observational study strongly suggests it’s time to reexamine the beta-blocker recommendation, Anders Holt, MD, said at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“Stable, optimally treated MI patients do not seem to benefit from beta-blocker treatment exceeding 3 months post hospitalization – bearing in mind this doesn’t apply to patients with other indications for beta-blockers, like heart failure or atrial fibrillation,” said Dr. Holt of Copenhagen University Hospital.

His analysis of Danish national registry data on more than 30,000 patients hospitalized for acute MI during 2003-2018 earned him the annual ESC Young Investigator Award in Population Science.

Frontline Medical News

“This was a crisp and clear presentation of a very creative use of observational epidemiology to try to understand the length of therapy that may or may not be appropriate,” commented award session cochair Paul M. Ridker, MD, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

Dr. Holt reported on 30,177 patients optimally treated for a first MI in Danish hospitals during 2003-2018, none of whom had a prior indication or contraindication for beta-blocker therapy. “Optimally treated” meant they underwent percutaneous coronary revascularization and were discharged on a statin and aspirin. As a study requirement, all had to be stable 90 days post hospitalization, at which point 24,770 of the patients were on long-term beta-blocker therapy, and 5,407 (18%) were not. The two groups were comparable in terms of age, sex, comorbidities, and baseline medications. All patients were followed through the registries for a maximum of 3 years, the duration of beta-blocker therapy post MI recommended in American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines. (The Danish Society of Cardiology recommends 2 years.)

At 3 years post MI, there was no between-group difference in a composite outcome comprising cardiovascular death, recurrent MI, heart failure, stroke, angina, or a cardiac procedure, with a rate of 22.9% in the beta-blocker group and 21.6% in patients not on long-term beta-blocker therapy. The rate of recurrent MI was identical at 6.7% in both groups. Cardiovascular death occurred during 3 years of follow-up in 1.4% of patients on beta-blocker therapy and 1.7% who weren’t, a nonsignificant difference.

“We saw no evidence of any cardioprotective effect, but no increased risk of adverse events resulting in hospitalization, either,” Dr. Holt observed. “I would like to acknowledge that no evidence of effect does not necessarily equal evidence of no effect, but even if there was an effect we can with fair certainty say that it’s probably quite minimal.”

He noted that the Danish registry data indicates that each year since 2012 has shown a growing trend for Danish patients to dispense with long-term beta-blocker therapy after an acute MI.

“This might indicate we are nudging toward a change in practice, where more physicians are thinking that long-term beta-blocker therapy might not be indicated for all MI patients in the reperfusion era,” according to Dr. Holt.

Asked by the four-judge award panel about the possibility of unmeasured confounding in this observational study, Dr Holt responded: “I would be very cautious about asking patients to stop beta-blocker therapy after 3 months just based on this observational data. We can’t speak to causality in an observational study.” But he added that “well-designed observational studies provide valuable data regarding this topic and should not be ignored. They should possibly influence the guidelines and the designs for upcoming randomized trials.”

He conducted several supplementary analyses designed to address the possibility of unevenly distributed unmeasured confounding in the registry study. These analyses proved reassuring. A positive exposure control analysis compared 3-year outcomes in patients who remained on long-term statin therapy and those who didn’t. As expected, outcomes were significantly better in those who did: a 3-year composite outcome rate of 22.1%, compared with 32.1% in patients not on a statin; a cardiovascular death rate of 1.3% with and 2.1% without statin therapy; a recurrent MI rate of 6.6%, compared with 10.1% without a statin; and a 2.8% all-cause mortality with and 5.4% without statin therapy.

In contrast, all-cause mortality was unaffected by whether or not patients were on long-term beta-blocker therapy. And in a negative exposure outcome analysis, no association was found between beta-blocker therapy and the risk of hospitalization for pneumonia, as to be expected if the beta-blocker and no-beta-blocker groups were comparable in key respects.

Dr. Holt reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study.

[email protected]

Prognoses for patients with AIDS-associated, non-Hodgkin lymphomas (AIDS-NHLs) have improved dramatically as HIV/AIDS has become easier to treat, and “we’re actually seeing patients with long-term remissions that are translating to cure,” a hematologist told colleagues at the virtual 2020 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO).

“Even those with low CD4 counts initially have more chance of survival compared to the historic patients in the pre-HAART [highly active antiretroviral therapy] era,” explained Erin Reid, MD, MS, of the University of California at San Diego Moores Cancer Center. “They’re seeing complete-response rates and overall-survival rates that are nearly matching what we’re seeing in the non-HIV lymphoma cases. And aggressive infection prophylaxis has seemed to mitigate some of the infectious complications.”

Still, Reid said, a severe form of AIDS-NHL continues to have very poor outcomes, although specific regimens appear to be brightening the picture somewhat.

According to Dr. Reid, AIDS-NHLs are the most common malignancy in the HIV-positive population, and patients with these cancers are more likely to have aggressive lymphomas. These patients are also more likely to have lymphomas associated with Epstein-Barr virus—40 to 80%, depending on the subtype of lymphoma—and Kaposi sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (also known as human herpesvirus-8, or HHV8).

“These viruses are driving these cancers, and it begs the question of whether there’s something we can do to target these viruses within these cancer cells in a way that’s therapeutic,” she said.

Compared with the non-HIV population, patients with AIDS-NHL “are much more likely to present with advanced stage, extranodal disease and central nervous system involvement,” she said.

HAART Benefits

It’s become clear that HIV control via HAART has benefits in terms of higher tolerance of chemotherapy doses—“we’re able to use more full or traditional dose regimens”—and perhaps cancer suppression too, she said. A 2013 meta-analysis “favored concurrent therapy with chemotherapy [and HAART]. This has become our recommended standard of care for virtually all cases, except the very rare ones where you cannot find a regimen that is compatible from a PK [pharmacokinetics] standpoint.”

Reid also noted that the HAART era has changed the role of CD4 counts in AIDS-NHLs. “While CD4 count still has some predictive value, its impact on mortality appears attenuated,” she said.

EPOCH Treatment

With regard to treatment, she emphasized the importance of HAART: “We would recommend concurrent HAART whenever possible with chemotherapy, or start it immediately afterward.”

Aggressive infection prophylaxis also is recommended through granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and agents to target threats from pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia, gram negative rods, and varicella-zoster virus. “I’ve moved away from fungal prophylaxis over the years, only dealing with it if there’s a known fungal infection,” she said.

As for treatment of AIDS-NHL, Reid Suggested that research supports the EPOCH regimen --etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, and doxorubicin. However, “we still need strategies for refractory and relapsed disease,” she said.

Reid noted that she has started to see more plasmablastic cases, although her experience is anecdotal. Plasmablastic lymphoma is much more common in the HIV-positive setting, she said.

Lifespans are poor for these patients, with many failing to live for a year. But research hints that the prognosis in AIDS-NHL patients on HAART may actually be better than in the non-HIV population, she said.

A trial published in September 2020, in fact, reports that 87% of 15 patients with AIDS-associated plasmablastic lymphoma survived for at least one year on the EPOCH regimen. Overall, the study found that “people with a collection of HIV-associated lymphomas were doing well overall with the EPOCH backbone,” Reid explained.

Reid reported no relevant disclosures.

Prognoses for patients with AIDS-associated, non-Hodgkin lymphomas (AIDS-NHLs) have improved dramatically as HIV/AIDS has become easier to treat, and “we’re actually seeing patients with long-term remissions that are translating to cure,” a hematologist told colleagues at the virtual 2020 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO).

“Even those with low CD4 counts initially have more chance of survival compared to the historic patients in the pre-HAART [highly active antiretroviral therapy] era,” explained Erin Reid, MD, MS, of the University of California at San Diego Moores Cancer Center. “They’re seeing complete-response rates and overall-survival rates that are nearly matching what we’re seeing in the non-HIV lymphoma cases. And aggressive infection prophylaxis has seemed to mitigate some of the infectious complications.”

Still, Reid said, a severe form of AIDS-NHL continues to have very poor outcomes, although specific regimens appear to be brightening the picture somewhat.

According to Dr. Reid, AIDS-NHLs are the most common malignancy in the HIV-positive population, and patients with these cancers are more likely to have aggressive lymphomas. These patients are also more likely to have lymphomas associated with Epstein-Barr virus—40 to 80%, depending on the subtype of lymphoma—and Kaposi sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (also known as human herpesvirus-8, or HHV8).

“These viruses are driving these cancers, and it begs the question of whether there’s something we can do to target these viruses within these cancer cells in a way that’s therapeutic,” she said.

Compared with the non-HIV population, patients with AIDS-NHL “are much more likely to present with advanced stage, extranodal disease and central nervous system involvement,” she said.

