Early administration of evolocumab significantly reduced levels of LDL cholesterol in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, according to data from an open-label randomized trial of 102 adults in Japan.

Data from previous studies have shown that proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors can reduce LDL cholesterol in acute coronary syndrome patients, wrote Tomoaki Okada, MD, of Kagawa (Japan) Prefectural Central Hospital and colleagues.

In particular, “The EVOPACS trial [J Am Coll Cardiol 2019; 74:2452-62] reported that evolocumab therapy initiated at an early phase of ACS showed [LDL cholesterol] level reduction by 4-8 weeks,” they said.

“However, the 4-week efficacy of PCSK9 inhibitor therapy combined with a statin remains unknown,” they said.

In a study presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and published simultaneously in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, the researchers randomized 52 patients to receive 140 mg of evolocumab subcutaneously within 24 hours of indexed percutaneous coronary intervention and again after 2 weeks. A group of 50 controls received evolocumab after PCI only, but no additional dose after 2 weeks.

The average age of the patients was 65 years, 88% were men, and 26% had a history of statin treatment.

A total of 49 patients in each group were included in the final analysis, with a primary outcome of change in LDL cholesterol levels from baseline to 4 weeks.

Baseline LCL cholesterol levels were 120.8 mg/dL and 124.7 mg/dL in the evolocumab and control groups, respectively. Changes from baseline were significantly greater in the evolocumab group, compared with controls, at –76% and –33%, respectively.

All patients in the evolocumab group and 27% of patients in the control groups achieved LDL cholesterol levels of less than 70 mg/dL at 4 weeks. In addition, 92% and 96% of evolocumab patients achieved LDL cholesterol levels less than 55 mg/dL at 2 weeks and 4 weeks, respectively.

Overall changes in non-HDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and small dense LDL in the evolocumab and control groups were –66.2% and –26.0%; 2.8% and –0.7%; and –67% and –13.8%, respectively. Of these, changes in non-HDL cholesterol and small dense LDL were significantly different between the groups.

In addition, patients in the evolocumab group showed a 3% decrease in lipoprotein, compared with an 82% increase in the control group. This finding suggests the additional benefit of including evolocumab for managing residual risk in patients with high lipoprotein(a) levels” after acute MI, the researchers noted.

Adverse events and serious adverse events were similar between the groups.

‘Early and strong’ LDL cholesterol lowering best for preventing repeat events

“By using the PCSK9 inhibitors, we have the opportunity to lower LDL cholesterol [LDL-C]” both quickly and dramatically, said Heinz Drexel, MD, in an interview.

“This Japanese study shows that very low LDL-C levels can be obtained as fast as within 4 weeks,” he said. “This fits into the concept that risk for future infarctions and strokes is best reduced by early and strong LDL-C lowering,” he explained.

Dr. Drexel said that he was not surprised by the magnitude of the decrease in LDL cholesterol in study findings in light of the EVOPACS study and other research, as well as his own clinical experience.

“The primary message for doctors is that it is now possible to achieve these low levels of LDL-C in a short time,” he said.

“Additional research must prove that this low LDL-C translates to reduction of MIs and strokes, and there is increasing evidence that this will happen,” Dr. Drexel noted.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Drexel had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Okada T et al. ESC 2020. JACC Cardiovascular Interventions. 2020 Aug 28. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.08.026.

Early administration of evolocumab significantly reduced levels of LDL cholesterol in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, according to data from an open-label randomized trial of 102 adults in Japan.

Data from previous studies have shown that proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors can reduce LDL cholesterol in acute coronary syndrome patients, wrote Tomoaki Okada, MD, of Kagawa (Japan) Prefectural Central Hospital and colleagues.

In particular, “The EVOPACS trial [J Am Coll Cardiol 2019; 74:2452-62] reported that evolocumab therapy initiated at an early phase of ACS showed [LDL cholesterol] level reduction by 4-8 weeks,” they said.

“However, the 4-week efficacy of PCSK9 inhibitor therapy combined with a statin remains unknown,” they said.

In a study presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and published simultaneously in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, the researchers randomized 52 patients to receive 140 mg of evolocumab subcutaneously within 24 hours of indexed percutaneous coronary intervention and again after 2 weeks. A group of 50 controls received evolocumab after PCI only, but no additional dose after 2 weeks.

The average age of the patients was 65 years, 88% were men, and 26% had a history of statin treatment.

A total of 49 patients in each group were included in the final analysis, with a primary outcome of change in LDL cholesterol levels from baseline to 4 weeks.

Baseline LCL cholesterol levels were 120.8 mg/dL and 124.7 mg/dL in the evolocumab and control groups, respectively. Changes from baseline were significantly greater in the evolocumab group, compared with controls, at –76% and –33%, respectively.

All patients in the evolocumab group and 27% of patients in the control groups achieved LDL cholesterol levels of less than 70 mg/dL at 4 weeks. In addition, 92% and 96% of evolocumab patients achieved LDL cholesterol levels less than 55 mg/dL at 2 weeks and 4 weeks, respectively.

Overall changes in non-HDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and small dense LDL in the evolocumab and control groups were –66.2% and –26.0%; 2.8% and –0.7%; and –67% and –13.8%, respectively. Of these, changes in non-HDL cholesterol and small dense LDL were significantly different between the groups.

In addition, patients in the evolocumab group showed a 3% decrease in lipoprotein, compared with an 82% increase in the control group. This finding suggests the additional benefit of including evolocumab for managing residual risk in patients with high lipoprotein(a) levels” after acute MI, the researchers noted.

Adverse events and serious adverse events were similar between the groups.

‘Early and strong’ LDL cholesterol lowering best for preventing repeat events

“By using the PCSK9 inhibitors, we have the opportunity to lower LDL cholesterol [LDL-C]” both quickly and dramatically, said Heinz Drexel, MD, in an interview.

“This Japanese study shows that very low LDL-C levels can be obtained as fast as within 4 weeks,” he said. “This fits into the concept that risk for future infarctions and strokes is best reduced by early and strong LDL-C lowering,” he explained.

Dr. Drexel said that he was not surprised by the magnitude of the decrease in LDL cholesterol in study findings in light of the EVOPACS study and other research, as well as his own clinical experience.

“The primary message for doctors is that it is now possible to achieve these low levels of LDL-C in a short time,” he said.

“Additional research must prove that this low LDL-C translates to reduction of MIs and strokes, and there is increasing evidence that this will happen,” Dr. Drexel noted.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Drexel had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Okada T et al. ESC 2020. JACC Cardiovascular Interventions. 2020 Aug 28. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.08.026.

Early administration of evolocumab significantly reduced levels of LDL cholesterol in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, according to data from an open-label randomized trial of 102 adults in Japan.

Data from previous studies have shown that proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors can reduce LDL cholesterol in acute coronary syndrome patients, wrote Tomoaki Okada, MD, of Kagawa (Japan) Prefectural Central Hospital and colleagues.

In particular, “The EVOPACS trial [J Am Coll Cardiol 2019; 74:2452-62] reported that evolocumab therapy initiated at an early phase of ACS showed [LDL cholesterol] level reduction by 4-8 weeks,” they said.

“However, the 4-week efficacy of PCSK9 inhibitor therapy combined with a statin remains unknown,” they said.

In a study presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and published simultaneously in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, the researchers randomized 52 patients to receive 140 mg of evolocumab subcutaneously within 24 hours of indexed percutaneous coronary intervention and again after 2 weeks. A group of 50 controls received evolocumab after PCI only, but no additional dose after 2 weeks.

The average age of the patients was 65 years, 88% were men, and 26% had a history of statin treatment.

A total of 49 patients in each group were included in the final analysis, with a primary outcome of change in LDL cholesterol levels from baseline to 4 weeks.

Baseline LCL cholesterol levels were 120.8 mg/dL and 124.7 mg/dL in the evolocumab and control groups, respectively. Changes from baseline were significantly greater in the evolocumab group, compared with controls, at –76% and –33%, respectively.

All patients in the evolocumab group and 27% of patients in the control groups achieved LDL cholesterol levels of less than 70 mg/dL at 4 weeks. In addition, 92% and 96% of evolocumab patients achieved LDL cholesterol levels less than 55 mg/dL at 2 weeks and 4 weeks, respectively.

Overall changes in non-HDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and small dense LDL in the evolocumab and control groups were –66.2% and –26.0%; 2.8% and –0.7%; and –67% and –13.8%, respectively. Of these, changes in non-HDL cholesterol and small dense LDL were significantly different between the groups.

In addition, patients in the evolocumab group showed a 3% decrease in lipoprotein, compared with an 82% increase in the control group. This finding suggests the additional benefit of including evolocumab for managing residual risk in patients with high lipoprotein(a) levels” after acute MI, the researchers noted.

Adverse events and serious adverse events were similar between the groups.

‘Early and strong’ LDL cholesterol lowering best for preventing repeat events

“By using the PCSK9 inhibitors, we have the opportunity to lower LDL cholesterol [LDL-C]” both quickly and dramatically, said Heinz Drexel, MD, in an interview.

“This Japanese study shows that very low LDL-C levels can be obtained as fast as within 4 weeks,” he said. “This fits into the concept that risk for future infarctions and strokes is best reduced by early and strong LDL-C lowering,” he explained.

Dr. Drexel said that he was not surprised by the magnitude of the decrease in LDL cholesterol in study findings in light of the EVOPACS study and other research, as well as his own clinical experience.

“The primary message for doctors is that it is now possible to achieve these low levels of LDL-C in a short time,” he said.

“Additional research must prove that this low LDL-C translates to reduction of MIs and strokes, and there is increasing evidence that this will happen,” Dr. Drexel noted.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Drexel had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Okada T et al. ESC 2020. JACC Cardiovascular Interventions. 2020 Aug 28. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.08.026.

Repeat Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) scores can be used to identify people at greatest risk for cirrhosis of the liver, new research shows.

“Done repeatedly, this test can improve prediction capacity to identify who will develop cirrhosis of the liver later in life,” said lead researcher Hannes Hagström, MD, from the Karolinska University Hospital in Stockholm.

A FIB-4 score that rises from one test to the next indicates that a person is at increased risk for severe liver disease, whereas a score that drops indicates a decreased risk, he told Medscape Medical News. The study results — published online July 1 in the Journal of Hepatology, was presented at the Digital International Liver Congress 2020.

The noninvasive, widely available, cheap FIB-4 test — which is calculated on the basis of age, transaminase level, and platelet count — is commonly used to identify the risk for advanced fibrosis in liver disease, but it has not been used to predict future risk.

To evaluate risk for cirrhosis, Hagström and his colleagues looked at 812,073 blood tests performed from 1985 to 1996 on people enrolled in the Swedish Apolipoprotein Mortality Risk (AMORIS) study.

They excluded people younger than 35 years and older than 79 years and anyone with a diagnosis of any liver disease at baseline.

The 40,729 people who had two FIB-4 measurements taken less than 5 years apart were included in the analysis. Test results were categorized into three risk groups: low (<1.30), intermediate (1.30 - 2.67), and high (>2.67).

After a median of 16.2 years, 11,929 people in the study cohort had died and 581 had a severe liver disease event.

Severe liver disease events were more common in people who had both tests categorized as high risk than in people who had both tests categorized as low risk (13.2% vs 1.0%; aHR, 17.04; 95% CI, 11.67 - 24.88).

The researchers found that a one-unit increase between the two test results was continuously predictive of a severe liver disease event (aHR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.67 - 1.96).
 

One test not enough

The absolute risk for severe liver disease in the general population is 2%, but the FIB-4 score is elevated in about one-third of people in the general population.

“A lot of people who have increased levels of this biomarker will never develop cirrhosis,” Hagström told Medscape Medical News.

Although two FIB-4 scores might not identify everyone who will get cirrhosis, comparing scores provides insight into who is at greatest risk, he explained.

This information can be useful, particularly for primary care doctors. If you know that someone is at higher risk, “you can send that patient for a FibroScan, which is a much more sensitive measurement,” but also much more expensive. “Now we can better know who to send,” he said.

However, “the main problem is that these tests are not widely known” or used enough by primary care doctors, Hagström said.

A lack of knowledge about the utility of this test is a problem, agreed Jérôme Boursier, MD, PhD, from Angers University in France.

“The younger doctors are using these tests more often,” he told Medscape Medical News, but “the older doctors are not aware they exist.”

This study supports repeating the tests. “One test offers quite poor prediction,” Boursier said. But “when you have a higher score on a second one, this can help the conversation with the patient.”

Hagström and Boursier have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Repeat Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) scores can be used to identify people at greatest risk for cirrhosis of the liver, new research shows.

“Done repeatedly, this test can improve prediction capacity to identify who will develop cirrhosis of the liver later in life,” said lead researcher Hannes Hagström, MD, from the Karolinska University Hospital in Stockholm.

A FIB-4 score that rises from one test to the next indicates that a person is at increased risk for severe liver disease, whereas a score that drops indicates a decreased risk, he told Medscape Medical News. The study results — published online July 1 in the Journal of Hepatology, was presented at the Digital International Liver Congress 2020.

The noninvasive, widely available, cheap FIB-4 test — which is calculated on the basis of age, transaminase level, and platelet count — is commonly used to identify the risk for advanced fibrosis in liver disease, but it has not been used to predict future risk.

To evaluate risk for cirrhosis, Hagström and his colleagues looked at 812,073 blood tests performed from 1985 to 1996 on people enrolled in the Swedish Apolipoprotein Mortality Risk (AMORIS) study.

They excluded people younger than 35 years and older than 79 years and anyone with a diagnosis of any liver disease at baseline.

The 40,729 people who had two FIB-4 measurements taken less than 5 years apart were included in the analysis. Test results were categorized into three risk groups: low (<1.30), intermediate (1.30 - 2.67), and high (>2.67).

After a median of 16.2 years, 11,929 people in the study cohort had died and 581 had a severe liver disease event.

Severe liver disease events were more common in people who had both tests categorized as high risk than in people who had both tests categorized as low risk (13.2% vs 1.0%; aHR, 17.04; 95% CI, 11.67 - 24.88).

The researchers found that a one-unit increase between the two test results was continuously predictive of a severe liver disease event (aHR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.67 - 1.96).
 

One test not enough

The absolute risk for severe liver disease in the general population is 2%, but the FIB-4 score is elevated in about one-third of people in the general population.

“A lot of people who have increased levels of this biomarker will never develop cirrhosis,” Hagström told Medscape Medical News.

Although two FIB-4 scores might not identify everyone who will get cirrhosis, comparing scores provides insight into who is at greatest risk, he explained.

This information can be useful, particularly for primary care doctors. If you know that someone is at higher risk, “you can send that patient for a FibroScan, which is a much more sensitive measurement,” but also much more expensive. “Now we can better know who to send,” he said.

However, “the main problem is that these tests are not widely known” or used enough by primary care doctors, Hagström said.

A lack of knowledge about the utility of this test is a problem, agreed Jérôme Boursier, MD, PhD, from Angers University in France.

“The younger doctors are using these tests more often,” he told Medscape Medical News, but “the older doctors are not aware they exist.”

This study supports repeating the tests. “One test offers quite poor prediction,” Boursier said. But “when you have a higher score on a second one, this can help the conversation with the patient.”

Hagström and Boursier have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Repeat Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) scores can be used to identify people at greatest risk for cirrhosis of the liver, new research shows.

“Done repeatedly, this test can improve prediction capacity to identify who will develop cirrhosis of the liver later in life,” said lead researcher Hannes Hagström, MD, from the Karolinska University Hospital in Stockholm.

