The calcitonin gene–related peptide receptor monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs)for treatment of migraine have gained wide acceptance since their approval in 2018, but a real-world study has reported adverse event rates higher than those the preapproval clinical trials reported and has found that patients who fail on one of the treatments are likely to fail again if they’re switched to another.

At the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society, Larry Robbins, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Chicago Medical School, North Chicago, reported on the results of his postapproval study of 369 migraine patients taking one of the three approved CGRP mAbs. “If patients do not do well on one mAb, it is sometimes worthwhile to switch, but most patients do not do well from the second or third mAb as well,” Dr. Robbins said in an interview. “In addition, there are numerous adverse effects that were not captured in the official phase 3 studies. Efficacy has held up well, but for a number of reasons, the true adverse event profile is often missed.”
 

Assessing efficacy and adverse events

In evaluating the efficacy of the three approved CGRP mAbs, Dr. Robbins used measures of degree of relief based on percentage decrease of symptoms versus baseline and the number of migraine days, combined with the number of moderate or severe headache days. Most of the patients kept calendars and were interviewed by two headache specialists. The study also utilized a 10-point visual analog scale and averaged relief over 3 months.

Of the patients on erenumab (n = 220), 10% described 95%-100% relief of symptoms, 24% reported 71%-100% relief, 34% described 31%-70% relief, and 43% experienced 0%-30% relief. Adverse events among this group included constipation (20%), nausea (7%), increased headache and fatigue (5% for each), and joint pain and depression (3% for each). Three patients on erenumab experienced unspecified serious adverse reactions.

In the fremanezumab group (n = 79), 8% described 95%-100% relief, 18% had 71%-100% relief, 33% experienced 31%-70% improvement, and 50% had 30% improvement or less. Adverse events in these patients included nausea, constipation, and depression (6% each); increased headache and muscle pain or cramps (5% each); rash, joint pain, anxiety, fatigue, or weight gain (4% for each ); and injection-site reactions, irritability, or alopecia (3% combined).

Patients taking galcanezumab (n = 70) reported the following outcomes: 3% had 95%-100% relief of symptoms, 14% had 71%-100% relief, 46% with 31%-70% relief, and 40% had 0%-30% relief. This group’s adverse events included constipation (10%); depression and increased headache (6% for each); nausea, fatigue, or injection-site reactions (4% each ); and muscle pain or cramps, rash, anxiety, weight gain, or alopecia (3% each).

Dr. Robbins also assessed switching from one CGRP mAb to another for various reasons. “When the reason for switching was poor efficacy, only 27% of patients did well,” he stated in the presentation. “If the reason was adverse events, 33% did well. When insurance/financial reasons alone were the reason, but efficacy was adequate, 58% did well after switching.”

Overall, postapproval efficacy of the medications “held up well,” Dr. Robbins noted. “Efficacy after 2 months somewhat predicted how patients would do after 6 months.” Among the predictors of poor response his study identified were opioid use and moderate or severe refractory chronic migraine at baseline.

However, the rates of adverse events he reported were significantly greater than those reported in the clinical trials, Dr. Robbins said. He noted four reasons to explain this discrepancy: the trials did not use an 18-item supplemental checklist that he has advocated to identify patients at risk of side effects, the trials weren’t powered for adverse events, patients in the trials tended to be less refractory than those in the clinic, and that adverse events tend to be underreported in trials.

“Adverse events become disaggregated, with the same descriptors used for an adverse event,” Dr. Robbins said. “Examples include fatigue, somnolence, and tiredness; all may be 1%, while different patients are describing the same adverse event. It is possible to reaggregate the adverse events after the study, but this is fraught with error.”
 

Uncovering shortcomings in clinical trials

Emily Rubenstein Engel, MD, director of the Dalessio Headache Center at the Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, Calif., noted that Dr. Robbins’ findings are significant for two reasons. “Dr. Robbins has uncovered a general flaw in clinical trials, whereby the lack of consistency of adverse event terminology as well as the lack of a standardized questionnaire format for adverse events can result in significant under-reporting of adverse events,” she said.

“Specifically for the CGRPs,” Dr. Engel continued, “he has raised awareness that this new class of medication, however promising from an efficacy standpoint, has side effects that are much more frequent and severe than seen in the initial clinical trials.”

Dr. Robbins reported financial relationships with Allergan, Amgen and Teva. Dr. Engel has no financial relationships to disclose.

The calcitonin gene–related peptide receptor monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs)for treatment of migraine have gained wide acceptance since their approval in 2018, but a real-world study has reported adverse event rates higher than those the preapproval clinical trials reported and has found that patients who fail on one of the treatments are likely to fail again if they’re switched to another.

At the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society, Larry Robbins, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Chicago Medical School, North Chicago, reported on the results of his postapproval study of 369 migraine patients taking one of the three approved CGRP mAbs. “If patients do not do well on one mAb, it is sometimes worthwhile to switch, but most patients do not do well from the second or third mAb as well,” Dr. Robbins said in an interview. “In addition, there are numerous adverse effects that were not captured in the official phase 3 studies. Efficacy has held up well, but for a number of reasons, the true adverse event profile is often missed.”
 

Assessing efficacy and adverse events

In evaluating the efficacy of the three approved CGRP mAbs, Dr. Robbins used measures of degree of relief based on percentage decrease of symptoms versus baseline and the number of migraine days, combined with the number of moderate or severe headache days. Most of the patients kept calendars and were interviewed by two headache specialists. The study also utilized a 10-point visual analog scale and averaged relief over 3 months.

Of the patients on erenumab (n = 220), 10% described 95%-100% relief of symptoms, 24% reported 71%-100% relief, 34% described 31%-70% relief, and 43% experienced 0%-30% relief. Adverse events among this group included constipation (20%), nausea (7%), increased headache and fatigue (5% for each), and joint pain and depression (3% for each). Three patients on erenumab experienced unspecified serious adverse reactions.

In the fremanezumab group (n = 79), 8% described 95%-100% relief, 18% had 71%-100% relief, 33% experienced 31%-70% improvement, and 50% had 30% improvement or less. Adverse events in these patients included nausea, constipation, and depression (6% each); increased headache and muscle pain or cramps (5% each); rash, joint pain, anxiety, fatigue, or weight gain (4% for each ); and injection-site reactions, irritability, or alopecia (3% combined).

Patients taking galcanezumab (n = 70) reported the following outcomes: 3% had 95%-100% relief of symptoms, 14% had 71%-100% relief, 46% with 31%-70% relief, and 40% had 0%-30% relief. This group’s adverse events included constipation (10%); depression and increased headache (6% for each); nausea, fatigue, or injection-site reactions (4% each ); and muscle pain or cramps, rash, anxiety, weight gain, or alopecia (3% each).

Dr. Robbins also assessed switching from one CGRP mAb to another for various reasons. “When the reason for switching was poor efficacy, only 27% of patients did well,” he stated in the presentation. “If the reason was adverse events, 33% did well. When insurance/financial reasons alone were the reason, but efficacy was adequate, 58% did well after switching.”

Overall, postapproval efficacy of the medications “held up well,” Dr. Robbins noted. “Efficacy after 2 months somewhat predicted how patients would do after 6 months.” Among the predictors of poor response his study identified were opioid use and moderate or severe refractory chronic migraine at baseline.

However, the rates of adverse events he reported were significantly greater than those reported in the clinical trials, Dr. Robbins said. He noted four reasons to explain this discrepancy: the trials did not use an 18-item supplemental checklist that he has advocated to identify patients at risk of side effects, the trials weren’t powered for adverse events, patients in the trials tended to be less refractory than those in the clinic, and that adverse events tend to be underreported in trials.

“Adverse events become disaggregated, with the same descriptors used for an adverse event,” Dr. Robbins said. “Examples include fatigue, somnolence, and tiredness; all may be 1%, while different patients are describing the same adverse event. It is possible to reaggregate the adverse events after the study, but this is fraught with error.”
 

Uncovering shortcomings in clinical trials

Emily Rubenstein Engel, MD, director of the Dalessio Headache Center at the Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, Calif., noted that Dr. Robbins’ findings are significant for two reasons. “Dr. Robbins has uncovered a general flaw in clinical trials, whereby the lack of consistency of adverse event terminology as well as the lack of a standardized questionnaire format for adverse events can result in significant under-reporting of adverse events,” she said.

“Specifically for the CGRPs,” Dr. Engel continued, “he has raised awareness that this new class of medication, however promising from an efficacy standpoint, has side effects that are much more frequent and severe than seen in the initial clinical trials.”

Dr. Robbins reported financial relationships with Allergan, Amgen and Teva. Dr. Engel has no financial relationships to disclose.

The calcitonin gene–related peptide receptor monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs)for treatment of migraine have gained wide acceptance since their approval in 2018, but a real-world study has reported adverse event rates higher than those the preapproval clinical trials reported and has found that patients who fail on one of the treatments are likely to fail again if they’re switched to another.

At the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society, Larry Robbins, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Chicago Medical School, North Chicago, reported on the results of his postapproval study of 369 migraine patients taking one of the three approved CGRP mAbs. “If patients do not do well on one mAb, it is sometimes worthwhile to switch, but most patients do not do well from the second or third mAb as well,” Dr. Robbins said in an interview. “In addition, there are numerous adverse effects that were not captured in the official phase 3 studies. Efficacy has held up well, but for a number of reasons, the true adverse event profile is often missed.”
 

Assessing efficacy and adverse events

In evaluating the efficacy of the three approved CGRP mAbs, Dr. Robbins used measures of degree of relief based on percentage decrease of symptoms versus baseline and the number of migraine days, combined with the number of moderate or severe headache days. Most of the patients kept calendars and were interviewed by two headache specialists. The study also utilized a 10-point visual analog scale and averaged relief over 3 months.

Of the patients on erenumab (n = 220), 10% described 95%-100% relief of symptoms, 24% reported 71%-100% relief, 34% described 31%-70% relief, and 43% experienced 0%-30% relief. Adverse events among this group included constipation (20%), nausea (7%), increased headache and fatigue (5% for each), and joint pain and depression (3% for each). Three patients on erenumab experienced unspecified serious adverse reactions.

In the fremanezumab group (n = 79), 8% described 95%-100% relief, 18% had 71%-100% relief, 33% experienced 31%-70% improvement, and 50% had 30% improvement or less. Adverse events in these patients included nausea, constipation, and depression (6% each); increased headache and muscle pain or cramps (5% each); rash, joint pain, anxiety, fatigue, or weight gain (4% for each ); and injection-site reactions, irritability, or alopecia (3% combined).

Patients taking galcanezumab (n = 70) reported the following outcomes: 3% had 95%-100% relief of symptoms, 14% had 71%-100% relief, 46% with 31%-70% relief, and 40% had 0%-30% relief. This group’s adverse events included constipation (10%); depression and increased headache (6% for each); nausea, fatigue, or injection-site reactions (4% each ); and muscle pain or cramps, rash, anxiety, weight gain, or alopecia (3% each).

Dr. Robbins also assessed switching from one CGRP mAb to another for various reasons. “When the reason for switching was poor efficacy, only 27% of patients did well,” he stated in the presentation. “If the reason was adverse events, 33% did well. When insurance/financial reasons alone were the reason, but efficacy was adequate, 58% did well after switching.”

Overall, postapproval efficacy of the medications “held up well,” Dr. Robbins noted. “Efficacy after 2 months somewhat predicted how patients would do after 6 months.” Among the predictors of poor response his study identified were opioid use and moderate or severe refractory chronic migraine at baseline.

However, the rates of adverse events he reported were significantly greater than those reported in the clinical trials, Dr. Robbins said. He noted four reasons to explain this discrepancy: the trials did not use an 18-item supplemental checklist that he has advocated to identify patients at risk of side effects, the trials weren’t powered for adverse events, patients in the trials tended to be less refractory than those in the clinic, and that adverse events tend to be underreported in trials.

“Adverse events become disaggregated, with the same descriptors used for an adverse event,” Dr. Robbins said. “Examples include fatigue, somnolence, and tiredness; all may be 1%, while different patients are describing the same adverse event. It is possible to reaggregate the adverse events after the study, but this is fraught with error.”
 

Uncovering shortcomings in clinical trials

Emily Rubenstein Engel, MD, director of the Dalessio Headache Center at the Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, Calif., noted that Dr. Robbins’ findings are significant for two reasons. “Dr. Robbins has uncovered a general flaw in clinical trials, whereby the lack of consistency of adverse event terminology as well as the lack of a standardized questionnaire format for adverse events can result in significant under-reporting of adverse events,” she said.

“Specifically for the CGRPs,” Dr. Engel continued, “he has raised awareness that this new class of medication, however promising from an efficacy standpoint, has side effects that are much more frequent and severe than seen in the initial clinical trials.”

Dr. Robbins reported financial relationships with Allergan, Amgen and Teva. Dr. Engel has no financial relationships to disclose.

One might immediately think of the deaths of Eric Garner, George Floyd, or even the fictional character Radio Raheem from Spike Lee’s critically acclaimed film, “Do the Right Thing,” when they hear the words “I can’t breathe.” These words are a cry for help. The deaths of these unarmed black men is devastating and has led to a state of rage, palpable pain, and protest across the world.

However, in this moment, I am talking about the health inequity exposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Whether it be acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) secondary to severe COVID-19, or the subsequent hypercoagulable state of COVID-19 that leads to venous thromboembolism, many black people in this country are left breathless. Many black patients who had no employee-based health insurance also had no primary care physician to order a SARS-CoV2 PCR lab test for them. Many of these patients have preexisting conditions, such as asthma from living in redlined communities affected by environmental racism. Many grew up in food deserts, where no fresh-produce store was interested enough to set up shop in their neighborhoods. They have been eating fast food since early childhood, as a fast-food burger is still cheaper than a salad. The result is obesity, an epidemic that can lead to diabetes mellitus, hypertension that can lead to coronary artery disease, stroke, and end-stage renal disease. 

Earlier in my career, I once had a colleague gleefully tell me that all black people drank Kool-Aid while in discussion of the effects of high-sugar diets in our patients; this colleague was sure I would agree. Not all black people drink Kool-Aid. Secondary to my fear of the backlash that can come from the discomfort of “white fragility” that Robin DiAngelo describes in her New York Times bestseller by the same name, ”White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism,” I refrained from expressing my own hurt, and I did not offer explicit correction. I, instead, took a serious pause. That pause, which lasted only minutes, seemed to last 400 years. It was a brief reflection of the 400 years of systemic racism seeping into everyday life. This included the circumstances that would lead to the health inequities that result in the health disparities from which many black patients suffer. It is that same systemic racism that could create two America’s in which my colleague might not have to know the historic context in which that question could be hurtful. I retorted with modified shock and a chuckle so that I could muster up enough strength to repeat what was said and leave it open for reflection. The goal was for my colleague to realize the obvious implicit bias that lingered, despite intention. The chuckle was also to cover my pain.

Whether we know it or not, we all carry some form of implicit bias, regardless of race, class, gender, ethnicity, sexual preference, or socioeconomic status. In this case, it is the same implicit bias that causes physicians to ignore some black patients when they have said that they are in pain. A groundbreaking April 2016 article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, “Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations, and False Beliefs about Biological Differences Between Blacks and Whites” (doi: 10.1073/pnas.1516047113), revealed that racial disparities in pain assessment and treatment recommendations can be directly connected to the racial bias of the provider. It could be possible that this phenomenon has affected black patients who have walked into clinics and emergency departments and said, “I’m short of breath. I think that I might have coronavirus and need to be tested.” It may be that same implicit bias that has cut the air supply to a patient encounter. Instead of inquiring further, the patient might be met with minimum questions while their provider obtains their history and physical. Assumptions and blame on behavior and lack of personal responsibility secretly replace questions that could have been asked. Differentials between exacerbations and other etiologies are not explored. Could that patient have been sent home without a SARS-CoV2 polymerase chain reaction test? Well, what if the tests were in short supply? Sometimes they may have been sent home without a chest x-ray. In most cases, there are no funds to send them home with a pulse oximeter.

The act of assuming a person’s story that we consider to be one dimensional is always dangerous – and even more so during this pandemic. That person we can relate to – secondary to a cool pop culture moment, a TikTok song, or a negative stereotype – is not one dimensional. That assumption and that stereotype can make room for implicit bias. That same implicit bias is the knee on a neck of any marginalized patient. Implicit bias is the choke hold that slowly removes the light and life from a person who has a story, who has a family, and who has been an essential worker who can’t work from home. That person is telling us that they can’t breathe, but sometimes the only things seen are comorbidities through a misinformed or biased lens that suggest an assumed lack of personal responsibility. In a May 2020 New England Journal of Medicine perspective, “Racial health disparities and Covid-19” (doi: 10.1056/NEJMp2012910), Merlin Chowkwanyun, PhD, MPH, and Adolph L. Reed Jr., PhD, caution us against creating race-based explanations for presumed behavioral patterns.

Systemic racism has created the myth that the playing field has been leveled since the end of enslavement. It hasn’t. That black man, woman, or nonbinary person is telling you “I can’t breathe. I’m tired. I’m short of breath ... I have a cough ... I’m feeling weak these days, Doc.” However, implicit bias is still that knee that won’t let up. It has not let up. Communities with lower-income black and Hispanic patients have already seen local hospitals and frontline workers fight to save their lives while losing their own to COVID-19. We all witnessed the battle for scarce resources and PPE [personal protective equipment]. In contrast, some wealthy neighborhoods have occupants who most likely have access to a primary care physician and more testing centers.

As we reexamine ourselves and look at these cases of police brutality against unarmed black men, women, and children with the appropriate shame and outrage, let us reflect upon the privileges that we enjoy. Let us find our voice as we speak up for black lives. Let us look deeply into the history of medicine as it relates to black patients by reading “Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present” by Harriet A. Washington. Let us examine that painful legacy, which, while having moments of good intention, still carries the stain of indifference, racism, neglect, and even experimentation without informed consent.

Why should we do these things? Because some of our black patients have also yelled or whispered, “I can’t breathe,” and we were not always listening either.
 

Dr. Ajala is a hospitalist and associate site director for education at Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta. She is a member of the executive council for SHM’s Care for Vulnerable Populations special interest group.

One might immediately think of the deaths of Eric Garner, George Floyd, or even the fictional character Radio Raheem from Spike Lee’s critically acclaimed film, “Do the Right Thing,” when they hear the words “I can’t breathe.” These words are a cry for help. The deaths of these unarmed black men is devastating and has led to a state of rage, palpable pain, and protest across the world.

