User login
Zanubrutinib Label Expands to Include RR Follicular Lymphoma
Approval was based on the ROSEWOOD trial, which included 217 adults with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma randomized 2:1 to obinutuzumab plus zanubrutinib 160 mg orally twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or to obinutuzumab alone. Participants had a median of three prior lines of treatment and as many as 11.
The overall response rate was 69% with zanubrutinib add-on vs 46% with stand-alone obinutuzumab (P = .0012). After a median follow-up of 19 months, the median duration of response was 14 months with obinutuzumab alone but not reached in the combination arm and estimated to be 69% at 18 months.
Across clinical trials, the most common adverse events with zanubrutinib were decreased neutrophil counts (51%), decreased platelet counts (41%), upper respiratory tract infection (38%), hemorrhage (32%), and musculoskeletal pain (31%). Serious adverse reactions occurred in 35% of patients.
The recommended zanubrutinib dose is 160 mg taken orally twice daily or 320 mg taken orally once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Previously approved indications for the kinase inhibitor include mantle cell lymphoma, Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and small lymphocytic lymphoma.
According to drugs.com, 120 80-mg capsules cost $15,874.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Approval was based on the ROSEWOOD trial, which included 217 adults with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma randomized 2:1 to obinutuzumab plus zanubrutinib 160 mg orally twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or to obinutuzumab alone. Participants had a median of three prior lines of treatment and as many as 11.
The overall response rate was 69% with zanubrutinib add-on vs 46% with stand-alone obinutuzumab (P = .0012). After a median follow-up of 19 months, the median duration of response was 14 months with obinutuzumab alone but not reached in the combination arm and estimated to be 69% at 18 months.
Across clinical trials, the most common adverse events with zanubrutinib were decreased neutrophil counts (51%), decreased platelet counts (41%), upper respiratory tract infection (38%), hemorrhage (32%), and musculoskeletal pain (31%). Serious adverse reactions occurred in 35% of patients.
The recommended zanubrutinib dose is 160 mg taken orally twice daily or 320 mg taken orally once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Previously approved indications for the kinase inhibitor include mantle cell lymphoma, Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and small lymphocytic lymphoma.
According to drugs.com, 120 80-mg capsules cost $15,874.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Approval was based on the ROSEWOOD trial, which included 217 adults with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma randomized 2:1 to obinutuzumab plus zanubrutinib 160 mg orally twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or to obinutuzumab alone. Participants had a median of three prior lines of treatment and as many as 11.
The overall response rate was 69% with zanubrutinib add-on vs 46% with stand-alone obinutuzumab (P = .0012). After a median follow-up of 19 months, the median duration of response was 14 months with obinutuzumab alone but not reached in the combination arm and estimated to be 69% at 18 months.
Across clinical trials, the most common adverse events with zanubrutinib were decreased neutrophil counts (51%), decreased platelet counts (41%), upper respiratory tract infection (38%), hemorrhage (32%), and musculoskeletal pain (31%). Serious adverse reactions occurred in 35% of patients.
The recommended zanubrutinib dose is 160 mg taken orally twice daily or 320 mg taken orally once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Previously approved indications for the kinase inhibitor include mantle cell lymphoma, Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and small lymphocytic lymphoma.
According to drugs.com, 120 80-mg capsules cost $15,874.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Sulfites Selected as ACDS Allergen of the Year
by the American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS).
Sulfites are currently not found in most screening patch test series, so may be missed as a relevant contact allergen, Donald V. Belsito, MD, emeritus professor in the Department of Dermatology at Columbia University, New York City, said in his presentation on the Allergen of the Year on March 7 at the annual meeting of the American Contact Dermatitis Society in San Diego. Sulfites, he noted, are distinct from sulfates, and the groups do not cross-react with each other.
Sodium disulfite, an inorganic compound, belongs to a group of sulfiting agents, which contain the sulfite ion SO32− and include ammonium sulfite, potassium sulfite, and sodium sulfite, Dr. Belsito said. Sulfites function as antioxidants and preservatives in a range of products including food and beverages, personal care products, and pharmaceuticals.