A FIB-4 score that rises from one test to the next indicates that a person is at increased risk for severe liver disease, whereas a score that drops indicates a decreased risk, he told Medscape Medical News. The study results — published online July 1 in the Journal of Hepatology, was presented at the Digital International Liver Congress 2020.

The noninvasive, widely available, cheap FIB-4 test — which is calculated on the basis of age, transaminase level, and platelet count — is commonly used to identify the risk for advanced fibrosis in liver disease, but it has not been used to predict future risk.

To evaluate risk for cirrhosis, Hagström and his colleagues looked at 812,073 blood tests performed from 1985 to 1996 on people enrolled in the Swedish Apolipoprotein Mortality Risk (AMORIS) study.

They excluded people younger than 35 years and older than 79 years and anyone with a diagnosis of any liver disease at baseline.

The 40,729 people who had two FIB-4 measurements taken less than 5 years apart were included in the analysis. Test results were categorized into three risk groups: low (<1.30), intermediate (1.30 - 2.67), and high (>2.67).

After a median of 16.2 years, 11,929 people in the study cohort had died and 581 had a severe liver disease event.

Severe liver disease events were more common in people who had both tests categorized as high risk than in people who had both tests categorized as low risk (13.2% vs 1.0%; aHR, 17.04; 95% CI, 11.67 - 24.88).

The researchers found that a one-unit increase between the two test results was continuously predictive of a severe liver disease event (aHR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.67 - 1.96).
 

One test not enough

The absolute risk for severe liver disease in the general population is 2%, but the FIB-4 score is elevated in about one-third of people in the general population.

“A lot of people who have increased levels of this biomarker will never develop cirrhosis,” Hagström told Medscape Medical News.

Although two FIB-4 scores might not identify everyone who will get cirrhosis, comparing scores provides insight into who is at greatest risk, he explained.

This information can be useful, particularly for primary care doctors. If you know that someone is at higher risk, “you can send that patient for a FibroScan, which is a much more sensitive measurement,” but also much more expensive. “Now we can better know who to send,” he said.

However, “the main problem is that these tests are not widely known” or used enough by primary care doctors, Hagström said.

A lack of knowledge about the utility of this test is a problem, agreed Jérôme Boursier, MD, PhD, from Angers University in France.

“The younger doctors are using these tests more often,” he told Medscape Medical News, but “the older doctors are not aware they exist.”

This study supports repeating the tests. “One test offers quite poor prediction,” Boursier said. But “when you have a higher score on a second one, this can help the conversation with the patient.”

Hagström and Boursier have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adjuvant therapy for patients with high-risk resected melanomas is now a standard of care, but the durability of the benefit gained from this treatment is still unclear.

New data show that the benefit is maintained over the longer term.

At 5 years, just over half of patients (52%) with advanced melanoma who had received a year of adjuvant therapy with two targeted agents were still alive and remained relapse free, compared with 36% of patients who received placebo.

The combination of dabrafenib (Tafinlar) and trametinib (Mekinist) conferred a durable long-term, relapse-free survival benefit for patients with resected stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations, the investigators concluded.

These data come from the COMBI-AD phase 3 trial and were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“The treatment duration of this adjuvant therapy was 12 months; however, we do not know whether this is the optimal treatment duration,” said lead author Reinhard Dummer, MD, vice chairman, department of dermatology, University of Zürich Hospital. “Early biomarker results suggest that, in a subgroup, longer treatment durations might be necessary. In other patients, a shorter treatment could be sufficient.”

Richard Carvajal, MD, director of the Melanoma Service at New York–Presbyterian Hospital and Columbia University Medical Center, also in New York, said the new data “address prior concerns that any benefit achieved with targeted therapy in the adjuvant setting may be limited in duration.”

“Indeed, with active therapy, over 50% of patients are alive without relapse and 65% of patients are alive without the development of distant metastasis,” he said. “Although overall survival data remain immature, numerical improvement in survival is also reported.”

In an interview, Dr. Carvajal said that the plateaus observed with relapse and distant metastasis-free survival suggest that true disease cures are being achieved with treatment. “Based upon these results, the discussion of adjuvant therapeutic options should include a 12-month course of adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib, as well as the option of adjuvant anti-PD-1 [programmed death–1] therapy.”

As for how the MEK-BRAF inhibitor combination compares with immunotherapy in this setting, he pointed out that, since there has been no head-to-head comparison of adjuvant targeted therapy and adjuvant nivolumab (Opdivo) or pembrolizumab (Keytruda), it is not possible to conclusively state that one regimen is more effective than another.

“For patients with resected BRAF-mutant melanoma at high risk of disease recurrence, we now have data demonstrating the clinical benefit for a course of adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib, adjuvant nivolumab and adjuvant pembrolizumab,” said Dr. Carvajal.

“Although the efficacy of adjuvant ipilimumab [Yervoy] as well as adjuvant interferon have also been previously demonstrated, these agents are now appropriate for consideration in extremely rare clinical circumstances given the clinical efficacy and improved toxicity profile of single agent anti-PD-1 therapy.”

“The selection of the most appropriate adjuvant therapy should take into account the preferences of individual patients in terms of toxicity profile and drug administration considerations,” he added.


 

Study details

The COMBI-AD was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study conducted in 870 patients with high-risk, stage III, BRAF-V600E/K–mutant melanoma who were treatment naive. Participating patients had undergone surgical resection and had been disease free for ≤12 weeks.

Interim results from this study, reported in 2017, showed 1 year of oral adjuvant therapy with dabrafenib and trametinib provided a 53% lower risk for 3-year recurrence, compared with placebo.

Now, the investigators reported on the 5-year results for relapse-free survival and survival without distant metastasis. They noted that they were unable to analyze overall survival since the required number of events had not been reached.

Patients had been randomly assigned to receive 12 months of oral dabrafenib (at a dose of 150 mg twice daily) plus trametinib (2 mg once daily) or two matched placebos. Patients were followed for 60 months (5 years) for dabrafenib plus trametinib and 58 months for placebo.

At 5 years, the median relapse-free survival was not reached for patients who received the combination therapy group versus 16.6 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio for relapse or death, 0.51).

The percentage of patients who were alive without distant metastasis at 5 years was 65% in the dabrafenib plus trametinib group and 54% in the placebo arm (HR for distant metastasis or death, 0.55).

The hazard ratio for relapse-free survival favored dabrafenib plus trametinib across all patient subgroups that were evaluated in the study, and survival without distant metastasis showed a similar benefit for the combination regardless of disease stage.

Subsequent therapy was needed in 40% of patients who received dabrafenib plus trametinib and by 54% of those in the placebo group, with the most common treatments being immunotherapy in the combination-therapy group [26%] and small molecule–targeted therapy in the placebo group (35%).
 

A viable option

Dr. Dummer noted that, when this clinical trial was designed, all patients had to undergo aggressive surgery that involved lymph node dissection. “Nowadays, based on the lack of improvement on progression-free survival and overall survival, the surgical procedures are less aggressive and today we do not recommend aggressive lymph node dissection in patients that qualify for adjuvant therapy. In patients that do not have the BRAF mutation, there is the possibility of giving immunotherapy.”

He added that there is an urgent need for biomarkers that can identify early progression during adjuvant therapy. “Potentially, these patients would profit from immunotherapy alone or from combination using targeted therapy and immunotherapy,” Dr. Dummer said.

The study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis. Dr. Dummer has declared multiple relationships with industry.

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

Adjuvant therapy for patients with high-risk resected melanomas is now a standard of care, but the durability of the benefit gained from this treatment is still unclear.

New data show that the benefit is maintained over the longer term.

At 5 years, just over half of patients (52%) with advanced melanoma who had received a year of adjuvant therapy with two targeted agents were still alive and remained relapse free, compared with 36% of patients who received placebo.

The combination of dabrafenib (Tafinlar) and trametinib (Mekinist) conferred a durable long-term, relapse-free survival benefit for patients with resected stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations, the investigators concluded.

These data come from the COMBI-AD phase 3 trial and were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“The treatment duration of this adjuvant therapy was 12 months; however, we do not know whether this is the optimal treatment duration,” said lead author Reinhard Dummer, MD, vice chairman, department of dermatology, University of Zürich Hospital. “Early biomarker results suggest that, in a subgroup, longer treatment durations might be necessary. In other patients, a shorter treatment could be sufficient.”

Richard Carvajal, MD, director of the Melanoma Service at New York–Presbyterian Hospital and Columbia University Medical Center, also in New York, said the new data “address prior concerns that any benefit achieved with targeted therapy in the adjuvant setting may be limited in duration.”

“Indeed, with active therapy, over 50% of patients are alive without relapse and 65% of patients are alive without the development of distant metastasis,” he said. “Although overall survival data remain immature, numerical improvement in survival is also reported.”

In an interview, Dr. Carvajal said that the plateaus observed with relapse and distant metastasis-free survival suggest that true disease cures are being achieved with treatment. “Based upon these results, the discussion of adjuvant therapeutic options should include a 12-month course of adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib, as well as the option of adjuvant anti-PD-1 [programmed death–1] therapy.”

As for how the MEK-BRAF inhibitor combination compares with immunotherapy in this setting, he pointed out that, since there has been no head-to-head comparison of adjuvant targeted therapy and adjuvant nivolumab (Opdivo) or pembrolizumab (Keytruda), it is not possible to conclusively state that one regimen is more effective than another.

“For patients with resected BRAF-mutant melanoma at high risk of disease recurrence, we now have data demonstrating the clinical benefit for a course of adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib, adjuvant nivolumab and adjuvant pembrolizumab,” said Dr. Carvajal.

“Although the efficacy of adjuvant ipilimumab [Yervoy] as well as adjuvant interferon have also been previously demonstrated, these agents are now appropriate for consideration in extremely rare clinical circumstances given the clinical efficacy and improved toxicity profile of single agent anti-PD-1 therapy.”

“The selection of the most appropriate adjuvant therapy should take into account the preferences of individual patients in terms of toxicity profile and drug administration considerations,” he added.


 

Study details

The COMBI-AD was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study conducted in 870 patients with high-risk, stage III, BRAF-V600E/K–mutant melanoma who were treatment naive. Participating patients had undergone surgical resection and had been disease free for ≤12 weeks.

Interim results from this study, reported in 2017, showed 1 year of oral adjuvant therapy with dabrafenib and trametinib provided a 53% lower risk for 3-year recurrence, compared with placebo.

Now, the investigators reported on the 5-year results for relapse-free survival and survival without distant metastasis. They noted that they were unable to analyze overall survival since the required number of events had not been reached.

Patients had been randomly assigned to receive 12 months of oral dabrafenib (at a dose of 150 mg twice daily) plus trametinib (2 mg once daily) or two matched placebos. Patients were followed for 60 months (5 years) for dabrafenib plus trametinib and 58 months for placebo.

At 5 years, the median relapse-free survival was not reached for patients who received the combination therapy group versus 16.6 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio for relapse or death, 0.51).

The percentage of patients who were alive without distant metastasis at 5 years was 65% in the dabrafenib plus trametinib group and 54% in the placebo arm (HR for distant metastasis or death, 0.55).

The hazard ratio for relapse-free survival favored dabrafenib plus trametinib across all patient subgroups that were evaluated in the study, and survival without distant metastasis showed a similar benefit for the combination regardless of disease stage.

Subsequent therapy was needed in 40% of patients who received dabrafenib plus trametinib and by 54% of those in the placebo group, with the most common treatments being immunotherapy in the combination-therapy group [26%] and small molecule–targeted therapy in the placebo group (35%).
 

A viable option

Dr. Dummer noted that, when this clinical trial was designed, all patients had to undergo aggressive surgery that involved lymph node dissection. “Nowadays, based on the lack of improvement on progression-free survival and overall survival, the surgical procedures are less aggressive and today we do not recommend aggressive lymph node dissection in patients that qualify for adjuvant therapy. In patients that do not have the BRAF mutation, there is the possibility of giving immunotherapy.”

He added that there is an urgent need for biomarkers that can identify early progression during adjuvant therapy. “Potentially, these patients would profit from immunotherapy alone or from combination using targeted therapy and immunotherapy,” Dr. Dummer said.

The study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis. Dr. Dummer has declared multiple relationships with industry.

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

Adjuvant therapy for patients with high-risk resected melanomas is now a standard of care, but the durability of the benefit gained from this treatment is still unclear.

New data show that the benefit is maintained over the longer term.

At 5 years, just over half of patients (52%) with advanced melanoma who had received a year of adjuvant therapy with two targeted agents were still alive and remained relapse free, compared with 36% of patients who received placebo.

The combination of dabrafenib (Tafinlar) and trametinib (Mekinist) conferred a durable long-term, relapse-free survival benefit for patients with resected stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations, the investigators concluded.

These data come from the COMBI-AD phase 3 trial and were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“The treatment duration of this adjuvant therapy was 12 months; however, we do not know whether this is the optimal treatment duration,” said lead author Reinhard Dummer, MD, vice chairman, department of dermatology, University of Zürich Hospital. “Early biomarker results suggest that, in a subgroup, longer treatment durations might be necessary. In other patients, a shorter treatment could be sufficient.”

Richard Carvajal, MD, director of the Melanoma Service at New York–Presbyterian Hospital and Columbia University Medical Center, also in New York, said the new data “address prior concerns that any benefit achieved with targeted therapy in the adjuvant setting may be limited in duration.”

“Indeed, with active therapy, over 50% of patients are alive without relapse and 65% of patients are alive without the development of distant metastasis,” he said. “Although overall survival data remain immature, numerical improvement in survival is also reported.”

In an interview, Dr. Carvajal said that the plateaus observed with relapse and distant metastasis-free survival suggest that true disease cures are being achieved with treatment. “Based upon these results, the discussion of adjuvant therapeutic options should include a 12-month course of adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib, as well as the option of adjuvant anti-PD-1 [programmed death–1] therapy.”

As for how the MEK-BRAF inhibitor combination compares with immunotherapy in this setting, he pointed out that, since there has been no head-to-head comparison of adjuvant targeted therapy and adjuvant nivolumab (Opdivo) or pembrolizumab (Keytruda), it is not possible to conclusively state that one regimen is more effective than another.

“For patients with resected BRAF-mutant melanoma at high risk of disease recurrence, we now have data demonstrating the clinical benefit for a course of adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib, adjuvant nivolumab and adjuvant pembrolizumab,” said Dr. Carvajal.

“Although the efficacy of adjuvant ipilimumab [Yervoy] as well as adjuvant interferon have also been previously demonstrated, these agents are now appropriate for consideration in extremely rare clinical circumstances given the clinical efficacy and improved toxicity profile of single agent anti-PD-1 therapy.”

“The selection of the most appropriate adjuvant therapy should take into account the preferences of individual patients in terms of toxicity profile and drug administration considerations,” he added.


 

Study details

The COMBI-AD was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study conducted in 870 patients with high-risk, stage III, BRAF-V600E/K–mutant melanoma who were treatment naive. Participating patients had undergone surgical resection and had been disease free for ≤12 weeks.

Interim results from this study, reported in 2017, showed 1 year of oral adjuvant therapy with dabrafenib and trametinib provided a 53% lower risk for 3-year recurrence, compared with placebo.

Now, the investigators reported on the 5-year results for relapse-free survival and survival without distant metastasis. They noted that they were unable to analyze overall survival since the required number of events had not been reached.

Patients had been randomly assigned to receive 12 months of oral dabrafenib (at a dose of 150 mg twice daily) plus trametinib (2 mg once daily) or two matched placebos. Patients were followed for 60 months (5 years) for dabrafenib plus trametinib and 58 months for placebo.