However, in this moment, I am talking about the health inequity exposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Whether it be acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) secondary to severe COVID-19, or the subsequent hypercoagulable state of COVID-19 that leads to venous thromboembolism, many black people in this country are left breathless. Many black patients who had no employee-based health insurance also had no primary care physician to order a SARS-CoV2 PCR lab test for them. Many of these patients have preexisting conditions, such as asthma from living in redlined communities affected by environmental racism. Many grew up in food deserts, where no fresh-produce store was interested enough to set up shop in their neighborhoods. They have been eating fast food since early childhood, as a fast-food burger is still cheaper than a salad. The result is obesity, an epidemic that can lead to diabetes mellitus, hypertension that can lead to coronary artery disease, stroke, and end-stage renal disease. 

Earlier in my career, I once had a colleague gleefully tell me that all black people drank Kool-Aid while in discussion of the effects of high-sugar diets in our patients; this colleague was sure I would agree. Not all black people drink Kool-Aid. Secondary to my fear of the backlash that can come from the discomfort of “white fragility” that Robin DiAngelo describes in her New York Times bestseller by the same name, ”White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism,” I refrained from expressing my own hurt, and I did not offer explicit correction. I, instead, took a serious pause. That pause, which lasted only minutes, seemed to last 400 years. It was a brief reflection of the 400 years of systemic racism seeping into everyday life. This included the circumstances that would lead to the health inequities that result in the health disparities from which many black patients suffer. It is that same systemic racism that could create two America’s in which my colleague might not have to know the historic context in which that question could be hurtful. I retorted with modified shock and a chuckle so that I could muster up enough strength to repeat what was said and leave it open for reflection. The goal was for my colleague to realize the obvious implicit bias that lingered, despite intention. The chuckle was also to cover my pain.

Whether we know it or not, we all carry some form of implicit bias, regardless of race, class, gender, ethnicity, sexual preference, or socioeconomic status. In this case, it is the same implicit bias that causes physicians to ignore some black patients when they have said that they are in pain. A groundbreaking April 2016 article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, “Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations, and False Beliefs about Biological Differences Between Blacks and Whites” (doi: 10.1073/pnas.1516047113), revealed that racial disparities in pain assessment and treatment recommendations can be directly connected to the racial bias of the provider. It could be possible that this phenomenon has affected black patients who have walked into clinics and emergency departments and said, “I’m short of breath. I think that I might have coronavirus and need to be tested.” It may be that same implicit bias that has cut the air supply to a patient encounter. Instead of inquiring further, the patient might be met with minimum questions while their provider obtains their history and physical. Assumptions and blame on behavior and lack of personal responsibility secretly replace questions that could have been asked. Differentials between exacerbations and other etiologies are not explored. Could that patient have been sent home without a SARS-CoV2 polymerase chain reaction test? Well, what if the tests were in short supply? Sometimes they may have been sent home without a chest x-ray. In most cases, there are no funds to send them home with a pulse oximeter.

The act of assuming a person’s story that we consider to be one dimensional is always dangerous – and even more so during this pandemic. That person we can relate to – secondary to a cool pop culture moment, a TikTok song, or a negative stereotype – is not one dimensional. That assumption and that stereotype can make room for implicit bias. That same implicit bias is the knee on a neck of any marginalized patient. Implicit bias is the choke hold that slowly removes the light and life from a person who has a story, who has a family, and who has been an essential worker who can’t work from home. That person is telling us that they can’t breathe, but sometimes the only things seen are comorbidities through a misinformed or biased lens that suggest an assumed lack of personal responsibility. In a May 2020 New England Journal of Medicine perspective, “Racial health disparities and Covid-19” (doi: 10.1056/NEJMp2012910), Merlin Chowkwanyun, PhD, MPH, and Adolph L. Reed Jr., PhD, caution us against creating race-based explanations for presumed behavioral patterns.

Systemic racism has created the myth that the playing field has been leveled since the end of enslavement. It hasn’t. That black man, woman, or nonbinary person is telling you “I can’t breathe. I’m tired. I’m short of breath ... I have a cough ... I’m feeling weak these days, Doc.” However, implicit bias is still that knee that won’t let up. It has not let up. Communities with lower-income black and Hispanic patients have already seen local hospitals and frontline workers fight to save their lives while losing their own to COVID-19. We all witnessed the battle for scarce resources and PPE [personal protective equipment]. In contrast, some wealthy neighborhoods have occupants who most likely have access to a primary care physician and more testing centers.

As we reexamine ourselves and look at these cases of police brutality against unarmed black men, women, and children with the appropriate shame and outrage, let us reflect upon the privileges that we enjoy. Let us find our voice as we speak up for black lives. Let us look deeply into the history of medicine as it relates to black patients by reading “Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present” by Harriet A. Washington. Let us examine that painful legacy, which, while having moments of good intention, still carries the stain of indifference, racism, neglect, and even experimentation without informed consent.

Why should we do these things? Because some of our black patients have also yelled or whispered, “I can’t breathe,” and we were not always listening either.
 

Dr. Ajala is a hospitalist and associate site director for education at Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta. She is a member of the executive council for SHM’s Care for Vulnerable Populations special interest group.

One might immediately think of the deaths of Eric Garner, George Floyd, or even the fictional character Radio Raheem from Spike Lee’s critically acclaimed film, “Do the Right Thing,” when they hear the words “I can’t breathe.” These words are a cry for help. The deaths of these unarmed black men is devastating and has led to a state of rage, palpable pain, and protest across the world.

However, in this moment, I am talking about the health inequity exposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Whether it be acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) secondary to severe COVID-19, or the subsequent hypercoagulable state of COVID-19 that leads to venous thromboembolism, many black people in this country are left breathless. Many black patients who had no employee-based health insurance also had no primary care physician to order a SARS-CoV2 PCR lab test for them. Many of these patients have preexisting conditions, such as asthma from living in redlined communities affected by environmental racism. Many grew up in food deserts, where no fresh-produce store was interested enough to set up shop in their neighborhoods. They have been eating fast food since early childhood, as a fast-food burger is still cheaper than a salad. The result is obesity, an epidemic that can lead to diabetes mellitus, hypertension that can lead to coronary artery disease, stroke, and end-stage renal disease. 

Earlier in my career, I once had a colleague gleefully tell me that all black people drank Kool-Aid while in discussion of the effects of high-sugar diets in our patients; this colleague was sure I would agree. Not all black people drink Kool-Aid. Secondary to my fear of the backlash that can come from the discomfort of “white fragility” that Robin DiAngelo describes in her New York Times bestseller by the same name, ”White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism,” I refrained from expressing my own hurt, and I did not offer explicit correction. I, instead, took a serious pause. That pause, which lasted only minutes, seemed to last 400 years. It was a brief reflection of the 400 years of systemic racism seeping into everyday life. This included the circumstances that would lead to the health inequities that result in the health disparities from which many black patients suffer. It is that same systemic racism that could create two America’s in which my colleague might not have to know the historic context in which that question could be hurtful. I retorted with modified shock and a chuckle so that I could muster up enough strength to repeat what was said and leave it open for reflection. The goal was for my colleague to realize the obvious implicit bias that lingered, despite intention. The chuckle was also to cover my pain.

Whether we know it or not, we all carry some form of implicit bias, regardless of race, class, gender, ethnicity, sexual preference, or socioeconomic status. In this case, it is the same implicit bias that causes physicians to ignore some black patients when they have said that they are in pain. A groundbreaking April 2016 article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, “Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations, and False Beliefs about Biological Differences Between Blacks and Whites” (doi: 10.1073/pnas.1516047113), revealed that racial disparities in pain assessment and treatment recommendations can be directly connected to the racial bias of the provider. It could be possible that this phenomenon has affected black patients who have walked into clinics and emergency departments and said, “I’m short of breath. I think that I might have coronavirus and need to be tested.” It may be that same implicit bias that has cut the air supply to a patient encounter. Instead of inquiring further, the patient might be met with minimum questions while their provider obtains their history and physical. Assumptions and blame on behavior and lack of personal responsibility secretly replace questions that could have been asked. Differentials between exacerbations and other etiologies are not explored. Could that patient have been sent home without a SARS-CoV2 polymerase chain reaction test? Well, what if the tests were in short supply? Sometimes they may have been sent home without a chest x-ray. In most cases, there are no funds to send them home with a pulse oximeter.

The act of assuming a person’s story that we consider to be one dimensional is always dangerous – and even more so during this pandemic. That person we can relate to – secondary to a cool pop culture moment, a TikTok song, or a negative stereotype – is not one dimensional. That assumption and that stereotype can make room for implicit bias. That same implicit bias is the knee on a neck of any marginalized patient. Implicit bias is the choke hold that slowly removes the light and life from a person who has a story, who has a family, and who has been an essential worker who can’t work from home. That person is telling us that they can’t breathe, but sometimes the only things seen are comorbidities through a misinformed or biased lens that suggest an assumed lack of personal responsibility. In a May 2020 New England Journal of Medicine perspective, “Racial health disparities and Covid-19” (doi: 10.1056/NEJMp2012910), Merlin Chowkwanyun, PhD, MPH, and Adolph L. Reed Jr., PhD, caution us against creating race-based explanations for presumed behavioral patterns.

Systemic racism has created the myth that the playing field has been leveled since the end of enslavement. It hasn’t. That black man, woman, or nonbinary person is telling you “I can’t breathe. I’m tired. I’m short of breath ... I have a cough ... I’m feeling weak these days, Doc.” However, implicit bias is still that knee that won’t let up. It has not let up. Communities with lower-income black and Hispanic patients have already seen local hospitals and frontline workers fight to save their lives while losing their own to COVID-19. We all witnessed the battle for scarce resources and PPE [personal protective equipment]. In contrast, some wealthy neighborhoods have occupants who most likely have access to a primary care physician and more testing centers.

As we reexamine ourselves and look at these cases of police brutality against unarmed black men, women, and children with the appropriate shame and outrage, let us reflect upon the privileges that we enjoy. Let us find our voice as we speak up for black lives. Let us look deeply into the history of medicine as it relates to black patients by reading “Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present” by Harriet A. Washington. Let us examine that painful legacy, which, while having moments of good intention, still carries the stain of indifference, racism, neglect, and even experimentation without informed consent.

Why should we do these things? Because some of our black patients have also yelled or whispered, “I can’t breathe,” and we were not always listening either.
 

Dr. Ajala is a hospitalist and associate site director for education at Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta. She is a member of the executive council for SHM’s Care for Vulnerable Populations special interest group.

When Stephen Tyring, MD, PhD, an infectious disease dermatologist, started his career in the early 1980s, he said “we were diagnosing Kaposi’s sarcoma right and left. We would see a new case every day or two.”

It was the early days of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, and dermatologists were at the forefront because HIV/AIDS often presented with skin manifestations. Dr. Tyring, clinical professor in the departments of dermatology, microbiology & molecular genetics and internal medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, and his colleagues referred Kaposi’s patients for chemotherapy and radiation, but the outlook was often grim, especially if lesions developed in the lungs.

Dermatologist don’t see much Kaposi’s anymore because of highly effective treatments for HIV. It highlights one of the major advances in infectious disease (ID) dermatology since Dermatology News published its first issue under the name Skin & Allergy News in January 1970: improved management of viral disease.

Members of the original editorial advisory board saw it coming. In a feature in which board members provided their prediction for the 1970s that appeared in the first issue, New York dermatologist Norman Orentreich, MD, counted the “probable introduction of virucidal agents” as one of the “significant advances or changes that I foresee in the next 10 years.” J. Lamar Callaway, MD, professor of dermatology at Duke University, Durham, N.C., predicted that “the next 10 years should develop effective anti-viral agents for warts, herpes simplex, and herpes zoster.”

“A lot of advancements against herpes viruses”

One of the biggest wins for ID dermatology over the last 5 decades has been the management of herpes, both herpes simplex virus 1 and 2, as well as herpes zoster virus. It started with the approval of acyclovir in 1981. Before then, “we had no direct therapy for genital herpes, herpes zoster, or disseminated herpes in immunosuppressed or cancer patients,” Dr. Rosen said.

“I can remember doing an interview with Good Morning America when I gave the first IV dose of acyclovir in the city of Houston for really bad disseminated herpes” in an HIV patient, he said, and it worked.

Two derivatives, valacyclovir and famciclovir, became available in the mid-1990s, so today “we have three drugs and some others at the periphery that are all highly effective not only” against herpes, but also for preventing outbreaks; valacyclovir can even prevent asymptomatic shedding, therefore possibly preventing new infections. “That’s a concept we didn’t even have 40 years ago,” Dr. Rosen said.

Cidofovir has also made a difference. The IV formulation was approved for AIDS-associated cytomegalovirus retinitis in 1996 but discontinued a few years later amid concerns of severe renal toxicity. It’s found a new home in dermatology since then, explained ID dermatologist Carrie Kovarik, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dermatologists see acyclovir-resistant herpes “heaped up on the genitals in HIV patients,” and there weren’t many options in the past. A few years ago, “we [tried] injecting cidofovir directly into the skin lesions, and it’s been remarkably successful. It is a good way to treat these lesions” if dermatologists can get it compounded, she said.

Shingles vaccines, first the live attenuated zoster vaccine (Zostavax) approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2006 and the more effective recombinant zoster vaccine (Shingrix) approved in 2017, have also had a significant impact.

Dr. Rosen remembers what it was like when he first started practicing over 40 years ago. Not uncommonly, “we saw horrible cases of shingles,” including one in his uncle, who was left with permanent hand pain long after the rash subsided.

Today, “I see much less shingles, and when I do see it, it’s in a much-attenuated form. [Shingrix], even if it doesn’t prevent the disease, often prevents postherpetic neuralgia,” he said.

Also, with pediatric vaccinations against chicken pox, “we’re probably going to see a whole new generation without shingles, which is huge. We’ve made a lot of advancements against herpes viruses,” Dr. Kovarik said.
 

“We finally found something that helps”

“We’ve [also] come a really long way with genital wart treatment,” Dr. Kovarik said.

It started with approval of topical imiquimod in 1997. “Before that, we were just killing one wart here and one wart there” but they would often come back and pop up in other areas. Injectable interferon was an option at the time, but people didn’t like all the needles.

With imiquimod, “we finally [had] a way to target HPV [human papillomavirus] and not just scrape” or freeze one wart at a time, and “we were able to generate an inflammatory response in the whole area to clear the virus.” Working with HIV patients, “I see sheets and sheets of confluent warts throughout the whole genital area; to try to freeze that is impossible. Now I have a way to get rid of [genital] warts and keep them away even if you have a big cluster,” she said.

“Sometimes, we’ll do both liquid nitrogen and imiquimod. That’s a good way to tackle people who have a high burden of warts,” Dr. Kovarik noted. Other effective treatments have come out as well, including an ointment formulation of sinecatechins, extracted from green tea, “but you have to put it on several times a day, and insurance companies don’t cover it often,” she said.

Intralesional cidofovir is also proving to be boon for potentially malignant refractory warts in HIV and transplant patients. “It’s an incredible treatment. We can inject that antiviral into warts and get rid of them. We finally found something that helps” these people, Dr. Kovarik said.

The HPV vaccine Gardasil is making a difference, as well. In addition to cervical dysplasia and anogenital cancers, it protects against two condyloma strains. Dr. Rosen said he’s seeing fewer cases of genital warts now than when he started practicing, likely because of the vaccine.
 

“Organisms that weren’t pathogens are now pathogens”

Antibiotic resistance probably tops the list for what’s changed in a bad way in ID dermatology since 1970. Dr. Rosen remembers at the start of his career that “we never worried about antibiotic resistance. We’d put people on antibiotics for acne, rosacea, and we’d keep them on them for 3 years, 6 years”; resistance wasn’t on the radar screen and was not mentioned once in the first issue of Dermatology News, which was packed with articles and ran 24 pages.

The situation is different now. Driven by decades of overuse in agriculture and the medical system, antibiotic resistance is a concern throughout medicine, and unfortunately, “we have not come nearly as far as fast with antibiotics,” at least the ones dermatologists use, “as we have with antivirals,” Dr. Tyring said.

For instance, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), first described in the United States in 1968, is “no longer the exception to the rule, but the rule” itself, he said, with carbuncles, furuncles, and abscesses not infrequently growing out MRSA. There are also new drug-resistant forms of old problems like gonorrhea and tuberculosis, among other developments, and impetigo has shifted since 1970 from mostly a Streptococcus infection easily treated with penicillin to often a Staphylococcus disease that’s resistant to it. There’s also been a steady march of new pathogens, including the latest one, SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, which has been recognized as having a variety of skin manifestations.

“No matter how smart we think we are, nature has a way of putting us back in our place,” Dr. Rosen said.

The bright spot is that “we’ve become very adept at identifying and characterizing” microbes “based on techniques we didn’t even have when I started practicing,” such as polymerase chain reaction. “It has taken a lot of guess work out of treating infectious diseases,” he said.

The widespread use of immunosuppressives such as cyclophosphamide, mycophenolate, azathioprine, rituximab, and other agents used in conjunction with solid organ transplantation, has also been a challenge. “We are seeing infections with really odd organisms. Just recently, I had a patient with fusarium in the skin; it’s a fungus that lives in the dirt. I saw a patient with a species of algae” that normally lives in stagnant water, he commented. “We used to get [things like that] back on reports, and we’d throw them away. You can’t do that anymore. Organisms that weren’t pathogens in the past are now pathogens,” particularly in immunosuppressed people, Dr. Rosen said.
 

Venereologists no more

There’s been another big change in the field. “Back in the not too distant past, dermatologists in the U.S. were referred to as ‘dermatologist-venereologists.’ ” It goes back to the time when syphilis wasn’t diagnosed and treated early, so patients often presented with secondary skin complications and went to dermatologists for help. As a result, “dermatologists became the most experienced at treating it,” Dr. Tyring said.

That’s faded from practice. Part of the reason is that as late as 2000, syphilis seemed to be on the way out; the Centers for Disease and Control and Prevention even raised the possibility of elimination. Dermatologists turned their attention to other areas.

It might have been short-sighted, Dr. Rosen said. Syphilis has made a strong comeback, and drug-resistant gonorrhea has also emerged globally and in at least a few states. No other medical field has stepped in to take up the slack. “Ob.gyns. are busy delivering babies, ID [physicians are] concerned about HIV, and urologists are worried about kidney stones and cancer.” Other than herpes and genital warts, “we have not done well” with management of sexually transmitted diseases, he said.
 

“I could sense” his frustration

The first issue of Dermatology News carried an article and photospread about scabies that could run today, except that topical permethrin and oral ivermectin have largely replaced benzyl benzoate and sulfur ointments for treatment in the United States. In the article, Scottish dermatologist J. O’D. Alexander, MD, called scabies “the scourge of mankind” and blamed it’s prevalence on “an offhand attitude to the disease which makes control very difficult.”

“I could sense this man’s frustration that people were not recognizing scabies,” Dr. Kovarik said, and it’s no closer to being eradicated than it was in 1970. “It’s still around, and we see it in our clinics. It’s a horrible disease in kids we see in dermatology not infrequently,” and treatment has only advanced a bit.