HAART Benefits

It’s become clear that HIV control via HAART has benefits in terms of higher tolerance of chemotherapy doses—“we’re able to use more full or traditional dose regimens”—and perhaps cancer suppression too, she said. A 2013 meta-analysis “favored concurrent therapy with chemotherapy [and HAART]. This has become our recommended standard of care for virtually all cases, except the very rare ones where you cannot find a regimen that is compatible from a PK [pharmacokinetics] standpoint.”

Reid also noted that the HAART era has changed the role of CD4 counts in AIDS-NHLs. “While CD4 count still has some predictive value, its impact on mortality appears attenuated,” she said.

EPOCH Treatment

With regard to treatment, she emphasized the importance of HAART: “We would recommend concurrent HAART whenever possible with chemotherapy, or start it immediately afterward.”

Aggressive infection prophylaxis also is recommended through granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and agents to target threats from pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia, gram negative rods, and varicella-zoster virus. “I’ve moved away from fungal prophylaxis over the years, only dealing with it if there’s a known fungal infection,” she said.

As for treatment of AIDS-NHL, Reid Suggested that research supports the EPOCH regimen --etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, and doxorubicin. However, “we still need strategies for refractory and relapsed disease,” she said.

Reid noted that she has started to see more plasmablastic cases, although her experience is anecdotal. Plasmablastic lymphoma is much more common in the HIV-positive setting, she said.

Lifespans are poor for these patients, with many failing to live for a year. But research hints that the prognosis in AIDS-NHL patients on HAART may actually be better than in the non-HIV population, she said.

A trial published in September 2020, in fact, reports that 87% of 15 patients with AIDS-associated plasmablastic lymphoma survived for at least one year on the EPOCH regimen. Overall, the study found that “people with a collection of HIV-associated lymphomas were doing well overall with the EPOCH backbone,” Reid explained.

Reid reported no relevant disclosures.

Prognoses for patients with AIDS-associated, non-Hodgkin lymphomas (AIDS-NHLs) have improved dramatically as HIV/AIDS has become easier to treat, and “we’re actually seeing patients with long-term remissions that are translating to cure,” a hematologist told colleagues at the virtual 2020 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO).

“Even those with low CD4 counts initially have more chance of survival compared to the historic patients in the pre-HAART [highly active antiretroviral therapy] era,” explained Erin Reid, MD, MS, of the University of California at San Diego Moores Cancer Center. “They’re seeing complete-response rates and overall-survival rates that are nearly matching what we’re seeing in the non-HIV lymphoma cases. And aggressive infection prophylaxis has seemed to mitigate some of the infectious complications.”

Still, Reid said, a severe form of AIDS-NHL continues to have very poor outcomes, although specific regimens appear to be brightening the picture somewhat.

According to Dr. Reid, AIDS-NHLs are the most common malignancy in the HIV-positive population, and patients with these cancers are more likely to have aggressive lymphomas. These patients are also more likely to have lymphomas associated with Epstein-Barr virus—40 to 80%, depending on the subtype of lymphoma—and Kaposi sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (also known as human herpesvirus-8, or HHV8).

“These viruses are driving these cancers, and it begs the question of whether there’s something we can do to target these viruses within these cancer cells in a way that’s therapeutic,” she said.

Compared with the non-HIV population, patients with AIDS-NHL “are much more likely to present with advanced stage, extranodal disease and central nervous system involvement,” she said.

HAART Benefits

It’s become clear that HIV control via HAART has benefits in terms of higher tolerance of chemotherapy doses—“we’re able to use more full or traditional dose regimens”—and perhaps cancer suppression too, she said. A 2013 meta-analysis “favored concurrent therapy with chemotherapy [and HAART]. This has become our recommended standard of care for virtually all cases, except the very rare ones where you cannot find a regimen that is compatible from a PK [pharmacokinetics] standpoint.”

Reid also noted that the HAART era has changed the role of CD4 counts in AIDS-NHLs. “While CD4 count still has some predictive value, its impact on mortality appears attenuated,” she said.

EPOCH Treatment

With regard to treatment, she emphasized the importance of HAART: “We would recommend concurrent HAART whenever possible with chemotherapy, or start it immediately afterward.”

Aggressive infection prophylaxis also is recommended through granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and agents to target threats from pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia, gram negative rods, and varicella-zoster virus. “I’ve moved away from fungal prophylaxis over the years, only dealing with it if there’s a known fungal infection,” she said.

As for treatment of AIDS-NHL, Reid Suggested that research supports the EPOCH regimen --etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, and doxorubicin. However, “we still need strategies for refractory and relapsed disease,” she said.

Reid noted that she has started to see more plasmablastic cases, although her experience is anecdotal. Plasmablastic lymphoma is much more common in the HIV-positive setting, she said.

Lifespans are poor for these patients, with many failing to live for a year. But research hints that the prognosis in AIDS-NHL patients on HAART may actually be better than in the non-HIV population, she said.

A trial published in September 2020, in fact, reports that 87% of 15 patients with AIDS-associated plasmablastic lymphoma survived for at least one year on the EPOCH regimen. Overall, the study found that “people with a collection of HIV-associated lymphomas were doing well overall with the EPOCH backbone,” Reid explained.

Reid reported no relevant disclosures.

Although it may seem that veterans would have a very low risk of bleeding disorders since they were medically cleared for military service, a hematologist/oncologist cautioned that veterans might indeed suffer from both inherited and noninherited forms of these conditions. At the virtual 2020 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) Bethany Samuelson Bannow, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University’s Knight Cancer Institute urged colleagues to understand the diagnosis and treatment of bleeding disorders.

            “Most importantly, even though these are patients you probably don’t see on a regular basis, you are never alone,” since colleagues are available to help, she said. Samuelson Bannow treats patients at US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Portland Health Care System and used her presentation to focus on 4 types of bleeding disorders. A summary of her perspective and recommendations follows.

Acquired hemophilia: Watch for Infections

Acquired hemophilia affects only an estimated 1.3 to 1.5 in 1 million people, but VA physicians may see it more often since it affects an older population (median age is 78 years), Samuelson Bannow said. “I’ve seen about 4 cases in the last 2 years,” she said. “I’m not sure if we’re a magnet, but it does come up.”

The diagnosis is based on laboratory findings, and a lack of personal or family history of coagulopathy is key, she said. Twenty percent or more of patients older than 65 years die from the disorder, but bleeding usually isn’t the cause. Instead, patients tend to die from infections, she said.

Initial treatment must focus on stopping the bleeding, she said. The new drug porcine antihemophilic factor (recombinant)—Obizur—“is very helpful” and is Samuelson Bannow’s first choice, but it may not widely available at all VA medical centers. Recombinant FVIIa (NovoSeven) and activated prothrombin complex concentrate (Feiba) also are options.

            “The goal is to overpower the clotting cascade and get that burst of thrombin generation that you need to get the bleeding under control. Titrate to the amount of bleeding the patient is having, and make sure you’re doing local control as well,” Samuelson Bannow said. She added that the 2 agents may not work depending on the patient. Neither is preferred and both may be appropriate. “There’s no real reason to pick one over the other beyond convenience and availability.”

            There’s another “equally important component of management,” she said: Inhibitor eradication. “The only way to do this is with immune suppression. You’re going to have to suppress the immune system to get rid of the inhibitor. That’s why we see such high rates of death because we have to use heavy-hitter immunosuppressants.”

            Treatment options include steroids and cyclophosphamide (a common first-line option), rituximab, calcineurin inhibitors, and mycophenolate mofetil. “Just be aware that there is an increased risk of infection with these agents,” she said. “You want to see a decrease in the titer of your inhibitor. This can take 3 or more weeks, and it can take longer for it to disappear entirely. Look for normalized factor VIII level and absent inhibitor.”

            She added: “I tend to do a slow taper, one agent at a time, over the course of weeks. If you see a return of the inhibitor, you can ramp back up as needed. Continue to monitor for a year or more since patients are at high risk of recurrence.”

Acquired von Willebrand Syndrome: Fix the Associated Conditions

Acquired von Willebrand Syndrome is another rare bleeding disorder that may appear in veterans “since it’s associated with a lot of conditions that we see in the VA,” such as heart disorders, solid tumors, vascular malformations, and lymphoproliferative and myeloproliferative disorders, Samuelson Bannow said.

            As with acquired hemophilia, the key is to focus on controlling the bleeding, she said. Then, she advised, focus on the associated condition: “Correct the underlying disorder: Treat the malignancy, address the [cardiac] shear stress, correct hypothyroidism, correct the cardiac defects.”

Inherited Hemophilia: Don’t Rule It Out

It’s possible to “sneak through” military medical screening with undiagnosed inherited bleeding disorders, Dr. Samuelson Bannow said. That’s because service members may have never had an injury that triggered abnormal bleeding, she said. “You can see how someone could slip into the military with a [low clotting factor level]. The classic presentation is going to be joint bleeds and abnormalities. These can be traumatic and spontaneous without any kind of an injury,” she said.

            A general rule for these patients is to “replace what’s missing, and 100% is always normal.” The 100% refers to clotting factor level. She recommended reviewing 2013 guidelines for the treatment of the disorder.