At 5 years, the median relapse-free survival was not reached for patients who received the combination therapy group versus 16.6 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio for relapse or death, 0.51).

The percentage of patients who were alive without distant metastasis at 5 years was 65% in the dabrafenib plus trametinib group and 54% in the placebo arm (HR for distant metastasis or death, 0.55).

The hazard ratio for relapse-free survival favored dabrafenib plus trametinib across all patient subgroups that were evaluated in the study, and survival without distant metastasis showed a similar benefit for the combination regardless of disease stage.

Subsequent therapy was needed in 40% of patients who received dabrafenib plus trametinib and by 54% of those in the placebo group, with the most common treatments being immunotherapy in the combination-therapy group [26%] and small molecule–targeted therapy in the placebo group (35%).
 

A viable option

Dr. Dummer noted that, when this clinical trial was designed, all patients had to undergo aggressive surgery that involved lymph node dissection. “Nowadays, based on the lack of improvement on progression-free survival and overall survival, the surgical procedures are less aggressive and today we do not recommend aggressive lymph node dissection in patients that qualify for adjuvant therapy. In patients that do not have the BRAF mutation, there is the possibility of giving immunotherapy.”

He added that there is an urgent need for biomarkers that can identify early progression during adjuvant therapy. “Potentially, these patients would profit from immunotherapy alone or from combination using targeted therapy and immunotherapy,” Dr. Dummer said.

The study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis. Dr. Dummer has declared multiple relationships with industry.

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

Sleep disorders may be silent precursors of cardiometabolic disease among U.S. Latinos, said authors of a newly published study.

Xiaoyu Li, ScD, and Susan Redline, MD, MPH, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and coauthors conducted a study of people who self-identified as Latino, who had baseline sleeping disorders, and who developed hypertension and diabetes over time. The study was published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

The findings suggested that sleep disorders preceded the development of hypertension and diabetes. Examining records from a major multiyear federal project, the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos, Dr. Li, Dr. Redline, and coauthors found sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) was associated with a 1.54 higher adjusted odds of incident hypertension (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-2.00) and 1.33 higher odds of incident diabetes (95% CI, 1.05-1.67), compared with no SDB. Insomnia was associated with incident hypertension (odds ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.11-1.69), but not diabetes. The association between insomnia and incident hypertension was stronger among men than women, they reported.

“We now need large-scale rigorous trials to evaluate the impact of early treatment of sleep disordered breathing and insomnia on preventing the development of hypertension and diabetes,” Dr. Redline said in an interview. “Clinicians should consider screening their patients at risk for hypertension and diabetes for both sleep-disordered breathing and insomnia.”
 

Implications for public health strategies

The study results may have implications for health strategies and policies aimed at addressing health differentials among ethnic and economic groups in the United States.

Suboptimal sleep health may be an important fundamental but understudied contributor to health disparities, Chandra L. Jackson, PhD, MS, of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle, N.C., said in an interview. Dr. Jackson is the lead author for a report published in August on a 2018 National Institutes of Health workshop regarding the importance of studying sleep health disparities (Sleep 2020 Mar 10. doi: 10.1093/sleep/zsaa037). The NIH workshop emphasized how little research has been done on the prevalence, incidence, morbidity, or mortality of sleep deficiencies of racial and ethnic minority populations, even though members of these groups are generally more likely to experience sleep disorders. The report urged “a nuanced integration between health disparity causal pathways and sleep and circadian-related mechanisms” tailored for these groups, with attention paid to sociocultural context.

Dr. Jackson said the study by Dr. Li and colleagues fits nicely with the strategies recommended in this report. She added: “Prospective design is particularly important for establishing temporality or that the SDB and insomnia symptoms occurred before the outcomes of hypertension and diabetes.”

In commenting on the Xi/Redline paper, Krishna M. Sundar, MD, FCCP, medical director of the Sleep-Wake Center at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, commended the study and noted that one of the challenges in sleep research is the long time period over which the effects of disordered breathing become clear, he said.

“Things don’t happen immediately. It takes months, years for the effects to develop,” Dr. Sundar said. “To try to piece together the relationships, you need very well planned studies.”
 

Study design: Participants and exclusions

Latinos currently make up 17.8%, or 57.5 million, of the U.S. population, and this group is expected to double within the next 4 decades, the investigators wrote. A few prior studies on the roles of sleep disorders in the cardiometabolic health of Latinos, though suggestive, were limited by cross-sectional designs, relatively small samples, and underrepresentation of various Latino heritage groups.

The investigators on this new study worked with data from the federal Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL) in which more than 16,000 people participated.

This multiyear federal study drew people who self-identified with different heritage groups, including Cuban, Dominican, Mexican, Central American, South American, and Puerto Rican. Participants initially aged 18-74 years underwent a first round of exams and assessments between 2008 and 2011 to determine what risk factors they had at the start of the study. In the second phase, which took place from 2013 to 2018, participants had a second set of exams. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases funded the HCHS/SOL.

The investigators initially had a potential data pool of 11,623 participants in the HCHS/SOL. About 1 of 8 in this group, or 1,424 participants (12.3%), did not undergo a sleep study or did not have sufficient sleep data for analyses. Another 93 (0.8%) participants were excluded for missing data on covariates.

For incident hypertension analyses, participants who had prevalent hypertension at the first screening in the HCHS/SOL (n = 3,139) or had missing data on hypertension (n = 2) were excluded. That resulted in an analytic sample of 6,965 for hypertension questions.

For incident diabetes analyses, participants who had prevalent diabetes at the first screening (n = 2,062) or had missing data on diabetes (n = 21) were excluded, yielding an analytic sample of 8,023.

Incident hypertension was defined as participants not having hypertension at baseline and having hypertension, defined as a systolic blood pressure 140 mm Hg or greater, diastolic blood pressure 90 mm Hg or greater, or receiving antihypertensive medication within 4 weeks, at the second round of screening.
 

Cardiometabolic disease definitions

The researchers did not discriminate between type 1 and type 2 diabetes. They used the American Diabetes Association definition as a fasting plasma glucose 126 mg/dL or greater, 2-hour, postload plasma glucose 200 mg/dL or greater, or hemoglobin A1c 6.5% or greater, with an additional criterion on self-reported use of antidiabetic medication within 4 weeks before the visit.

In line with previous research, the investigators controlled for potential confounders measured at baseline including sociodemographic factors, health behaviors, and adiposity, which are considered important risk factors for both sleep disorders and incident metabolic diseases. These factors include education level, age, gender, and body mass index and whether participants had ever been smokers or users of alcohol.
 

Study limitations

Limitations of the study include use of a home sleep apnea test device that did not allow evaluation of arousal or sleep architecture. The researchers said this may have led to an underestimation of disease severity both due to overestimation of sleep time and underrecognition of hypopneas unassociated with desaturation. In addition, prior research has suggested that minority populations might underreport sleep disturbances, possibly “due to social desirability (a tendency not to encode a negative event), stress, stereotype threat, acculturation, attitudes, etc.” The participants were recruited mostly from urban areas, and the results might not be generalized to rural populations. In addition, 41% of study participants were of Mexican heritage, compared with 63% of the Hispanic population being of Mexican heritage in the United States.

Another researcher in the field of health disparities, Julia Roncoroni, PhD, assistant professor of psychology at the University of Denver, also noted this slight underrepresentation of Hispanics of Mexican origin and an overrepresentation of urban individuals in the HCHS/SOL.

“However, using data from HCHS/SOL, which is the largest multicenter epidemiological study of cardiovascular risk factors and sleep traits in U.S. Hispanics/Latinx, allows researchers to answer a high-impact question that would otherwise be prohibitively expensive and time consuming,” wrote Dr. Roncoroni.
 

Conclusions

The study offers “the first prospective evidence on the associations between SDB and insomnia with incident hypertension and diabetes in US Hispanics/Latinos.” The investigators concluded: “Given the fact that sleep disorders are largely undiagnosed and undertreated, they might represent modifiable targets for disease prevention and reduction among US Hispanics/Latinos. Culturally informed interventions focusing on detecting and treating sleep disorders might improve cardiometabolic health among US Hispanics/Latinos.”

Dr. Redline was partially supported by NIH grant R35 HL135818. This study drew from the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos, which has been supported by contracts from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

SOURCE: Li X et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020 Aug 6. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201912-2330OC.

Sleep disorders may be silent precursors of cardiometabolic disease among U.S. Latinos, said authors of a newly published study.

Xiaoyu Li, ScD, and Susan Redline, MD, MPH, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and coauthors conducted a study of people who self-identified as Latino, who had baseline sleeping disorders, and who developed hypertension and diabetes over time. The study was published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

The findings suggested that sleep disorders preceded the development of hypertension and diabetes. Examining records from a major multiyear federal project, the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos, Dr. Li, Dr. Redline, and coauthors found sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) was associated with a 1.54 higher adjusted odds of incident hypertension (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-2.00) and 1.33 higher odds of incident diabetes (95% CI, 1.05-1.67), compared with no SDB. Insomnia was associated with incident hypertension (odds ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.11-1.69), but not diabetes. The association between insomnia and incident hypertension was stronger among men than women, they reported.

“We now need large-scale rigorous trials to evaluate the impact of early treatment of sleep disordered breathing and insomnia on preventing the development of hypertension and diabetes,” Dr. Redline said in an interview. “Clinicians should consider screening their patients at risk for hypertension and diabetes for both sleep-disordered breathing and insomnia.”
 

Implications for public health strategies

The study results may have implications for health strategies and policies aimed at addressing health differentials among ethnic and economic groups in the United States.

Suboptimal sleep health may be an important fundamental but understudied contributor to health disparities, Chandra L. Jackson, PhD, MS, of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle, N.C., said in an interview. Dr. Jackson is the lead author for a report published in August on a 2018 National Institutes of Health workshop regarding the importance of studying sleep health disparities (Sleep 2020 Mar 10. doi: 10.1093/sleep/zsaa037). The NIH workshop emphasized how little research has been done on the prevalence, incidence, morbidity, or mortality of sleep deficiencies of racial and ethnic minority populations, even though members of these groups are generally more likely to experience sleep disorders. The report urged “a nuanced integration between health disparity causal pathways and sleep and circadian-related mechanisms” tailored for these groups, with attention paid to sociocultural context.

Dr. Jackson said the study by Dr. Li and colleagues fits nicely with the strategies recommended in this report. She added: “Prospective design is particularly important for establishing temporality or that the SDB and insomnia symptoms occurred before the outcomes of hypertension and diabetes.”

In commenting on the Xi/Redline paper, Krishna M. Sundar, MD, FCCP, medical director of the Sleep-Wake Center at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, commended the study and noted that one of the challenges in sleep research is the long time period over which the effects of disordered breathing become clear, he said.

“Things don’t happen immediately. It takes months, years for the effects to develop,” Dr. Sundar said. “To try to piece together the relationships, you need very well planned studies.”
 

Study design: Participants and exclusions

Latinos currently make up 17.8%, or 57.5 million, of the U.S. population, and this group is expected to double within the next 4 decades, the investigators wrote. A few prior studies on the roles of sleep disorders in the cardiometabolic health of Latinos, though suggestive, were limited by cross-sectional designs, relatively small samples, and underrepresentation of various Latino heritage groups.

The investigators on this new study worked with data from the federal Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL) in which more than 16,000 people participated.

This multiyear federal study drew people who self-identified with different heritage groups, including Cuban, Dominican, Mexican, Central American, South American, and Puerto Rican. Participants initially aged 18-74 years underwent a first round of exams and assessments between 2008 and 2011 to determine what risk factors they had at the start of the study. In the second phase, which took place from 2013 to 2018, participants had a second set of exams. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases funded the HCHS/SOL.

The investigators initially had a potential data pool of 11,623 participants in the HCHS/SOL. About 1 of 8 in this group, or 1,424 participants (12.3%), did not undergo a sleep study or did not have sufficient sleep data for analyses. Another 93 (0.8%) participants were excluded for missing data on covariates.

For incident hypertension analyses, participants who had prevalent hypertension at the first screening in the HCHS/SOL (n = 3,139) or had missing data on hypertension (n = 2) were excluded. That resulted in an analytic sample of 6,965 for hypertension questions.

For incident diabetes analyses, participants who had prevalent diabetes at the first screening (n = 2,062) or had missing data on diabetes (n = 21) were excluded, yielding an analytic sample of 8,023.

Incident hypertension was defined as participants not having hypertension at baseline and having hypertension, defined as a systolic blood pressure 140 mm Hg or greater, diastolic blood pressure 90 mm Hg or greater, or receiving antihypertensive medication within 4 weeks, at the second round of screening.
 

Cardiometabolic disease definitions

The researchers did not discriminate between type 1 and type 2 diabetes. They used the American Diabetes Association definition as a fasting plasma glucose 126 mg/dL or greater, 2-hour, postload plasma glucose 200 mg/dL or greater, or hemoglobin A1c 6.5% or greater, with an additional criterion on self-reported use of antidiabetic medication within 4 weeks before the visit.

In line with previous research, the investigators controlled for potential confounders measured at baseline including sociodemographic factors, health behaviors, and adiposity, which are considered important risk factors for both sleep disorders and incident metabolic diseases. These factors include education level, age, gender, and body mass index and whether participants had ever been smokers or users of alcohol.
 

Study limitations

Limitations of the study include use of a home sleep apnea test device that did not allow evaluation of arousal or sleep architecture. The researchers said this may have led to an underestimation of disease severity both due to overestimation of sleep time and underrecognition of hypopneas unassociated with desaturation. In addition, prior research has suggested that minority populations might underreport sleep disturbances, possibly “due to social desirability (a tendency not to encode a negative event), stress, stereotype threat, acculturation, attitudes, etc.” The participants were recruited mostly from urban areas, and the results might not be generalized to rural populations. In addition, 41% of study participants were of Mexican heritage, compared with 63% of the Hispanic population being of Mexican heritage in the United States.

Another researcher in the field of health disparities, Julia Roncoroni, PhD, assistant professor of psychology at the University of Denver, also noted this slight underrepresentation of Hispanics of Mexican origin and an overrepresentation of urban individuals in the HCHS/SOL.

“However, using data from HCHS/SOL, which is the largest multicenter epidemiological study of cardiovascular risk factors and sleep traits in U.S. Hispanics/Latinx, allows researchers to answer a high-impact question that would otherwise be prohibitively expensive and time consuming,” wrote Dr. Roncoroni.
 

Conclusions

The study offers “the first prospective evidence on the associations between SDB and insomnia with incident hypertension and diabetes in US Hispanics/Latinos.” The investigators concluded: “Given the fact that sleep disorders are largely undiagnosed and undertreated, they might represent modifiable targets for disease prevention and reduction among US Hispanics/Latinos. Culturally informed interventions focusing on detecting and treating sleep disorders might improve cardiometabolic health among US Hispanics/Latinos.”

Dr. Redline was partially supported by NIH grant R35 HL135818. This study drew from the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos, which has been supported by contracts from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

SOURCE: Li X et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020 Aug 6. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201912-2330OC.

Sleep disorders may be silent precursors of cardiometabolic disease among U.S. Latinos, said authors of a newly published study.

Xiaoyu Li, ScD, and Susan Redline, MD, MPH, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and coauthors conducted a study of people who self-identified as Latino, who had baseline sleeping disorders, and who developed hypertension and diabetes over time. The study was published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

The findings suggested that sleep disorders preceded the development of hypertension and diabetes. Examining records from a major multiyear federal project, the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos, Dr. Li, Dr. Redline, and coauthors found sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) was associated with a 1.54 higher adjusted odds of incident hypertension (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-2.00) and 1.33 higher odds of incident diabetes (95% CI, 1.05-1.67), compared with no SDB. Insomnia was associated with incident hypertension (odds ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.11-1.69), but not diabetes. The association between insomnia and incident hypertension was stronger among men than women, they reported.