The type of sulfite allergy diagnosed by patch testing is type IV hypersensitivity or delayed-type hypersensitivity, where patients present with pruritic, red, scaling macules, papulovesicles, and patches, Dr. Belsito told this news organization. “It is not the type I, immediate hypersensitivity that causes hives and, in some cases, anaphylaxis,” he said. Sulfites also can cause these side effects, so correct labeling of food and beverages is important, he noted.
Some common nonoccupational sulfite sources include hair coloring and bleach products, hairspray, tanning lotions, makeup, sunscreens, and deodorants, Dr. Belsito said in his presentation. Medications including topical antifungals, topical corticosteroids, and nasal solutions can be culprits, as can water in swimming pools, he noted.
In occupational settings, sulfites may be present not only in food and drink products but also can be used in production of products, such as those used for sterilization during beer and wine fermentation, Dr. Belsito said. Other potential occupational sources of sulfite exposure include healthcare settings and textile, chemical, rubber, and pharmaceutical manufacturing.
High-sulfite food products (> 100 ppm) to be aware of include dried fruit (raisins and prunes are exceptions), bottled lemon or lime juice (but not frozen products), wine, molasses, grape juice (white, or white, pink, and red sparkling), and pickled cocktail onions, Dr. Belsito said.
“Like other contact allergens, the clinical presentation correlates with exposure,” he added. A study by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) found that 28.8% of patients positive for sulfite allergy on patch testing presented with facial dermatitis, which was not only related to cosmetics and medications used on the face but also from products, such as shampoo, used on the scalp that dripped onto the face. “The scalp is relatively resistant to the expression of contact allergy and may not be involved at all,” he said.
According to the NACDG study, the hands were the second most common site of dermatitis associated with sulfites (20.5%) followed by generalized distribution (13.6%). These sites are to be expected, given the sources of food and beverage, personal care products, and occupational materials, Dr. Belsito said.
“Eczematous dermatitis of the lips is also common in patients with ingested food sources of sulfites,” he said.
Systemic contact dermatitis to sulfites has been documented following oral, rectal, and parental exposure, Dr. Belsito told this news organization. “Systemic dermatitis may present as a scattered/generalized dermatitis, symmetrical drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthema (also referred to as baboon syndrome), or erythroderma,” he said.
How to Spot Sulfite Allergies
The exclusion of sulfites from most patch test series means that sulfite allergy diagnoses are often missed, despite the wide range of potential exposures, Dr. Belsito said.
“Most cases of allergic contact dermatitis occur at the site of application of the allergen,” he noted. Depending on the location of the dermatitis, a detailed history of exposures that includes cosmetics and topical medications, work-related materials, and foods and beverages might suggest a sulfite allergy, he said.
Given the range of potential clinical presentations and the many and varied exposures to sulfites, Dr. Belsito’s best tip for clinicians is to routinely screen for them and evaluate the many avenues of exposure if a patch test is positive, he said.
For now, he said he does not think additional research is needed on sulfites as allergens; instead, sulfites, such as sodium metabisulfite/sodium disulfite, should be included in all clinicians’ baseline screening series, he said.
The Allergen of the Year was also recently announced in the journal Dermatitis. Authors Samuel F. Ekstein, MS, and Erin M. Warshaw, MD, from the Department of Dermatology, Park Nicollet Health Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota, noted that the ACDS hoped to raise awareness of sulfites as a “significant allergen” and called for their increased inclusion in screening patch test series.
Patients identified with sulfite allergies can find alternative products on the ACDS CAMP (Contact Allergen Management Program) website, Dr. Warshaw said in an interview.
She also highlighted some examples of sulfites as allergens in healthcare settings in particular. She described one patient who presented with dermatitis at the site of three previous hand orthopedic procedures.
“Although surgical cleansers were suspected, the patient reacted to sodium metabisulfite. Review of the operating room contactants confirmed sulfites as preservatives in an injectable anesthetic and antibiotic used for wound irrigation,” she said. Another patient who had been treated for recurrent otitis externa and seborrheic dermatitis was found to be allergic to sulfites in an otic antibiotic suspension as well as in a ketoconazole cream product, she added.