Inherited von Willebrand Syndrome: Ask About Tonsillectomies

Inherited von Willebrand Syndrome is more common in women than it is in men. Bleeding “will primarily be mucocutaneous and trauma-induced,” said. Samuelson Bannow. She recommended asking patients if they have had a tonsillectomy and, if so, did they suffer from unusual bleeding. “If they did not have excessive bleeding, it’s a pretty good sign their hemostasis is good.”

            She recommends a nasal spray drug called desmopressin (DDAVP, Stimate) for management. “It’s critical to know that you must test for efficacy first,” she said. “One of the most common mistakes that people make is that they may give patients DDAVP before surgery without knowing if it works or not. It doesn’t work for every patient.” She typically avoids this drug in patients aged > 65 years, or even > 60 years, due to increased thrombosis risk.

            Recombinant von Willebrand factor (Vonvendi) is a “very helpful drug at patients at increased risk of thrombosis,” she said. However, she noted that the drug, at last check, is not on the VA’s formulary.

            At the end of her presentation, Samuelson Bannow urged colleagues to contact specialized Hemophilia Treatment Centers (HTCs) near them: “Follow this link, find an HTC [Hemophilia Treatment Center] near you, and create a partnership.”

Samuelson Bannow reported no relevant disclosures.

Although it may seem that veterans would have a very low risk of bleeding disorders since they were medically cleared for military service, a hematologist/oncologist cautioned that veterans might indeed suffer from both inherited and noninherited forms of these conditions. At the virtual 2020 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) Bethany Samuelson Bannow, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University’s Knight Cancer Institute urged colleagues to understand the diagnosis and treatment of bleeding disorders.

            “Most importantly, even though these are patients you probably don’t see on a regular basis, you are never alone,” since colleagues are available to help, she said. Samuelson Bannow treats patients at US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Portland Health Care System and used her presentation to focus on 4 types of bleeding disorders. A summary of her perspective and recommendations follows.

Acquired hemophilia: Watch for Infections

Acquired hemophilia affects only an estimated 1.3 to 1.5 in 1 million people, but VA physicians may see it more often since it affects an older population (median age is 78 years), Samuelson Bannow said. “I’ve seen about 4 cases in the last 2 years,” she said. “I’m not sure if we’re a magnet, but it does come up.”

The diagnosis is based on laboratory findings, and a lack of personal or family history of coagulopathy is key, she said. Twenty percent or more of patients older than 65 years die from the disorder, but bleeding usually isn’t the cause. Instead, patients tend to die from infections, she said.

Initial treatment must focus on stopping the bleeding, she said. The new drug porcine antihemophilic factor (recombinant)—Obizur—“is very helpful” and is Samuelson Bannow’s first choice, but it may not widely available at all VA medical centers. Recombinant FVIIa (NovoSeven) and activated prothrombin complex concentrate (Feiba) also are options.

            “The goal is to overpower the clotting cascade and get that burst of thrombin generation that you need to get the bleeding under control. Titrate to the amount of bleeding the patient is having, and make sure you’re doing local control as well,” Samuelson Bannow said. She added that the 2 agents may not work depending on the patient. Neither is preferred and both may be appropriate. “There’s no real reason to pick one over the other beyond convenience and availability.”

            There’s another “equally important component of management,” she said: Inhibitor eradication. “The only way to do this is with immune suppression. You’re going to have to suppress the immune system to get rid of the inhibitor. That’s why we see such high rates of death because we have to use heavy-hitter immunosuppressants.”

            Treatment options include steroids and cyclophosphamide (a common first-line option), rituximab, calcineurin inhibitors, and mycophenolate mofetil. “Just be aware that there is an increased risk of infection with these agents,” she said. “You want to see a decrease in the titer of your inhibitor. This can take 3 or more weeks, and it can take longer for it to disappear entirely. Look for normalized factor VIII level and absent inhibitor.”

            She added: “I tend to do a slow taper, one agent at a time, over the course of weeks. If you see a return of the inhibitor, you can ramp back up as needed. Continue to monitor for a year or more since patients are at high risk of recurrence.”

Acquired von Willebrand Syndrome: Fix the Associated Conditions

Acquired von Willebrand Syndrome is another rare bleeding disorder that may appear in veterans “since it’s associated with a lot of conditions that we see in the VA,” such as heart disorders, solid tumors, vascular malformations, and lymphoproliferative and myeloproliferative disorders, Samuelson Bannow said.

            As with acquired hemophilia, the key is to focus on controlling the bleeding, she said. Then, she advised, focus on the associated condition: “Correct the underlying disorder: Treat the malignancy, address the [cardiac] shear stress, correct hypothyroidism, correct the cardiac defects.”

Inherited Hemophilia: Don’t Rule It Out

It’s possible to “sneak through” military medical screening with undiagnosed inherited bleeding disorders, Dr. Samuelson Bannow said. That’s because service members may have never had an injury that triggered abnormal bleeding, she said. “You can see how someone could slip into the military with a [low clotting factor level]. The classic presentation is going to be joint bleeds and abnormalities. These can be traumatic and spontaneous without any kind of an injury,” she said.

            A general rule for these patients is to “replace what’s missing, and 100% is always normal.” The 100% refers to clotting factor level. She recommended reviewing 2013 guidelines for the treatment of the disorder.

Inherited von Willebrand Syndrome: Ask About Tonsillectomies

Inherited von Willebrand Syndrome is more common in women than it is in men. Bleeding “will primarily be mucocutaneous and trauma-induced,” said. Samuelson Bannow. She recommended asking patients if they have had a tonsillectomy and, if so, did they suffer from unusual bleeding. “If they did not have excessive bleeding, it’s a pretty good sign their hemostasis is good.”

            She recommends a nasal spray drug called desmopressin (DDAVP, Stimate) for management. “It’s critical to know that you must test for efficacy first,” she said. “One of the most common mistakes that people make is that they may give patients DDAVP before surgery without knowing if it works or not. It doesn’t work for every patient.” She typically avoids this drug in patients aged > 65 years, or even > 60 years, due to increased thrombosis risk.

            Recombinant von Willebrand factor (Vonvendi) is a “very helpful drug at patients at increased risk of thrombosis,” she said. However, she noted that the drug, at last check, is not on the VA’s formulary.

            At the end of her presentation, Samuelson Bannow urged colleagues to contact specialized Hemophilia Treatment Centers (HTCs) near them: “Follow this link, find an HTC [Hemophilia Treatment Center] near you, and create a partnership.”

Samuelson Bannow reported no relevant disclosures.

Although it may seem that veterans would have a very low risk of bleeding disorders since they were medically cleared for military service, a hematologist/oncologist cautioned that veterans might indeed suffer from both inherited and noninherited forms of these conditions. At the virtual 2020 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) Bethany Samuelson Bannow, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University’s Knight Cancer Institute urged colleagues to understand the diagnosis and treatment of bleeding disorders.

            “Most importantly, even though these are patients you probably don’t see on a regular basis, you are never alone,” since colleagues are available to help, she said. Samuelson Bannow treats patients at US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Portland Health Care System and used her presentation to focus on 4 types of bleeding disorders. A summary of her perspective and recommendations follows.

Acquired hemophilia: Watch for Infections

Acquired hemophilia affects only an estimated 1.3 to 1.5 in 1 million people, but VA physicians may see it more often since it affects an older population (median age is 78 years), Samuelson Bannow said. “I’ve seen about 4 cases in the last 2 years,” she said. “I’m not sure if we’re a magnet, but it does come up.”

The diagnosis is based on laboratory findings, and a lack of personal or family history of coagulopathy is key, she said. Twenty percent or more of patients older than 65 years die from the disorder, but bleeding usually isn’t the cause. Instead, patients tend to die from infections, she said.

Initial treatment must focus on stopping the bleeding, she said. The new drug porcine antihemophilic factor (recombinant)—Obizur—“is very helpful” and is Samuelson Bannow’s first choice, but it may not widely available at all VA medical centers. Recombinant FVIIa (NovoSeven) and activated prothrombin complex concentrate (Feiba) also are options.

            “The goal is to overpower the clotting cascade and get that burst of thrombin generation that you need to get the bleeding under control. Titrate to the amount of bleeding the patient is having, and make sure you’re doing local control as well,” Samuelson Bannow said. She added that the 2 agents may not work depending on the patient. Neither is preferred and both may be appropriate. “There’s no real reason to pick one over the other beyond convenience and availability.”

            There’s another “equally important component of management,” she said: Inhibitor eradication. “The only way to do this is with immune suppression. You’re going to have to suppress the immune system to get rid of the inhibitor. That’s why we see such high rates of death because we have to use heavy-hitter immunosuppressants.”