The article highlights what hasn’t changed much in ID dermatology over the years. Common warts are another one. “With all the evolution in medicine, we don’t have any better treatments approved for common warts than we ever had.” Injecting cidofovir “works great,” but access is a problem, Dr. Tyring said.

Onychomycosis has also proven a tough nut to crack. Readers back in 1970 counted the introduction of the antifungal, griseofulvin, as a major advancement in the 1960s; it’s still a go-to for tinea capitis, but it didn’t work very well for toenail fungus. Terbinafine (Lamisil), approved in 1993, and subsequent developments have helped, but the field still awaits more effective options; a few potential new agents are in the pipeline.

Although there have been major advancements for serious systemic fungal infections, “we’ve mainly seen small steps forward” in ID dermatology, Dr. Tyring said.

Dr. Tyring, Dr. Kovarik, and Dr. Rosen said they had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

When Stephen Tyring, MD, PhD, an infectious disease dermatologist, started his career in the early 1980s, he said “we were diagnosing Kaposi’s sarcoma right and left. We would see a new case every day or two.”

It was the early days of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, and dermatologists were at the forefront because HIV/AIDS often presented with skin manifestations. Dr. Tyring, clinical professor in the departments of dermatology, microbiology & molecular genetics and internal medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, and his colleagues referred Kaposi’s patients for chemotherapy and radiation, but the outlook was often grim, especially if lesions developed in the lungs.

Dermatologist don’t see much Kaposi’s anymore because of highly effective treatments for HIV. It highlights one of the major advances in infectious disease (ID) dermatology since Dermatology News published its first issue under the name Skin & Allergy News in January 1970: improved management of viral disease.

Members of the original editorial advisory board saw it coming. In a feature in which board members provided their prediction for the 1970s that appeared in the first issue, New York dermatologist Norman Orentreich, MD, counted the “probable introduction of virucidal agents” as one of the “significant advances or changes that I foresee in the next 10 years.” J. Lamar Callaway, MD, professor of dermatology at Duke University, Durham, N.C., predicted that “the next 10 years should develop effective anti-viral agents for warts, herpes simplex, and herpes zoster.”

“A lot of advancements against herpes viruses”

One of the biggest wins for ID dermatology over the last 5 decades has been the management of herpes, both herpes simplex virus 1 and 2, as well as herpes zoster virus. It started with the approval of acyclovir in 1981. Before then, “we had no direct therapy for genital herpes, herpes zoster, or disseminated herpes in immunosuppressed or cancer patients,” Dr. Rosen said.

“I can remember doing an interview with Good Morning America when I gave the first IV dose of acyclovir in the city of Houston for really bad disseminated herpes” in an HIV patient, he said, and it worked.

Two derivatives, valacyclovir and famciclovir, became available in the mid-1990s, so today “we have three drugs and some others at the periphery that are all highly effective not only” against herpes, but also for preventing outbreaks; valacyclovir can even prevent asymptomatic shedding, therefore possibly preventing new infections. “That’s a concept we didn’t even have 40 years ago,” Dr. Rosen said.

Cidofovir has also made a difference. The IV formulation was approved for AIDS-associated cytomegalovirus retinitis in 1996 but discontinued a few years later amid concerns of severe renal toxicity. It’s found a new home in dermatology since then, explained ID dermatologist Carrie Kovarik, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dermatologists see acyclovir-resistant herpes “heaped up on the genitals in HIV patients,” and there weren’t many options in the past. A few years ago, “we [tried] injecting cidofovir directly into the skin lesions, and it’s been remarkably successful. It is a good way to treat these lesions” if dermatologists can get it compounded, she said.

Shingles vaccines, first the live attenuated zoster vaccine (Zostavax) approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2006 and the more effective recombinant zoster vaccine (Shingrix) approved in 2017, have also had a significant impact.

Dr. Rosen remembers what it was like when he first started practicing over 40 years ago. Not uncommonly, “we saw horrible cases of shingles,” including one in his uncle, who was left with permanent hand pain long after the rash subsided.

Today, “I see much less shingles, and when I do see it, it’s in a much-attenuated form. [Shingrix], even if it doesn’t prevent the disease, often prevents postherpetic neuralgia,” he said.

Also, with pediatric vaccinations against chicken pox, “we’re probably going to see a whole new generation without shingles, which is huge. We’ve made a lot of advancements against herpes viruses,” Dr. Kovarik said.
 

“We finally found something that helps”

“We’ve [also] come a really long way with genital wart treatment,” Dr. Kovarik said.

It started with approval of topical imiquimod in 1997. “Before that, we were just killing one wart here and one wart there” but they would often come back and pop up in other areas. Injectable interferon was an option at the time, but people didn’t like all the needles.

With imiquimod, “we finally [had] a way to target HPV [human papillomavirus] and not just scrape” or freeze one wart at a time, and “we were able to generate an inflammatory response in the whole area to clear the virus.” Working with HIV patients, “I see sheets and sheets of confluent warts throughout the whole genital area; to try to freeze that is impossible. Now I have a way to get rid of [genital] warts and keep them away even if you have a big cluster,” she said.

“Sometimes, we’ll do both liquid nitrogen and imiquimod. That’s a good way to tackle people who have a high burden of warts,” Dr. Kovarik noted. Other effective treatments have come out as well, including an ointment formulation of sinecatechins, extracted from green tea, “but you have to put it on several times a day, and insurance companies don’t cover it often,” she said.

Intralesional cidofovir is also proving to be boon for potentially malignant refractory warts in HIV and transplant patients. “It’s an incredible treatment. We can inject that antiviral into warts and get rid of them. We finally found something that helps” these people, Dr. Kovarik said.

The HPV vaccine Gardasil is making a difference, as well. In addition to cervical dysplasia and anogenital cancers, it protects against two condyloma strains. Dr. Rosen said he’s seeing fewer cases of genital warts now than when he started practicing, likely because of the vaccine.
 

“Organisms that weren’t pathogens are now pathogens”

Antibiotic resistance probably tops the list for what’s changed in a bad way in ID dermatology since 1970. Dr. Rosen remembers at the start of his career that “we never worried about antibiotic resistance. We’d put people on antibiotics for acne, rosacea, and we’d keep them on them for 3 years, 6 years”; resistance wasn’t on the radar screen and was not mentioned once in the first issue of Dermatology News, which was packed with articles and ran 24 pages.

The situation is different now. Driven by decades of overuse in agriculture and the medical system, antibiotic resistance is a concern throughout medicine, and unfortunately, “we have not come nearly as far as fast with antibiotics,” at least the ones dermatologists use, “as we have with antivirals,” Dr. Tyring said.

For instance, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), first described in the United States in 1968, is “no longer the exception to the rule, but the rule” itself, he said, with carbuncles, furuncles, and abscesses not infrequently growing out MRSA. There are also new drug-resistant forms of old problems like gonorrhea and tuberculosis, among other developments, and impetigo has shifted since 1970 from mostly a Streptococcus infection easily treated with penicillin to often a Staphylococcus disease that’s resistant to it. There’s also been a steady march of new pathogens, including the latest one, SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, which has been recognized as having a variety of skin manifestations.

“No matter how smart we think we are, nature has a way of putting us back in our place,” Dr. Rosen said.

The bright spot is that “we’ve become very adept at identifying and characterizing” microbes “based on techniques we didn’t even have when I started practicing,” such as polymerase chain reaction. “It has taken a lot of guess work out of treating infectious diseases,” he said.

The widespread use of immunosuppressives such as cyclophosphamide, mycophenolate, azathioprine, rituximab, and other agents used in conjunction with solid organ transplantation, has also been a challenge. “We are seeing infections with really odd organisms. Just recently, I had a patient with fusarium in the skin; it’s a fungus that lives in the dirt. I saw a patient with a species of algae” that normally lives in stagnant water, he commented. “We used to get [things like that] back on reports, and we’d throw them away. You can’t do that anymore. Organisms that weren’t pathogens in the past are now pathogens,” particularly in immunosuppressed people, Dr. Rosen said.
 

Venereologists no more

There’s been another big change in the field. “Back in the not too distant past, dermatologists in the U.S. were referred to as ‘dermatologist-venereologists.’ ” It goes back to the time when syphilis wasn’t diagnosed and treated early, so patients often presented with secondary skin complications and went to dermatologists for help. As a result, “dermatologists became the most experienced at treating it,” Dr. Tyring said.

That’s faded from practice. Part of the reason is that as late as 2000, syphilis seemed to be on the way out; the Centers for Disease and Control and Prevention even raised the possibility of elimination. Dermatologists turned their attention to other areas.

It might have been short-sighted, Dr. Rosen said. Syphilis has made a strong comeback, and drug-resistant gonorrhea has also emerged globally and in at least a few states. No other medical field has stepped in to take up the slack. “Ob.gyns. are busy delivering babies, ID [physicians are] concerned about HIV, and urologists are worried about kidney stones and cancer.” Other than herpes and genital warts, “we have not done well” with management of sexually transmitted diseases, he said.
 

“I could sense” his frustration

The first issue of Dermatology News carried an article and photospread about scabies that could run today, except that topical permethrin and oral ivermectin have largely replaced benzyl benzoate and sulfur ointments for treatment in the United States. In the article, Scottish dermatologist J. O’D. Alexander, MD, called scabies “the scourge of mankind” and blamed it’s prevalence on “an offhand attitude to the disease which makes control very difficult.”

“I could sense this man’s frustration that people were not recognizing scabies,” Dr. Kovarik said, and it’s no closer to being eradicated than it was in 1970. “It’s still around, and we see it in our clinics. It’s a horrible disease in kids we see in dermatology not infrequently,” and treatment has only advanced a bit.

The article highlights what hasn’t changed much in ID dermatology over the years. Common warts are another one. “With all the evolution in medicine, we don’t have any better treatments approved for common warts than we ever had.” Injecting cidofovir “works great,” but access is a problem, Dr. Tyring said.

Onychomycosis has also proven a tough nut to crack. Readers back in 1970 counted the introduction of the antifungal, griseofulvin, as a major advancement in the 1960s; it’s still a go-to for tinea capitis, but it didn’t work very well for toenail fungus. Terbinafine (Lamisil), approved in 1993, and subsequent developments have helped, but the field still awaits more effective options; a few potential new agents are in the pipeline.

Although there have been major advancements for serious systemic fungal infections, “we’ve mainly seen small steps forward” in ID dermatology, Dr. Tyring said.

Dr. Tyring, Dr. Kovarik, and Dr. Rosen said they had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

When Stephen Tyring, MD, PhD, an infectious disease dermatologist, started his career in the early 1980s, he said “we were diagnosing Kaposi’s sarcoma right and left. We would see a new case every day or two.”

It was the early days of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, and dermatologists were at the forefront because HIV/AIDS often presented with skin manifestations. Dr. Tyring, clinical professor in the departments of dermatology, microbiology & molecular genetics and internal medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, and his colleagues referred Kaposi’s patients for chemotherapy and radiation, but the outlook was often grim, especially if lesions developed in the lungs.

Dermatologist don’t see much Kaposi’s anymore because of highly effective treatments for HIV. It highlights one of the major advances in infectious disease (ID) dermatology since Dermatology News published its first issue under the name Skin & Allergy News in January 1970: improved management of viral disease.

Members of the original editorial advisory board saw it coming. In a feature in which board members provided their prediction for the 1970s that appeared in the first issue, New York dermatologist Norman Orentreich, MD, counted the “probable introduction of virucidal agents” as one of the “significant advances or changes that I foresee in the next 10 years.” J. Lamar Callaway, MD, professor of dermatology at Duke University, Durham, N.C., predicted that “the next 10 years should develop effective anti-viral agents for warts, herpes simplex, and herpes zoster.”

“A lot of advancements against herpes viruses”

One of the biggest wins for ID dermatology over the last 5 decades has been the management of herpes, both herpes simplex virus 1 and 2, as well as herpes zoster virus. It started with the approval of acyclovir in 1981. Before then, “we had no direct therapy for genital herpes, herpes zoster, or disseminated herpes in immunosuppressed or cancer patients,” Dr. Rosen said.

“I can remember doing an interview with Good Morning America when I gave the first IV dose of acyclovir in the city of Houston for really bad disseminated herpes” in an HIV patient, he said, and it worked.

Two derivatives, valacyclovir and famciclovir, became available in the mid-1990s, so today “we have three drugs and some others at the periphery that are all highly effective not only” against herpes, but also for preventing outbreaks; valacyclovir can even prevent asymptomatic shedding, therefore possibly preventing new infections. “That’s a concept we didn’t even have 40 years ago,” Dr. Rosen said.

Cidofovir has also made a difference. The IV formulation was approved for AIDS-associated cytomegalovirus retinitis in 1996 but discontinued a few years later amid concerns of severe renal toxicity. It’s found a new home in dermatology since then, explained ID dermatologist Carrie Kovarik, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dermatologists see acyclovir-resistant herpes “heaped up on the genitals in HIV patients,” and there weren’t many options in the past. A few years ago, “we [tried] injecting cidofovir directly into the skin lesions, and it’s been remarkably successful. It is a good way to treat these lesions” if dermatologists can get it compounded, she said.

Shingles vaccines, first the live attenuated zoster vaccine (Zostavax) approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2006 and the more effective recombinant zoster vaccine (Shingrix) approved in 2017, have also had a significant impact.

Dr. Rosen remembers what it was like when he first started practicing over 40 years ago. Not uncommonly, “we saw horrible cases of shingles,” including one in his uncle, who was left with permanent hand pain long after the rash subsided.

Today, “I see much less shingles, and when I do see it, it’s in a much-attenuated form. [Shingrix], even if it doesn’t prevent the disease, often prevents postherpetic neuralgia,” he said.

Also, with pediatric vaccinations against chicken pox, “we’re probably going to see a whole new generation without shingles, which is huge. We’ve made a lot of advancements against herpes viruses,” Dr. Kovarik said.
 

“We finally found something that helps”

“We’ve [also] come a really long way with genital wart treatment,” Dr. Kovarik said.

It started with approval of topical imiquimod in 1997. “Before that, we were just killing one wart here and one wart there” but they would often come back and pop up in other areas. Injectable interferon was an option at the time, but people didn’t like all the needles.

With imiquimod, “we finally [had] a way to target HPV [human papillomavirus] and not just scrape” or freeze one wart at a time, and “we were able to generate an inflammatory response in the whole area to clear the virus.” Working with HIV patients, “I see sheets and sheets of confluent warts throughout the whole genital area; to try to freeze that is impossible. Now I have a way to get rid of [genital] warts and keep them away even if you have a big cluster,” she said.

“Sometimes, we’ll do both liquid nitrogen and imiquimod. That’s a good way to tackle people who have a high burden of warts,” Dr. Kovarik noted. Other effective treatments have come out as well, including an ointment formulation of sinecatechins, extracted from green tea, “but you have to put it on several times a day, and insurance companies don’t cover it often,” she said.

Intralesional cidofovir is also proving to be boon for potentially malignant refractory warts in HIV and transplant patients. “It’s an incredible treatment. We can inject that antiviral into warts and get rid of them. We finally found something that helps” these people, Dr. Kovarik said.

The HPV vaccine Gardasil is making a difference, as well. In addition to cervical dysplasia and anogenital cancers, it protects against two condyloma strains. Dr. Rosen said he’s seeing fewer cases of genital warts now than when he started practicing, likely because of the vaccine.
 

“Organisms that weren’t pathogens are now pathogens”

Antibiotic resistance probably tops the list for what’s changed in a bad way in ID dermatology since 1970. Dr. Rosen remembers at the start of his career that “we never worried about antibiotic resistance. We’d put people on antibiotics for acne, rosacea, and we’d keep them on them for 3 years, 6 years”; resistance wasn’t on the radar screen and was not mentioned once in the first issue of Dermatology News, which was packed with articles and ran 24 pages.

The situation is different now. Driven by decades of overuse in agriculture and the medical system, antibiotic resistance is a concern throughout medicine, and unfortunately, “we have not come nearly as far as fast with antibiotics,” at least the ones dermatologists use, “as we have with antivirals,” Dr. Tyring said.

For instance, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), first described in the United States in 1968, is “no longer the exception to the rule, but the rule” itself, he said, with carbuncles, furuncles, and abscesses not infrequently growing out MRSA. There are also new drug-resistant forms of old problems like gonorrhea and tuberculosis, among other developments, and impetigo has shifted since 1970 from mostly a Streptococcus infection easily treated with penicillin to often a Staphylococcus disease that’s resistant to it. There’s also been a steady march of new pathogens, including the latest one, SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, which has been recognized as having a variety of skin manifestations.

“No matter how smart we think we are, nature has a way of putting us back in our place,” Dr. Rosen said.

The bright spot is that “we’ve become very adept at identifying and characterizing” microbes “based on techniques we didn’t even have when I started practicing,” such as polymerase chain reaction. “It has taken a lot of guess work out of treating infectious diseases,” he said.

The widespread use of immunosuppressives such as cyclophosphamide, mycophenolate, azathioprine, rituximab, and other agents used in conjunction with solid organ transplantation, has also been a challenge. “We are seeing infections with really odd organisms. Just recently, I had a patient with fusarium in the skin; it’s a fungus that lives in the dirt. I saw a patient with a species of algae” that normally lives in stagnant water, he commented. “We used to get [things like that] back on reports, and we’d throw them away. You can’t do that anymore. Organisms that weren’t pathogens in the past are now pathogens,” particularly in immunosuppressed people, Dr. Rosen said.
 

Venereologists no more

There’s been another big change in the field. “Back in the not too distant past, dermatologists in the U.S. were referred to as ‘dermatologist-venereologists.’ ” It goes back to the time when syphilis wasn’t diagnosed and treated early, so patients often presented with secondary skin complications and went to dermatologists for help. As a result, “dermatologists became the most experienced at treating it,” Dr. Tyring said.

That’s faded from practice. Part of the reason is that as late as 2000, syphilis seemed to be on the way out; the Centers for Disease and Control and Prevention even raised the possibility of elimination. Dermatologists turned their attention to other areas.

It might have been short-sighted, Dr. Rosen said. Syphilis has made a strong comeback, and drug-resistant gonorrhea has also emerged globally and in at least a few states. No other medical field has stepped in to take up the slack. “Ob.gyns. are busy delivering babies, ID [physicians are] concerned about HIV, and urologists are worried about kidney stones and cancer.” Other than herpes and genital warts, “we have not done well” with management of sexually transmitted diseases, he said.
 

“I could sense” his frustration

The first issue of Dermatology News carried an article and photospread about scabies that could run today, except that topical permethrin and oral ivermectin have largely replaced benzyl benzoate and sulfur ointments for treatment in the United States. In the article, Scottish dermatologist J. O’D. Alexander, MD, called scabies “the scourge of mankind” and blamed it’s prevalence on “an offhand attitude to the disease which makes control very difficult.”