In the paper, Dr. Warshaw and Mr. Ekstein called for the addition of sulfites to the test series. Although the NACDG added sodium metabisulfite to the series in 2017, sulfites are not part of the American Contact Dermatitis Core Series, they wrote. Sodium metabisulfite, they said, was added to the European baseline standard series after review of the 2019-2020 patch test reactivity and clinical relevance data.
The ACDS meeting is held every year the day before the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Dr. Belsito and Dr. Warshaw had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
by the American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS).
Sulfites are currently not found in most screening patch test series, so may be missed as a relevant contact allergen, Donald V. Belsito, MD, emeritus professor in the Department of Dermatology at Columbia University, New York City, said in his presentation on the Allergen of the Year on March 7 at the annual meeting of the American Contact Dermatitis Society in San Diego. Sulfites, he noted, are distinct from sulfates, and the groups do not cross-react with each other.
Sodium disulfite, an inorganic compound, belongs to a group of sulfiting agents, which contain the sulfite ion SO32− and include ammonium sulfite, potassium sulfite, and sodium sulfite, Dr. Belsito said. Sulfites function as antioxidants and preservatives in a range of products including food and beverages, personal care products, and pharmaceuticals.
The type of sulfite allergy diagnosed by patch testing is type IV hypersensitivity or delayed-type hypersensitivity, where patients present with pruritic, red, scaling macules, papulovesicles, and patches, Dr. Belsito told this news organization. “It is not the type I, immediate hypersensitivity that causes hives and, in some cases, anaphylaxis,” he said. Sulfites also can cause these side effects, so correct labeling of food and beverages is important, he noted.
Some common nonoccupational sulfite sources include hair coloring and bleach products, hairspray, tanning lotions, makeup, sunscreens, and deodorants, Dr. Belsito said in his presentation. Medications including topical antifungals, topical corticosteroids, and nasal solutions can be culprits, as can water in swimming pools, he noted.
In occupational settings, sulfites may be present not only in food and drink products but also can be used in production of products, such as those used for sterilization during beer and wine fermentation, Dr. Belsito said. Other potential occupational sources of sulfite exposure include healthcare settings and textile, chemical, rubber, and pharmaceutical manufacturing.
High-sulfite food products (> 100 ppm) to be aware of include dried fruit (raisins and prunes are exceptions), bottled lemon or lime juice (but not frozen products), wine, molasses, grape juice (white, or white, pink, and red sparkling), and pickled cocktail onions, Dr. Belsito said.
“Like other contact allergens, the clinical presentation correlates with exposure,” he added. A study by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) found that 28.8% of patients positive for sulfite allergy on patch testing presented with facial dermatitis, which was not only related to cosmetics and medications used on the face but also from products, such as shampoo, used on the scalp that dripped onto the face. “The scalp is relatively resistant to the expression of contact allergy and may not be involved at all,” he said.
According to the NACDG study, the hands were the second most common site of dermatitis associated with sulfites (20.5%) followed by generalized distribution (13.6%). These sites are to be expected, given the sources of food and beverage, personal care products, and occupational materials, Dr. Belsito said.
“Eczematous dermatitis of the lips is also common in patients with ingested food sources of sulfites,” he said.
Systemic contact dermatitis to sulfites has been documented following oral, rectal, and parental exposure, Dr. Belsito told this news organization. “Systemic dermatitis may present as a scattered/generalized dermatitis, symmetrical drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthema (also referred to as baboon syndrome), or erythroderma,” he said.
How to Spot Sulfite Allergies
The exclusion of sulfites from most patch test series means that sulfite allergy diagnoses are often missed, despite the wide range of potential exposures, Dr. Belsito said.
“Most cases of allergic contact dermatitis occur at the site of application of the allergen,” he noted. Depending on the location of the dermatitis, a detailed history of exposures that includes cosmetics and topical medications, work-related materials, and foods and beverages might suggest a sulfite allergy, he said.
Given the range of potential clinical presentations and the many and varied exposures to sulfites, Dr. Belsito’s best tip for clinicians is to routinely screen for them and evaluate the many avenues of exposure if a patch test is positive, he said.
For now, he said he does not think additional research is needed on sulfites as allergens; instead, sulfites, such as sodium metabisulfite/sodium disulfite, should be included in all clinicians’ baseline screening series, he said.