            Treatment options include steroids and cyclophosphamide (a common first-line option), rituximab, calcineurin inhibitors, and mycophenolate mofetil. “Just be aware that there is an increased risk of infection with these agents,” she said. “You want to see a decrease in the titer of your inhibitor. This can take 3 or more weeks, and it can take longer for it to disappear entirely. Look for normalized factor VIII level and absent inhibitor.”

            She added: “I tend to do a slow taper, one agent at a time, over the course of weeks. If you see a return of the inhibitor, you can ramp back up as needed. Continue to monitor for a year or more since patients are at high risk of recurrence.”

Acquired von Willebrand Syndrome: Fix the Associated Conditions

Acquired von Willebrand Syndrome is another rare bleeding disorder that may appear in veterans “since it’s associated with a lot of conditions that we see in the VA,” such as heart disorders, solid tumors, vascular malformations, and lymphoproliferative and myeloproliferative disorders, Samuelson Bannow said.

            As with acquired hemophilia, the key is to focus on controlling the bleeding, she said. Then, she advised, focus on the associated condition: “Correct the underlying disorder: Treat the malignancy, address the [cardiac] shear stress, correct hypothyroidism, correct the cardiac defects.”

Inherited Hemophilia: Don’t Rule It Out

It’s possible to “sneak through” military medical screening with undiagnosed inherited bleeding disorders, Dr. Samuelson Bannow said. That’s because service members may have never had an injury that triggered abnormal bleeding, she said. “You can see how someone could slip into the military with a [low clotting factor level]. The classic presentation is going to be joint bleeds and abnormalities. These can be traumatic and spontaneous without any kind of an injury,” she said.

            A general rule for these patients is to “replace what’s missing, and 100% is always normal.” The 100% refers to clotting factor level. She recommended reviewing 2013 guidelines for the treatment of the disorder.

Inherited von Willebrand Syndrome: Ask About Tonsillectomies

Inherited von Willebrand Syndrome is more common in women than it is in men. Bleeding “will primarily be mucocutaneous and trauma-induced,” said. Samuelson Bannow. She recommended asking patients if they have had a tonsillectomy and, if so, did they suffer from unusual bleeding. “If they did not have excessive bleeding, it’s a pretty good sign their hemostasis is good.”

            She recommends a nasal spray drug called desmopressin (DDAVP, Stimate) for management. “It’s critical to know that you must test for efficacy first,” she said. “One of the most common mistakes that people make is that they may give patients DDAVP before surgery without knowing if it works or not. It doesn’t work for every patient.” She typically avoids this drug in patients aged > 65 years, or even > 60 years, due to increased thrombosis risk.

            Recombinant von Willebrand factor (Vonvendi) is a “very helpful drug at patients at increased risk of thrombosis,” she said. However, she noted that the drug, at last check, is not on the VA’s formulary.

            At the end of her presentation, Samuelson Bannow urged colleagues to contact specialized Hemophilia Treatment Centers (HTCs) near them: “Follow this link, find an HTC [Hemophilia Treatment Center] near you, and create a partnership.”

Samuelson Bannow reported no relevant disclosures.

For patients with hypothyroidism who underwent treatment with desiccated thyroid, there were no significant differences in the time spent in normal ranges of thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) over 3 years, compared with patients who received the standard therapy of synthetic levothyroxine (T4), new research shows.

The findings are “unanticipated ... given concerns for variability between batches of desiccated thyroid cited by national guidelines,” wrote the authors of the study, which was published this month in the Annals of Family Medicine.

In the trial, patients who had been treated for hypothyroidism at Kaiser Permanente Colorado were matched retrospectively into groups of 450 patients each according to whether they were treated with desiccated thyroid or synthetic levothyroxine.

After a follow-up of 3 years, TSH values within normal ranges (0.320-5.500 uIU/mL) were seen at approximately the same rate among those treated with desiccated thyroid and those who received levothyroxine (79.1% vs. 79.3%; P = .905).

“This study showed that after 3 years TSH values in both groups remained within reference ranges approximately 80% of the time,” said Rolake Kuye, PharmD, and colleagues with Kaiser Permanente, in Denver, Colorado.

In an accompanying editorial, Jill Schneiderhan, MD, and Suzanna Zick, ND, MPH, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, say the overall results indicate that the continued use of desiccated thyroid is warranted in some cases.

“Keeping desiccated thyroid medications as an option in our tool kit will allow for improved shared decision-making, while allowing for patient preference, and offer an option for those patients who remain symptomatic on levothyroxine monotherapy,” they advised.
 

Some variability still seen with desiccated thyroid

Desiccated thyroid (dehydrated porcine thyroid), which was long the standard of care, is still commonly used in the treatment of hypothyroidism, despite having been replaced beginning in the 1970s by synthetic levothyroxine in light of evidence that the former was associated with more variability in thyroid hormone levels.

Desiccated thyroid is still sold legally by prescription in the United States under the names Nature Thyroid, Thyroid USP, and Armour Thyroid and is currently used by up to 30% of patients with hypothyroidism, according to recent estimates.

Consistent with concerns about variability in thyroid hormone levels, the new study did show greater variability in TSH levels with desiccated thyroid when assessed on a visit-to-visit basis.

Dr. Kuye and coauthors therefore recommended that, “[f]or providers targeting a tighter TSH goal in certain patients, the decreased TSH variability with levothyroxine could be clinically meaningful.”
 

This long-term investigation is “much needed”

This new study adds important new insight to the ongoing debate over hypothyroidism treatment, said Dr. Schneiderhan and Dr. Zick in their editorial.

“[The study authors] begin a much-needed investigation into whether patients prescribed synthetic levothyroxine compared with desiccated thyroid had differences in TSH stability over the course of 3 years.

“Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these results and to explore differences in more diverse patient populations, such as Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, as well as on quality of life and other important patient-reported outcomes such as fatigue and weight gain,” the editorialists added.

“This study does, however, provide helpful information that desiccated thyroid products are a reasonable choice for treating some hypothyroid patients.”
 

For 60% of patients in both groups, TSH levels were within reference range for whole study

In the study, Dr. Kuye and colleagues matched patients (average age, 63 years; 90% women) in terms of characteristics such as race, comorbidities, and cholesterol levels.

Patients were excluded if they had been prescribed more than one agent for the treatment of hypothyroidism or if they had comorbid conditions, including a history of thyroid cancer or other related comorbidities, as well as pregnancy.

With respect to visit-to-visit TSH level variability, the lower rate among patients prescribed levothyroxine in comparison with patients prescribed desiccated thyroid was statistically significant (1.25 vs. 1.44; P = .015). Among 60% of patients in both groups, all TSH values measured during the study period were within reference ranges, however (P = .951).

The median number of TSH laboratory studies obtained during the study was four in the synthetic levothyroxine group and three for patients prescribed desiccated thyroid (P = .578).

There were some notable differences between the groups. Patients in the desiccated thyroid group had lower body mass index (P = .032), hemoglobin A1c levels (P = .041), and lower baseline TSH values (2.4 vs. 3.4 uIU/mL; P = .001). compared with those prescribed levothyroxine.

Limitations include the fact that the authors could not account for potentially important variables such as rates of adherence, differences in prescriber practice between agents, or the concurrent use of other medications.
 

Subjective outcomes not assessed: “One-size-fits-all approach doesn’t work”

The authors note they were not able to assess subjective outcomes, which, as noted by the editorialists, are particularly important in hypothyroidism.

“Emerging evidence shows that for many patients, symptoms persist despite normal TSH values,” Dr. Schneiderhan and Dr. Zick write.

They cite as an example a large study that found significant impairment in psychological well-being among patients treated with thyroxine replacement, despite their achieving normal TSH levels.

In addition, synthetic levothyroxine is associated with other uncertainties, such as complexities in the conversion of T4 to triiodothyronine (T3) that may disrupt thyroid metabolism in some patients.

In addition, there are differences in the amounts of thyroid replacement needed by certain groups, such as patients who have undergone thyroidectomies.

“The one-size-fits-all approach for treating hypothyroidism does not work ... for all patients,” they concluded.

The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

For patients with hypothyroidism who underwent treatment with desiccated thyroid, there were no significant differences in the time spent in normal ranges of thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) over 3 years, compared with patients who received the standard therapy of synthetic levothyroxine (T4), new research shows.

The findings are “unanticipated ... given concerns for variability between batches of desiccated thyroid cited by national guidelines,” wrote the authors of the study, which was published this month in the Annals of Family Medicine.

In the trial, patients who had been treated for hypothyroidism at Kaiser Permanente Colorado were matched retrospectively into groups of 450 patients each according to whether they were treated with desiccated thyroid or synthetic levothyroxine.

After a follow-up of 3 years, TSH values within normal ranges (0.320-5.500 uIU/mL) were seen at approximately the same rate among those treated with desiccated thyroid and those who received levothyroxine (79.1% vs. 79.3%; P = .905).

“This study showed that after 3 years TSH values in both groups remained within reference ranges approximately 80% of the time,” said Rolake Kuye, PharmD, and colleagues with Kaiser Permanente, in Denver, Colorado.