“We now need large-scale rigorous trials to evaluate the impact of early treatment of sleep disordered breathing and insomnia on preventing the development of hypertension and diabetes,” Dr. Redline said in an interview. “Clinicians should consider screening their patients at risk for hypertension and diabetes for both sleep-disordered breathing and insomnia.”
 

Implications for public health strategies

The study results may have implications for health strategies and policies aimed at addressing health differentials among ethnic and economic groups in the United States.

Suboptimal sleep health may be an important fundamental but understudied contributor to health disparities, Chandra L. Jackson, PhD, MS, of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle, N.C., said in an interview. Dr. Jackson is the lead author for a report published in August on a 2018 National Institutes of Health workshop regarding the importance of studying sleep health disparities (Sleep 2020 Mar 10. doi: 10.1093/sleep/zsaa037). The NIH workshop emphasized how little research has been done on the prevalence, incidence, morbidity, or mortality of sleep deficiencies of racial and ethnic minority populations, even though members of these groups are generally more likely to experience sleep disorders. The report urged “a nuanced integration between health disparity causal pathways and sleep and circadian-related mechanisms” tailored for these groups, with attention paid to sociocultural context.

Dr. Jackson said the study by Dr. Li and colleagues fits nicely with the strategies recommended in this report. She added: “Prospective design is particularly important for establishing temporality or that the SDB and insomnia symptoms occurred before the outcomes of hypertension and diabetes.”

In commenting on the Xi/Redline paper, Krishna M. Sundar, MD, FCCP, medical director of the Sleep-Wake Center at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, commended the study and noted that one of the challenges in sleep research is the long time period over which the effects of disordered breathing become clear, he said.

“Things don’t happen immediately. It takes months, years for the effects to develop,” Dr. Sundar said. “To try to piece together the relationships, you need very well planned studies.”
 

Study design: Participants and exclusions

Latinos currently make up 17.8%, or 57.5 million, of the U.S. population, and this group is expected to double within the next 4 decades, the investigators wrote. A few prior studies on the roles of sleep disorders in the cardiometabolic health of Latinos, though suggestive, were limited by cross-sectional designs, relatively small samples, and underrepresentation of various Latino heritage groups.

The investigators on this new study worked with data from the federal Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL) in which more than 16,000 people participated.

This multiyear federal study drew people who self-identified with different heritage groups, including Cuban, Dominican, Mexican, Central American, South American, and Puerto Rican. Participants initially aged 18-74 years underwent a first round of exams and assessments between 2008 and 2011 to determine what risk factors they had at the start of the study. In the second phase, which took place from 2013 to 2018, participants had a second set of exams. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases funded the HCHS/SOL.

The investigators initially had a potential data pool of 11,623 participants in the HCHS/SOL. About 1 of 8 in this group, or 1,424 participants (12.3%), did not undergo a sleep study or did not have sufficient sleep data for analyses. Another 93 (0.8%) participants were excluded for missing data on covariates.

For incident hypertension analyses, participants who had prevalent hypertension at the first screening in the HCHS/SOL (n = 3,139) or had missing data on hypertension (n = 2) were excluded. That resulted in an analytic sample of 6,965 for hypertension questions.

For incident diabetes analyses, participants who had prevalent diabetes at the first screening (n = 2,062) or had missing data on diabetes (n = 21) were excluded, yielding an analytic sample of 8,023.

Incident hypertension was defined as participants not having hypertension at baseline and having hypertension, defined as a systolic blood pressure 140 mm Hg or greater, diastolic blood pressure 90 mm Hg or greater, or receiving antihypertensive medication within 4 weeks, at the second round of screening.
 

Cardiometabolic disease definitions

The researchers did not discriminate between type 1 and type 2 diabetes. They used the American Diabetes Association definition as a fasting plasma glucose 126 mg/dL or greater, 2-hour, postload plasma glucose 200 mg/dL or greater, or hemoglobin A1c 6.5% or greater, with an additional criterion on self-reported use of antidiabetic medication within 4 weeks before the visit.

In line with previous research, the investigators controlled for potential confounders measured at baseline including sociodemographic factors, health behaviors, and adiposity, which are considered important risk factors for both sleep disorders and incident metabolic diseases. These factors include education level, age, gender, and body mass index and whether participants had ever been smokers or users of alcohol.
 

Study limitations

Limitations of the study include use of a home sleep apnea test device that did not allow evaluation of arousal or sleep architecture. The researchers said this may have led to an underestimation of disease severity both due to overestimation of sleep time and underrecognition of hypopneas unassociated with desaturation. In addition, prior research has suggested that minority populations might underreport sleep disturbances, possibly “due to social desirability (a tendency not to encode a negative event), stress, stereotype threat, acculturation, attitudes, etc.” The participants were recruited mostly from urban areas, and the results might not be generalized to rural populations. In addition, 41% of study participants were of Mexican heritage, compared with 63% of the Hispanic population being of Mexican heritage in the United States.

Another researcher in the field of health disparities, Julia Roncoroni, PhD, assistant professor of psychology at the University of Denver, also noted this slight underrepresentation of Hispanics of Mexican origin and an overrepresentation of urban individuals in the HCHS/SOL.

“However, using data from HCHS/SOL, which is the largest multicenter epidemiological study of cardiovascular risk factors and sleep traits in U.S. Hispanics/Latinx, allows researchers to answer a high-impact question that would otherwise be prohibitively expensive and time consuming,” wrote Dr. Roncoroni.
 

Conclusions

The study offers “the first prospective evidence on the associations between SDB and insomnia with incident hypertension and diabetes in US Hispanics/Latinos.” The investigators concluded: “Given the fact that sleep disorders are largely undiagnosed and undertreated, they might represent modifiable targets for disease prevention and reduction among US Hispanics/Latinos. Culturally informed interventions focusing on detecting and treating sleep disorders might improve cardiometabolic health among US Hispanics/Latinos.”

Dr. Redline was partially supported by NIH grant R35 HL135818. This study drew from the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos, which has been supported by contracts from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

SOURCE: Li X et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020 Aug 6. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201912-2330OC.

Shorter sleep duration, more wakefulness, and changes in the sleep cycle brought on by microgravity make it tough for astronauts to get a good night’s sleep while they’re in outer space, a new study shows. In research that has implications for earthlings as well as astronauts, scientists found that the “significant sleep changes induced by the extreme environmental conditions of spaceflight can magnify and help reveal similar, though potentially less noticeable, changes that are induced by the more moderate conditions of Earth.

“Our results support other studies indicating that sleep architecture can adapt to different environments. Also, the sleep deficits that our subjects were facing while working around the clock in a high-pressure environment provide further evidence for the danger of stress and shift-work schedules for humans anywhere,” study investigator Oliver Piltch, of Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., said in a release.

The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

Sleep architecture affected

The researchers studied sleep architecture in four cosmonauts and one astronaut before, during, and after missions to the Mir space station. Using the NightCap sleep monitor, they recorded a total of 324 nights of sleep – 112 preflight nights, 83 in-flight nights, and 61 postflight nights.

Despite having the same “sleep opportunity” in space as on earth, the astronauts were on average sleeping an hour less each night during the space mission compared with when on earth before or after their mission (5.7 vs. 6.7 hours; P < .0001). In space, the astronauts also spent significantly more time awake in bed, leading to a 17.7% reduction in sleep efficiency.

Sleep architecture was also affected by spaceflight. In space, the time in non–rapid eye movement (non–REM) and REM sleep decreased by 14.1% and 25.8%, respectively. On average, it took about 90 minutes after falling asleep for astronauts to reach their first episode of REM sleep in space – nearly 1.5 times longer than on earth. “There were marked shifts in sleep architecture compared to baseline, and some of these evolved over the course of the mission,” said Mr. Piltch.

“Our findings were consistent with previous studies that focus on the issue of sleep continuity. We found significant decreases in sleep efficiency during spaceflight despite similar times in bed,” he noted.

Mr. Piltch said it’s important to understand how sleep is affected by spaceflight in order to better equip astronauts for success on long-duration flights, such as a trip to Mars or the Moon. He also pointed to a recent study in the Lancet Neurology that showed that 78% of the international space station crew take hypnotics on 52% of nights in space. “So it doesn’t look like they sleep very well in space,” he said.
 

High-stakes environment

Reached for comment, Camilo A. Ruiz, DO, medical director, Choice Physicians Sleep Center, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., said the findings add to the “limited” data currently available on sleep in space and microgravity. “To a certain point, the results of this study could have been expected since sleep continuity and sleep architecture disruption is present during stressful periods of human life or in changes to the sleep rituals we hold dear, such as our beds and quiet bedrooms,” said Dr. Ruiz, who was not involved in the study.

“The potential harm to astronauts from their sleep continuity and deranged sleep architecture is that the decreased alertness, performance, vigilance, and psychomotor skills they exhibit in that high-stakes environment such as space flight can lead to serious accidents that can jeopardize the safety of the crew and vessel,” Dr. Ruiz noted.

“These research areas are on the forefront of space medicine that will allow mankind to lead successful interplanetary missions and colonization of these planets with long-term resident astronauts,” he added.

The study was supported by funding from the Mary Gordon Roberts Fellowship, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Institute of Mental Health, the MacArthur Foundation Mind-Body Network, and Healthdyne Technologies. Mr. Piltch and Dr. Ruiz have no disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Shorter sleep duration, more wakefulness, and changes in the sleep cycle brought on by microgravity make it tough for astronauts to get a good night’s sleep while they’re in outer space, a new study shows. In research that has implications for earthlings as well as astronauts, scientists found that the “significant sleep changes induced by the extreme environmental conditions of spaceflight can magnify and help reveal similar, though potentially less noticeable, changes that are induced by the more moderate conditions of Earth.

“Our results support other studies indicating that sleep architecture can adapt to different environments. Also, the sleep deficits that our subjects were facing while working around the clock in a high-pressure environment provide further evidence for the danger of stress and shift-work schedules for humans anywhere,” study investigator Oliver Piltch, of Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., said in a release.

The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

Sleep architecture affected

The researchers studied sleep architecture in four cosmonauts and one astronaut before, during, and after missions to the Mir space station. Using the NightCap sleep monitor, they recorded a total of 324 nights of sleep – 112 preflight nights, 83 in-flight nights, and 61 postflight nights.

Despite having the same “sleep opportunity” in space as on earth, the astronauts were on average sleeping an hour less each night during the space mission compared with when on earth before or after their mission (5.7 vs. 6.7 hours; P < .0001). In space, the astronauts also spent significantly more time awake in bed, leading to a 17.7% reduction in sleep efficiency.

Sleep architecture was also affected by spaceflight. In space, the time in non–rapid eye movement (non–REM) and REM sleep decreased by 14.1% and 25.8%, respectively. On average, it took about 90 minutes after falling asleep for astronauts to reach their first episode of REM sleep in space – nearly 1.5 times longer than on earth. “There were marked shifts in sleep architecture compared to baseline, and some of these evolved over the course of the mission,” said Mr. Piltch.

“Our findings were consistent with previous studies that focus on the issue of sleep continuity. We found significant decreases in sleep efficiency during spaceflight despite similar times in bed,” he noted.

Mr. Piltch said it’s important to understand how sleep is affected by spaceflight in order to better equip astronauts for success on long-duration flights, such as a trip to Mars or the Moon. He also pointed to a recent study in the Lancet Neurology that showed that 78% of the international space station crew take hypnotics on 52% of nights in space. “So it doesn’t look like they sleep very well in space,” he said.
 

High-stakes environment

Reached for comment, Camilo A. Ruiz, DO, medical director, Choice Physicians Sleep Center, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., said the findings add to the “limited” data currently available on sleep in space and microgravity. “To a certain point, the results of this study could have been expected since sleep continuity and sleep architecture disruption is present during stressful periods of human life or in changes to the sleep rituals we hold dear, such as our beds and quiet bedrooms,” said Dr. Ruiz, who was not involved in the study.

“The potential harm to astronauts from their sleep continuity and deranged sleep architecture is that the decreased alertness, performance, vigilance, and psychomotor skills they exhibit in that high-stakes environment such as space flight can lead to serious accidents that can jeopardize the safety of the crew and vessel,” Dr. Ruiz noted.

“These research areas are on the forefront of space medicine that will allow mankind to lead successful interplanetary missions and colonization of these planets with long-term resident astronauts,” he added.

The study was supported by funding from the Mary Gordon Roberts Fellowship, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Institute of Mental Health, the MacArthur Foundation Mind-Body Network, and Healthdyne Technologies. Mr. Piltch and Dr. Ruiz have no disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Shorter sleep duration, more wakefulness, and changes in the sleep cycle brought on by microgravity make it tough for astronauts to get a good night’s sleep while they’re in outer space, a new study shows. In research that has implications for earthlings as well as astronauts, scientists found that the “significant sleep changes induced by the extreme environmental conditions of spaceflight can magnify and help reveal similar, though potentially less noticeable, changes that are induced by the more moderate conditions of Earth.

“Our results support other studies indicating that sleep architecture can adapt to different environments. Also, the sleep deficits that our subjects were facing while working around the clock in a high-pressure environment provide further evidence for the danger of stress and shift-work schedules for humans anywhere,” study investigator Oliver Piltch, of Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., said in a release.

The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

Sleep architecture affected

The researchers studied sleep architecture in four cosmonauts and one astronaut before, during, and after missions to the Mir space station. Using the NightCap sleep monitor, they recorded a total of 324 nights of sleep – 112 preflight nights, 83 in-flight nights, and 61 postflight nights.

Despite having the same “sleep opportunity” in space as on earth, the astronauts were on average sleeping an hour less each night during the space mission compared with when on earth before or after their mission (5.7 vs. 6.7 hours; P < .0001). In space, the astronauts also spent significantly more time awake in bed, leading to a 17.7% reduction in sleep efficiency.

Sleep architecture was also affected by spaceflight. In space, the time in non–rapid eye movement (non–REM) and REM sleep decreased by 14.1% and 25.8%, respectively. On average, it took about 90 minutes after falling asleep for astronauts to reach their first episode of REM sleep in space – nearly 1.5 times longer than on earth. “There were marked shifts in sleep architecture compared to baseline, and some of these evolved over the course of the mission,” said Mr. Piltch.

“Our findings were consistent with previous studies that focus on the issue of sleep continuity. We found significant decreases in sleep efficiency during spaceflight despite similar times in bed,” he noted.

Mr. Piltch said it’s important to understand how sleep is affected by spaceflight in order to better equip astronauts for success on long-duration flights, such as a trip to Mars or the Moon. He also pointed to a recent study in the Lancet Neurology that showed that 78% of the international space station crew take hypnotics on 52% of nights in space. “So it doesn’t look like they sleep very well in space,” he said.
 

High-stakes environment

Reached for comment, Camilo A. Ruiz, DO, medical director, Choice Physicians Sleep Center, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., said the findings add to the “limited” data currently available on sleep in space and microgravity. “To a certain point, the results of this study could have been expected since sleep continuity and sleep architecture disruption is present during stressful periods of human life or in changes to the sleep rituals we hold dear, such as our beds and quiet bedrooms,” said Dr. Ruiz, who was not involved in the study.

“The potential harm to astronauts from their sleep continuity and deranged sleep architecture is that the decreased alertness, performance, vigilance, and psychomotor skills they exhibit in that high-stakes environment such as space flight can lead to serious accidents that can jeopardize the safety of the crew and vessel,” Dr. Ruiz noted.