The Allergen of the Year was also recently announced in the journal Dermatitis. Authors Samuel F. Ekstein, MS, and Erin M. Warshaw, MD, from the Department of Dermatology, Park Nicollet Health Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota, noted that the ACDS hoped to raise awareness of sulfites as a “significant allergen” and called for their increased inclusion in screening patch test series.
Patients identified with sulfite allergies can find alternative products on the ACDS CAMP (Contact Allergen Management Program) website, Dr. Warshaw said in an interview.
She also highlighted some examples of sulfites as allergens in healthcare settings in particular. She described one patient who presented with dermatitis at the site of three previous hand orthopedic procedures.
“Although surgical cleansers were suspected, the patient reacted to sodium metabisulfite. Review of the operating room contactants confirmed sulfites as preservatives in an injectable anesthetic and antibiotic used for wound irrigation,” she said. Another patient who had been treated for recurrent otitis externa and seborrheic dermatitis was found to be allergic to sulfites in an otic antibiotic suspension as well as in a ketoconazole cream product, she added.
In the paper, Dr. Warshaw and Mr. Ekstein called for the addition of sulfites to the test series. Although the NACDG added sodium metabisulfite to the series in 2017, sulfites are not part of the American Contact Dermatitis Core Series, they wrote. Sodium metabisulfite, they said, was added to the European baseline standard series after review of the 2019-2020 patch test reactivity and clinical relevance data.
The ACDS meeting is held every year the day before the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Dr. Belsito and Dr. Warshaw had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
by the American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS).
Sulfites are currently not found in most screening patch test series, so may be missed as a relevant contact allergen, Donald V. Belsito, MD, emeritus professor in the Department of Dermatology at Columbia University, New York City, said in his presentation on the Allergen of the Year on March 7 at the annual meeting of the American Contact Dermatitis Society in San Diego. Sulfites, he noted, are distinct from sulfates, and the groups do not cross-react with each other.
Sodium disulfite, an inorganic compound, belongs to a group of sulfiting agents, which contain the sulfite ion SO32− and include ammonium sulfite, potassium sulfite, and sodium sulfite, Dr. Belsito said. Sulfites function as antioxidants and preservatives in a range of products including food and beverages, personal care products, and pharmaceuticals.
The type of sulfite allergy diagnosed by patch testing is type IV hypersensitivity or delayed-type hypersensitivity, where patients present with pruritic, red, scaling macules, papulovesicles, and patches, Dr. Belsito told this news organization. “It is not the type I, immediate hypersensitivity that causes hives and, in some cases, anaphylaxis,” he said. Sulfites also can cause these side effects, so correct labeling of food and beverages is important, he noted.
Some common nonoccupational sulfite sources include hair coloring and bleach products, hairspray, tanning lotions, makeup, sunscreens, and deodorants, Dr. Belsito said in his presentation. Medications including topical antifungals, topical corticosteroids, and nasal solutions can be culprits, as can water in swimming pools, he noted.
In occupational settings, sulfites may be present not only in food and drink products but also can be used in production of products, such as those used for sterilization during beer and wine fermentation, Dr. Belsito said. Other potential occupational sources of sulfite exposure include healthcare settings and textile, chemical, rubber, and pharmaceutical manufacturing.
High-sulfite food products (> 100 ppm) to be aware of include dried fruit (raisins and prunes are exceptions), bottled lemon or lime juice (but not frozen products), wine, molasses, grape juice (white, or white, pink, and red sparkling), and pickled cocktail onions, Dr. Belsito said.
“Like other contact allergens, the clinical presentation correlates with exposure,” he added. A study by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) found that 28.8% of patients positive for sulfite allergy on patch testing presented with facial dermatitis, which was not only related to cosmetics and medications used on the face but also from products, such as shampoo, used on the scalp that dripped onto the face. “The scalp is relatively resistant to the expression of contact allergy and may not be involved at all,” he said.
According to the NACDG study, the hands were the second most common site of dermatitis associated with sulfites (20.5%) followed by generalized distribution (13.6%). These sites are to be expected, given the sources of food and beverage, personal care products, and occupational materials, Dr. Belsito said.