In an accompanying editorial, Jill Schneiderhan, MD, and Suzanna Zick, ND, MPH, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, say the overall results indicate that the continued use of desiccated thyroid is warranted in some cases.

“Keeping desiccated thyroid medications as an option in our tool kit will allow for improved shared decision-making, while allowing for patient preference, and offer an option for those patients who remain symptomatic on levothyroxine monotherapy,” they advised.
 

Some variability still seen with desiccated thyroid

Desiccated thyroid (dehydrated porcine thyroid), which was long the standard of care, is still commonly used in the treatment of hypothyroidism, despite having been replaced beginning in the 1970s by synthetic levothyroxine in light of evidence that the former was associated with more variability in thyroid hormone levels.

Desiccated thyroid is still sold legally by prescription in the United States under the names Nature Thyroid, Thyroid USP, and Armour Thyroid and is currently used by up to 30% of patients with hypothyroidism, according to recent estimates.

Consistent with concerns about variability in thyroid hormone levels, the new study did show greater variability in TSH levels with desiccated thyroid when assessed on a visit-to-visit basis.

Dr. Kuye and coauthors therefore recommended that, “[f]or providers targeting a tighter TSH goal in certain patients, the decreased TSH variability with levothyroxine could be clinically meaningful.”
 

This long-term investigation is “much needed”

This new study adds important new insight to the ongoing debate over hypothyroidism treatment, said Dr. Schneiderhan and Dr. Zick in their editorial.

“[The study authors] begin a much-needed investigation into whether patients prescribed synthetic levothyroxine compared with desiccated thyroid had differences in TSH stability over the course of 3 years.

“Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these results and to explore differences in more diverse patient populations, such as Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, as well as on quality of life and other important patient-reported outcomes such as fatigue and weight gain,” the editorialists added.

“This study does, however, provide helpful information that desiccated thyroid products are a reasonable choice for treating some hypothyroid patients.”
 

For 60% of patients in both groups, TSH levels were within reference range for whole study

In the study, Dr. Kuye and colleagues matched patients (average age, 63 years; 90% women) in terms of characteristics such as race, comorbidities, and cholesterol levels.

Patients were excluded if they had been prescribed more than one agent for the treatment of hypothyroidism or if they had comorbid conditions, including a history of thyroid cancer or other related comorbidities, as well as pregnancy.

With respect to visit-to-visit TSH level variability, the lower rate among patients prescribed levothyroxine in comparison with patients prescribed desiccated thyroid was statistically significant (1.25 vs. 1.44; P = .015). Among 60% of patients in both groups, all TSH values measured during the study period were within reference ranges, however (P = .951).

The median number of TSH laboratory studies obtained during the study was four in the synthetic levothyroxine group and three for patients prescribed desiccated thyroid (P = .578).

There were some notable differences between the groups. Patients in the desiccated thyroid group had lower body mass index (P = .032), hemoglobin A1c levels (P = .041), and lower baseline TSH values (2.4 vs. 3.4 uIU/mL; P = .001). compared with those prescribed levothyroxine.

Limitations include the fact that the authors could not account for potentially important variables such as rates of adherence, differences in prescriber practice between agents, or the concurrent use of other medications.
 

Subjective outcomes not assessed: “One-size-fits-all approach doesn’t work”

The authors note they were not able to assess subjective outcomes, which, as noted by the editorialists, are particularly important in hypothyroidism.

“Emerging evidence shows that for many patients, symptoms persist despite normal TSH values,” Dr. Schneiderhan and Dr. Zick write.

They cite as an example a large study that found significant impairment in psychological well-being among patients treated with thyroxine replacement, despite their achieving normal TSH levels.

In addition, synthetic levothyroxine is associated with other uncertainties, such as complexities in the conversion of T4 to triiodothyronine (T3) that may disrupt thyroid metabolism in some patients.

In addition, there are differences in the amounts of thyroid replacement needed by certain groups, such as patients who have undergone thyroidectomies.

“The one-size-fits-all approach for treating hypothyroidism does not work ... for all patients,” they concluded.

The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

For patients with hypothyroidism who underwent treatment with desiccated thyroid, there were no significant differences in the time spent in normal ranges of thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) over 3 years, compared with patients who received the standard therapy of synthetic levothyroxine (T4), new research shows.

The findings are “unanticipated ... given concerns for variability between batches of desiccated thyroid cited by national guidelines,” wrote the authors of the study, which was published this month in the Annals of Family Medicine.

In the trial, patients who had been treated for hypothyroidism at Kaiser Permanente Colorado were matched retrospectively into groups of 450 patients each according to whether they were treated with desiccated thyroid or synthetic levothyroxine.

After a follow-up of 3 years, TSH values within normal ranges (0.320-5.500 uIU/mL) were seen at approximately the same rate among those treated with desiccated thyroid and those who received levothyroxine (79.1% vs. 79.3%; P = .905).

“This study showed that after 3 years TSH values in both groups remained within reference ranges approximately 80% of the time,” said Rolake Kuye, PharmD, and colleagues with Kaiser Permanente, in Denver, Colorado.

In an accompanying editorial, Jill Schneiderhan, MD, and Suzanna Zick, ND, MPH, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, say the overall results indicate that the continued use of desiccated thyroid is warranted in some cases.

“Keeping desiccated thyroid medications as an option in our tool kit will allow for improved shared decision-making, while allowing for patient preference, and offer an option for those patients who remain symptomatic on levothyroxine monotherapy,” they advised.
 

Some variability still seen with desiccated thyroid

Desiccated thyroid (dehydrated porcine thyroid), which was long the standard of care, is still commonly used in the treatment of hypothyroidism, despite having been replaced beginning in the 1970s by synthetic levothyroxine in light of evidence that the former was associated with more variability in thyroid hormone levels.

Desiccated thyroid is still sold legally by prescription in the United States under the names Nature Thyroid, Thyroid USP, and Armour Thyroid and is currently used by up to 30% of patients with hypothyroidism, according to recent estimates.

Consistent with concerns about variability in thyroid hormone levels, the new study did show greater variability in TSH levels with desiccated thyroid when assessed on a visit-to-visit basis.

Dr. Kuye and coauthors therefore recommended that, “[f]or providers targeting a tighter TSH goal in certain patients, the decreased TSH variability with levothyroxine could be clinically meaningful.”
 

This long-term investigation is “much needed”

This new study adds important new insight to the ongoing debate over hypothyroidism treatment, said Dr. Schneiderhan and Dr. Zick in their editorial.

“[The study authors] begin a much-needed investigation into whether patients prescribed synthetic levothyroxine compared with desiccated thyroid had differences in TSH stability over the course of 3 years.

“Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these results and to explore differences in more diverse patient populations, such as Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, as well as on quality of life and other important patient-reported outcomes such as fatigue and weight gain,” the editorialists added.

“This study does, however, provide helpful information that desiccated thyroid products are a reasonable choice for treating some hypothyroid patients.”
 

For 60% of patients in both groups, TSH levels were within reference range for whole study

In the study, Dr. Kuye and colleagues matched patients (average age, 63 years; 90% women) in terms of characteristics such as race, comorbidities, and cholesterol levels.

Patients were excluded if they had been prescribed more than one agent for the treatment of hypothyroidism or if they had comorbid conditions, including a history of thyroid cancer or other related comorbidities, as well as pregnancy.

With respect to visit-to-visit TSH level variability, the lower rate among patients prescribed levothyroxine in comparison with patients prescribed desiccated thyroid was statistically significant (1.25 vs. 1.44; P = .015). Among 60% of patients in both groups, all TSH values measured during the study period were within reference ranges, however (P = .951).

The median number of TSH laboratory studies obtained during the study was four in the synthetic levothyroxine group and three for patients prescribed desiccated thyroid (P = .578).

There were some notable differences between the groups. Patients in the desiccated thyroid group had lower body mass index (P = .032), hemoglobin A1c levels (P = .041), and lower baseline TSH values (2.4 vs. 3.4 uIU/mL; P = .001). compared with those prescribed levothyroxine.

Limitations include the fact that the authors could not account for potentially important variables such as rates of adherence, differences in prescriber practice between agents, or the concurrent use of other medications.
 

Subjective outcomes not assessed: “One-size-fits-all approach doesn’t work”

The authors note they were not able to assess subjective outcomes, which, as noted by the editorialists, are particularly important in hypothyroidism.

“Emerging evidence shows that for many patients, symptoms persist despite normal TSH values,” Dr. Schneiderhan and Dr. Zick write.

They cite as an example a large study that found significant impairment in psychological well-being among patients treated with thyroxine replacement, despite their achieving normal TSH levels.

In addition, synthetic levothyroxine is associated with other uncertainties, such as complexities in the conversion of T4 to triiodothyronine (T3) that may disrupt thyroid metabolism in some patients.