“These research areas are on the forefront of space medicine that will allow mankind to lead successful interplanetary missions and colonization of these planets with long-term resident astronauts,” he added.

The study was supported by funding from the Mary Gordon Roberts Fellowship, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Institute of Mental Health, the MacArthur Foundation Mind-Body Network, and Healthdyne Technologies. Mr. Piltch and Dr. Ruiz have no disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved an oral form of azacitidine (Onureg) for use as maintenance therapy for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who have achieved a first complete remission.

The approval extends to patients who have achieved complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery following intensive induction chemotherapy and who are unable to complete intensive curative therapy.

The approval was based on data from the QUAZAR AML-001 trial, which showed that oral azacitidine significantly improved overall survival when compared with placebo.

“It’s not too hard to get these patients into remission,” Harry P. Erba, MD, PhD, director of the Leukemia Program at the Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, N.C., said in an interview last year when these results were first presented at the 2019 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. “The problem comes in keeping them in remission.”

Despite various attempts, there has been no success over the past 30 years in defining maintenance treatment for these patients, Andrew H. Wei, MBBS, PhD, from the Alfred Hospital in Melbourne, Australia, said.

“Oral azacitidine represents a new therapeutic standard for patients with AML in remission,” he said.

Azacitidine is a hypomethylating agent that incorporates into DNA and RNA. It has long been used as an injectable therapy for the treatment of myelodysplastic syndromes.

The approval of the new oral formulation for the new indication of AML “is the culmination of over a decade of research and 13 preclinical and clinical trials,” said Giovanni Caforio, M.D., chairman and chief executive officer of Bristol-Myers Squibb, in a statement.

QUAZAR results

The QUAZAR AML-001 trial was a phase 3, international study involving 472 patients with AML who were within achieving a first complete remission or remission with incomplete blood recovery. All patients had received intensive induction chemotherapy with or without consolidation treatment per investigator preference prior to study entry and were not candidates for hematopoietic stem cell transplant at the time of screening.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either oral azacitidine 200 mg daily on days 1-14 of a repeat 28-day cycle (n = 278) or matching placebo (n = 274). Treatment was continued indefinitely until blast count was more than 15% or patients experienced unacceptable toxicity or underwent transplant.

At a median follow-up of more than 41.2 months, the median overall survival was significantly longer for patients who received oral azacitidine at 24.7 months versus 14.8 months for those who received placebo (hazard ratio, 0.69; P < .0009).

Relapse-free survival was also significantly prolonged to 10.2 months for patients who received oral azacitidine vs. 4.8 months for those who received placebo (HR, 0.65; P < .0001).

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 15% of patients who received azacitidine. Events that occurred in 2% of patients or more include pneumonia (8%) and febrile neutropenia (7%). There was one fatal event.

The most common adverse reactions were nausea (65% vs. 24%), vomiting (60% vs. 10%), diarrhea (50% vs. 21%), fatigue/asthenia (44% vs. 25%), constipation (39% vs. 24%), pneumonia (27% vs. 17%), abdominal pain (22% vs. 13%) arthralgia (14% vs. 10%), decreased appetite (13% vs. 6%), febrile neutropenia (12% vs. 8%), dizziness (11% vs. 9%), and pain in extremity (11% vs. 5%). Permanent discontinuation because of an adverse reaction occurred in 8% of patients.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved an oral form of azacitidine (Onureg) for use as maintenance therapy for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who have achieved a first complete remission.

The approval extends to patients who have achieved complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery following intensive induction chemotherapy and who are unable to complete intensive curative therapy.

The approval was based on data from the QUAZAR AML-001 trial, which showed that oral azacitidine significantly improved overall survival when compared with placebo.

“It’s not too hard to get these patients into remission,” Harry P. Erba, MD, PhD, director of the Leukemia Program at the Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, N.C., said in an interview last year when these results were first presented at the 2019 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. “The problem comes in keeping them in remission.”

Despite various attempts, there has been no success over the past 30 years in defining maintenance treatment for these patients, Andrew H. Wei, MBBS, PhD, from the Alfred Hospital in Melbourne, Australia, said.

“Oral azacitidine represents a new therapeutic standard for patients with AML in remission,” he said.

Azacitidine is a hypomethylating agent that incorporates into DNA and RNA. It has long been used as an injectable therapy for the treatment of myelodysplastic syndromes.

The approval of the new oral formulation for the new indication of AML “is the culmination of over a decade of research and 13 preclinical and clinical trials,” said Giovanni Caforio, M.D., chairman and chief executive officer of Bristol-Myers Squibb, in a statement.

QUAZAR results

The QUAZAR AML-001 trial was a phase 3, international study involving 472 patients with AML who were within achieving a first complete remission or remission with incomplete blood recovery. All patients had received intensive induction chemotherapy with or without consolidation treatment per investigator preference prior to study entry and were not candidates for hematopoietic stem cell transplant at the time of screening.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either oral azacitidine 200 mg daily on days 1-14 of a repeat 28-day cycle (n = 278) or matching placebo (n = 274). Treatment was continued indefinitely until blast count was more than 15% or patients experienced unacceptable toxicity or underwent transplant.

At a median follow-up of more than 41.2 months, the median overall survival was significantly longer for patients who received oral azacitidine at 24.7 months versus 14.8 months for those who received placebo (hazard ratio, 0.69; P < .0009).

Relapse-free survival was also significantly prolonged to 10.2 months for patients who received oral azacitidine vs. 4.8 months for those who received placebo (HR, 0.65; P < .0001).

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 15% of patients who received azacitidine. Events that occurred in 2% of patients or more include pneumonia (8%) and febrile neutropenia (7%). There was one fatal event.

The most common adverse reactions were nausea (65% vs. 24%), vomiting (60% vs. 10%), diarrhea (50% vs. 21%), fatigue/asthenia (44% vs. 25%), constipation (39% vs. 24%), pneumonia (27% vs. 17%), abdominal pain (22% vs. 13%) arthralgia (14% vs. 10%), decreased appetite (13% vs. 6%), febrile neutropenia (12% vs. 8%), dizziness (11% vs. 9%), and pain in extremity (11% vs. 5%). Permanent discontinuation because of an adverse reaction occurred in 8% of patients.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved an oral form of azacitidine (Onureg) for use as maintenance therapy for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who have achieved a first complete remission.

The approval extends to patients who have achieved complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery following intensive induction chemotherapy and who are unable to complete intensive curative therapy.

The approval was based on data from the QUAZAR AML-001 trial, which showed that oral azacitidine significantly improved overall survival when compared with placebo.

“It’s not too hard to get these patients into remission,” Harry P. Erba, MD, PhD, director of the Leukemia Program at the Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, N.C., said in an interview last year when these results were first presented at the 2019 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. “The problem comes in keeping them in remission.”

Despite various attempts, there has been no success over the past 30 years in defining maintenance treatment for these patients, Andrew H. Wei, MBBS, PhD, from the Alfred Hospital in Melbourne, Australia, said.

“Oral azacitidine represents a new therapeutic standard for patients with AML in remission,” he said.

Azacitidine is a hypomethylating agent that incorporates into DNA and RNA. It has long been used as an injectable therapy for the treatment of myelodysplastic syndromes.

The approval of the new oral formulation for the new indication of AML “is the culmination of over a decade of research and 13 preclinical and clinical trials,” said Giovanni Caforio, M.D., chairman and chief executive officer of Bristol-Myers Squibb, in a statement.

QUAZAR results

The QUAZAR AML-001 trial was a phase 3, international study involving 472 patients with AML who were within achieving a first complete remission or remission with incomplete blood recovery. All patients had received intensive induction chemotherapy with or without consolidation treatment per investigator preference prior to study entry and were not candidates for hematopoietic stem cell transplant at the time of screening.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either oral azacitidine 200 mg daily on days 1-14 of a repeat 28-day cycle (n = 278) or matching placebo (n = 274). Treatment was continued indefinitely until blast count was more than 15% or patients experienced unacceptable toxicity or underwent transplant.

At a median follow-up of more than 41.2 months, the median overall survival was significantly longer for patients who received oral azacitidine at 24.7 months versus 14.8 months for those who received placebo (hazard ratio, 0.69; P < .0009).

Relapse-free survival was also significantly prolonged to 10.2 months for patients who received oral azacitidine vs. 4.8 months for those who received placebo (HR, 0.65; P < .0001).

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 15% of patients who received azacitidine. Events that occurred in 2% of patients or more include pneumonia (8%) and febrile neutropenia (7%). There was one fatal event.

The most common adverse reactions were nausea (65% vs. 24%), vomiting (60% vs. 10%), diarrhea (50% vs. 21%), fatigue/asthenia (44% vs. 25%), constipation (39% vs. 24%), pneumonia (27% vs. 17%), abdominal pain (22% vs. 13%) arthralgia (14% vs. 10%), decreased appetite (13% vs. 6%), febrile neutropenia (12% vs. 8%), dizziness (11% vs. 9%), and pain in extremity (11% vs. 5%). Permanent discontinuation because of an adverse reaction occurred in 8% of patients.
 

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

The anti-inflammatory drug colchicine picked up new support as secondary prevention in chronic coronary disease, cutting the risk of cardiovascular events by one-third when added to standard prevention therapies in the double-blind LoDoCo2 study.

Across a median follow up of 29 months in more than 5,000 patients, almost 1 in 10 patients assigned to placebo experienced the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke, or ischemia-driven coronary revascularization. That risk was 31% lower and resulted in 77 fewer events in those assigned to colchicine (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.83).

The beneficial effect of low-dose colchicine 0.5 mg daily was seen early on and accrued over time, extending to five of the eight secondary end points, including a near 30% reduction in the composite of major adverse cardiac events, as well as reductions in the individual endpoints of MI and ischemia-driven revascularization.

“It did that with broadly consistent effects across a range of clinical subgroups, which together speak to the strength of the effect of colchicine on cardiovascular outcomes in the sort of patients we routinely see in our clinics,” primary investigator Mark Nidorf, MD, MBBS, GenesisCare Western Australia, Perth, said at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The results were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine (2020 Aug 31. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2021372).

“The totality of evidence from the big three double-blind placebo controlled trials – CANTOS, COLCOT, and LoDoCo2 – are highly consistent and should be practice changing,” Paul Ridker, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said in an interview.

Massimo Imazio, MD, the formal discussant for the study and professor of cardiology at the University of Turin, Italy, also called for repurposing the inexpensive gout medication for cardiovascular patients.

“I would like to congratulate the authors for a well-designed, large, randomized trial that in my view provides convincing evidence that colchicine is safe and efficacious for secondary prevention in chronic coronary syndrome, of course if tolerated,” he said.

Dr. Imazio noted that colchicine demonstrated similar benefits in the smaller, open-label LoDoCo trial, but that 1 in 10 patients couldn’t tolerate the drug, largely because of gastrointestinal issues. The LoCoDo2 investigators very wisely opted for a 30-day run-in period for tolerance without a loading dose, and 90% of patients in each arm continued study medication while 3.4% stopped because of perceived effects.

Clinicians should bear in mind the potential for side effects and interactions with other medications, particularly statins, observed Dr. Imazio. “So monitoring of repeat blood tests is indicated, especially blood cell count, transaminase, and [creatine kinase] CK.”

Colchicine can be problematic in patients with chronic kidney disease because it is renally excreted, particularly if patients also take some common antibiotics such as clarithromycin, said Dr. Ridker, who led the landmark CANTOS trial. “So while these data are exciting and confirm the importance of inflammation inhibition in stable coronary disease, colchicine is not for all patients.”

During the discussion of the results, Dr. Nidorf said: “We were very concerned at the outset that there would be an interaction because there is certainly literature there, particularly in renal patients. But as the data showed, the incidence of myotoxicity was decidedly rare.”

Further, myotoxic episodes were independently assessed by a blinded reviewer, and although there was one case of mild rhabdomyolysis in the treatment group, it was considered not primarily caused by colchicine, he said. “So we’re fairly comfortable that you can use colchicine at a low dose quite comfortably with full-dose statins.”

Notably, 94% of patients in both groups were taking statins, and two-thirds were on moderate- or high-dose statins. About one-quarter were on dual-antiplatelet therapy, and 12% were on an anticoagulant.

In all, 5,522 patients aged 35-82 years (mean, 66 years) were randomly assigned to colchicine 0.5 mg once daily or placebo on top of proven secondary prevention therapies, and all but one was available for analysis.

Most were male (85%), one-half had hypertension, 18% had diabetes, and 84% had a history of acute coronary syndrome, with an equal number having undergone revascularization. Patients with advanced renal disease, severe heart failure, or severe valvular heart disease were excluded.

Colchicine, when compared with placebo, was associated with significantly lower incidence rates of the top five ranked secondary endpoints:

• Cardiovascular death, MI, or ischemic stroke (4.2% vs. 5.7%; HR, 0.72).
• MI or ischemia-driven revascularization (5.6% vs. 8.1%; HR, 0.67).
• Cardiovascular death or MI (3.6% vs. 5.0%; HR, 0.71).
• Ischemia-driven revascularization (4.9% vs. 6.4%; HR, 0.75).
• MI (3.0% vs. 4.2%; HR, 0.70).

The incidence rates were similar among the remaining three secondary outcomes: ischemic stroke (0.6% vs. 0.9%), all-cause death (2.6% vs. 2.2%), and CV death (0.7% vs. 0.9%), Dr. Nidorf reported.

The effect of colchicine was consistent in 13 subgroups, including those with and without hypertension, diabetes, or prior acute coronary syndrome. Patients in Australia appeared to do better with colchicine than did those in the Netherlands, which was a bit unexpected but likely caused by the play of chance, Dr. Nidorf said.

“Importantly, the effect when we looked at the predictors of outcome of our patients in this trial, they related to factors such as age and diabetes, which were included in both populations. So we believe the effect of therapy to be universal,” he added.

Session moderator Stephan Achenbach, MD, chair of cardiology at the University of Erlangen (Germany), however, noted that event rates were about 3% per year and many patients had undergone coronary revascularizations for acute coronary syndromes, suggesting this may be a preselected, somewhat higher-risk cohort. “Do you think we can transfer these findings to the just-average patient who comes in with chest pain and gets an elective [percutaneous coronary intervention]?” he asked.

Dr. Nidorf replied that, unlike the patients in COLCOT, who were randomized to colchicine within 30 days of an MI, acute events occurred more than 24 months before randomization in most (68.2%) patients. As such, patients were quite stable, and major adverse cardiac event and cardiovascular death rates were also exceedingly low.

“We did not see them as a particularly high-risk group, which I think is one of the beauties of this study,” Dr. Nidorf said. “It looks at people that are very similar to those who come and meet us in our clinics for regular review and follow-up.”

“And in that regard, I think the next time we’re faced with patients in our rooms, we have to ask the question: Are we doing enough for this patient beyond aspirin and statins? Should we be considering treating the inflammatory axis? And now we have an opportunity to do that,” he said.

Serious adverse effects were similar in the colchicine and placebo groups, including hospitalizations for infection (5.0% vs. 5.2%), pneumonia (1.7% vs. 2.0%), or gastrointestinal reasons (1.9% vs. 1.8%). Myotoxicity occurred in four and three patients, respectively.

Although the signal for increased risk of infection observed in CANTOS and COLCOT was not borne out, Dr. Nidorf observed that chest infections can occur frequently in these patients and echoed cautions about a potential unfavorable interaction between clarithromycin and colchicine.