“I could sense this man’s frustration that people were not recognizing scabies,” Dr. Kovarik said, and it’s no closer to being eradicated than it was in 1970. “It’s still around, and we see it in our clinics. It’s a horrible disease in kids we see in dermatology not infrequently,” and treatment has only advanced a bit.

The article highlights what hasn’t changed much in ID dermatology over the years. Common warts are another one. “With all the evolution in medicine, we don’t have any better treatments approved for common warts than we ever had.” Injecting cidofovir “works great,” but access is a problem, Dr. Tyring said.

Onychomycosis has also proven a tough nut to crack. Readers back in 1970 counted the introduction of the antifungal, griseofulvin, as a major advancement in the 1960s; it’s still a go-to for tinea capitis, but it didn’t work very well for toenail fungus. Terbinafine (Lamisil), approved in 1993, and subsequent developments have helped, but the field still awaits more effective options; a few potential new agents are in the pipeline.

Although there have been major advancements for serious systemic fungal infections, “we’ve mainly seen small steps forward” in ID dermatology, Dr. Tyring said.

Dr. Tyring, Dr. Kovarik, and Dr. Rosen said they had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Scrapings of the child’s rash were analyzed with potassium hydroxide (KOH) under microscopy which revealed multiple septate hyphae.

She was diagnosed with Majocchi’s granuloma. The fungal culture was positive for Trichophyton rubrum.

The differential diagnosis for these lesions in children includes other granulomatous conditions such as granulomatous rosacea, sarcoidosis, and granuloma faciale, as well as bacterial or atypical mycobacterial infections, cutaneous leishmaniasis, and eosinophilic pustular folliculitis.

Treatment of MG requires systemic treatment with griseofulvin, itraconazole, or terbinafine for at least 4-8 weeks or until all the lesions have resolved. Our patient was treated with 6 weeks of high-dose griseofulvin with resolution of her lesions.

Dr. Matiz is a pediatric dermatologist at Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Dermatol Online J. 2018 Dec 15;24(12):13030/qt89k4t6wj.

2. Med Mycol. 2012 Jul;50(5):449-57.

3. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2011 Apr;24(2):247-80.

Scrapings of the child’s rash were analyzed with potassium hydroxide (KOH) under microscopy which revealed multiple septate hyphae.

She was diagnosed with Majocchi’s granuloma. The fungal culture was positive for Trichophyton rubrum.

The differential diagnosis for these lesions in children includes other granulomatous conditions such as granulomatous rosacea, sarcoidosis, and granuloma faciale, as well as bacterial or atypical mycobacterial infections, cutaneous leishmaniasis, and eosinophilic pustular folliculitis.

Treatment of MG requires systemic treatment with griseofulvin, itraconazole, or terbinafine for at least 4-8 weeks or until all the lesions have resolved. Our patient was treated with 6 weeks of high-dose griseofulvin with resolution of her lesions.

Dr. Matiz is a pediatric dermatologist at Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Dermatol Online J. 2018 Dec 15;24(12):13030/qt89k4t6wj.

2. Med Mycol. 2012 Jul;50(5):449-57.

3. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2011 Apr;24(2):247-80.

Scrapings of the child’s rash were analyzed with potassium hydroxide (KOH) under microscopy which revealed multiple septate hyphae.

She was diagnosed with Majocchi’s granuloma. The fungal culture was positive for Trichophyton rubrum.

The differential diagnosis for these lesions in children includes other granulomatous conditions such as granulomatous rosacea, sarcoidosis, and granuloma faciale, as well as bacterial or atypical mycobacterial infections, cutaneous leishmaniasis, and eosinophilic pustular folliculitis.

Treatment of MG requires systemic treatment with griseofulvin, itraconazole, or terbinafine for at least 4-8 weeks or until all the lesions have resolved. Our patient was treated with 6 weeks of high-dose griseofulvin with resolution of her lesions.

Dr. Matiz is a pediatric dermatologist at Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Dermatol Online J. 2018 Dec 15;24(12):13030/qt89k4t6wj.

2. Med Mycol. 2012 Jul;50(5):449-57.

3. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2011 Apr;24(2):247-80.

The cardiovascular outcome trial results for a fourth sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, ertugliflozin, were most notable for their consistency with the four prior, similar trials run on the three other drugs from this class on the U.S. market, canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and empagliflozin, further solidifying the important role this drug class has recently taken on for patients with type 2 diabetes.

But the ertugliflozin results, which showed statistically significant superiority to placebo for just one endpoint, hospitalization for heart failure, made it unclear whether clinicians will regard ertugliflozin as the top agent from this class to prescribe.

“Our big takeaway is that the findings are consistent with what’s been seen in the other studies” of cardiovascular and renal outcomes in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME study of empagliflozin (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373[22]:2117-28 ), the CANVAS (N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 17;377[7]:644-57) and CREDENCE (N Engl J Med. 2019 June 13;380[24]:2295-306 ) studies of canagliflozin, and the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial with dapagliflozin (N Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 24;380[4]:347-57), Christopher P. Cannon, MD, said at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

The cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs), mandated in 2008 by Food and Drug Administration guidance for type 2 diabetes drugs that is now in the process of undergoing an update, have had the main goal of proving safety, and the primary endpoint of the new ertugliflozin trial, VERTIS-CV, was noninferiority to placebo when used on top of standard type 2 diabetes medications for the combined endpoint of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke.
 

Key findings

Both of the tested dosages of ertugliflozin, 5 mg and 15 mg daily, met this endpoint, with event rates over a median 3.0 years of follow-up that ran very close to the placebo rate, clearly proving noninferiority. But the results showed no suggestion of superiority in a study that randomized 5,499 patients to either of the ertugliflozin regimens and 2,747 to placebo, reported Dr. Cannon, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The primary outcome also showed similar event rates for each component of the composite endpoint, and subgroup analysis showed consistent results from ertugliflozin, compared with placebo, regardless of study-cohort subdivision by demographic, clinical, or treatment factors.

The trial design called for a hierarchical sequence of secondary-outcome superiority analyses, starting with the impact of ertugliflozin on cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization, and for this outcome ertugliflozin showed a point estimate of a 12% relative risk reduction, compared with placebo-treated patients, but this difference was not statistically significant. This meant that all subsequent superiority analyses in this trial could only be hypothesis generating and not definitive.

This negated the statistical validity of the only statistically significant treatment difference between ertugliflozin and placebo seen in VERTIS-CV, for the outcome of hospitalization for heart failure, where ertugliflozin treatment cut this outcome by 30%, compared with placebo patients. The rate of cardiovascular death alone, as well as a renal composite endpoint each showed no statistically significant benefit of ertugliflozin, compared with placebo, although the renal endpoint came close, with ertugliflozin reducing the combined rate of renal death, need for dialysis, need for renal transplant, or a doubling of serum creatinine from baseline by 19%, compared with placebo (P = .08).

How results compare with prior CVOTs

In some ways, these results seemed to contrast with outcomes from the CVOTs for the other SGLT2 inhibitors, which all showed at least two statistically significant benefits for major endpoints when compared with placebo.

As summarized in a new meta-analysis of all the CVOTs by Darren K. McGuire, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at the University of Texas, Dallas, both empagliflozin and canagliflozin showed statistically significant superiority compared with placebo for their trial’s primary, combined major cardiovascular adverse event endpoint, but dapagliflozin and ertugliflozin did not. Empagliflozin was the sole SGLT2 inhibitor to show a statistically significant cut in cardiovascular deaths, compared with placebo.

The primary, composite renal efficacy endpoints used in these trials were hardest to compare because they differed from study to study, but unlike ertugliflozin, all the other three drugs in the class showed a statistically significant improvement, compared with placebo, for their respective renal outcomes. On the other hand, the pattern of estimated glomerular filtration rates measured at multiple times during the various trials showed a high level of consistency across the CVOTs.

The greatest consistently among the major endpoints across the trials was for heart failure hospitalization. All four agents showed statistically significant improvements, compared with placebo, and all four had roughly equal magnitudes of effect, a cut in event rates by about one-third.

“The greatest magnitude of benefit is for reductions in heart failure hospitalizations and for renal outcomes,” with the heart failure outcomes the “most consistent” across the studies and the renal outcomes “largely consistent,” concluded Dr. McGuire. All together, the five CVOTs for these four SGLT2 inhibitors involved more than 46,000 patients.

“A lot of data suggest these are all class effects,” that are roughly similar across all four of these SGLT2 inhibitors, commented Mark E. Cooper, MBBS, a professor and head of the department of diabetes at Monash University, Melbourne, and designated discussant for the study.

There was “clear homogeneity” between the VERTIS-CV results for hospitalization for heart failure and the other CVOTs, he noted. “I think there is a difference” in the cardiovascular death outcomes, specifically the sole statistically significant, 38% relative risk reduction with empagliflozin that stood out from the other CVOTs, but this difference is “totally unexplained,” added Dr. Cooper. “To really determine differences you’d need head-to-head studies that are unlikely to happen.”

The results of new SGLT2 inhibitor meta-analysis appeared to also “support contemporary society recommendations to prioritize the use of SGLT2 inhibitors independent of glucose-control considerations in patients with type 2 diabetes with or at high risk for cardiovascular and renal complications,” said Dr. McGuire.

“The guidelines have it right. Now it’s on us to implement these treatments to appropriate patients,” concluded Dr. Cannon.
 

Study details

VERTIS-CV (Cardiovascular Outcomes Following Ertugliflozin Treatment in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Participants With Vascular Disease) enrolled and followed patients with type 2 diabetes and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease at 531 centers in 34 countries during December 2013–December 2019. Other effects from ertugliflozin recorded during the trial were consistent with prior studies of the drug, which is already FDA approved for glycemic control: Compared with placebo, ertugliflozin treatment reduced hemoglobin A1c by an average of 0.5% after 1 year, cut average body weight by about 2.5 kg after 1 year with additional modest weight loss, during subsequent years on the drug, and reduced systolic blood pressure by about 3 mm Hg after 1 year.

The drug’s safety profile was generally reassuring and consistent with prior studies of this drug and others in the class, with overall no increase in total adverse events or serious adverse events, compared with placebo, and modestly increased rates of urinary tract and mycotic genital infections.

VERTIS-CV was sponsored by Merck and Pfizer, the companies that market ertugliflozin (Steglatro). Dr. Cannon has received research funding and fees from Merck and Pfizer and from several other companies. Dr. McGuire has received honoraria from Merck, has been a consultant to Pfizer, and has had similar relationships with several other companies. Dr. Cooper has been an advisor to and received honoraria from Merck. He has also received honoraria from or been an adviser to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, MundiPharma, Novartis, Reata, and Servier, and he has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim and Novo Nordisk.

[email protected]

The cardiovascular outcome trial results for a fourth sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, ertugliflozin, were most notable for their consistency with the four prior, similar trials run on the three other drugs from this class on the U.S. market, canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and empagliflozin, further solidifying the important role this drug class has recently taken on for patients with type 2 diabetes.

But the ertugliflozin results, which showed statistically significant superiority to placebo for just one endpoint, hospitalization for heart failure, made it unclear whether clinicians will regard ertugliflozin as the top agent from this class to prescribe.

“Our big takeaway is that the findings are consistent with what’s been seen in the other studies” of cardiovascular and renal outcomes in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME study of empagliflozin (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373[22]:2117-28 ), the CANVAS (N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 17;377[7]:644-57) and CREDENCE (N Engl J Med. 2019 June 13;380[24]:2295-306 ) studies of canagliflozin, and the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial with dapagliflozin (N Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 24;380[4]:347-57), Christopher P. Cannon, MD, said at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

The cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs), mandated in 2008 by Food and Drug Administration guidance for type 2 diabetes drugs that is now in the process of undergoing an update, have had the main goal of proving safety, and the primary endpoint of the new ertugliflozin trial, VERTIS-CV, was noninferiority to placebo when used on top of standard type 2 diabetes medications for the combined endpoint of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke.
 

Key findings

Both of the tested dosages of ertugliflozin, 5 mg and 15 mg daily, met this endpoint, with event rates over a median 3.0 years of follow-up that ran very close to the placebo rate, clearly proving noninferiority. But the results showed no suggestion of superiority in a study that randomized 5,499 patients to either of the ertugliflozin regimens and 2,747 to placebo, reported Dr. Cannon, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The primary outcome also showed similar event rates for each component of the composite endpoint, and subgroup analysis showed consistent results from ertugliflozin, compared with placebo, regardless of study-cohort subdivision by demographic, clinical, or treatment factors.

The trial design called for a hierarchical sequence of secondary-outcome superiority analyses, starting with the impact of ertugliflozin on cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization, and for this outcome ertugliflozin showed a point estimate of a 12% relative risk reduction, compared with placebo-treated patients, but this difference was not statistically significant. This meant that all subsequent superiority analyses in this trial could only be hypothesis generating and not definitive.

This negated the statistical validity of the only statistically significant treatment difference between ertugliflozin and placebo seen in VERTIS-CV, for the outcome of hospitalization for heart failure, where ertugliflozin treatment cut this outcome by 30%, compared with placebo patients. The rate of cardiovascular death alone, as well as a renal composite endpoint each showed no statistically significant benefit of ertugliflozin, compared with placebo, although the renal endpoint came close, with ertugliflozin reducing the combined rate of renal death, need for dialysis, need for renal transplant, or a doubling of serum creatinine from baseline by 19%, compared with placebo (P = .08).

How results compare with prior CVOTs

In some ways, these results seemed to contrast with outcomes from the CVOTs for the other SGLT2 inhibitors, which all showed at least two statistically significant benefits for major endpoints when compared with placebo.

As summarized in a new meta-analysis of all the CVOTs by Darren K. McGuire, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at the University of Texas, Dallas, both empagliflozin and canagliflozin showed statistically significant superiority compared with placebo for their trial’s primary, combined major cardiovascular adverse event endpoint, but dapagliflozin and ertugliflozin did not. Empagliflozin was the sole SGLT2 inhibitor to show a statistically significant cut in cardiovascular deaths, compared with placebo.

The primary, composite renal efficacy endpoints used in these trials were hardest to compare because they differed from study to study, but unlike ertugliflozin, all the other three drugs in the class showed a statistically significant improvement, compared with placebo, for their respective renal outcomes. On the other hand, the pattern of estimated glomerular filtration rates measured at multiple times during the various trials showed a high level of consistency across the CVOTs.

The greatest consistently among the major endpoints across the trials was for heart failure hospitalization. All four agents showed statistically significant improvements, compared with placebo, and all four had roughly equal magnitudes of effect, a cut in event rates by about one-third.

“The greatest magnitude of benefit is for reductions in heart failure hospitalizations and for renal outcomes,” with the heart failure outcomes the “most consistent” across the studies and the renal outcomes “largely consistent,” concluded Dr. McGuire. All together, the five CVOTs for these four SGLT2 inhibitors involved more than 46,000 patients.

“A lot of data suggest these are all class effects,” that are roughly similar across all four of these SGLT2 inhibitors, commented Mark E. Cooper, MBBS, a professor and head of the department of diabetes at Monash University, Melbourne, and designated discussant for the study.

There was “clear homogeneity” between the VERTIS-CV results for hospitalization for heart failure and the other CVOTs, he noted. “I think there is a difference” in the cardiovascular death outcomes, specifically the sole statistically significant, 38% relative risk reduction with empagliflozin that stood out from the other CVOTs, but this difference is “totally unexplained,” added Dr. Cooper. “To really determine differences you’d need head-to-head studies that are unlikely to happen.”

The results of new SGLT2 inhibitor meta-analysis appeared to also “support contemporary society recommendations to prioritize the use of SGLT2 inhibitors independent of glucose-control considerations in patients with type 2 diabetes with or at high risk for cardiovascular and renal complications,” said Dr. McGuire.

“The guidelines have it right. Now it’s on us to implement these treatments to appropriate patients,” concluded Dr. Cannon.
 

Study details

VERTIS-CV (Cardiovascular Outcomes Following Ertugliflozin Treatment in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Participants With Vascular Disease) enrolled and followed patients with type 2 diabetes and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease at 531 centers in 34 countries during December 2013–December 2019. Other effects from ertugliflozin recorded during the trial were consistent with prior studies of the drug, which is already FDA approved for glycemic control: Compared with placebo, ertugliflozin treatment reduced hemoglobin A1c by an average of 0.5% after 1 year, cut average body weight by about 2.5 kg after 1 year with additional modest weight loss, during subsequent years on the drug, and reduced systolic blood pressure by about 3 mm Hg after 1 year.

The drug’s safety profile was generally reassuring and consistent with prior studies of this drug and others in the class, with overall no increase in total adverse events or serious adverse events, compared with placebo, and modestly increased rates of urinary tract and mycotic genital infections.

VERTIS-CV was sponsored by Merck and Pfizer, the companies that market ertugliflozin (Steglatro). Dr. Cannon has received research funding and fees from Merck and Pfizer and from several other companies. Dr. McGuire has received honoraria from Merck, has been a consultant to Pfizer, and has had similar relationships with several other companies. Dr. Cooper has been an advisor to and received honoraria from Merck. He has also received honoraria from or been an adviser to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, MundiPharma, Novartis, Reata, and Servier, and he has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim and Novo Nordisk.

[email protected]

The cardiovascular outcome trial results for a fourth sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, ertugliflozin, were most notable for their consistency with the four prior, similar trials run on the three other drugs from this class on the U.S. market, canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and empagliflozin, further solidifying the important role this drug class has recently taken on for patients with type 2 diabetes.

But the ertugliflozin results, which showed statistically significant superiority to placebo for just one endpoint, hospitalization for heart failure, made it unclear whether clinicians will regard ertugliflozin as the top agent from this class to prescribe.

“Our big takeaway is that the findings are consistent with what’s been seen in the other studies” of cardiovascular and renal outcomes in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME study of empagliflozin (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373[22]:2117-28 ), the CANVAS (N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 17;377[7]:644-57) and CREDENCE (N Engl J Med. 2019 June 13;380[24]:2295-306 ) studies of canagliflozin, and the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial with dapagliflozin (N Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 24;380[4]:347-57), Christopher P. Cannon, MD, said at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

The cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs), mandated in 2008 by Food and Drug Administration guidance for type 2 diabetes drugs that is now in the process of undergoing an update, have had the main goal of proving safety, and the primary endpoint of the new ertugliflozin trial, VERTIS-CV, was noninferiority to placebo when used on top of standard type 2 diabetes medications for the combined endpoint of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke.
 