In addition, there are differences in the amounts of thyroid replacement needed by certain groups, such as patients who have undergone thyroidectomies.

“The one-size-fits-all approach for treating hypothyroidism does not work ... for all patients,” they concluded.

The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Phase 2 data for the investigational, once-weekly basal insulin analog icodec (Novo Nordisk) showing comparable efficacy and safety to once-daily insulin glargine U100 have been published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Insulin icodec could potentially improve acceptance and likely would facilitate management in type 2 diabetes patients needing basal insulin, and I think it will be transformational in the way we manage people with type 2 diabetes requiring insulin,” said lead author Julio Rosenstock, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who also presented the data at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Insulin icodec binds to albumin to create a circulating depot with a 196-hour (8.1 days) half-life, so the once-weekly injection is designed to cover an individual’s basal insulin requirements for a full week, with steady insulin release. Because of its concentrated formulation, its injection volume is equivalent to that of daily glargine U100.

In the 26-week, randomized, phase 2 trial involving 247 insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes, once-weekly icodec’s glucose-lowering and safety profiles were similar to those of once-daily insulin glargine U100. These results were previously presented by Dr. Rosenstock in June at the virtual American Diabetes Association conference, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

In addition, new data in a poster at EASD 2020 showed that switching to icodec from other basal insulins is efficacious without causing significant hypoglycemia, as reported by Harpreet Bajaj, MD, MPH, director of the Leadership Sinai Centre for Diabetes, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto.

Charles M. Alexander, MD, an endocrinologist and managing director of Alexander Associates, Gwynedd Valley, Pa., said in an interview that “some patients will find once-weekly basal insulin an attractive option, while other patients will be indifferent to its availability.”

Dr. Alexander also pointed out that “payers are not going to be very interested in paying for a once-weekly basal insulin when daily basal insulins have been available for many years, unless the cost is the same or less. Resource-constrained health plans will wait until the price is [similar].”
 

The phase 2 study: Once weekly is just as good as daily

In the phase 2, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, treat-to-target trial, the patients had baseline hemoglobin A1c levels of 7.0%-9.5% despite taking metformin, with or without a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor.

They were randomized to weekly insulin icodec plus daily placebo (n = 125) or daily insulin glargine U100 plus weekly placebo (n = 122). The primary endpoint, change in A1c from baseline to week 26, dropped 1.33 percentage points with icodec and 1.15 percentage points with glargine, down to 6.7% and 6.9%, respectively. The difference wasn’t significant (P = .08). Fasting plasma glucose levels dropped by 58 mg/dL with icodec and 54 mg/dL with glargine (P = .34).

Time in range (70-140 mg/dL or 3.9-7.8 mmol/L) as assessed by flash glucose monitoring (FreeStyle Libre Pro) was greater with Icodec, by 5.4 percentage points, corresponding to an extra 78 minutes per day in range.

Mild hypoglycemia was more common with icodec than glargine (509 vs. 211 events per 100 patient-years, but rates of moderate/clinically significant hypoglycemia (52.5 vs. 46 per 100 patient-years, respectively) and severe hypoglycemia (1.4 vs. 0 per 100 patient-years) did not differ significantly (P = .85).

And the duration of hypoglycemia wasn’t longer with icodec, compared with glargine, despite its longer duration of action, Dr. Rosenstock emphasized.

Rates of other adverse events were similar between the groups.

Use of a once-weekly basal insulin could reduce the number of annual insulin injections from 365 to just 52, the authors noted in their paper.
 

New data: Switching to icodec is effective, safe

The new data on switching came from a 16-week, open-label, phase 2 trial of 154 patients with type 2 diabetes with insufficient glycemic control (mean A1c 7.9%) while taking oral medication and basal insulin. They were randomized to once-weekly icodec with or without an initial loading dose, or once-daily glargine U100.

Insulin doses were titrated weekly based on blood glucose levels as measured by continuous glucose monitoring (Dexcom G6).

The primary endpoint, time in range (70-180 mg/dL or 3.9-10.0 mmol/L) during weeks 15-16 was significantly better for icodec plus loading dose, compared with glargine U100 (72.9% vs 65.0%, P = .01) and similar between icodec and glargine U100 (66.0% vs 65.0%, P = .75).

Estimated mean percentage point reductions in A1c were 0.77 for icodec plus loading dose, 0.47 for icodec without the loading dose, and 0.54 for glargine U100.

Rates of moderate to severe hypoglycemia were similar between icodec plus loading dose and glargine U100 (78.0 and 79.4 events per 100 patient-years, respectively), and lower for icodec without the loading dose (14.8/100 patient-years).

There were no unexpected safety findings.

Novo Nordisk’s phase 3 trial for icodec is set to begin in late November.

The company is also developing a coformulation of icodec with its glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist semaglutide, currently in phase 1 testing. Meanwhile, Eli Lilly is also developing a once-weekly basal analog, LY3209590, currently in phase 2 trials.

Dr. Rosenstock reported receiving research support from, being on advisory boards for, and/or receiving consulting honoraria from Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Genentech, Oramed, Boehringer Ingelheim, Applied Therapeutics, and Intarcia. Dr. Alexander reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Phase 2 data for the investigational, once-weekly basal insulin analog icodec (Novo Nordisk) showing comparable efficacy and safety to once-daily insulin glargine U100 have been published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Insulin icodec could potentially improve acceptance and likely would facilitate management in type 2 diabetes patients needing basal insulin, and I think it will be transformational in the way we manage people with type 2 diabetes requiring insulin,” said lead author Julio Rosenstock, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who also presented the data at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Insulin icodec binds to albumin to create a circulating depot with a 196-hour (8.1 days) half-life, so the once-weekly injection is designed to cover an individual’s basal insulin requirements for a full week, with steady insulin release. Because of its concentrated formulation, its injection volume is equivalent to that of daily glargine U100.

In the 26-week, randomized, phase 2 trial involving 247 insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes, once-weekly icodec’s glucose-lowering and safety profiles were similar to those of once-daily insulin glargine U100. These results were previously presented by Dr. Rosenstock in June at the virtual American Diabetes Association conference, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

In addition, new data in a poster at EASD 2020 showed that switching to icodec from other basal insulins is efficacious without causing significant hypoglycemia, as reported by Harpreet Bajaj, MD, MPH, director of the Leadership Sinai Centre for Diabetes, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto.

Charles M. Alexander, MD, an endocrinologist and managing director of Alexander Associates, Gwynedd Valley, Pa., said in an interview that “some patients will find once-weekly basal insulin an attractive option, while other patients will be indifferent to its availability.”

Dr. Alexander also pointed out that “payers are not going to be very interested in paying for a once-weekly basal insulin when daily basal insulins have been available for many years, unless the cost is the same or less. Resource-constrained health plans will wait until the price is [similar].”
 

The phase 2 study: Once weekly is just as good as daily

In the phase 2, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, treat-to-target trial, the patients had baseline hemoglobin A1c levels of 7.0%-9.5% despite taking metformin, with or without a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor.

They were randomized to weekly insulin icodec plus daily placebo (n = 125) or daily insulin glargine U100 plus weekly placebo (n = 122). The primary endpoint, change in A1c from baseline to week 26, dropped 1.33 percentage points with icodec and 1.15 percentage points with glargine, down to 6.7% and 6.9%, respectively. The difference wasn’t significant (P = .08). Fasting plasma glucose levels dropped by 58 mg/dL with icodec and 54 mg/dL with glargine (P = .34).

Time in range (70-140 mg/dL or 3.9-7.8 mmol/L) as assessed by flash glucose monitoring (FreeStyle Libre Pro) was greater with Icodec, by 5.4 percentage points, corresponding to an extra 78 minutes per day in range.

Mild hypoglycemia was more common with icodec than glargine (509 vs. 211 events per 100 patient-years, but rates of moderate/clinically significant hypoglycemia (52.5 vs. 46 per 100 patient-years, respectively) and severe hypoglycemia (1.4 vs. 0 per 100 patient-years) did not differ significantly (P = .85).

And the duration of hypoglycemia wasn’t longer with icodec, compared with glargine, despite its longer duration of action, Dr. Rosenstock emphasized.

Rates of other adverse events were similar between the groups.

Use of a once-weekly basal insulin could reduce the number of annual insulin injections from 365 to just 52, the authors noted in their paper.
 

New data: Switching to icodec is effective, safe

The new data on switching came from a 16-week, open-label, phase 2 trial of 154 patients with type 2 diabetes with insufficient glycemic control (mean A1c 7.9%) while taking oral medication and basal insulin. They were randomized to once-weekly icodec with or without an initial loading dose, or once-daily glargine U100.

Insulin doses were titrated weekly based on blood glucose levels as measured by continuous glucose monitoring (Dexcom G6).

The primary endpoint, time in range (70-180 mg/dL or 3.9-10.0 mmol/L) during weeks 15-16 was significantly better for icodec plus loading dose, compared with glargine U100 (72.9% vs 65.0%, P = .01) and similar between icodec and glargine U100 (66.0% vs 65.0%, P = .75).