“If we are to use this drug widely, clinicians will need to learn how to use this drug and what drugs to avoid, and that’s an important teaching point,” he said.

Limitations of the study are the small number of women and lack of routine measurement of C-reactive protein or other inflammatory markers at baseline.

The study was supported by the National Health Medical Research Council of Australia, a grant from the Sir Charles Gairdner Research Advisory Committee, the Withering Foundation the Netherlands, the Netherlands Heart Foundation, the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, and a consortium of Teva, Disphar, and Tiofarma in the Netherlands. The authors’ disclosures are listed in the article.
 

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

The anti-inflammatory drug colchicine picked up new support as secondary prevention in chronic coronary disease, cutting the risk of cardiovascular events by one-third when added to standard prevention therapies in the double-blind LoDoCo2 study.

Across a median follow up of 29 months in more than 5,000 patients, almost 1 in 10 patients assigned to placebo experienced the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke, or ischemia-driven coronary revascularization. That risk was 31% lower and resulted in 77 fewer events in those assigned to colchicine (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.83).

The beneficial effect of low-dose colchicine 0.5 mg daily was seen early on and accrued over time, extending to five of the eight secondary end points, including a near 30% reduction in the composite of major adverse cardiac events, as well as reductions in the individual endpoints of MI and ischemia-driven revascularization.

“It did that with broadly consistent effects across a range of clinical subgroups, which together speak to the strength of the effect of colchicine on cardiovascular outcomes in the sort of patients we routinely see in our clinics,” primary investigator Mark Nidorf, MD, MBBS, GenesisCare Western Australia, Perth, said at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The results were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine (2020 Aug 31. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2021372).

“The totality of evidence from the big three double-blind placebo controlled trials – CANTOS, COLCOT, and LoDoCo2 – are highly consistent and should be practice changing,” Paul Ridker, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said in an interview.

Massimo Imazio, MD, the formal discussant for the study and professor of cardiology at the University of Turin, Italy, also called for repurposing the inexpensive gout medication for cardiovascular patients.

“I would like to congratulate the authors for a well-designed, large, randomized trial that in my view provides convincing evidence that colchicine is safe and efficacious for secondary prevention in chronic coronary syndrome, of course if tolerated,” he said.

Dr. Imazio noted that colchicine demonstrated similar benefits in the smaller, open-label LoDoCo trial, but that 1 in 10 patients couldn’t tolerate the drug, largely because of gastrointestinal issues. The LoCoDo2 investigators very wisely opted for a 30-day run-in period for tolerance without a loading dose, and 90% of patients in each arm continued study medication while 3.4% stopped because of perceived effects.

Clinicians should bear in mind the potential for side effects and interactions with other medications, particularly statins, observed Dr. Imazio. “So monitoring of repeat blood tests is indicated, especially blood cell count, transaminase, and [creatine kinase] CK.”

Colchicine can be problematic in patients with chronic kidney disease because it is renally excreted, particularly if patients also take some common antibiotics such as clarithromycin, said Dr. Ridker, who led the landmark CANTOS trial. “So while these data are exciting and confirm the importance of inflammation inhibition in stable coronary disease, colchicine is not for all patients.”

During the discussion of the results, Dr. Nidorf said: “We were very concerned at the outset that there would be an interaction because there is certainly literature there, particularly in renal patients. But as the data showed, the incidence of myotoxicity was decidedly rare.”

Further, myotoxic episodes were independently assessed by a blinded reviewer, and although there was one case of mild rhabdomyolysis in the treatment group, it was considered not primarily caused by colchicine, he said. “So we’re fairly comfortable that you can use colchicine at a low dose quite comfortably with full-dose statins.”

Notably, 94% of patients in both groups were taking statins, and two-thirds were on moderate- or high-dose statins. About one-quarter were on dual-antiplatelet therapy, and 12% were on an anticoagulant.

In all, 5,522 patients aged 35-82 years (mean, 66 years) were randomly assigned to colchicine 0.5 mg once daily or placebo on top of proven secondary prevention therapies, and all but one was available for analysis.

Most were male (85%), one-half had hypertension, 18% had diabetes, and 84% had a history of acute coronary syndrome, with an equal number having undergone revascularization. Patients with advanced renal disease, severe heart failure, or severe valvular heart disease were excluded.

Colchicine, when compared with placebo, was associated with significantly lower incidence rates of the top five ranked secondary endpoints:

• Cardiovascular death, MI, or ischemic stroke (4.2% vs. 5.7%; HR, 0.72).
• MI or ischemia-driven revascularization (5.6% vs. 8.1%; HR, 0.67).
• Cardiovascular death or MI (3.6% vs. 5.0%; HR, 0.71).
• Ischemia-driven revascularization (4.9% vs. 6.4%; HR, 0.75).
• MI (3.0% vs. 4.2%; HR, 0.70).

The incidence rates were similar among the remaining three secondary outcomes: ischemic stroke (0.6% vs. 0.9%), all-cause death (2.6% vs. 2.2%), and CV death (0.7% vs. 0.9%), Dr. Nidorf reported.

The effect of colchicine was consistent in 13 subgroups, including those with and without hypertension, diabetes, or prior acute coronary syndrome. Patients in Australia appeared to do better with colchicine than did those in the Netherlands, which was a bit unexpected but likely caused by the play of chance, Dr. Nidorf said.

“Importantly, the effect when we looked at the predictors of outcome of our patients in this trial, they related to factors such as age and diabetes, which were included in both populations. So we believe the effect of therapy to be universal,” he added.

Session moderator Stephan Achenbach, MD, chair of cardiology at the University of Erlangen (Germany), however, noted that event rates were about 3% per year and many patients had undergone coronary revascularizations for acute coronary syndromes, suggesting this may be a preselected, somewhat higher-risk cohort. “Do you think we can transfer these findings to the just-average patient who comes in with chest pain and gets an elective [percutaneous coronary intervention]?” he asked.

Dr. Nidorf replied that, unlike the patients in COLCOT, who were randomized to colchicine within 30 days of an MI, acute events occurred more than 24 months before randomization in most (68.2%) patients. As such, patients were quite stable, and major adverse cardiac event and cardiovascular death rates were also exceedingly low.

“We did not see them as a particularly high-risk group, which I think is one of the beauties of this study,” Dr. Nidorf said. “It looks at people that are very similar to those who come and meet us in our clinics for regular review and follow-up.”

“And in that regard, I think the next time we’re faced with patients in our rooms, we have to ask the question: Are we doing enough for this patient beyond aspirin and statins? Should we be considering treating the inflammatory axis? And now we have an opportunity to do that,” he said.

Serious adverse effects were similar in the colchicine and placebo groups, including hospitalizations for infection (5.0% vs. 5.2%), pneumonia (1.7% vs. 2.0%), or gastrointestinal reasons (1.9% vs. 1.8%). Myotoxicity occurred in four and three patients, respectively.

Although the signal for increased risk of infection observed in CANTOS and COLCOT was not borne out, Dr. Nidorf observed that chest infections can occur frequently in these patients and echoed cautions about a potential unfavorable interaction between clarithromycin and colchicine.

“If we are to use this drug widely, clinicians will need to learn how to use this drug and what drugs to avoid, and that’s an important teaching point,” he said.

Limitations of the study are the small number of women and lack of routine measurement of C-reactive protein or other inflammatory markers at baseline.

The study was supported by the National Health Medical Research Council of Australia, a grant from the Sir Charles Gairdner Research Advisory Committee, the Withering Foundation the Netherlands, the Netherlands Heart Foundation, the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, and a consortium of Teva, Disphar, and Tiofarma in the Netherlands. The authors’ disclosures are listed in the article.
 

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

The anti-inflammatory drug colchicine picked up new support as secondary prevention in chronic coronary disease, cutting the risk of cardiovascular events by one-third when added to standard prevention therapies in the double-blind LoDoCo2 study.

Across a median follow up of 29 months in more than 5,000 patients, almost 1 in 10 patients assigned to placebo experienced the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke, or ischemia-driven coronary revascularization. That risk was 31% lower and resulted in 77 fewer events in those assigned to colchicine (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.83).

The beneficial effect of low-dose colchicine 0.5 mg daily was seen early on and accrued over time, extending to five of the eight secondary end points, including a near 30% reduction in the composite of major adverse cardiac events, as well as reductions in the individual endpoints of MI and ischemia-driven revascularization.

“It did that with broadly consistent effects across a range of clinical subgroups, which together speak to the strength of the effect of colchicine on cardiovascular outcomes in the sort of patients we routinely see in our clinics,” primary investigator Mark Nidorf, MD, MBBS, GenesisCare Western Australia, Perth, said at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The results were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine (2020 Aug 31. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2021372).

“The totality of evidence from the big three double-blind placebo controlled trials – CANTOS, COLCOT, and LoDoCo2 – are highly consistent and should be practice changing,” Paul Ridker, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said in an interview.

Massimo Imazio, MD, the formal discussant for the study and professor of cardiology at the University of Turin, Italy, also called for repurposing the inexpensive gout medication for cardiovascular patients.

“I would like to congratulate the authors for a well-designed, large, randomized trial that in my view provides convincing evidence that colchicine is safe and efficacious for secondary prevention in chronic coronary syndrome, of course if tolerated,” he said.

Dr. Imazio noted that colchicine demonstrated similar benefits in the smaller, open-label LoDoCo trial, but that 1 in 10 patients couldn’t tolerate the drug, largely because of gastrointestinal issues. The LoCoDo2 investigators very wisely opted for a 30-day run-in period for tolerance without a loading dose, and 90% of patients in each arm continued study medication while 3.4% stopped because of perceived effects.

Clinicians should bear in mind the potential for side effects and interactions with other medications, particularly statins, observed Dr. Imazio. “So monitoring of repeat blood tests is indicated, especially blood cell count, transaminase, and [creatine kinase] CK.”

Colchicine can be problematic in patients with chronic kidney disease because it is renally excreted, particularly if patients also take some common antibiotics such as clarithromycin, said Dr. Ridker, who led the landmark CANTOS trial. “So while these data are exciting and confirm the importance of inflammation inhibition in stable coronary disease, colchicine is not for all patients.”

During the discussion of the results, Dr. Nidorf said: “We were very concerned at the outset that there would be an interaction because there is certainly literature there, particularly in renal patients. But as the data showed, the incidence of myotoxicity was decidedly rare.”

Further, myotoxic episodes were independently assessed by a blinded reviewer, and although there was one case of mild rhabdomyolysis in the treatment group, it was considered not primarily caused by colchicine, he said. “So we’re fairly comfortable that you can use colchicine at a low dose quite comfortably with full-dose statins.”

Notably, 94% of patients in both groups were taking statins, and two-thirds were on moderate- or high-dose statins. About one-quarter were on dual-antiplatelet therapy, and 12% were on an anticoagulant.

In all, 5,522 patients aged 35-82 years (mean, 66 years) were randomly assigned to colchicine 0.5 mg once daily or placebo on top of proven secondary prevention therapies, and all but one was available for analysis.

Most were male (85%), one-half had hypertension, 18% had diabetes, and 84% had a history of acute coronary syndrome, with an equal number having undergone revascularization. Patients with advanced renal disease, severe heart failure, or severe valvular heart disease were excluded.

Colchicine, when compared with placebo, was associated with significantly lower incidence rates of the top five ranked secondary endpoints:

• Cardiovascular death, MI, or ischemic stroke (4.2% vs. 5.7%; HR, 0.72).
• MI or ischemia-driven revascularization (5.6% vs. 8.1%; HR, 0.67).
• Cardiovascular death or MI (3.6% vs. 5.0%; HR, 0.71).
• Ischemia-driven revascularization (4.9% vs. 6.4%; HR, 0.75).
• MI (3.0% vs. 4.2%; HR, 0.70).

The incidence rates were similar among the remaining three secondary outcomes: ischemic stroke (0.6% vs. 0.9%), all-cause death (2.6% vs. 2.2%), and CV death (0.7% vs. 0.9%), Dr. Nidorf reported.

The effect of colchicine was consistent in 13 subgroups, including those with and without hypertension, diabetes, or prior acute coronary syndrome. Patients in Australia appeared to do better with colchicine than did those in the Netherlands, which was a bit unexpected but likely caused by the play of chance, Dr. Nidorf said.

“Importantly, the effect when we looked at the predictors of outcome of our patients in this trial, they related to factors such as age and diabetes, which were included in both populations. So we believe the effect of therapy to be universal,” he added.

Session moderator Stephan Achenbach, MD, chair of cardiology at the University of Erlangen (Germany), however, noted that event rates were about 3% per year and many patients had undergone coronary revascularizations for acute coronary syndromes, suggesting this may be a preselected, somewhat higher-risk cohort. “Do you think we can transfer these findings to the just-average patient who comes in with chest pain and gets an elective [percutaneous coronary intervention]?” he asked.

Dr. Nidorf replied that, unlike the patients in COLCOT, who were randomized to colchicine within 30 days of an MI, acute events occurred more than 24 months before randomization in most (68.2%) patients. As such, patients were quite stable, and major adverse cardiac event and cardiovascular death rates were also exceedingly low.

“We did not see them as a particularly high-risk group, which I think is one of the beauties of this study,” Dr. Nidorf said. “It looks at people that are very similar to those who come and meet us in our clinics for regular review and follow-up.”

“And in that regard, I think the next time we’re faced with patients in our rooms, we have to ask the question: Are we doing enough for this patient beyond aspirin and statins? Should we be considering treating the inflammatory axis? And now we have an opportunity to do that,” he said.

Serious adverse effects were similar in the colchicine and placebo groups, including hospitalizations for infection (5.0% vs. 5.2%), pneumonia (1.7% vs. 2.0%), or gastrointestinal reasons (1.9% vs. 1.8%). Myotoxicity occurred in four and three patients, respectively.

Although the signal for increased risk of infection observed in CANTOS and COLCOT was not borne out, Dr. Nidorf observed that chest infections can occur frequently in these patients and echoed cautions about a potential unfavorable interaction between clarithromycin and colchicine.

“If we are to use this drug widely, clinicians will need to learn how to use this drug and what drugs to avoid, and that’s an important teaching point,” he said.

Limitations of the study are the small number of women and lack of routine measurement of C-reactive protein or other inflammatory markers at baseline.

The study was supported by the National Health Medical Research Council of Australia, a grant from the Sir Charles Gairdner Research Advisory Committee, the Withering Foundation the Netherlands, the Netherlands Heart Foundation, the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, and a consortium of Teva, Disphar, and Tiofarma in the Netherlands. The authors’ disclosures are listed in the article.
 

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

Magnetic seizure therapy (MST) appears to be a viable alternative to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in reducing suicide risk in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD), early research suggests.

In a single-center, open-label study, MST produced complete remission from suicidality in almost half of the patients who received the treatment.

“The results are promising,” lead author Cory R. Weissman, MD, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, University of Toronto, told Medscape Medical News.

“The field needs new ways of approaching suicidality because it’s becoming a bigger issue and a major concern, especially now with COVID. These are early but promising results that need to be followed up,” Weissman said.

The study was published online August 18 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Fewer side effects, less stigma

MST is similar to ECT, which is an effective treatment for suicidality in mood disorders. However, ECT is underutilized – fewer than 1% of patients with TRD receive the treatment – because of stigma and/or a perceived risk of cognitive adverse effects, he said.

“MST is a focal magnetic pulse that leads to discharge or depolarization within the frontal lobe of the brain with the goal of inducing a seizure. It works quite similarly to ECT, which we know is quite a good anti-suicidal treatment, especially in depression,” Weissman explained

However, MST has fewer side effects, particularly on cognition, and less stigma compared to ECT. It also has a different mechanism of action, with a “more focal treatment target in the brain than ECT to induce seizures,” Weissman said.