“Eczematous dermatitis of the lips is also common in patients with ingested food sources of sulfites,” he said.
Systemic contact dermatitis to sulfites has been documented following oral, rectal, and parental exposure, Dr. Belsito told this news organization. “Systemic dermatitis may present as a scattered/generalized dermatitis, symmetrical drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthema (also referred to as baboon syndrome), or erythroderma,” he said.
How to Spot Sulfite Allergies
The exclusion of sulfites from most patch test series means that sulfite allergy diagnoses are often missed, despite the wide range of potential exposures, Dr. Belsito said.
“Most cases of allergic contact dermatitis occur at the site of application of the allergen,” he noted. Depending on the location of the dermatitis, a detailed history of exposures that includes cosmetics and topical medications, work-related materials, and foods and beverages might suggest a sulfite allergy, he said.
Given the range of potential clinical presentations and the many and varied exposures to sulfites, Dr. Belsito’s best tip for clinicians is to routinely screen for them and evaluate the many avenues of exposure if a patch test is positive, he said.
For now, he said he does not think additional research is needed on sulfites as allergens; instead, sulfites, such as sodium metabisulfite/sodium disulfite, should be included in all clinicians’ baseline screening series, he said.
The Allergen of the Year was also recently announced in the journal Dermatitis. Authors Samuel F. Ekstein, MS, and Erin M. Warshaw, MD, from the Department of Dermatology, Park Nicollet Health Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota, noted that the ACDS hoped to raise awareness of sulfites as a “significant allergen” and called for their increased inclusion in screening patch test series.
Patients identified with sulfite allergies can find alternative products on the ACDS CAMP (Contact Allergen Management Program) website, Dr. Warshaw said in an interview.
She also highlighted some examples of sulfites as allergens in healthcare settings in particular. She described one patient who presented with dermatitis at the site of three previous hand orthopedic procedures.
“Although surgical cleansers were suspected, the patient reacted to sodium metabisulfite. Review of the operating room contactants confirmed sulfites as preservatives in an injectable anesthetic and antibiotic used for wound irrigation,” she said. Another patient who had been treated for recurrent otitis externa and seborrheic dermatitis was found to be allergic to sulfites in an otic antibiotic suspension as well as in a ketoconazole cream product, she added.
In the paper, Dr. Warshaw and Mr. Ekstein called for the addition of sulfites to the test series. Although the NACDG added sodium metabisulfite to the series in 2017, sulfites are not part of the American Contact Dermatitis Core Series, they wrote. Sodium metabisulfite, they said, was added to the European baseline standard series after review of the 2019-2020 patch test reactivity and clinical relevance data.
The ACDS meeting is held every year the day before the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Dr. Belsito and Dr. Warshaw had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACDS 2024
Second FDA-Approved Tocilizumab Biosimilar Has Intravenous, Subcutaneous Formulations
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the biosimilar tocilizumab-aazg (Tyenne), Fresenius Kabi, the drug’s manufacturer, announced on March 7.
This is the second tocilizumab biosimilar approved by the regulatory agency and the first to be approved in both intravenous (IV) and subcutaneous formulations that are available with the reference product, Actemra, the company said in a press release. 
Tocilizumab-aazg is an interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor antagonist indicated for:
- Adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis who have had an inadequate response to one or more disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs
- Adults with giant cell arteritis
- Patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis
- Patients aged 2 years or older with active systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis
“Fresenius Kabi is leading the way as the first company to receive FDA approval for both IV and subcutaneous formulations of its tocilizumab biosimilar and is available in prefilled syringe, pen injector, and vial presentations,” Fabrice Romanet, senior vice president of innovation and development at Fresenius Kabi Biopharma, said in a statement.
The FDA approved the first tocilizumab biosimilar, manufactured by Biogen, in late September 2023. It is administered by IV infusion.
Tocilizumab-aazg’s approval was based on outcome and safety data from a dozen clinical studies. The drug can be administered via intravenous formulation (20 mg/mL) or subcutaneously via a single-dose 162-mg/0.9-mL prefilled syringe or single-dose prefilled autoinjector.
The most common side effects for tocilizumab-aazg include upper respiratory tract infections, headache, hypertension, and injection site reactions. The most serious side effects include serious infections, perforation of the stomach or intestines, hepatotoxicity, and changes in certain lab results.