Key findings

Both of the tested dosages of ertugliflozin, 5 mg and 15 mg daily, met this endpoint, with event rates over a median 3.0 years of follow-up that ran very close to the placebo rate, clearly proving noninferiority. But the results showed no suggestion of superiority in a study that randomized 5,499 patients to either of the ertugliflozin regimens and 2,747 to placebo, reported Dr. Cannon, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The primary outcome also showed similar event rates for each component of the composite endpoint, and subgroup analysis showed consistent results from ertugliflozin, compared with placebo, regardless of study-cohort subdivision by demographic, clinical, or treatment factors.

The trial design called for a hierarchical sequence of secondary-outcome superiority analyses, starting with the impact of ertugliflozin on cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization, and for this outcome ertugliflozin showed a point estimate of a 12% relative risk reduction, compared with placebo-treated patients, but this difference was not statistically significant. This meant that all subsequent superiority analyses in this trial could only be hypothesis generating and not definitive.

This negated the statistical validity of the only statistically significant treatment difference between ertugliflozin and placebo seen in VERTIS-CV, for the outcome of hospitalization for heart failure, where ertugliflozin treatment cut this outcome by 30%, compared with placebo patients. The rate of cardiovascular death alone, as well as a renal composite endpoint each showed no statistically significant benefit of ertugliflozin, compared with placebo, although the renal endpoint came close, with ertugliflozin reducing the combined rate of renal death, need for dialysis, need for renal transplant, or a doubling of serum creatinine from baseline by 19%, compared with placebo (P = .08).

How results compare with prior CVOTs

In some ways, these results seemed to contrast with outcomes from the CVOTs for the other SGLT2 inhibitors, which all showed at least two statistically significant benefits for major endpoints when compared with placebo.

As summarized in a new meta-analysis of all the CVOTs by Darren K. McGuire, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at the University of Texas, Dallas, both empagliflozin and canagliflozin showed statistically significant superiority compared with placebo for their trial’s primary, combined major cardiovascular adverse event endpoint, but dapagliflozin and ertugliflozin did not. Empagliflozin was the sole SGLT2 inhibitor to show a statistically significant cut in cardiovascular deaths, compared with placebo.

The primary, composite renal efficacy endpoints used in these trials were hardest to compare because they differed from study to study, but unlike ertugliflozin, all the other three drugs in the class showed a statistically significant improvement, compared with placebo, for their respective renal outcomes. On the other hand, the pattern of estimated glomerular filtration rates measured at multiple times during the various trials showed a high level of consistency across the CVOTs.

The greatest consistently among the major endpoints across the trials was for heart failure hospitalization. All four agents showed statistically significant improvements, compared with placebo, and all four had roughly equal magnitudes of effect, a cut in event rates by about one-third.

“The greatest magnitude of benefit is for reductions in heart failure hospitalizations and for renal outcomes,” with the heart failure outcomes the “most consistent” across the studies and the renal outcomes “largely consistent,” concluded Dr. McGuire. All together, the five CVOTs for these four SGLT2 inhibitors involved more than 46,000 patients.

“A lot of data suggest these are all class effects,” that are roughly similar across all four of these SGLT2 inhibitors, commented Mark E. Cooper, MBBS, a professor and head of the department of diabetes at Monash University, Melbourne, and designated discussant for the study.

There was “clear homogeneity” between the VERTIS-CV results for hospitalization for heart failure and the other CVOTs, he noted. “I think there is a difference” in the cardiovascular death outcomes, specifically the sole statistically significant, 38% relative risk reduction with empagliflozin that stood out from the other CVOTs, but this difference is “totally unexplained,” added Dr. Cooper. “To really determine differences you’d need head-to-head studies that are unlikely to happen.”

The results of new SGLT2 inhibitor meta-analysis appeared to also “support contemporary society recommendations to prioritize the use of SGLT2 inhibitors independent of glucose-control considerations in patients with type 2 diabetes with or at high risk for cardiovascular and renal complications,” said Dr. McGuire.

“The guidelines have it right. Now it’s on us to implement these treatments to appropriate patients,” concluded Dr. Cannon.
 

Study details

VERTIS-CV (Cardiovascular Outcomes Following Ertugliflozin Treatment in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Participants With Vascular Disease) enrolled and followed patients with type 2 diabetes and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease at 531 centers in 34 countries during December 2013–December 2019. Other effects from ertugliflozin recorded during the trial were consistent with prior studies of the drug, which is already FDA approved for glycemic control: Compared with placebo, ertugliflozin treatment reduced hemoglobin A1c by an average of 0.5% after 1 year, cut average body weight by about 2.5 kg after 1 year with additional modest weight loss, during subsequent years on the drug, and reduced systolic blood pressure by about 3 mm Hg after 1 year.

The drug’s safety profile was generally reassuring and consistent with prior studies of this drug and others in the class, with overall no increase in total adverse events or serious adverse events, compared with placebo, and modestly increased rates of urinary tract and mycotic genital infections.

VERTIS-CV was sponsored by Merck and Pfizer, the companies that market ertugliflozin (Steglatro). Dr. Cannon has received research funding and fees from Merck and Pfizer and from several other companies. Dr. McGuire has received honoraria from Merck, has been a consultant to Pfizer, and has had similar relationships with several other companies. Dr. Cooper has been an advisor to and received honoraria from Merck. He has also received honoraria from or been an adviser to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, MundiPharma, Novartis, Reata, and Servier, and he has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim and Novo Nordisk.

[email protected]

An intranasal form of dihydroergotamine (DHE) targeting the upper nasal region is safe and effective for the treatment of migraine, and ranks high in patient satisfaction, according to results from a phase 3 clinical trial. In development by Impel NeuroPharma, the new formulation could offer patients an at-home alternative to intramuscular infusions or intravenous injections currently used to deliver DHE.

“Our analysis of the data suggests that nothing new or untoward seemed to be happening as a result of delivering DHE to the upper nasal space,” Stephen Shrewsbury, MD, chief medical officer of Impel NeuroPharma, said in an interview. The company released key results from its phase 3 clinical trial, while a poster examining patient satisfaction was presented by Dr. Shrewsbury at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
 

An improved intranasal formulation

The product isn’t the first effort to develop an inhaled form of DHE. An inhaled version called Migranal, marketed by Bausch Health, delivers DHE to the front part of the nose, where it may be lost to the upper lip or down the throat, according to Dr. Shrewsbury. Impel’s formulation (INP104) delivers the drug to the upper nasal space, where an earlier phase 1 trial demonstrated it could achieve higher serum concentrations compared with Migranal.

In 2018, MAP Pharmaceuticals came close to a product, but it was ultimately rejected by the Food and Drug Administration because DHE was not stable in the propellant used in the formulation. This time is different, said Dr. Shrewsbury, who was chief medical officer at MAP before joining Impel. The new device holds DHE and the propellant in separate compartments until they are combined right before use, which should circumvent stability problems.

Dr. Shrewsbury believes that patients will welcome an inhaled version of DHE. “People with migraines don’t want to have to go into hospital or even an infusion center if they can help it,” he said.

The study was one of a number of presentations at the AHS meeting that focused on novel delivery methods for established drugs. “The idea of taking things that we know work and improving upon them, both in terms of formulation and then delivery, that’s a common theme. My impression is that this will be an interesting arrow to have in our sling,” said Andrew Charles, MD, professor of neurology and director of the UCLA Goldberg Migraine Program, who was not involved in the study.
 

Open-label trial results

The STOP 301 phase 3 open-label safety and tolerability trial treated over 5,650 migraine attacks in 354 patients who self-administered INP104 for up to 52 weeks. They were provided up to three doses per week (1.45 mg in a dose of two puffs, one per nostril). Maximum doses included two per day and three per week.

There were no new safety signals or concern trends in nasal safety findings. 15.0% of patients experienced nasal congestion, 6.8% nausea, 5.1% nasal discomfort, and 5.1% unpleasant taste.

A total of 66.3% of participants reported pain relief by 2 hours (severe or moderate pain reduced to mild or none, or mild pain reduced to none) following a dose, and 38% had freedom from pain. 16.3% reported pain relief onset at 15 minutes, with continued improvement over time. During weeks 21-24 of the study, 98.4% and 95% of patients reporting no recurrence of their migraine or use of rescue medications during the 24- and 48-hour periods after using INP104. “Once they got rid of the pain, it didn’t come back, and that’s been one of the shortcomings of many of the available oral therapies – although some of them can be quite effective, that effect can wear off and people can find their migraine comes back within a 24- or 48-hour period,” said Dr. Shrewsbury.

The drug was also rated as convenient, with 83.6% of participants strongly agreeing (50%) or agreeing (33.6%) that it is easy to use.

“It certainly looks like compliance will be good. The possibility is that this will be quite useful,” said Dr. Charles, who is also enthusiastic about some of the other drug formulations announced at the meeting. “It really is just fun times for us as clinicians to be able to have so many different options for patients,” he said.

Dr. Shrewsbury is an employee of Impel NeuroPharma, which funded the study.* Dr. Charles consults for Amgen, BioHaven, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Lundbeck.

SOURCE: Shrewsbury S, et al. AHS 2020. Abstract 832509.

*Correction, 6/19/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of Impel NeuroPharma.

An intranasal form of dihydroergotamine (DHE) targeting the upper nasal region is safe and effective for the treatment of migraine, and ranks high in patient satisfaction, according to results from a phase 3 clinical trial. In development by Impel NeuroPharma, the new formulation could offer patients an at-home alternative to intramuscular infusions or intravenous injections currently used to deliver DHE.

“Our analysis of the data suggests that nothing new or untoward seemed to be happening as a result of delivering DHE to the upper nasal space,” Stephen Shrewsbury, MD, chief medical officer of Impel NeuroPharma, said in an interview. The company released key results from its phase 3 clinical trial, while a poster examining patient satisfaction was presented by Dr. Shrewsbury at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
 

An improved intranasal formulation

The product isn’t the first effort to develop an inhaled form of DHE. An inhaled version called Migranal, marketed by Bausch Health, delivers DHE to the front part of the nose, where it may be lost to the upper lip or down the throat, according to Dr. Shrewsbury. Impel’s formulation (INP104) delivers the drug to the upper nasal space, where an earlier phase 1 trial demonstrated it could achieve higher serum concentrations compared with Migranal.

In 2018, MAP Pharmaceuticals came close to a product, but it was ultimately rejected by the Food and Drug Administration because DHE was not stable in the propellant used in the formulation. This time is different, said Dr. Shrewsbury, who was chief medical officer at MAP before joining Impel. The new device holds DHE and the propellant in separate compartments until they are combined right before use, which should circumvent stability problems.

Dr. Shrewsbury believes that patients will welcome an inhaled version of DHE. “People with migraines don’t want to have to go into hospital or even an infusion center if they can help it,” he said.

The study was one of a number of presentations at the AHS meeting that focused on novel delivery methods for established drugs. “The idea of taking things that we know work and improving upon them, both in terms of formulation and then delivery, that’s a common theme. My impression is that this will be an interesting arrow to have in our sling,” said Andrew Charles, MD, professor of neurology and director of the UCLA Goldberg Migraine Program, who was not involved in the study.
 

Open-label trial results

The STOP 301 phase 3 open-label safety and tolerability trial treated over 5,650 migraine attacks in 354 patients who self-administered INP104 for up to 52 weeks. They were provided up to three doses per week (1.45 mg in a dose of two puffs, one per nostril). Maximum doses included two per day and three per week.

There were no new safety signals or concern trends in nasal safety findings. 15.0% of patients experienced nasal congestion, 6.8% nausea, 5.1% nasal discomfort, and 5.1% unpleasant taste.

A total of 66.3% of participants reported pain relief by 2 hours (severe or moderate pain reduced to mild or none, or mild pain reduced to none) following a dose, and 38% had freedom from pain. 16.3% reported pain relief onset at 15 minutes, with continued improvement over time. During weeks 21-24 of the study, 98.4% and 95% of patients reporting no recurrence of their migraine or use of rescue medications during the 24- and 48-hour periods after using INP104. “Once they got rid of the pain, it didn’t come back, and that’s been one of the shortcomings of many of the available oral therapies – although some of them can be quite effective, that effect can wear off and people can find their migraine comes back within a 24- or 48-hour period,” said Dr. Shrewsbury.

The drug was also rated as convenient, with 83.6% of participants strongly agreeing (50%) or agreeing (33.6%) that it is easy to use.

“It certainly looks like compliance will be good. The possibility is that this will be quite useful,” said Dr. Charles, who is also enthusiastic about some of the other drug formulations announced at the meeting. “It really is just fun times for us as clinicians to be able to have so many different options for patients,” he said.

Dr. Shrewsbury is an employee of Impel NeuroPharma, which funded the study.* Dr. Charles consults for Amgen, BioHaven, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Lundbeck.

SOURCE: Shrewsbury S, et al. AHS 2020. Abstract 832509.

*Correction, 6/19/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of Impel NeuroPharma.

An intranasal form of dihydroergotamine (DHE) targeting the upper nasal region is safe and effective for the treatment of migraine, and ranks high in patient satisfaction, according to results from a phase 3 clinical trial. In development by Impel NeuroPharma, the new formulation could offer patients an at-home alternative to intramuscular infusions or intravenous injections currently used to deliver DHE.

“Our analysis of the data suggests that nothing new or untoward seemed to be happening as a result of delivering DHE to the upper nasal space,” Stephen Shrewsbury, MD, chief medical officer of Impel NeuroPharma, said in an interview. The company released key results from its phase 3 clinical trial, while a poster examining patient satisfaction was presented by Dr. Shrewsbury at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
 

An improved intranasal formulation

The product isn’t the first effort to develop an inhaled form of DHE. An inhaled version called Migranal, marketed by Bausch Health, delivers DHE to the front part of the nose, where it may be lost to the upper lip or down the throat, according to Dr. Shrewsbury. Impel’s formulation (INP104) delivers the drug to the upper nasal space, where an earlier phase 1 trial demonstrated it could achieve higher serum concentrations compared with Migranal.

In 2018, MAP Pharmaceuticals came close to a product, but it was ultimately rejected by the Food and Drug Administration because DHE was not stable in the propellant used in the formulation. This time is different, said Dr. Shrewsbury, who was chief medical officer at MAP before joining Impel. The new device holds DHE and the propellant in separate compartments until they are combined right before use, which should circumvent stability problems.

Dr. Shrewsbury believes that patients will welcome an inhaled version of DHE. “People with migraines don’t want to have to go into hospital or even an infusion center if they can help it,” he said.

The study was one of a number of presentations at the AHS meeting that focused on novel delivery methods for established drugs. “The idea of taking things that we know work and improving upon them, both in terms of formulation and then delivery, that’s a common theme. My impression is that this will be an interesting arrow to have in our sling,” said Andrew Charles, MD, professor of neurology and director of the UCLA Goldberg Migraine Program, who was not involved in the study.
 

Open-label trial results

The STOP 301 phase 3 open-label safety and tolerability trial treated over 5,650 migraine attacks in 354 patients who self-administered INP104 for up to 52 weeks. They were provided up to three doses per week (1.45 mg in a dose of two puffs, one per nostril). Maximum doses included two per day and three per week.

There were no new safety signals or concern trends in nasal safety findings. 15.0% of patients experienced nasal congestion, 6.8% nausea, 5.1% nasal discomfort, and 5.1% unpleasant taste.

A total of 66.3% of participants reported pain relief by 2 hours (severe or moderate pain reduced to mild or none, or mild pain reduced to none) following a dose, and 38% had freedom from pain. 16.3% reported pain relief onset at 15 minutes, with continued improvement over time. During weeks 21-24 of the study, 98.4% and 95% of patients reporting no recurrence of their migraine or use of rescue medications during the 24- and 48-hour periods after using INP104. “Once they got rid of the pain, it didn’t come back, and that’s been one of the shortcomings of many of the available oral therapies – although some of them can be quite effective, that effect can wear off and people can find their migraine comes back within a 24- or 48-hour period,” said Dr. Shrewsbury.

The drug was also rated as convenient, with 83.6% of participants strongly agreeing (50%) or agreeing (33.6%) that it is easy to use.

“It certainly looks like compliance will be good. The possibility is that this will be quite useful,” said Dr. Charles, who is also enthusiastic about some of the other drug formulations announced at the meeting. “It really is just fun times for us as clinicians to be able to have so many different options for patients,” he said.

Dr. Shrewsbury is an employee of Impel NeuroPharma, which funded the study.* Dr. Charles consults for Amgen, BioHaven, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Lundbeck.

SOURCE: Shrewsbury S, et al. AHS 2020. Abstract 832509.

*Correction, 6/19/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of Impel NeuroPharma.

The combination of nivolumab, ipilimumab, and two cycles of platinum doublet chemotherapy appears to be an important new option for patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Data from the CheckMate 9LA study suggest the combination amplifies the rapid response expected from chemotherapy and the long-term benefit from immunotherapy. Furthermore, the very limited exposure to chemotherapy appears to mitigate long-term risks.

Martin Reck, MD, PhD, of LungenClinic Grosshansdorf in Germany, reported the data as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program (Abstract 9501).

A prior trial, CheckMate 227, demonstrated that nivolumab plus ipilimumab improved overall survival (OS) and durability of response in comparison with conventional chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC, regardless of PD-L1 expression (N Engl J Med 2019; 381:2020-31).

In CheckMate 9LA, researchers tested whether adding a limited course of chemotherapy – just two cycles – could improve outcomes further. Dr. Reck reported that, at the first preplanned interim analysis, the combination met its primary goal of improving OS as well as meeting multiple secondary endpoints.
 

Details of CheckMate 9LA

CheckMate 9LA included 719 treatment-naive patients with histologically confirmed stage IV or recurrent NSCLC and no known sensitizing alterations in EGFR or ALK. All patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1.

Patients received either nivolumab plus ipilimumab at standard NSCLC doses plus two cycles of chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone for four cycles.

The chemotherapy regimen was tailored by histology. Pemetrexed plus either cisplatin or carboplatin, with optional pemetrexed maintenance, was administered to patients with non-squamous histology. Paclitaxel plus carboplatin was chosen for patients with squamous disease.

If there was no disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab could continue immunotherapy for up to 2 years.

Patients were stratified by PD-L1 expression (< 1% vs. ≥ 1%), gender, and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous). Tumor and clinical characteristics were balanced across the trial arms.

The primary endpoint was OS, with secondary endpoints of progression-free survival, objective response rate by blinded independent central review, and efficacy by PD-L1 subgroups. Exploratory endpoints included safety/tolerability.
 

Results prompt FDA approval

Dr. Reck and colleagues found significantly better OS with nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy, in comparison with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.69; P = .0006).

With longer follow-up (minimum 12.7 months), nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy continued to provide longer OS compared with chemotherapy alone. The median OS was 15.6 months and 10.9 months, respectively (HR, 0.66).