Estimated mean percentage point reductions in A1c were 0.77 for icodec plus loading dose, 0.47 for icodec without the loading dose, and 0.54 for glargine U100.

Rates of moderate to severe hypoglycemia were similar between icodec plus loading dose and glargine U100 (78.0 and 79.4 events per 100 patient-years, respectively), and lower for icodec without the loading dose (14.8/100 patient-years).

There were no unexpected safety findings.

Novo Nordisk’s phase 3 trial for icodec is set to begin in late November.

The company is also developing a coformulation of icodec with its glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist semaglutide, currently in phase 1 testing. Meanwhile, Eli Lilly is also developing a once-weekly basal analog, LY3209590, currently in phase 2 trials.

Dr. Rosenstock reported receiving research support from, being on advisory boards for, and/or receiving consulting honoraria from Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Genentech, Oramed, Boehringer Ingelheim, Applied Therapeutics, and Intarcia. Dr. Alexander reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Phase 2 data for the investigational, once-weekly basal insulin analog icodec (Novo Nordisk) showing comparable efficacy and safety to once-daily insulin glargine U100 have been published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Insulin icodec could potentially improve acceptance and likely would facilitate management in type 2 diabetes patients needing basal insulin, and I think it will be transformational in the way we manage people with type 2 diabetes requiring insulin,” said lead author Julio Rosenstock, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who also presented the data at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Insulin icodec binds to albumin to create a circulating depot with a 196-hour (8.1 days) half-life, so the once-weekly injection is designed to cover an individual’s basal insulin requirements for a full week, with steady insulin release. Because of its concentrated formulation, its injection volume is equivalent to that of daily glargine U100.

In the 26-week, randomized, phase 2 trial involving 247 insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes, once-weekly icodec’s glucose-lowering and safety profiles were similar to those of once-daily insulin glargine U100. These results were previously presented by Dr. Rosenstock in June at the virtual American Diabetes Association conference, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

In addition, new data in a poster at EASD 2020 showed that switching to icodec from other basal insulins is efficacious without causing significant hypoglycemia, as reported by Harpreet Bajaj, MD, MPH, director of the Leadership Sinai Centre for Diabetes, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto.

Charles M. Alexander, MD, an endocrinologist and managing director of Alexander Associates, Gwynedd Valley, Pa., said in an interview that “some patients will find once-weekly basal insulin an attractive option, while other patients will be indifferent to its availability.”

Dr. Alexander also pointed out that “payers are not going to be very interested in paying for a once-weekly basal insulin when daily basal insulins have been available for many years, unless the cost is the same or less. Resource-constrained health plans will wait until the price is [similar].”
 

The phase 2 study: Once weekly is just as good as daily

In the phase 2, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, treat-to-target trial, the patients had baseline hemoglobin A1c levels of 7.0%-9.5% despite taking metformin, with or without a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor.

They were randomized to weekly insulin icodec plus daily placebo (n = 125) or daily insulin glargine U100 plus weekly placebo (n = 122). The primary endpoint, change in A1c from baseline to week 26, dropped 1.33 percentage points with icodec and 1.15 percentage points with glargine, down to 6.7% and 6.9%, respectively. The difference wasn’t significant (P = .08). Fasting plasma glucose levels dropped by 58 mg/dL with icodec and 54 mg/dL with glargine (P = .34).

Time in range (70-140 mg/dL or 3.9-7.8 mmol/L) as assessed by flash glucose monitoring (FreeStyle Libre Pro) was greater with Icodec, by 5.4 percentage points, corresponding to an extra 78 minutes per day in range.

Mild hypoglycemia was more common with icodec than glargine (509 vs. 211 events per 100 patient-years, but rates of moderate/clinically significant hypoglycemia (52.5 vs. 46 per 100 patient-years, respectively) and severe hypoglycemia (1.4 vs. 0 per 100 patient-years) did not differ significantly (P = .85).

And the duration of hypoglycemia wasn’t longer with icodec, compared with glargine, despite its longer duration of action, Dr. Rosenstock emphasized.

Rates of other adverse events were similar between the groups.

Use of a once-weekly basal insulin could reduce the number of annual insulin injections from 365 to just 52, the authors noted in their paper.
 

New data: Switching to icodec is effective, safe

The new data on switching came from a 16-week, open-label, phase 2 trial of 154 patients with type 2 diabetes with insufficient glycemic control (mean A1c 7.9%) while taking oral medication and basal insulin. They were randomized to once-weekly icodec with or without an initial loading dose, or once-daily glargine U100.

Insulin doses were titrated weekly based on blood glucose levels as measured by continuous glucose monitoring (Dexcom G6).

The primary endpoint, time in range (70-180 mg/dL or 3.9-10.0 mmol/L) during weeks 15-16 was significantly better for icodec plus loading dose, compared with glargine U100 (72.9% vs 65.0%, P = .01) and similar between icodec and glargine U100 (66.0% vs 65.0%, P = .75).

Estimated mean percentage point reductions in A1c were 0.77 for icodec plus loading dose, 0.47 for icodec without the loading dose, and 0.54 for glargine U100.

Rates of moderate to severe hypoglycemia were similar between icodec plus loading dose and glargine U100 (78.0 and 79.4 events per 100 patient-years, respectively), and lower for icodec without the loading dose (14.8/100 patient-years).

There were no unexpected safety findings.

Novo Nordisk’s phase 3 trial for icodec is set to begin in late November.

The company is also developing a coformulation of icodec with its glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist semaglutide, currently in phase 1 testing. Meanwhile, Eli Lilly is also developing a once-weekly basal analog, LY3209590, currently in phase 2 trials.

Dr. Rosenstock reported receiving research support from, being on advisory boards for, and/or receiving consulting honoraria from Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Genentech, Oramed, Boehringer Ingelheim, Applied Therapeutics, and Intarcia. Dr. Alexander reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The companies behind three major COVID-19 vaccines in development released the protocols of their trials, outlining their expectations for participant enrollment, benchmarks for vaccine efficacy, and more details about the makeup of each product.

Typically, manufacturers guard the specifics of preclinical vaccine trials. This rare move follows calls for greater transparency. For example, the American Medical Association wrote a letter in late August asking the Food and Drug Administration to keep physicians informed of their COVID-19 vaccine review process.

On September 17, ModernaTx released the phase 3 trial protocol for its mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. In short order, on September 19, Pfizer/BioNTech shared their phase 1/2/3 trial vaccine protocol. AstraZeneca, which is developing a vaccine along with Oxford University, also released its protocol.

The AstraZeneca vaccine trial made headlines recently for having to be temporarily halted because of unexpected illnesses that arose in two participants, according to the New York Times and other sources.

“I applaud the release of the clinical trial protocols by the companies. The public trust in any COVID-19 vaccine is paramount, especially given the fast timeline and perceived political pressures of these candidates,” Robert Kruse, MD, PhD, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment.
 

AstraZeneca takes a shot at transparency

The three primary objectives of the AstraZeneca AZD1222 trial outlined in the 110-page protocol include estimating the efficacy, safety, tolerability, and reactogenicity associated with two intramuscular doses of the vaccine in comparison with placebo in adults.

The projected enrollment is 30,000 participants, and the estimated primary completion date is Dec. 2, 2020, according to information on clinicaltrials.gov.

“Given the unprecedented global impact of the coronavirus pandemic and the need for public information, AstraZeneca has published the detailed protocol and design of our AZD1222 clinical trial,” the company said in a statement. “As with most clinical development, protocols are not typically shared publicly due to the importance of maintaining confidentiality and integrity of trials.

“AstraZeneca continues to work with industry peers to ensure a consistent approach to sharing timely clinical trial information,” the company added.
 

Moderna methodology

The ModernaTX 135-page protocol outlines the primary trial objectives of evaluating efficacy, safety, and reactogenicity of two injections of the vaccine administered 28 days apart. Researchers also plan to randomly assign 30,000 adults to receive either vaccine or placebo. The estimated primary completion date is Oct. 27, 2022.

A statement that was requested from ModernaTX was not received by press time.
 

Pfizer protocol

In the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine trial, researchers plan to evaluate different doses in different age groups in a multistep protocol. The trial features 20 primary safety objectives, which include reporting adverse events and serious adverse events, including any local or systemic events.

Efficacy endpoints are secondary objectives. The estimated enrollment is 29,481 adults; the estimated primary completion date is April 19, 2021.

“Pfizer and BioNTech recognize that the COVID-19 pandemic is a unique circumstance, and the need for transparency is clear,” Pfizer spokesperson Sharon Castillo told Medscape Medical News. By making the full protocol available, “we believe this will reinforce our long-standing commitment to scientific and regulatory rigor that benefits patients,” she said.