The Toronto group has been studying MST in various mood disorders for several years. As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, MST is effective in reducing suicidal thoughts in treatment-resistant bipolar disorder. 

The current study is a post hoc secondary analysis of data from the group’s original trial of MST as a treatment for treatment resistant depression in patients initially referred for ECT. The trial ran from February 2012 through June 2019 and with a post-treatment 6-month follow-up.

The secondary analysis was performed from January 2019 to November 2019.

The secondary analysis included 67 patients who underwent MST 2 to 3 times per week until they achieved remission from a depressive episode or until they reached a maximum of 24 sessions. All had baseline suicidality, as defined by a score greater than 0 on the Beck Scale for Suicidal Ideation (Beck SSI).

MST was administered using the MagPro MST device with Twin Coil-XS (MagVenture) applied over the frontal cortex at 100% machine output with low (25 Hz), moderate (50 or 60 Hz), or high (100 Hz) frequency.

“It’s very similar to ECT. The actual seizure lasts about a minute or two, and patients recover in about 10 to 15 minutes and they go home afterwards,” Weissman said.

The main outcome was remission from suicidality as measured by an end-point score of 0 on the Beck SSI. Of the 67 patients, 32 (47.8%) achieved remission from suicidality.

Low and moderate frequencies appeared to be more effective for suicidality; 16 of 29 patients (55.2%) receiving low frequency MST achieved remission, as did 12 of 22 patients (54.5%) receiving moderate frequency MST. Four of 16 patients (25%) who received high frequency MST achieved remission from suicidality.
 

A “valuable contribution”

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Manish K. Jha, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, said there is an urgent need to develop safe and effective treatment for patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD).

“The Sequenced Treatment Alternative to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) trial showed that after inadequate improvement with two antidepressants, the likelihood of improvement with a third or fourth antidepressant trial was very low. Therefore, we need effective treatment for TRD,” noted Jha, who was not involved in the research.

The current study represents a “valuable contribution, as it shows improvement in suicidal ideation with magnetic seizure therapy,” he added.

The study’s findings suggest that MST may offer a “viable new treatment” for patients with TRD. He added that the upcoming results of an ongoing clinical trial testing MST against ECT are of “great interest to the field.”

Although the findings are compelling, Jha also noted the study had several limitations, include a relatively “modest” sample size and no sham or active comparator.

In addition, he said, the level of suicidality in this study was limited because of eligibility restrictions, such as exclusion of individuals who had attempted suicide in the prior 6 months.

“While authors use a broad term of ‘suicidality,’ their study is focused on suicidal ideation. Future studies that target suicide behavior are urgently needed. This may mean that we need to study individuals with recent suicide attempts in settings such as emergency rooms and inpatient units,” said Jha.

The study had no specific funding. Weissman has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Several other study authors reported relationships with industry. The full list can be found with the original article. Jha has received contract research grants from Acadia Pharmaceuticals and Janssen Research & Development, and honoraria for CME presentations from North American Center for Continuing Medical Education and Global Medical Education.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Magnetic seizure therapy (MST) appears to be a viable alternative to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in reducing suicide risk in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD), early research suggests.

In a single-center, open-label study, MST produced complete remission from suicidality in almost half of the patients who received the treatment.

“The results are promising,” lead author Cory R. Weissman, MD, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, University of Toronto, told Medscape Medical News.

“The field needs new ways of approaching suicidality because it’s becoming a bigger issue and a major concern, especially now with COVID. These are early but promising results that need to be followed up,” Weissman said.

The study was published online August 18 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Fewer side effects, less stigma

MST is similar to ECT, which is an effective treatment for suicidality in mood disorders. However, ECT is underutilized – fewer than 1% of patients with TRD receive the treatment – because of stigma and/or a perceived risk of cognitive adverse effects, he said.

“MST is a focal magnetic pulse that leads to discharge or depolarization within the frontal lobe of the brain with the goal of inducing a seizure. It works quite similarly to ECT, which we know is quite a good anti-suicidal treatment, especially in depression,” Weissman explained

However, MST has fewer side effects, particularly on cognition, and less stigma compared to ECT. It also has a different mechanism of action, with a “more focal treatment target in the brain than ECT to induce seizures,” Weissman said.

The Toronto group has been studying MST in various mood disorders for several years. As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, MST is effective in reducing suicidal thoughts in treatment-resistant bipolar disorder. 

The current study is a post hoc secondary analysis of data from the group’s original trial of MST as a treatment for treatment resistant depression in patients initially referred for ECT. The trial ran from February 2012 through June 2019 and with a post-treatment 6-month follow-up.

The secondary analysis was performed from January 2019 to November 2019.

The secondary analysis included 67 patients who underwent MST 2 to 3 times per week until they achieved remission from a depressive episode or until they reached a maximum of 24 sessions. All had baseline suicidality, as defined by a score greater than 0 on the Beck Scale for Suicidal Ideation (Beck SSI).

MST was administered using the MagPro MST device with Twin Coil-XS (MagVenture) applied over the frontal cortex at 100% machine output with low (25 Hz), moderate (50 or 60 Hz), or high (100 Hz) frequency.

“It’s very similar to ECT. The actual seizure lasts about a minute or two, and patients recover in about 10 to 15 minutes and they go home afterwards,” Weissman said.

The main outcome was remission from suicidality as measured by an end-point score of 0 on the Beck SSI. Of the 67 patients, 32 (47.8%) achieved remission from suicidality.

Low and moderate frequencies appeared to be more effective for suicidality; 16 of 29 patients (55.2%) receiving low frequency MST achieved remission, as did 12 of 22 patients (54.5%) receiving moderate frequency MST. Four of 16 patients (25%) who received high frequency MST achieved remission from suicidality.
 

A “valuable contribution”

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Manish K. Jha, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, said there is an urgent need to develop safe and effective treatment for patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD).

“The Sequenced Treatment Alternative to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) trial showed that after inadequate improvement with two antidepressants, the likelihood of improvement with a third or fourth antidepressant trial was very low. Therefore, we need effective treatment for TRD,” noted Jha, who was not involved in the research.

The current study represents a “valuable contribution, as it shows improvement in suicidal ideation with magnetic seizure therapy,” he added.

The study’s findings suggest that MST may offer a “viable new treatment” for patients with TRD. He added that the upcoming results of an ongoing clinical trial testing MST against ECT are of “great interest to the field.”

Although the findings are compelling, Jha also noted the study had several limitations, include a relatively “modest” sample size and no sham or active comparator.

In addition, he said, the level of suicidality in this study was limited because of eligibility restrictions, such as exclusion of individuals who had attempted suicide in the prior 6 months.

“While authors use a broad term of ‘suicidality,’ their study is focused on suicidal ideation. Future studies that target suicide behavior are urgently needed. This may mean that we need to study individuals with recent suicide attempts in settings such as emergency rooms and inpatient units,” said Jha.

The study had no specific funding. Weissman has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Several other study authors reported relationships with industry. The full list can be found with the original article. Jha has received contract research grants from Acadia Pharmaceuticals and Janssen Research & Development, and honoraria for CME presentations from North American Center for Continuing Medical Education and Global Medical Education.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Magnetic seizure therapy (MST) appears to be a viable alternative to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in reducing suicide risk in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD), early research suggests.

In a single-center, open-label study, MST produced complete remission from suicidality in almost half of the patients who received the treatment.

“The results are promising,” lead author Cory R. Weissman, MD, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, University of Toronto, told Medscape Medical News.

“The field needs new ways of approaching suicidality because it’s becoming a bigger issue and a major concern, especially now with COVID. These are early but promising results that need to be followed up,” Weissman said.

The study was published online August 18 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Fewer side effects, less stigma

MST is similar to ECT, which is an effective treatment for suicidality in mood disorders. However, ECT is underutilized – fewer than 1% of patients with TRD receive the treatment – because of stigma and/or a perceived risk of cognitive adverse effects, he said.

“MST is a focal magnetic pulse that leads to discharge or depolarization within the frontal lobe of the brain with the goal of inducing a seizure. It works quite similarly to ECT, which we know is quite a good anti-suicidal treatment, especially in depression,” Weissman explained

However, MST has fewer side effects, particularly on cognition, and less stigma compared to ECT. It also has a different mechanism of action, with a “more focal treatment target in the brain than ECT to induce seizures,” Weissman said.

The Toronto group has been studying MST in various mood disorders for several years. As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, MST is effective in reducing suicidal thoughts in treatment-resistant bipolar disorder. 

The current study is a post hoc secondary analysis of data from the group’s original trial of MST as a treatment for treatment resistant depression in patients initially referred for ECT. The trial ran from February 2012 through June 2019 and with a post-treatment 6-month follow-up.

The secondary analysis was performed from January 2019 to November 2019.

The secondary analysis included 67 patients who underwent MST 2 to 3 times per week until they achieved remission from a depressive episode or until they reached a maximum of 24 sessions. All had baseline suicidality, as defined by a score greater than 0 on the Beck Scale for Suicidal Ideation (Beck SSI).

MST was administered using the MagPro MST device with Twin Coil-XS (MagVenture) applied over the frontal cortex at 100% machine output with low (25 Hz), moderate (50 or 60 Hz), or high (100 Hz) frequency.

“It’s very similar to ECT. The actual seizure lasts about a minute or two, and patients recover in about 10 to 15 minutes and they go home afterwards,” Weissman said.

The main outcome was remission from suicidality as measured by an end-point score of 0 on the Beck SSI. Of the 67 patients, 32 (47.8%) achieved remission from suicidality.

Low and moderate frequencies appeared to be more effective for suicidality; 16 of 29 patients (55.2%) receiving low frequency MST achieved remission, as did 12 of 22 patients (54.5%) receiving moderate frequency MST. Four of 16 patients (25%) who received high frequency MST achieved remission from suicidality.
 

A “valuable contribution”

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Manish K. Jha, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, said there is an urgent need to develop safe and effective treatment for patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD).

“The Sequenced Treatment Alternative to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) trial showed that after inadequate improvement with two antidepressants, the likelihood of improvement with a third or fourth antidepressant trial was very low. Therefore, we need effective treatment for TRD,” noted Jha, who was not involved in the research.

The current study represents a “valuable contribution, as it shows improvement in suicidal ideation with magnetic seizure therapy,” he added.

The study’s findings suggest that MST may offer a “viable new treatment” for patients with TRD. He added that the upcoming results of an ongoing clinical trial testing MST against ECT are of “great interest to the field.”

Although the findings are compelling, Jha also noted the study had several limitations, include a relatively “modest” sample size and no sham or active comparator.

In addition, he said, the level of suicidality in this study was limited because of eligibility restrictions, such as exclusion of individuals who had attempted suicide in the prior 6 months.

“While authors use a broad term of ‘suicidality,’ their study is focused on suicidal ideation. Future studies that target suicide behavior are urgently needed. This may mean that we need to study individuals with recent suicide attempts in settings such as emergency rooms and inpatient units,” said Jha.

The study had no specific funding. Weissman has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Several other study authors reported relationships with industry. The full list can be found with the original article. Jha has received contract research grants from Acadia Pharmaceuticals and Janssen Research & Development, and honoraria for CME presentations from North American Center for Continuing Medical Education and Global Medical Education.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SSRIs effectively treat depression following intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) but also increase risk for recurrent hemorrhagic stroke, particularly in patients at high risk for repeat ICH, new research indicates.

“Clinicians must exercise judgment when weighing the use of SSRIs for ICH survivors in the high risk category – especially those with multiple ICH events,” study investigator Alessandro Biffi, MD, director, Aging and Brain Health Research (ABHR) Group, Departments of Neurology and Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, told Medscape Medical News.

The study was published online August 31 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Risks and benefits

Depression is common following stroke. SSRIs are generally considered first-line treatment for post-stroke depression but are associated with increased risk for first ICH, most likely owing to their antithrombotic effects. Less is known about SSRI use and recurrent ICH risk.

To investigate, Biffi and colleagues followed 1,279 adults (mean age, 71.3 years) for a median of 53.2 months (4.5 years) following primary ICH; 602 were women, 1049 were White, 89 Black, 77 Hispanic, and 64 were other race/ethnicity.

During follow-up, 128 adults suffered recurrent ICH (annual rate, 4.2%) and 766 (60%) were diagnosed with depression.

In multivariable analyses, SSRIs were associated with an increased likelihood of post-ICH depression remission (subhazard ratio, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.12-2.09; P = .009).

However, SSRI use was also an independent risk factor for recurrent ICH (SHR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.08-1.59; P = .006).

High SSRI dose was associated with higher ICH recurrence risk (SHR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.15-2.25), with a larger effect size (comparison P = .02) than low SSRI dose (SHR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.01-1.55), but there was no difference in depression remission comparing low vs. high SSRI dose.

Among individuals at high risk for recurrent ICH, SSRI use was associated with further increased risk for ICH recurrence (SHR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.22 - 2.64) compared with all other survivors of ICH (SHR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.01-1.42; P = .008 for comparison of effect sizes).

These higher-risk subgroups included carriers of the APOE e2/e4 alleles, patients with lobar ICH, patients with prior ICH, and minority participants.

“Our analyses identified patients for whom the risks are higher, and therefore additional thought is warranted. This approach may in the future lead to personalized/precision medicine approaches to determining whether these patients should receive SSRIs or not,” said Biffi.
 

Experts weigh in

Commenting on the research for Medscape Medical News, Daniel G. Hackam, MD, division of clinical pharmacology, Western University, London, Ont., said the study is “an important contribution to the literature, as there are to date no data on the risk of ICH in prior ICH survivors in relation to SSRI exposure.”

“The bottom line is that I would be very cautious about initiating SSRIs in patients with a history of ICH,” said Hackam, who was not involved with the study.

“There are other nonserotonergic antidepressants that could be used instead, which do not inhibit platelet function. There was still a risk even in the lower-risk ICH survivors. ICH is a highly recurrent disease. We already avoid antiplatelets, anticoagulants, and high dose statins in these patients. I would add SSRI’s to that list, based on this study,” said Hackam.

Also weighing in, Amytis Towfighi, MD, associate professor of neurology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said this study addresses a “common clinical dilemma: how to manage depression among individuals with ICH, given the high risk of recurrent ICH among ICH survivors and potential for SSRIs to increase that risk. This scenario is common, and a source of debate for practicing clinicians.”

“The authors conducted an elegant study,” said Towfighi, by considering sociodemographic, historical, imaging, and genetic factors.

“One must interpret this study with caution as it is a single-center cohort study. However, it provides the most rigorous information to date regarding the associations between SSRI use and recurrent ICH,” she told Medscape Medical News.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Biffi, Hackam, and Towfighi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SSRIs effectively treat depression following intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) but also increase risk for recurrent hemorrhagic stroke, particularly in patients at high risk for repeat ICH, new research indicates.

“Clinicians must exercise judgment when weighing the use of SSRIs for ICH survivors in the high risk category – especially those with multiple ICH events,” study investigator Alessandro Biffi, MD, director, Aging and Brain Health Research (ABHR) Group, Departments of Neurology and Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, told Medscape Medical News.

The study was published online August 31 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Risks and benefits

Depression is common following stroke. SSRIs are generally considered first-line treatment for post-stroke depression but are associated with increased risk for first ICH, most likely owing to their antithrombotic effects. Less is known about SSRI use and recurrent ICH risk.