Despite more patients receiving subsequent systemic therapy in the chemotherapy-alone arm (34% of whom eventually received an immune checkpoint inhibitor), the immunotherapy-chemotherapy arm still yielded superior OS in the overall population.

One-year OS rates were 63% in the immunotherapy arm and 47% in the chemotherapy-alone arm.

Statistically significant improvements in progression-free survival and objective response rate were seen. The median response duration was 11.3 months in the immunotherapy arm and 5.6 months in the chemotherapy-alone arm.

Benefit was consistent by all efficacy measures and in all subgroups, including by PD-L1 expression and histology.

Based on the strength of these results, in May, the Food and Drug Administration approved nivolumab plus ipilimumab and two cycles of platinum-doublet chemotherapy for the frontline treatment of patients with metastatic or recurrent NSCLC with no EGFR or ALK genomic tumor aberrations.


 

Challenges to overcome

In the forest plots for OS, the 70 patients who were 75 years of age and older had inferior survival with the combination regimen, compared with chemotherapy alone.

Grade 3-4 treatment-related toxicity was reported in 47% of patients in the immunotherapy arm and 38% of those in the chemotherapy-alone arm.

With nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy, more adverse events were considered serious (25.4% vs. 15%). Furthermore, grade 3-4 adverse events led to a higher rate of treatment discontinuation in the immunotherapy arm than in the chemotherapy-alone arm (16% vs. 5%).

Although cross-trial comparisons are treacherous, in CheckMate 227, only 12% of patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab stopped treatment because of a grade 3-4 adverse event.
 

Better by design

In the updated analysis of CheckMate 227 (ASCO 2020, Abstract 9500), the nivolumab-ipilimumab regimen showed inferior OS results for the first 6 months of treatment, with more disease progression during that time. However, at 6 months, the OS curves crossed over to become consistently superior for the immunotherapy regimen thereafter.

Platinum-based chemotherapy is thought to augment antitumor immunity by inducing immunogenic cell death, increasing tumor neoantigen expression, and disturbing the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment that prevents immune detection.

Therefore, CheckMate 9LA incorporated a short exposure to chemotherapy for the patients receiving nivolumab-ipilimumab in an effort to attain rapid disease control and retain the durable OS benefit that was seen with dual immunotherapy in CheckMate 227.

Indeed, in CheckMate 9LA, the Kaplan-Meier curves in both the initial and follow-up OS analyses diverged early in favor of the nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy regimen and never crossed the curve for chemotherapy alone. Progressive disease was observed in fewer patients with the immunotherapy combination than with chemotherapy alone.

Longer follow-up needed

In recent years, a large number of treatment options for stage IV NSCLC patients have emerged. In the current report of CheckMate 9LA, the OS curve extended only to 27 months.

As was noted by invited discussant Benjamin Levy, MD, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, it may be premature to put the regimen of two cycles of chemotherapy plus dual checkpoint/CTLA4 blockade in its proper context until follow-up extends for 3-5 years.

It would be ideal to know whether the tail of the OS curve will flatten out.
 

Do the best you can

Clinical investigators have a responsibility to retain the successes of prior regimens while overcoming the challenges of adverse events. New regimens also need to be practical when applied in general oncology practice.

In 2014, the American poet Maya Angelou advised, “Do the best you can until you know better. Then, when you know better, do better.” In many regards, the immunotherapy-chemotherapy combination tested in CheckMate 9LA appears to do better than preceding regimens.

Further refinements in dose, schedule, and supportive care, as well as real-time reporting of and response to patient-reported outcomes, will likely help us build on the CheckMate 9LA regimen and do even better.


Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Reck M et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 9501.

The combination of nivolumab, ipilimumab, and two cycles of platinum doublet chemotherapy appears to be an important new option for patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Data from the CheckMate 9LA study suggest the combination amplifies the rapid response expected from chemotherapy and the long-term benefit from immunotherapy. Furthermore, the very limited exposure to chemotherapy appears to mitigate long-term risks.

Martin Reck, MD, PhD, of LungenClinic Grosshansdorf in Germany, reported the data as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program (Abstract 9501).

A prior trial, CheckMate 227, demonstrated that nivolumab plus ipilimumab improved overall survival (OS) and durability of response in comparison with conventional chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC, regardless of PD-L1 expression (N Engl J Med 2019; 381:2020-31).

In CheckMate 9LA, researchers tested whether adding a limited course of chemotherapy – just two cycles – could improve outcomes further. Dr. Reck reported that, at the first preplanned interim analysis, the combination met its primary goal of improving OS as well as meeting multiple secondary endpoints.
 

Details of CheckMate 9LA

CheckMate 9LA included 719 treatment-naive patients with histologically confirmed stage IV or recurrent NSCLC and no known sensitizing alterations in EGFR or ALK. All patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1.

Patients received either nivolumab plus ipilimumab at standard NSCLC doses plus two cycles of chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone for four cycles.

The chemotherapy regimen was tailored by histology. Pemetrexed plus either cisplatin or carboplatin, with optional pemetrexed maintenance, was administered to patients with non-squamous histology. Paclitaxel plus carboplatin was chosen for patients with squamous disease.

If there was no disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab could continue immunotherapy for up to 2 years.

Patients were stratified by PD-L1 expression (< 1% vs. ≥ 1%), gender, and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous). Tumor and clinical characteristics were balanced across the trial arms.

The primary endpoint was OS, with secondary endpoints of progression-free survival, objective response rate by blinded independent central review, and efficacy by PD-L1 subgroups. Exploratory endpoints included safety/tolerability.
 

Results prompt FDA approval

Dr. Reck and colleagues found significantly better OS with nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy, in comparison with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.69; P = .0006).

With longer follow-up (minimum 12.7 months), nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy continued to provide longer OS compared with chemotherapy alone. The median OS was 15.6 months and 10.9 months, respectively (HR, 0.66).

Despite more patients receiving subsequent systemic therapy in the chemotherapy-alone arm (34% of whom eventually received an immune checkpoint inhibitor), the immunotherapy-chemotherapy arm still yielded superior OS in the overall population.

One-year OS rates were 63% in the immunotherapy arm and 47% in the chemotherapy-alone arm.

Statistically significant improvements in progression-free survival and objective response rate were seen. The median response duration was 11.3 months in the immunotherapy arm and 5.6 months in the chemotherapy-alone arm.

Benefit was consistent by all efficacy measures and in all subgroups, including by PD-L1 expression and histology.

Based on the strength of these results, in May, the Food and Drug Administration approved nivolumab plus ipilimumab and two cycles of platinum-doublet chemotherapy for the frontline treatment of patients with metastatic or recurrent NSCLC with no EGFR or ALK genomic tumor aberrations.


 

Challenges to overcome

In the forest plots for OS, the 70 patients who were 75 years of age and older had inferior survival with the combination regimen, compared with chemotherapy alone.

Grade 3-4 treatment-related toxicity was reported in 47% of patients in the immunotherapy arm and 38% of those in the chemotherapy-alone arm.

With nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy, more adverse events were considered serious (25.4% vs. 15%). Furthermore, grade 3-4 adverse events led to a higher rate of treatment discontinuation in the immunotherapy arm than in the chemotherapy-alone arm (16% vs. 5%).

Although cross-trial comparisons are treacherous, in CheckMate 227, only 12% of patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab stopped treatment because of a grade 3-4 adverse event.
 

Better by design

In the updated analysis of CheckMate 227 (ASCO 2020, Abstract 9500), the nivolumab-ipilimumab regimen showed inferior OS results for the first 6 months of treatment, with more disease progression during that time. However, at 6 months, the OS curves crossed over to become consistently superior for the immunotherapy regimen thereafter.

Platinum-based chemotherapy is thought to augment antitumor immunity by inducing immunogenic cell death, increasing tumor neoantigen expression, and disturbing the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment that prevents immune detection.

Therefore, CheckMate 9LA incorporated a short exposure to chemotherapy for the patients receiving nivolumab-ipilimumab in an effort to attain rapid disease control and retain the durable OS benefit that was seen with dual immunotherapy in CheckMate 227.

Indeed, in CheckMate 9LA, the Kaplan-Meier curves in both the initial and follow-up OS analyses diverged early in favor of the nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy regimen and never crossed the curve for chemotherapy alone. Progressive disease was observed in fewer patients with the immunotherapy combination than with chemotherapy alone.

Longer follow-up needed

In recent years, a large number of treatment options for stage IV NSCLC patients have emerged. In the current report of CheckMate 9LA, the OS curve extended only to 27 months.

As was noted by invited discussant Benjamin Levy, MD, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, it may be premature to put the regimen of two cycles of chemotherapy plus dual checkpoint/CTLA4 blockade in its proper context until follow-up extends for 3-5 years.

It would be ideal to know whether the tail of the OS curve will flatten out.
 

Do the best you can

Clinical investigators have a responsibility to retain the successes of prior regimens while overcoming the challenges of adverse events. New regimens also need to be practical when applied in general oncology practice.

In 2014, the American poet Maya Angelou advised, “Do the best you can until you know better. Then, when you know better, do better.” In many regards, the immunotherapy-chemotherapy combination tested in CheckMate 9LA appears to do better than preceding regimens.

Further refinements in dose, schedule, and supportive care, as well as real-time reporting of and response to patient-reported outcomes, will likely help us build on the CheckMate 9LA regimen and do even better.


Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Reck M et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 9501.

The combination of nivolumab, ipilimumab, and two cycles of platinum doublet chemotherapy appears to be an important new option for patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Data from the CheckMate 9LA study suggest the combination amplifies the rapid response expected from chemotherapy and the long-term benefit from immunotherapy. Furthermore, the very limited exposure to chemotherapy appears to mitigate long-term risks.

Martin Reck, MD, PhD, of LungenClinic Grosshansdorf in Germany, reported the data as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program (Abstract 9501).

A prior trial, CheckMate 227, demonstrated that nivolumab plus ipilimumab improved overall survival (OS) and durability of response in comparison with conventional chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC, regardless of PD-L1 expression (N Engl J Med 2019; 381:2020-31).

In CheckMate 9LA, researchers tested whether adding a limited course of chemotherapy – just two cycles – could improve outcomes further. Dr. Reck reported that, at the first preplanned interim analysis, the combination met its primary goal of improving OS as well as meeting multiple secondary endpoints.
 

Details of CheckMate 9LA

CheckMate 9LA included 719 treatment-naive patients with histologically confirmed stage IV or recurrent NSCLC and no known sensitizing alterations in EGFR or ALK. All patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1.

Patients received either nivolumab plus ipilimumab at standard NSCLC doses plus two cycles of chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone for four cycles.

The chemotherapy regimen was tailored by histology. Pemetrexed plus either cisplatin or carboplatin, with optional pemetrexed maintenance, was administered to patients with non-squamous histology. Paclitaxel plus carboplatin was chosen for patients with squamous disease.

If there was no disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab could continue immunotherapy for up to 2 years.

Patients were stratified by PD-L1 expression (< 1% vs. ≥ 1%), gender, and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous). Tumor and clinical characteristics were balanced across the trial arms.

The primary endpoint was OS, with secondary endpoints of progression-free survival, objective response rate by blinded independent central review, and efficacy by PD-L1 subgroups. Exploratory endpoints included safety/tolerability.
 

Results prompt FDA approval

Dr. Reck and colleagues found significantly better OS with nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy, in comparison with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.69; P = .0006).

With longer follow-up (minimum 12.7 months), nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy continued to provide longer OS compared with chemotherapy alone. The median OS was 15.6 months and 10.9 months, respectively (HR, 0.66).

Despite more patients receiving subsequent systemic therapy in the chemotherapy-alone arm (34% of whom eventually received an immune checkpoint inhibitor), the immunotherapy-chemotherapy arm still yielded superior OS in the overall population.

One-year OS rates were 63% in the immunotherapy arm and 47% in the chemotherapy-alone arm.

Statistically significant improvements in progression-free survival and objective response rate were seen. The median response duration was 11.3 months in the immunotherapy arm and 5.6 months in the chemotherapy-alone arm.

Benefit was consistent by all efficacy measures and in all subgroups, including by PD-L1 expression and histology.

Based on the strength of these results, in May, the Food and Drug Administration approved nivolumab plus ipilimumab and two cycles of platinum-doublet chemotherapy for the frontline treatment of patients with metastatic or recurrent NSCLC with no EGFR or ALK genomic tumor aberrations.


 

Challenges to overcome

In the forest plots for OS, the 70 patients who were 75 years of age and older had inferior survival with the combination regimen, compared with chemotherapy alone.

Grade 3-4 treatment-related toxicity was reported in 47% of patients in the immunotherapy arm and 38% of those in the chemotherapy-alone arm.

With nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy, more adverse events were considered serious (25.4% vs. 15%). Furthermore, grade 3-4 adverse events led to a higher rate of treatment discontinuation in the immunotherapy arm than in the chemotherapy-alone arm (16% vs. 5%).

Although cross-trial comparisons are treacherous, in CheckMate 227, only 12% of patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab stopped treatment because of a grade 3-4 adverse event.
 

Better by design

In the updated analysis of CheckMate 227 (ASCO 2020, Abstract 9500), the nivolumab-ipilimumab regimen showed inferior OS results for the first 6 months of treatment, with more disease progression during that time. However, at 6 months, the OS curves crossed over to become consistently superior for the immunotherapy regimen thereafter.

Platinum-based chemotherapy is thought to augment antitumor immunity by inducing immunogenic cell death, increasing tumor neoantigen expression, and disturbing the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment that prevents immune detection.

Therefore, CheckMate 9LA incorporated a short exposure to chemotherapy for the patients receiving nivolumab-ipilimumab in an effort to attain rapid disease control and retain the durable OS benefit that was seen with dual immunotherapy in CheckMate 227.

Indeed, in CheckMate 9LA, the Kaplan-Meier curves in both the initial and follow-up OS analyses diverged early in favor of the nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy regimen and never crossed the curve for chemotherapy alone. Progressive disease was observed in fewer patients with the immunotherapy combination than with chemotherapy alone.

Longer follow-up needed

In recent years, a large number of treatment options for stage IV NSCLC patients have emerged. In the current report of CheckMate 9LA, the OS curve extended only to 27 months.

As was noted by invited discussant Benjamin Levy, MD, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, it may be premature to put the regimen of two cycles of chemotherapy plus dual checkpoint/CTLA4 blockade in its proper context until follow-up extends for 3-5 years.

It would be ideal to know whether the tail of the OS curve will flatten out.
 

Do the best you can

Clinical investigators have a responsibility to retain the successes of prior regimens while overcoming the challenges of adverse events. New regimens also need to be practical when applied in general oncology practice.

In 2014, the American poet Maya Angelou advised, “Do the best you can until you know better. Then, when you know better, do better.” In many regards, the immunotherapy-chemotherapy combination tested in CheckMate 9LA appears to do better than preceding regimens.

Further refinements in dose, schedule, and supportive care, as well as real-time reporting of and response to patient-reported outcomes, will likely help us build on the CheckMate 9LA regimen and do even better.


Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Reck M et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 9501.

Adding venetoclax to azacitidine significantly extended survival of patients with previously untreated acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who were ineligible for standard induction therapy, results of the phase 3 VIALE-A trial showed.

Median overall survival for patients treated with venetoclax (Venclexta) and azacitidine was 14.7 months, compared with 9.6 months for patients who received azacitidine with a placebo, reported Courtney DiNardo, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“The combination of [azacitidine] and [venetoclax] was associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in overall survival, response rates, duration of remission, and transfusion independence, representing a true paradigm shift in the treatment of our older patients with AML,” she said in a late-breaking abstract presentation at the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

Patients with newly diagnosed AML who are aged 75 years and older or have significant comorbidities are often not able to withstand the rigors of standard induction therapy for AML and have instead been treated with low-dose hypomethylating agents or cytarabine, but these therapies typically are associated with inferior outcomes, Dr. DiNardo said.

Venetoclax has shown good single-agent activity against relapsed/refractory AML. Early efficacy results of a phase 1b study, reported at the 2017 EHA Congress, showed that, among 100 patients age 65 years and older with previously untreated AML, the combination of venetoclax with either decitabine or azacitidine was associated with a 69% overall response rate, and that older patients were able to tolerate the regimen.
 

No surprise

The results of the VIALE-A study merely confirm what hematologists/oncologists have known for several years, said Joshua F. Zeidner, MD, from the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center in Chapel Hill.

“Most leukemia clinicians have been using this regimen as a standard of care prior to these results,” he said in an interview. Dr. Zeidner was not involved in the study.

In November 2018, the Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval to venetoclax in combination with either azacitidine or decitabine or low-dose cytarabine in adults with newly diagnosed AML who because of age or comorbidities were ineligible for standard intensive induction regimens. Dr. Zeidner noted, however, that there are still questions about the combination in this population that need further exploration.

Despite being labeled as a “low-intensity” therapy, “I think low intensity is sort of a misnomer here,” he said. “It’s very challenging to give this regimen in the community because of all of the cytopenias, a high degree of transfusion dependence that these patients have, at least in the first few cycles, and all the rigorous laboratory monitoring and drug interactions that are common with venetoclax really lead to a lot of challenges in the community.”

Also still unanswered are questions about how to dose patients with early responses who have potential dose-limiting toxicities such as neutropenia and thrombocytopenia, he said.

It’s also unclear whether patients will require hospitalization during the ramp-up phase of venetoclax, as was done in some clinical trials, because of risk of tumor lysis syndrome. In the VIALE-A study, however, there were only three minor biochemical cases of tumor lysis syndrome in the experimental arm, and none of these cases required dose modification or treatment discontinuation.

“This begets the question whether patients need to be hospitalized at for the initiation of this treatment,” Dr. Zeidner said. Additional studies will also be needed to see whether certain subgroups of patients would be likely to derive particular benefit from venetoclax plus azacitidine, such as patients with IDH1 or IDH2 somatic mutations.
 

Randomized confirmatory trial

The VIALE-A study was a randomized, placebo-controlled trial designed to put the early promise of the combination to the test.

Investigators enrolled 433 adults with newly diagnosed AML who were ineligible for induction therapy either because they were 75 or older or were younger than 75 but had one or more of the following comorbidities: heart failure requiring treatment or a left ventricular ejection fraction of 50% or less, chronic stable angina, diffusion lung capacity for carbon monoxide of 65% or less or forced expiratory volume in 1 second of 65% or less, or Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 2-3.

After stratification by age, cytogenetic risk, and geographic region, the patients were randomized in a 2:1 fashion to receive azacitidine 75 mg/m² either subcutaneously or intravenously on days 1-7 of each 28-day cycle, plus either oral venetoclax 400 mg daily following a 3-day ramp up in the first cycle (286 patients) or placebo (145 patients).

The median age in each arm was 76 years. Approximately 75% of patients in each arm had de novo AML.