“Based on current infection rates, Pfizer and BioNTech continue to expect that a conclusive read-out on efficacy is likely by the end of October. Neither Pfizer nor the FDA can move faster than the data we are generating through our clinical trial,” Castillo said.

If clinical work and regulatory approval or authorization proceed as planned, Pfizer and BioNTech expect to supply up to 100 million doses worldwide by the end of 2020 and approximately 1.3 billion doses worldwide by the end of 2021.

Pfizer is not willing to sacrifice safety and efficacy in the name of expediency, Castillo said. “We will not cut corners in this pursuit. Patient safety is our highest priority, and Pfizer will not bring a vaccine to market without adequate evidence of safety and efficacy.”
 

A positive move

“COVID-19 vaccines will only be useful if many people are willing to receive them,” said Kruse, a postgraduate year 3 resident in the Department of Pathology at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland.

“By giving the general public along with other scientists and physicians the opportunity to critique the protocols, everyone can understand what the metrics would be for an early look at efficacy,” Kruse said. He noted that information could help inform a potential FDA emergency use authorization.

Kruse has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The companies behind three major COVID-19 vaccines in development released the protocols of their trials, outlining their expectations for participant enrollment, benchmarks for vaccine efficacy, and more details about the makeup of each product.

Typically, manufacturers guard the specifics of preclinical vaccine trials. This rare move follows calls for greater transparency. For example, the American Medical Association wrote a letter in late August asking the Food and Drug Administration to keep physicians informed of their COVID-19 vaccine review process.

On September 17, ModernaTx released the phase 3 trial protocol for its mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. In short order, on September 19, Pfizer/BioNTech shared their phase 1/2/3 trial vaccine protocol. AstraZeneca, which is developing a vaccine along with Oxford University, also released its protocol.

The AstraZeneca vaccine trial made headlines recently for having to be temporarily halted because of unexpected illnesses that arose in two participants, according to the New York Times and other sources.

“I applaud the release of the clinical trial protocols by the companies. The public trust in any COVID-19 vaccine is paramount, especially given the fast timeline and perceived political pressures of these candidates,” Robert Kruse, MD, PhD, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment.
 

AstraZeneca takes a shot at transparency

The three primary objectives of the AstraZeneca AZD1222 trial outlined in the 110-page protocol include estimating the efficacy, safety, tolerability, and reactogenicity associated with two intramuscular doses of the vaccine in comparison with placebo in adults.

The projected enrollment is 30,000 participants, and the estimated primary completion date is Dec. 2, 2020, according to information on clinicaltrials.gov.

“Given the unprecedented global impact of the coronavirus pandemic and the need for public information, AstraZeneca has published the detailed protocol and design of our AZD1222 clinical trial,” the company said in a statement. “As with most clinical development, protocols are not typically shared publicly due to the importance of maintaining confidentiality and integrity of trials.

“AstraZeneca continues to work with industry peers to ensure a consistent approach to sharing timely clinical trial information,” the company added.
 

Moderna methodology

The ModernaTX 135-page protocol outlines the primary trial objectives of evaluating efficacy, safety, and reactogenicity of two injections of the vaccine administered 28 days apart. Researchers also plan to randomly assign 30,000 adults to receive either vaccine or placebo. The estimated primary completion date is Oct. 27, 2022.

A statement that was requested from ModernaTX was not received by press time.
 

Pfizer protocol

In the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine trial, researchers plan to evaluate different doses in different age groups in a multistep protocol. The trial features 20 primary safety objectives, which include reporting adverse events and serious adverse events, including any local or systemic events.

Efficacy endpoints are secondary objectives. The estimated enrollment is 29,481 adults; the estimated primary completion date is April 19, 2021.

“Pfizer and BioNTech recognize that the COVID-19 pandemic is a unique circumstance, and the need for transparency is clear,” Pfizer spokesperson Sharon Castillo told Medscape Medical News. By making the full protocol available, “we believe this will reinforce our long-standing commitment to scientific and regulatory rigor that benefits patients,” she said.

“Based on current infection rates, Pfizer and BioNTech continue to expect that a conclusive read-out on efficacy is likely by the end of October. Neither Pfizer nor the FDA can move faster than the data we are generating through our clinical trial,” Castillo said.

If clinical work and regulatory approval or authorization proceed as planned, Pfizer and BioNTech expect to supply up to 100 million doses worldwide by the end of 2020 and approximately 1.3 billion doses worldwide by the end of 2021.

Pfizer is not willing to sacrifice safety and efficacy in the name of expediency, Castillo said. “We will not cut corners in this pursuit. Patient safety is our highest priority, and Pfizer will not bring a vaccine to market without adequate evidence of safety and efficacy.”
 

A positive move

“COVID-19 vaccines will only be useful if many people are willing to receive them,” said Kruse, a postgraduate year 3 resident in the Department of Pathology at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland.

“By giving the general public along with other scientists and physicians the opportunity to critique the protocols, everyone can understand what the metrics would be for an early look at efficacy,” Kruse said. He noted that information could help inform a potential FDA emergency use authorization.

Kruse has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The companies behind three major COVID-19 vaccines in development released the protocols of their trials, outlining their expectations for participant enrollment, benchmarks for vaccine efficacy, and more details about the makeup of each product.

Typically, manufacturers guard the specifics of preclinical vaccine trials. This rare move follows calls for greater transparency. For example, the American Medical Association wrote a letter in late August asking the Food and Drug Administration to keep physicians informed of their COVID-19 vaccine review process.

On September 17, ModernaTx released the phase 3 trial protocol for its mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. In short order, on September 19, Pfizer/BioNTech shared their phase 1/2/3 trial vaccine protocol. AstraZeneca, which is developing a vaccine along with Oxford University, also released its protocol.

The AstraZeneca vaccine trial made headlines recently for having to be temporarily halted because of unexpected illnesses that arose in two participants, according to the New York Times and other sources.

“I applaud the release of the clinical trial protocols by the companies. The public trust in any COVID-19 vaccine is paramount, especially given the fast timeline and perceived political pressures of these candidates,” Robert Kruse, MD, PhD, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment.
 

AstraZeneca takes a shot at transparency

The three primary objectives of the AstraZeneca AZD1222 trial outlined in the 110-page protocol include estimating the efficacy, safety, tolerability, and reactogenicity associated with two intramuscular doses of the vaccine in comparison with placebo in adults.

The projected enrollment is 30,000 participants, and the estimated primary completion date is Dec. 2, 2020, according to information on clinicaltrials.gov.

“Given the unprecedented global impact of the coronavirus pandemic and the need for public information, AstraZeneca has published the detailed protocol and design of our AZD1222 clinical trial,” the company said in a statement. “As with most clinical development, protocols are not typically shared publicly due to the importance of maintaining confidentiality and integrity of trials.

“AstraZeneca continues to work with industry peers to ensure a consistent approach to sharing timely clinical trial information,” the company added.
 

Moderna methodology

The ModernaTX 135-page protocol outlines the primary trial objectives of evaluating efficacy, safety, and reactogenicity of two injections of the vaccine administered 28 days apart. Researchers also plan to randomly assign 30,000 adults to receive either vaccine or placebo. The estimated primary completion date is Oct. 27, 2022.

A statement that was requested from ModernaTX was not received by press time.
 

Pfizer protocol

In the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine trial, researchers plan to evaluate different doses in different age groups in a multistep protocol. The trial features 20 primary safety objectives, which include reporting adverse events and serious adverse events, including any local or systemic events.

Efficacy endpoints are secondary objectives. The estimated enrollment is 29,481 adults; the estimated primary completion date is April 19, 2021.

“Pfizer and BioNTech recognize that the COVID-19 pandemic is a unique circumstance, and the need for transparency is clear,” Pfizer spokesperson Sharon Castillo told Medscape Medical News. By making the full protocol available, “we believe this will reinforce our long-standing commitment to scientific and regulatory rigor that benefits patients,” she said.

“Based on current infection rates, Pfizer and BioNTech continue to expect that a conclusive read-out on efficacy is likely by the end of October. Neither Pfizer nor the FDA can move faster than the data we are generating through our clinical trial,” Castillo said.

If clinical work and regulatory approval or authorization proceed as planned, Pfizer and BioNTech expect to supply up to 100 million doses worldwide by the end of 2020 and approximately 1.3 billion doses worldwide by the end of 2021.

Pfizer is not willing to sacrifice safety and efficacy in the name of expediency, Castillo said. “We will not cut corners in this pursuit. Patient safety is our highest priority, and Pfizer will not bring a vaccine to market without adequate evidence of safety and efficacy.”
 

A positive move

“COVID-19 vaccines will only be useful if many people are willing to receive them,” said Kruse, a postgraduate year 3 resident in the Department of Pathology at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland.

“By giving the general public along with other scientists and physicians the opportunity to critique the protocols, everyone can understand what the metrics would be for an early look at efficacy,” Kruse said. He noted that information could help inform a potential FDA emergency use authorization.

Kruse has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.