To investigate, Biffi and colleagues followed 1,279 adults (mean age, 71.3 years) for a median of 53.2 months (4.5 years) following primary ICH; 602 were women, 1049 were White, 89 Black, 77 Hispanic, and 64 were other race/ethnicity.

During follow-up, 128 adults suffered recurrent ICH (annual rate, 4.2%) and 766 (60%) were diagnosed with depression.

In multivariable analyses, SSRIs were associated with an increased likelihood of post-ICH depression remission (subhazard ratio, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.12-2.09; P = .009).

However, SSRI use was also an independent risk factor for recurrent ICH (SHR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.08-1.59; P = .006).

High SSRI dose was associated with higher ICH recurrence risk (SHR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.15-2.25), with a larger effect size (comparison P = .02) than low SSRI dose (SHR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.01-1.55), but there was no difference in depression remission comparing low vs. high SSRI dose.

Among individuals at high risk for recurrent ICH, SSRI use was associated with further increased risk for ICH recurrence (SHR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.22 - 2.64) compared with all other survivors of ICH (SHR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.01-1.42; P = .008 for comparison of effect sizes).

These higher-risk subgroups included carriers of the APOE e2/e4 alleles, patients with lobar ICH, patients with prior ICH, and minority participants.

“Our analyses identified patients for whom the risks are higher, and therefore additional thought is warranted. This approach may in the future lead to personalized/precision medicine approaches to determining whether these patients should receive SSRIs or not,” said Biffi.
 

Experts weigh in

Commenting on the research for Medscape Medical News, Daniel G. Hackam, MD, division of clinical pharmacology, Western University, London, Ont., said the study is “an important contribution to the literature, as there are to date no data on the risk of ICH in prior ICH survivors in relation to SSRI exposure.”

“The bottom line is that I would be very cautious about initiating SSRIs in patients with a history of ICH,” said Hackam, who was not involved with the study.

“There are other nonserotonergic antidepressants that could be used instead, which do not inhibit platelet function. There was still a risk even in the lower-risk ICH survivors. ICH is a highly recurrent disease. We already avoid antiplatelets, anticoagulants, and high dose statins in these patients. I would add SSRI’s to that list, based on this study,” said Hackam.

Also weighing in, Amytis Towfighi, MD, associate professor of neurology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said this study addresses a “common clinical dilemma: how to manage depression among individuals with ICH, given the high risk of recurrent ICH among ICH survivors and potential for SSRIs to increase that risk. This scenario is common, and a source of debate for practicing clinicians.”

“The authors conducted an elegant study,” said Towfighi, by considering sociodemographic, historical, imaging, and genetic factors.

“One must interpret this study with caution as it is a single-center cohort study. However, it provides the most rigorous information to date regarding the associations between SSRI use and recurrent ICH,” she told Medscape Medical News.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Biffi, Hackam, and Towfighi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SSRIs effectively treat depression following intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) but also increase risk for recurrent hemorrhagic stroke, particularly in patients at high risk for repeat ICH, new research indicates.

“Clinicians must exercise judgment when weighing the use of SSRIs for ICH survivors in the high risk category – especially those with multiple ICH events,” study investigator Alessandro Biffi, MD, director, Aging and Brain Health Research (ABHR) Group, Departments of Neurology and Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, told Medscape Medical News.

The study was published online August 31 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Risks and benefits

Depression is common following stroke. SSRIs are generally considered first-line treatment for post-stroke depression but are associated with increased risk for first ICH, most likely owing to their antithrombotic effects. Less is known about SSRI use and recurrent ICH risk.

To investigate, Biffi and colleagues followed 1,279 adults (mean age, 71.3 years) for a median of 53.2 months (4.5 years) following primary ICH; 602 were women, 1049 were White, 89 Black, 77 Hispanic, and 64 were other race/ethnicity.

During follow-up, 128 adults suffered recurrent ICH (annual rate, 4.2%) and 766 (60%) were diagnosed with depression.

In multivariable analyses, SSRIs were associated with an increased likelihood of post-ICH depression remission (subhazard ratio, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.12-2.09; P = .009).

However, SSRI use was also an independent risk factor for recurrent ICH (SHR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.08-1.59; P = .006).

High SSRI dose was associated with higher ICH recurrence risk (SHR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.15-2.25), with a larger effect size (comparison P = .02) than low SSRI dose (SHR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.01-1.55), but there was no difference in depression remission comparing low vs. high SSRI dose.

Among individuals at high risk for recurrent ICH, SSRI use was associated with further increased risk for ICH recurrence (SHR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.22 - 2.64) compared with all other survivors of ICH (SHR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.01-1.42; P = .008 for comparison of effect sizes).

These higher-risk subgroups included carriers of the APOE e2/e4 alleles, patients with lobar ICH, patients with prior ICH, and minority participants.

“Our analyses identified patients for whom the risks are higher, and therefore additional thought is warranted. This approach may in the future lead to personalized/precision medicine approaches to determining whether these patients should receive SSRIs or not,” said Biffi.
 

Experts weigh in

Commenting on the research for Medscape Medical News, Daniel G. Hackam, MD, division of clinical pharmacology, Western University, London, Ont., said the study is “an important contribution to the literature, as there are to date no data on the risk of ICH in prior ICH survivors in relation to SSRI exposure.”

“The bottom line is that I would be very cautious about initiating SSRIs in patients with a history of ICH,” said Hackam, who was not involved with the study.

“There are other nonserotonergic antidepressants that could be used instead, which do not inhibit platelet function. There was still a risk even in the lower-risk ICH survivors. ICH is a highly recurrent disease. We already avoid antiplatelets, anticoagulants, and high dose statins in these patients. I would add SSRI’s to that list, based on this study,” said Hackam.

Also weighing in, Amytis Towfighi, MD, associate professor of neurology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said this study addresses a “common clinical dilemma: how to manage depression among individuals with ICH, given the high risk of recurrent ICH among ICH survivors and potential for SSRIs to increase that risk. This scenario is common, and a source of debate for practicing clinicians.”

“The authors conducted an elegant study,” said Towfighi, by considering sociodemographic, historical, imaging, and genetic factors.

“One must interpret this study with caution as it is a single-center cohort study. However, it provides the most rigorous information to date regarding the associations between SSRI use and recurrent ICH,” she told Medscape Medical News.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Biffi, Hackam, and Towfighi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Under the U.S. Medicare system, the cost of insulin is about 50% higher for beneficiaries who use insulin pumps than those who inject insulin, a new analysis reveals.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Mbbradford/CC-by-3.0

A call to action as price of insulin rose, suddenly shifted, in 2017

In the article, the authors call for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to fix the situation with a series of actions, including better aligning the cost of insulin under Parts B and D, and determining reimbursement rates on a drug-by-drug basis, rather than lumping together all infused drugs.

The CMS said in a statement: “As with all relevant and topical research, CMS appreciates the input of the journal authors and considers external research in all potential future policymaking and initiatives.”

As outlined by the authors, the overall price of insulin in the United States has dramatically increased in the past 2 decades. For example, the average list price of one vial of insulin rose from $9.61 to $25.38 between January 2013 and July 2018, a 164% increase.

A provision in the 21st Century Cures Act, which went into effect Jan. 1, 2017, attempted to remedy past overpayment for DME-infused drugs covered under Medicare Part B by changing the pricing methodology. Prior to 2017, the drugs had been reimbursed based on 95% of the 2003 average wholesale price. With the new law, payments have been set to average sales price plus 6%.

As a result, the price of insulin rose by 251% overnight from Dec. 31, 2016, to Jan. 1, 2017, for Medicare beneficiaries using insulin pumps, whereas there was no change for those injecting their insulin.

And then in 2018, insulin manufacturers raised the price by another 53%, resulting in an overall 304% price increase under Part B over 2 years.

Meanwhile, on March 11, 2020, CMS announced a cap on insulin copays in Part D to $35 a month, which doesn’t apply to pump users.

Thus, as of now, the average monthly copay for insulin for pump users in Medicare is about $54.26, about 50% more than the $35 maximum for those who inject insulin.

“This is in the setting of patients skimping on insulin anyway because of the high cost. There’s reasonably good evidence that patients stretch out their insulin because of cost, including those in Medicare,” Dr. Vigersky emphasized.
 

What can be done?

The problem could have been avoided, the authors wrote in their commentary, if payments had simply been adjusted for the two pre-2017 most highly overpaid DME-infused drugs, milrinone lactate and immune globulin, rather than all of them. Doing that would have addressed 95% of the overpayments and saved $267 million without affecting insulin cost.

Unlike insulin, nearly all of the other infused drugs are used only for short periods of time, such as pain medications, antibiotics, or chemotherapy.

“People get these for a few months, but not for years and years. Some aren’t used much at all. It was sort of a wholesale way to change things, and insulin got caught in it, with more extensive consequences,” Dr. Vigersky noted.

He and his coauthors advised the CMS to test pricing methodologies before implementation to prevent further unintended consequences going forward, to ask the Inspector General’s office to reanalyze costs to see if savings targets are being met, and to notify patients and health care providers in advance of a change so that they can better prepare for increased costs.

For now, Dr. Vigersky advised that, when considering pump therapy for a given patient, “from a clinical standpoint, this is a shared decision with the patient.

“As much as the reality of costs is shared with the patient, there is good evidence that pump therapy is cost-effective. The patient has to make the decision as to whether this extra amount is worth the benefits in the long run that they will get from pump therapy.”

A version of this article was originally published on Medscape.com.

Under the U.S. Medicare system, the cost of insulin is about 50% higher for beneficiaries who use insulin pumps than those who inject insulin, a new analysis reveals.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Mbbradford/CC-by-3.0

A call to action as price of insulin rose, suddenly shifted, in 2017

In the article, the authors call for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to fix the situation with a series of actions, including better aligning the cost of insulin under Parts B and D, and determining reimbursement rates on a drug-by-drug basis, rather than lumping together all infused drugs.

The CMS said in a statement: “As with all relevant and topical research, CMS appreciates the input of the journal authors and considers external research in all potential future policymaking and initiatives.”

As outlined by the authors, the overall price of insulin in the United States has dramatically increased in the past 2 decades. For example, the average list price of one vial of insulin rose from $9.61 to $25.38 between January 2013 and July 2018, a 164% increase.

A provision in the 21st Century Cures Act, which went into effect Jan. 1, 2017, attempted to remedy past overpayment for DME-infused drugs covered under Medicare Part B by changing the pricing methodology. Prior to 2017, the drugs had been reimbursed based on 95% of the 2003 average wholesale price. With the new law, payments have been set to average sales price plus 6%.

As a result, the price of insulin rose by 251% overnight from Dec. 31, 2016, to Jan. 1, 2017, for Medicare beneficiaries using insulin pumps, whereas there was no change for those injecting their insulin.

And then in 2018, insulin manufacturers raised the price by another 53%, resulting in an overall 304% price increase under Part B over 2 years.

Meanwhile, on March 11, 2020, CMS announced a cap on insulin copays in Part D to $35 a month, which doesn’t apply to pump users.

Thus, as of now, the average monthly copay for insulin for pump users in Medicare is about $54.26, about 50% more than the $35 maximum for those who inject insulin.

“This is in the setting of patients skimping on insulin anyway because of the high cost. There’s reasonably good evidence that patients stretch out their insulin because of cost, including those in Medicare,” Dr. Vigersky emphasized.
 

What can be done?

The problem could have been avoided, the authors wrote in their commentary, if payments had simply been adjusted for the two pre-2017 most highly overpaid DME-infused drugs, milrinone lactate and immune globulin, rather than all of them. Doing that would have addressed 95% of the overpayments and saved $267 million without affecting insulin cost.

Unlike insulin, nearly all of the other infused drugs are used only for short periods of time, such as pain medications, antibiotics, or chemotherapy.

“People get these for a few months, but not for years and years. Some aren’t used much at all. It was sort of a wholesale way to change things, and insulin got caught in it, with more extensive consequences,” Dr. Vigersky noted.

He and his coauthors advised the CMS to test pricing methodologies before implementation to prevent further unintended consequences going forward, to ask the Inspector General’s office to reanalyze costs to see if savings targets are being met, and to notify patients and health care providers in advance of a change so that they can better prepare for increased costs.

For now, Dr. Vigersky advised that, when considering pump therapy for a given patient, “from a clinical standpoint, this is a shared decision with the patient.

“As much as the reality of costs is shared with the patient, there is good evidence that pump therapy is cost-effective. The patient has to make the decision as to whether this extra amount is worth the benefits in the long run that they will get from pump therapy.”

A version of this article was originally published on Medscape.com.

Under the U.S. Medicare system, the cost of insulin is about 50% higher for beneficiaries who use insulin pumps than those who inject insulin, a new analysis reveals.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Mbbradford/CC-by-3.0

A call to action as price of insulin rose, suddenly shifted, in 2017

In the article, the authors call for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to fix the situation with a series of actions, including better aligning the cost of insulin under Parts B and D, and determining reimbursement rates on a drug-by-drug basis, rather than lumping together all infused drugs.

The CMS said in a statement: “As with all relevant and topical research, CMS appreciates the input of the journal authors and considers external research in all potential future policymaking and initiatives.”

As outlined by the authors, the overall price of insulin in the United States has dramatically increased in the past 2 decades. For example, the average list price of one vial of insulin rose from $9.61 to $25.38 between January 2013 and July 2018, a 164% increase.

A provision in the 21st Century Cures Act, which went into effect Jan. 1, 2017, attempted to remedy past overpayment for DME-infused drugs covered under Medicare Part B by changing the pricing methodology. Prior to 2017, the drugs had been reimbursed based on 95% of the 2003 average wholesale price. With the new law, payments have been set to average sales price plus 6%.

As a result, the price of insulin rose by 251% overnight from Dec. 31, 2016, to Jan. 1, 2017, for Medicare beneficiaries using insulin pumps, whereas there was no change for those injecting their insulin.

And then in 2018, insulin manufacturers raised the price by another 53%, resulting in an overall 304% price increase under Part B over 2 years.

Meanwhile, on March 11, 2020, CMS announced a cap on insulin copays in Part D to $35 a month, which doesn’t apply to pump users.

Thus, as of now, the average monthly copay for insulin for pump users in Medicare is about $54.26, about 50% more than the $35 maximum for those who inject insulin.

“This is in the setting of patients skimping on insulin anyway because of the high cost. There’s reasonably good evidence that patients stretch out their insulin because of cost, including those in Medicare,” Dr. Vigersky emphasized.
 

What can be done?

The problem could have been avoided, the authors wrote in their commentary, if payments had simply been adjusted for the two pre-2017 most highly overpaid DME-infused drugs, milrinone lactate and immune globulin, rather than all of them. Doing that would have addressed 95% of the overpayments and saved $267 million without affecting insulin cost.

Unlike insulin, nearly all of the other infused drugs are used only for short periods of time, such as pain medications, antibiotics, or chemotherapy.

“People get these for a few months, but not for years and years. Some aren’t used much at all. It was sort of a wholesale way to change things, and insulin got caught in it, with more extensive consequences,” Dr. Vigersky noted.

He and his coauthors advised the CMS to test pricing methodologies before implementation to prevent further unintended consequences going forward, to ask the Inspector General’s office to reanalyze costs to see if savings targets are being met, and to notify patients and health care providers in advance of a change so that they can better prepare for increased costs.

For now, Dr. Vigersky advised that, when considering pump therapy for a given patient, “from a clinical standpoint, this is a shared decision with the patient.

“As much as the reality of costs is shared with the patient, there is good evidence that pump therapy is cost-effective. The patient has to make the decision as to whether this extra amount is worth the benefits in the long run that they will get from pump therapy.”

A version of this article was originally published on Medscape.com.