Approximately half of all patients in each arm has bone marrow blast counts of 50% or greater. Two-thirds of patients had intermediate cytogenetic risk and one-third had poor risk disease. Somatic mutation rates, including mutations in IDH1/2, FLT3, NPM1 and TP53, were roughly comparable between the arms.

As noted before, median overall survival, the primary endpoint, was significantly longer with venetoclax, at 14.7 versus 9.6 months, translating into a hazard ratio for death with venetoclax of 0.66 (P < .001).

Although the numbers were relatively small, an analysis of overall survival by subgroups showed either a significant advantage or trend favoring venetoclax in all subgroups, notably among patients with difficult-to-treat disease, including patients 75 years and older and those with secondary AML, Dr. DiNardo said.

The combined complete response and CR with incomplete recovery (CRi) response rate was 66.4% with venetoclax, compared with 28.3% with azacitidine alone. The median time to a CR/CRi was shorter with the combination at 1.3 versus 2.8 months for azacitidine plus placebo, and the median duration of a CR/CRi response was longer, at 17.5 versus 13.4 months, respectively.

Response rates were also notably higher with venetoclax in all cytogenetic risk, AML subtype, molecular mutation, age, ECOG score, and bone marrow blast subgroups.

Additionally, significantly more patients treated with venetoclax/azacitidine were transfusion independent for a minimum of 8 weeks for platelets or combined red cells and platelets, Dr. DiNardo noted.

Median event-free survival – time from randomization to relapse, death, or treatment failure – was 9.8 months in the venetoclax arm versus 7 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.63; P < .001).

All patients experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event. Grade 3 or greater hematologic adverse events were seen 82% of patients in the venetoclax arm and 68% in the placebo arm. The respective rates of grade 3 or greater neutropenia were 42% versus 29%, and febrile neutropenia were 42% versus 19%. Thrombocytopenia, anemia, and leukopenia rates were also higher among patients who received venetoclax.

Grade 1-2 gastrointestinal events were the most frequent nonhematologic adverse events. There was no increase in early deaths seen with the study combination.

The study was supported by AbbVie and Genentech. Dr. DiNardo disclosed research funding from and advisory board activities for those companies and from others. Dr. Zeidner disclosed serving on an independent review committee for AbbVie and advisory board activity for Genentech and others.

SOURCE: DiNardo C et al. EHA25, Abstract LB2601.

Adding venetoclax to azacitidine significantly extended survival of patients with previously untreated acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who were ineligible for standard induction therapy, results of the phase 3 VIALE-A trial showed.

Median overall survival for patients treated with venetoclax (Venclexta) and azacitidine was 14.7 months, compared with 9.6 months for patients who received azacitidine with a placebo, reported Courtney DiNardo, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“The combination of [azacitidine] and [venetoclax] was associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in overall survival, response rates, duration of remission, and transfusion independence, representing a true paradigm shift in the treatment of our older patients with AML,” she said in a late-breaking abstract presentation at the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

Patients with newly diagnosed AML who are aged 75 years and older or have significant comorbidities are often not able to withstand the rigors of standard induction therapy for AML and have instead been treated with low-dose hypomethylating agents or cytarabine, but these therapies typically are associated with inferior outcomes, Dr. DiNardo said.

Venetoclax has shown good single-agent activity against relapsed/refractory AML. Early efficacy results of a phase 1b study, reported at the 2017 EHA Congress, showed that, among 100 patients age 65 years and older with previously untreated AML, the combination of venetoclax with either decitabine or azacitidine was associated with a 69% overall response rate, and that older patients were able to tolerate the regimen.
 

No surprise

The results of the VIALE-A study merely confirm what hematologists/oncologists have known for several years, said Joshua F. Zeidner, MD, from the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center in Chapel Hill.

“Most leukemia clinicians have been using this regimen as a standard of care prior to these results,” he said in an interview. Dr. Zeidner was not involved in the study.

In November 2018, the Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval to venetoclax in combination with either azacitidine or decitabine or low-dose cytarabine in adults with newly diagnosed AML who because of age or comorbidities were ineligible for standard intensive induction regimens. Dr. Zeidner noted, however, that there are still questions about the combination in this population that need further exploration.

Despite being labeled as a “low-intensity” therapy, “I think low intensity is sort of a misnomer here,” he said. “It’s very challenging to give this regimen in the community because of all of the cytopenias, a high degree of transfusion dependence that these patients have, at least in the first few cycles, and all the rigorous laboratory monitoring and drug interactions that are common with venetoclax really lead to a lot of challenges in the community.”

Also still unanswered are questions about how to dose patients with early responses who have potential dose-limiting toxicities such as neutropenia and thrombocytopenia, he said.

It’s also unclear whether patients will require hospitalization during the ramp-up phase of venetoclax, as was done in some clinical trials, because of risk of tumor lysis syndrome. In the VIALE-A study, however, there were only three minor biochemical cases of tumor lysis syndrome in the experimental arm, and none of these cases required dose modification or treatment discontinuation.

“This begets the question whether patients need to be hospitalized at for the initiation of this treatment,” Dr. Zeidner said. Additional studies will also be needed to see whether certain subgroups of patients would be likely to derive particular benefit from venetoclax plus azacitidine, such as patients with IDH1 or IDH2 somatic mutations.
 

Randomized confirmatory trial

The VIALE-A study was a randomized, placebo-controlled trial designed to put the early promise of the combination to the test.

Investigators enrolled 433 adults with newly diagnosed AML who were ineligible for induction therapy either because they were 75 or older or were younger than 75 but had one or more of the following comorbidities: heart failure requiring treatment or a left ventricular ejection fraction of 50% or less, chronic stable angina, diffusion lung capacity for carbon monoxide of 65% or less or forced expiratory volume in 1 second of 65% or less, or Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 2-3.

After stratification by age, cytogenetic risk, and geographic region, the patients were randomized in a 2:1 fashion to receive azacitidine 75 mg/m² either subcutaneously or intravenously on days 1-7 of each 28-day cycle, plus either oral venetoclax 400 mg daily following a 3-day ramp up in the first cycle (286 patients) or placebo (145 patients).

The median age in each arm was 76 years. Approximately 75% of patients in each arm had de novo AML.

Approximately half of all patients in each arm has bone marrow blast counts of 50% or greater. Two-thirds of patients had intermediate cytogenetic risk and one-third had poor risk disease. Somatic mutation rates, including mutations in IDH1/2, FLT3, NPM1 and TP53, were roughly comparable between the arms.

As noted before, median overall survival, the primary endpoint, was significantly longer with venetoclax, at 14.7 versus 9.6 months, translating into a hazard ratio for death with venetoclax of 0.66 (P < .001).

Although the numbers were relatively small, an analysis of overall survival by subgroups showed either a significant advantage or trend favoring venetoclax in all subgroups, notably among patients with difficult-to-treat disease, including patients 75 years and older and those with secondary AML, Dr. DiNardo said.

The combined complete response and CR with incomplete recovery (CRi) response rate was 66.4% with venetoclax, compared with 28.3% with azacitidine alone. The median time to a CR/CRi was shorter with the combination at 1.3 versus 2.8 months for azacitidine plus placebo, and the median duration of a CR/CRi response was longer, at 17.5 versus 13.4 months, respectively.

Response rates were also notably higher with venetoclax in all cytogenetic risk, AML subtype, molecular mutation, age, ECOG score, and bone marrow blast subgroups.

Additionally, significantly more patients treated with venetoclax/azacitidine were transfusion independent for a minimum of 8 weeks for platelets or combined red cells and platelets, Dr. DiNardo noted.

Median event-free survival – time from randomization to relapse, death, or treatment failure – was 9.8 months in the venetoclax arm versus 7 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.63; P < .001).

All patients experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event. Grade 3 or greater hematologic adverse events were seen 82% of patients in the venetoclax arm and 68% in the placebo arm. The respective rates of grade 3 or greater neutropenia were 42% versus 29%, and febrile neutropenia were 42% versus 19%. Thrombocytopenia, anemia, and leukopenia rates were also higher among patients who received venetoclax.

Grade 1-2 gastrointestinal events were the most frequent nonhematologic adverse events. There was no increase in early deaths seen with the study combination.

The study was supported by AbbVie and Genentech. Dr. DiNardo disclosed research funding from and advisory board activities for those companies and from others. Dr. Zeidner disclosed serving on an independent review committee for AbbVie and advisory board activity for Genentech and others.

SOURCE: DiNardo C et al. EHA25, Abstract LB2601.

Adding venetoclax to azacitidine significantly extended survival of patients with previously untreated acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who were ineligible for standard induction therapy, results of the phase 3 VIALE-A trial showed.

Median overall survival for patients treated with venetoclax (Venclexta) and azacitidine was 14.7 months, compared with 9.6 months for patients who received azacitidine with a placebo, reported Courtney DiNardo, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“The combination of [azacitidine] and [venetoclax] was associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in overall survival, response rates, duration of remission, and transfusion independence, representing a true paradigm shift in the treatment of our older patients with AML,” she said in a late-breaking abstract presentation at the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

Patients with newly diagnosed AML who are aged 75 years and older or have significant comorbidities are often not able to withstand the rigors of standard induction therapy for AML and have instead been treated with low-dose hypomethylating agents or cytarabine, but these therapies typically are associated with inferior outcomes, Dr. DiNardo said.

Venetoclax has shown good single-agent activity against relapsed/refractory AML. Early efficacy results of a phase 1b study, reported at the 2017 EHA Congress, showed that, among 100 patients age 65 years and older with previously untreated AML, the combination of venetoclax with either decitabine or azacitidine was associated with a 69% overall response rate, and that older patients were able to tolerate the regimen.
 

No surprise

The results of the VIALE-A study merely confirm what hematologists/oncologists have known for several years, said Joshua F. Zeidner, MD, from the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center in Chapel Hill.

“Most leukemia clinicians have been using this regimen as a standard of care prior to these results,” he said in an interview. Dr. Zeidner was not involved in the study.

In November 2018, the Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval to venetoclax in combination with either azacitidine or decitabine or low-dose cytarabine in adults with newly diagnosed AML who because of age or comorbidities were ineligible for standard intensive induction regimens. Dr. Zeidner noted, however, that there are still questions about the combination in this population that need further exploration.

Despite being labeled as a “low-intensity” therapy, “I think low intensity is sort of a misnomer here,” he said. “It’s very challenging to give this regimen in the community because of all of the cytopenias, a high degree of transfusion dependence that these patients have, at least in the first few cycles, and all the rigorous laboratory monitoring and drug interactions that are common with venetoclax really lead to a lot of challenges in the community.”

Also still unanswered are questions about how to dose patients with early responses who have potential dose-limiting toxicities such as neutropenia and thrombocytopenia, he said.

It’s also unclear whether patients will require hospitalization during the ramp-up phase of venetoclax, as was done in some clinical trials, because of risk of tumor lysis syndrome. In the VIALE-A study, however, there were only three minor biochemical cases of tumor lysis syndrome in the experimental arm, and none of these cases required dose modification or treatment discontinuation.

“This begets the question whether patients need to be hospitalized at for the initiation of this treatment,” Dr. Zeidner said. Additional studies will also be needed to see whether certain subgroups of patients would be likely to derive particular benefit from venetoclax plus azacitidine, such as patients with IDH1 or IDH2 somatic mutations.
 

Randomized confirmatory trial

The VIALE-A study was a randomized, placebo-controlled trial designed to put the early promise of the combination to the test.

Investigators enrolled 433 adults with newly diagnosed AML who were ineligible for induction therapy either because they were 75 or older or were younger than 75 but had one or more of the following comorbidities: heart failure requiring treatment or a left ventricular ejection fraction of 50% or less, chronic stable angina, diffusion lung capacity for carbon monoxide of 65% or less or forced expiratory volume in 1 second of 65% or less, or Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 2-3.

After stratification by age, cytogenetic risk, and geographic region, the patients were randomized in a 2:1 fashion to receive azacitidine 75 mg/m² either subcutaneously or intravenously on days 1-7 of each 28-day cycle, plus either oral venetoclax 400 mg daily following a 3-day ramp up in the first cycle (286 patients) or placebo (145 patients).

The median age in each arm was 76 years. Approximately 75% of patients in each arm had de novo AML.

Approximately half of all patients in each arm has bone marrow blast counts of 50% or greater. Two-thirds of patients had intermediate cytogenetic risk and one-third had poor risk disease. Somatic mutation rates, including mutations in IDH1/2, FLT3, NPM1 and TP53, were roughly comparable between the arms.

As noted before, median overall survival, the primary endpoint, was significantly longer with venetoclax, at 14.7 versus 9.6 months, translating into a hazard ratio for death with venetoclax of 0.66 (P < .001).

Although the numbers were relatively small, an analysis of overall survival by subgroups showed either a significant advantage or trend favoring venetoclax in all subgroups, notably among patients with difficult-to-treat disease, including patients 75 years and older and those with secondary AML, Dr. DiNardo said.

The combined complete response and CR with incomplete recovery (CRi) response rate was 66.4% with venetoclax, compared with 28.3% with azacitidine alone. The median time to a CR/CRi was shorter with the combination at 1.3 versus 2.8 months for azacitidine plus placebo, and the median duration of a CR/CRi response was longer, at 17.5 versus 13.4 months, respectively.

Response rates were also notably higher with venetoclax in all cytogenetic risk, AML subtype, molecular mutation, age, ECOG score, and bone marrow blast subgroups.

Additionally, significantly more patients treated with venetoclax/azacitidine were transfusion independent for a minimum of 8 weeks for platelets or combined red cells and platelets, Dr. DiNardo noted.

Median event-free survival – time from randomization to relapse, death, or treatment failure – was 9.8 months in the venetoclax arm versus 7 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.63; P < .001).

All patients experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event. Grade 3 or greater hematologic adverse events were seen 82% of patients in the venetoclax arm and 68% in the placebo arm. The respective rates of grade 3 or greater neutropenia were 42% versus 29%, and febrile neutropenia were 42% versus 19%. Thrombocytopenia, anemia, and leukopenia rates were also higher among patients who received venetoclax.

Grade 1-2 gastrointestinal events were the most frequent nonhematologic adverse events. There was no increase in early deaths seen with the study combination.

The study was supported by AbbVie and Genentech. Dr. DiNardo disclosed research funding from and advisory board activities for those companies and from others. Dr. Zeidner disclosed serving on an independent review committee for AbbVie and advisory board activity for Genentech and others.

SOURCE: DiNardo C et al. EHA25, Abstract LB2601.

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indications for canakinumab (Ilaris) to include all patients with active Still’s disease older than 2 years, adding adult-onset Still’s disease (AOSD) to a previous approval for juvenile-onset Still’s disease, also known as systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (sJIA), making it the first approved treatment for AOSD, according to an FDA announcement.

The approval comes under a Priority Review designation that used “comparable pharmacokinetic exposure and extrapolation of established efficacy of canakinumab in patients with sJIA, as well as the safety of canakinumab in patients with AOSD and other diseases,” the FDA said.

The results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 36 patients with AOSD aged 22-70 years showed that the efficacy and safety data in AOSD were generally consistent with the results of a pooled analysis of sJIA patients, according to Novartis, which markets canakinumab.

AOSD and sJIA share certain similarities, such as fever, arthritis, rash, and elevated markers of inflammation, which has led to suspicion that they are part of a continuum rather than wholly distinct, according to the agency. In addition, the role of interleukin-1 is well established in both diseases and is blocked by canakinumab.

The most common side effects (occurring in greater than 10% of patients) in sJIA studies included infections, abdominal pain, and injection-site reactions. Serious infections (e.g., pneumonia, varicella, gastroenteritis, measles, sepsis, otitis media, sinusitis, adenovirus, lymph node abscess, pharyngitis) were observed in approximately 4%-5%, according to the full prescribing information.

Canakinumab is also approved for the periodic fever syndromes of cryopyrin-associated periodic syndromes in adults and children aged 4 years and older (including familial cold auto-inflammatory syndrome and Muckle-Wells syndrome), tumor necrosis factor receptor associated periodic syndrome in adult and pediatric patients, hyperimmunoglobulin D syndrome/mevalonate kinase deficiency in adult and pediatric patients, and familial Mediterranean fever in adult and pediatric patients.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indications for canakinumab (Ilaris) to include all patients with active Still’s disease older than 2 years, adding adult-onset Still’s disease (AOSD) to a previous approval for juvenile-onset Still’s disease, also known as systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (sJIA), making it the first approved treatment for AOSD, according to an FDA announcement.

The approval comes under a Priority Review designation that used “comparable pharmacokinetic exposure and extrapolation of established efficacy of canakinumab in patients with sJIA, as well as the safety of canakinumab in patients with AOSD and other diseases,” the FDA said.

The results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 36 patients with AOSD aged 22-70 years showed that the efficacy and safety data in AOSD were generally consistent with the results of a pooled analysis of sJIA patients, according to Novartis, which markets canakinumab.

AOSD and sJIA share certain similarities, such as fever, arthritis, rash, and elevated markers of inflammation, which has led to suspicion that they are part of a continuum rather than wholly distinct, according to the agency. In addition, the role of interleukin-1 is well established in both diseases and is blocked by canakinumab.

The most common side effects (occurring in greater than 10% of patients) in sJIA studies included infections, abdominal pain, and injection-site reactions. Serious infections (e.g., pneumonia, varicella, gastroenteritis, measles, sepsis, otitis media, sinusitis, adenovirus, lymph node abscess, pharyngitis) were observed in approximately 4%-5%, according to the full prescribing information.

Canakinumab is also approved for the periodic fever syndromes of cryopyrin-associated periodic syndromes in adults and children aged 4 years and older (including familial cold auto-inflammatory syndrome and Muckle-Wells syndrome), tumor necrosis factor receptor associated periodic syndrome in adult and pediatric patients, hyperimmunoglobulin D syndrome/mevalonate kinase deficiency in adult and pediatric patients, and familial Mediterranean fever in adult and pediatric patients.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indications for canakinumab (Ilaris) to include all patients with active Still’s disease older than 2 years, adding adult-onset Still’s disease (AOSD) to a previous approval for juvenile-onset Still’s disease, also known as systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (sJIA), making it the first approved treatment for AOSD, according to an FDA announcement.

The approval comes under a Priority Review designation that used “comparable pharmacokinetic exposure and extrapolation of established efficacy of canakinumab in patients with sJIA, as well as the safety of canakinumab in patients with AOSD and other diseases,” the FDA said.

The results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 36 patients with AOSD aged 22-70 years showed that the efficacy and safety data in AOSD were generally consistent with the results of a pooled analysis of sJIA patients, according to Novartis, which markets canakinumab.

AOSD and sJIA share certain similarities, such as fever, arthritis, rash, and elevated markers of inflammation, which has led to suspicion that they are part of a continuum rather than wholly distinct, according to the agency. In addition, the role of interleukin-1 is well established in both diseases and is blocked by canakinumab.

The most common side effects (occurring in greater than 10% of patients) in sJIA studies included infections, abdominal pain, and injection-site reactions. Serious infections (e.g., pneumonia, varicella, gastroenteritis, measles, sepsis, otitis media, sinusitis, adenovirus, lymph node abscess, pharyngitis) were observed in approximately 4%-5%, according to the full prescribing information.

Canakinumab is also approved for the periodic fever syndromes of cryopyrin-associated periodic syndromes in adults and children aged 4 years and older (including familial cold auto-inflammatory syndrome and Muckle-Wells syndrome), tumor necrosis factor receptor associated periodic syndrome in adult and pediatric patients, hyperimmunoglobulin D syndrome/mevalonate kinase deficiency in adult and pediatric patients, and familial Mediterranean fever in adult and pediatric patients.

[email protected]

Over the last few weeks, several conflicting reports about the efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 treatments have emerged, including high-profile papers that were placed in the limelight and groundbreaking retractions that were issued by the Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine, involving the potential dangers of COVID therapy with findings derived from the Surgisphere database. Hydroxychloroquine has garnered considerable media attention and was touted earlier by President Trump for its therapeutic effects.¹ Naturally, there are political connotations associated with the agent, and it is unlikely that hydroxychloroquine will be supplanted in the near future as ongoing clinical trials have demonstrated mixed results amid the controversy.

As clinicians navigating unchartered territory within the hospital setting, we have to come to terms with these new challenges, tailoring treatment protocols accordingly with the best clinical practices in mind. Patients with preexisting mental health conditions and who are being treated for COVID-19 are particularly susceptible to clinical deterioration. Recent studies have indicated that psychiatric patients are more prone to feelings of isolation and/or estrangement as well as exacerbation of symptoms such as paranoia.² Even more concerning is the medication regimen, namely, the novel combination therapies that arise when agents such as hydroxychloroquine are used in tandem with certain antipsychotics or antidepressants. As clinicians, we must reassess the psychotropic medication regimen for people who are currently being treated for or recovering from COVID-19.
 

What’s at stake for COVID-19–positive mental health care patients?

Although the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine is currently being investigated,³ the antimalarial is usually prescribed in tandem with azithromycin for people with COVID-19. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases has advised against that particular combination therapy because of ongoing concerns about toxicities.^3,4

In another study, azithromycin was effectively substituted with doxycycline to help minimize systemic effects for patients with cardiac and/or pulmonary issues^.5 Azithromycin is notorious in the literature for influencing the electrical activity of the heart with the potential for fatal arrhythmia and sudden cardiac death in individuals at risk for cardiovascular disease.^5,6,7 It should be noted that both of these commonly prescribed COVID-19 medications (for example, hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin) could lead to QT interval prolongation especially within the context of combination therapy. This is largely concerning for psychiatrists and various other mental health practitioners for the following reasons: (1) higher rates of metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular diseases among psychiatric patients⁸ and/or (2) effects of certain antipsychotics (for example, IV haloperidol, thioridazine, and ziprasidone) and antidepressants (for example, citalopram and escitalopram) on the QT interval.⁹

SARS-CoV-2 and clinical judgment: Evaluating patients at higher risk

Although COVID-19 medication guidelines are still being actively developed, hydroxychloroquine appears to be commonly prescribed by physicians. The medication is known myriad untoward effects, including potential behavioral dysfunction (for example, irritability, agitation, suicidal ideation)10 as well as the aforementioned issues concerning arrhythmia (for example, torsades de pointes). Health care professionals might not have much control over the choice of COVID-19 agents because of a lack of available resources or limited options, but they can exercise clinical judgment with respect to selecting the appropriate psychotropic medications.

Treatment recommendations

1. Establish a baseline EKG

A baseline 12-lead EKG is the standard of care for patients currently being screened for COVID-19. It is necessary to rule out the presence of an underlying cardiovascular disease or a rhythm irregularity. A prolonged QTc interval is generally regarded as being around greater than 450-470 msecs with variations attributable to gender;¹¹ numerous studies have affirmed that the risk of acquiring torsades de pointes is substantial when the QTc interval exceeds 500 msecs.¹²

2. Medical management and risk assessment

Commonly prescribed antipsychotics such as IV haloperidol and ziprasidone are known for exerting a negative effect on the interval and should readily be substituted with other agents in patients who are being treated for COVID-19; the combination of these antipsychotics alongside some COVID-19 medication regimens (for example, hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin) might prove to be fatal. The same logic applies to COVID-19 patients previously on antidepressant therapeutics such as citalopram and escitalopram.

3. Embrace an individually tailored approach to therapeutics

While American Psychiatric Association guidelines historically supported a cessation or reduction in the offending agent under normal circumstances,¹² our team is recommending that the psychotropics associated with QTc interval prolongation are discontinued altogether (or substituted with a low-risk agent) in the event that a patient presents with suspected COVID-19. However, after the patients tests negative with COVID-19, they may resume therapy as indicated under the discretion of the mental health practitioner.
 

References

1. Offard C. “Lancet, NEJM Retract Surgisphere Studies on COVID-19 Patients.” The Scientist Magazine. 2020 Jun 4.

2. Shigemura J et al. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2020 Apr;74(4):281-2.

3. Keshtkar-Jahromi M and Bavari S. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2020 May;102(5):932-3.

4. Palca J. “NIH panel recommends against drug combination promoted by Trump for COVID-19.” NPR. 2020 Apr 21.

5. Mongelli L. “Long Island doctor tries new twist on hydroxychloroquine for elderly COVID-19 patients.” New York Post. 2020 Apr 4.

6. Hancox JC et al. Ther Adv Infect Dis. 2013 Oct;(5):155-65.

7. Giudicessi JR and Ackerman MJ. Cleve Clin J Med. 2013 Sep;80(9):539-44.

8. Casey DE. Am J Med. 2005 Apr 1;118(Suppl 2):15S-22S.

9. Beach SR et al. Psychosomatics. 2013 Jan 1;54(1):1-3.

10. Bogaczewicz A and Sobów T. Psychiatria i Psychologia Kliniczna. 2017;17(2):111-4.

11. Chohan PS et al. Pak J Med Sci. 2015 Sep-Oct;31(5):1269-71.

12. Lieberman JA et al. APA guidance on the use of antipsychotic drugs and cardiac sudden death. NYS Office of Mental Health. 2012.
 

Dr. Faisal A. Islam is medical adviser for the International Maternal and Child Health Foundation, Montreal, and is based in New York. He also is a postdoctoral fellow, psychopharmacologist, and a board-certified medical affairs specialist. Dr. Faisal Islam disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Dr. Mohammed Islam is affiliated with the department of psychiatry at the Interfaith Medical Center, New York. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Dr. Choudhry is the chief scientific officer and head of the department of mental health and clinical research at the International Maternal and Child Health Foundation. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Over the last few weeks, several conflicting reports about the efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 treatments have emerged, including high-profile papers that were placed in the limelight and groundbreaking retractions that were issued by the Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine, involving the potential dangers of COVID therapy with findings derived from the Surgisphere database. Hydroxychloroquine has garnered considerable media attention and was touted earlier by President Trump for its therapeutic effects.¹ Naturally, there are political connotations associated with the agent, and it is unlikely that hydroxychloroquine will be supplanted in the near future as ongoing clinical trials have demonstrated mixed results amid the controversy.

As clinicians navigating unchartered territory within the hospital setting, we have to come to terms with these new challenges, tailoring treatment protocols accordingly with the best clinical practices in mind. Patients with preexisting mental health conditions and who are being treated for COVID-19 are particularly susceptible to clinical deterioration. Recent studies have indicated that psychiatric patients are more prone to feelings of isolation and/or estrangement as well as exacerbation of symptoms such as paranoia.² Even more concerning is the medication regimen, namely, the novel combination therapies that arise when agents such as hydroxychloroquine are used in tandem with certain antipsychotics or antidepressants. As clinicians, we must reassess the psychotropic medication regimen for people who are currently being treated for or recovering from COVID-19.
 

What’s at stake for COVID-19–positive mental health care patients?

Although the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine is currently being investigated,³ the antimalarial is usually prescribed in tandem with azithromycin for people with COVID-19. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases has advised against that particular combination therapy because of ongoing concerns about toxicities.^3,4

In another study, azithromycin was effectively substituted with doxycycline to help minimize systemic effects for patients with cardiac and/or pulmonary issues^.5 Azithromycin is notorious in the literature for influencing the electrical activity of the heart with the potential for fatal arrhythmia and sudden cardiac death in individuals at risk for cardiovascular disease.^5,6,7 It should be noted that both of these commonly prescribed COVID-19 medications (for example, hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin) could lead to QT interval prolongation especially within the context of combination therapy. This is largely concerning for psychiatrists and various other mental health practitioners for the following reasons: (1) higher rates of metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular diseases among psychiatric patients⁸ and/or (2) effects of certain antipsychotics (for example, IV haloperidol, thioridazine, and ziprasidone) and antidepressants (for example, citalopram and escitalopram) on the QT interval.⁹

SARS-CoV-2 and clinical judgment: Evaluating patients at higher risk

Although COVID-19 medication guidelines are still being actively developed, hydroxychloroquine appears to be commonly prescribed by physicians. The medication is known myriad untoward effects, including potential behavioral dysfunction (for example, irritability, agitation, suicidal ideation)10 as well as the aforementioned issues concerning arrhythmia (for example, torsades de pointes). Health care professionals might not have much control over the choice of COVID-19 agents because of a lack of available resources or limited options, but they can exercise clinical judgment with respect to selecting the appropriate psychotropic medications.

Treatment recommendations

1. Establish a baseline EKG

A baseline 12-lead EKG is the standard of care for patients currently being screened for COVID-19. It is necessary to rule out the presence of an underlying cardiovascular disease or a rhythm irregularity. A prolonged QTc interval is generally regarded as being around greater than 450-470 msecs with variations attributable to gender;¹¹ numerous studies have affirmed that the risk of acquiring torsades de pointes is substantial when the QTc interval exceeds 500 msecs.¹²

2. Medical management and risk assessment

Commonly prescribed antipsychotics such as IV haloperidol and ziprasidone are known for exerting a negative effect on the interval and should readily be substituted with other agents in patients who are being treated for COVID-19; the combination of these antipsychotics alongside some COVID-19 medication regimens (for example, hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin) might prove to be fatal. The same logic applies to COVID-19 patients previously on antidepressant therapeutics such as citalopram and escitalopram.

3. Embrace an individually tailored approach to therapeutics

While American Psychiatric Association guidelines historically supported a cessation or reduction in the offending agent under normal circumstances,¹² our team is recommending that the psychotropics associated with QTc interval prolongation are discontinued altogether (or substituted with a low-risk agent) in the event that a patient presents with suspected COVID-19. However, after the patients tests negative with COVID-19, they may resume therapy as indicated under the discretion of the mental health practitioner.
 

References

1. Offard C. “Lancet, NEJM Retract Surgisphere Studies on COVID-19 Patients.” The Scientist Magazine. 2020 Jun 4.

2. Shigemura J et al. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2020 Apr;74(4):281-2.

3. Keshtkar-Jahromi M and Bavari S. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2020 May;102(5):932-3.

4. Palca J. “NIH panel recommends against drug combination promoted by Trump for COVID-19.” NPR. 2020 Apr 21.

5. Mongelli L. “Long Island doctor tries new twist on hydroxychloroquine for elderly COVID-19 patients.” New York Post. 2020 Apr 4.

6. Hancox JC et al. Ther Adv Infect Dis. 2013 Oct;(5):155-65.

7. Giudicessi JR and Ackerman MJ. Cleve Clin J Med. 2013 Sep;80(9):539-44.

8. Casey DE. Am J Med. 2005 Apr 1;118(Suppl 2):15S-22S.

9. Beach SR et al. Psychosomatics. 2013 Jan 1;54(1):1-3.

10. Bogaczewicz A and Sobów T. Psychiatria i Psychologia Kliniczna. 2017;17(2):111-4.

11. Chohan PS et al. Pak J Med Sci. 2015 Sep-Oct;31(5):1269-71.

12. Lieberman JA et al. APA guidance on the use of antipsychotic drugs and cardiac sudden death. NYS Office of Mental Health. 2012.
 

Dr. Faisal A. Islam is medical adviser for the International Maternal and Child Health Foundation, Montreal, and is based in New York. He also is a postdoctoral fellow, psychopharmacologist, and a board-certified medical affairs specialist. Dr. Faisal Islam disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Dr. Mohammed Islam is affiliated with the department of psychiatry at the Interfaith Medical Center, New York. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Dr. Choudhry is the chief scientific officer and head of the department of mental health and clinical research at the International Maternal and Child Health Foundation. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Over the last few weeks, several conflicting reports about the efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 treatments have emerged, including high-profile papers that were placed in the limelight and groundbreaking retractions that were issued by the Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine, involving the potential dangers of COVID therapy with findings derived from the Surgisphere database. Hydroxychloroquine has garnered considerable media attention and was touted earlier by President Trump for its therapeutic effects.¹ Naturally, there are political connotations associated with the agent, and it is unlikely that hydroxychloroquine will be supplanted in the near future as ongoing clinical trials have demonstrated mixed results amid the controversy.

As clinicians navigating unchartered territory within the hospital setting, we have to come to terms with these new challenges, tailoring treatment protocols accordingly with the best clinical practices in mind. Patients with preexisting mental health conditions and who are being treated for COVID-19 are particularly susceptible to clinical deterioration. Recent studies have indicated that psychiatric patients are more prone to feelings of isolation and/or estrangement as well as exacerbation of symptoms such as paranoia.² Even more concerning is the medication regimen, namely, the novel combination therapies that arise when agents such as hydroxychloroquine are used in tandem with certain antipsychotics or antidepressants. As clinicians, we must reassess the psychotropic medication regimen for people who are currently being treated for or recovering from COVID-19.
 

What’s at stake for COVID-19–positive mental health care patients?

Although the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine is currently being investigated,³ the antimalarial is usually prescribed in tandem with azithromycin for people with COVID-19. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases has advised against that particular combination therapy because of ongoing concerns about toxicities.^3,4

In another study, azithromycin was effectively substituted with doxycycline to help minimize systemic effects for patients with cardiac and/or pulmonary issues^.5 Azithromycin is notorious in the literature for influencing the electrical activity of the heart with the potential for fatal arrhythmia and sudden cardiac death in individuals at risk for cardiovascular disease.^5,6,7 It should be noted that both of these commonly prescribed COVID-19 medications (for example, hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin) could lead to QT interval prolongation especially within the context of combination therapy. This is largely concerning for psychiatrists and various other mental health practitioners for the following reasons: (1) higher rates of metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular diseases among psychiatric patients⁸ and/or (2) effects of certain antipsychotics (for example, IV haloperidol, thioridazine, and ziprasidone) and antidepressants (for example, citalopram and escitalopram) on the QT interval.⁹

SARS-CoV-2 and clinical judgment: Evaluating patients at higher risk

Although COVID-19 medication guidelines are still being actively developed, hydroxychloroquine appears to be commonly prescribed by physicians. The medication is known myriad untoward effects, including potential behavioral dysfunction (for example, irritability, agitation, suicidal ideation)10 as well as the aforementioned issues concerning arrhythmia (for example, torsades de pointes). Health care professionals might not have much control over the choice of COVID-19 agents because of a lack of available resources or limited options, but they can exercise clinical judgment with respect to selecting the appropriate psychotropic medications.

Treatment recommendations

1. Establish a baseline EKG

A baseline 12-lead EKG is the standard of care for patients currently being screened for COVID-19. It is necessary to rule out the presence of an underlying cardiovascular disease or a rhythm irregularity. A prolonged QTc interval is generally regarded as being around greater than 450-470 msecs with variations attributable to gender;¹¹ numerous studies have affirmed that the risk of acquiring torsades de pointes is substantial when the QTc interval exceeds 500 msecs.¹²

2. Medical management and risk assessment

Commonly prescribed antipsychotics such as IV haloperidol and ziprasidone are known for exerting a negative effect on the interval and should readily be substituted with other agents in patients who are being treated for COVID-19; the combination of these antipsychotics alongside some COVID-19 medication regimens (for example, hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin) might prove to be fatal. The same logic applies to COVID-19 patients previously on antidepressant therapeutics such as citalopram and escitalopram.

3. Embrace an individually tailored approach to therapeutics

While American Psychiatric Association guidelines historically supported a cessation or reduction in the offending agent under normal circumstances,¹² our team is recommending that the psychotropics associated with QTc interval prolongation are discontinued altogether (or substituted with a low-risk agent) in the event that a patient presents with suspected COVID-19. However, after the patients tests negative with COVID-19, they may resume therapy as indicated under the discretion of the mental health practitioner.
 

References

1. Offard C. “Lancet, NEJM Retract Surgisphere Studies on COVID-19 Patients.” The Scientist Magazine. 2020 Jun 4.

2. Shigemura J et al. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2020 Apr;74(4):281-2.

3. Keshtkar-Jahromi M and Bavari S. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2020 May;102(5):932-3.

4. Palca J. “NIH panel recommends against drug combination promoted by Trump for COVID-19.” NPR. 2020 Apr 21.

5. Mongelli L. “Long Island doctor tries new twist on hydroxychloroquine for elderly COVID-19 patients.” New York Post. 2020 Apr 4.

6. Hancox JC et al. Ther Adv Infect Dis. 2013 Oct;(5):155-65.

7. Giudicessi JR and Ackerman MJ. Cleve Clin J Med. 2013 Sep;80(9):539-44.

8. Casey DE. Am J Med. 2005 Apr 1;118(Suppl 2):15S-22S.

9. Beach SR et al. Psychosomatics. 2013 Jan 1;54(1):1-3.

10. Bogaczewicz A and Sobów T. Psychiatria i Psychologia Kliniczna. 2017;17(2):111-4.

11. Chohan PS et al. Pak J Med Sci. 2015 Sep-Oct;31(5):1269-71.

12. Lieberman JA et al. APA guidance on the use of antipsychotic drugs and cardiac sudden death. NYS Office of Mental Health. 2012.
 

Dr. Faisal A. Islam is medical adviser for the International Maternal and Child Health Foundation, Montreal, and is based in New York. He also is a postdoctoral fellow, psychopharmacologist, and a board-certified medical affairs specialist. Dr. Faisal Islam disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Dr. Mohammed Islam is affiliated with the department of psychiatry at the Interfaith Medical Center, New York. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Dr. Choudhry is the chief scientific officer and head of the department of mental health and clinical research at the International Maternal and Child Health Foundation. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.