Tocilizumab-aazg has already launched in 10 countries, Fresenius Kabi shared in the press release, and plans to launch in additional countries in 2024 and 2025. It is not clear when tocilizumab-aazg will be made available in the United States.
“In accordance with its patent settlement agreement with Genentech, Fresenius Kabi has a license to market its tocilizumab products in the United States commencing on the license dates, which are confidential,” the company noted.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the biosimilar tocilizumab-aazg (Tyenne), Fresenius Kabi, the drug’s manufacturer, announced on March 7.
This is the second tocilizumab biosimilar approved by the regulatory agency and the first to be approved in both intravenous (IV) and subcutaneous formulations that are available with the reference product, Actemra, the company said in a press release.
Tocilizumab-aazg is an interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor antagonist indicated for:
- Adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis who have had an inadequate response to one or more disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs
- Adults with giant cell arteritis
- Patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis
- Patients aged 2 years or older with active systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis
“Fresenius Kabi is leading the way as the first company to receive FDA approval for both IV and subcutaneous formulations of its tocilizumab biosimilar and is available in prefilled syringe, pen injector, and vial presentations,” Fabrice Romanet, senior vice president of innovation and development at Fresenius Kabi Biopharma, said in a statement.
The FDA approved the first tocilizumab biosimilar, manufactured by Biogen, in late September 2023. It is administered by IV infusion.
Tocilizumab-aazg’s approval was based on outcome and safety data from a dozen clinical studies. The drug can be administered via intravenous formulation (20 mg/mL) or subcutaneously via a single-dose 162-mg/0.9-mL prefilled syringe or single-dose prefilled autoinjector.
The most common side effects for tocilizumab-aazg include upper respiratory tract infections, headache, hypertension, and injection site reactions. The most serious side effects include serious infections, perforation of the stomach or intestines, hepatotoxicity, and changes in certain lab results.
Tocilizumab-aazg has already launched in 10 countries, Fresenius Kabi shared in the press release, and plans to launch in additional countries in 2024 and 2025. It is not clear when tocilizumab-aazg will be made available in the United States.
“In accordance with its patent settlement agreement with Genentech, Fresenius Kabi has a license to market its tocilizumab products in the United States commencing on the license dates, which are confidential,” the company noted.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the biosimilar tocilizumab-aazg (Tyenne), Fresenius Kabi, the drug’s manufacturer, announced on March 7.
This is the second tocilizumab biosimilar approved by the regulatory agency and the first to be approved in both intravenous (IV) and subcutaneous formulations that are available with the reference product, Actemra, the company said in a press release.
Tocilizumab-aazg is an interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor antagonist indicated for:
- Adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis who have had an inadequate response to one or more disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs
- Adults with giant cell arteritis
- Patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis
- Patients aged 2 years or older with active systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis
“Fresenius Kabi is leading the way as the first company to receive FDA approval for both IV and subcutaneous formulations of its tocilizumab biosimilar and is available in prefilled syringe, pen injector, and vial presentations,” Fabrice Romanet, senior vice president of innovation and development at Fresenius Kabi Biopharma, said in a statement.
The FDA approved the first tocilizumab biosimilar, manufactured by Biogen, in late September 2023. It is administered by IV infusion.
Tocilizumab-aazg’s approval was based on outcome and safety data from a dozen clinical studies. The drug can be administered via intravenous formulation (20 mg/mL) or subcutaneously via a single-dose 162-mg/0.9-mL prefilled syringe or single-dose prefilled autoinjector.
The most common side effects for tocilizumab-aazg include upper respiratory tract infections, headache, hypertension, and injection site reactions. The most serious side effects include serious infections, perforation of the stomach or intestines, hepatotoxicity, and changes in certain lab results.
Tocilizumab-aazg has already launched in 10 countries, Fresenius Kabi shared in the press release, and plans to launch in additional countries in 2024 and 2025. It is not clear when tocilizumab-aazg will be made available in the United States.
“In accordance with its patent settlement agreement with Genentech, Fresenius Kabi has a license to market its tocilizumab products in the United States commencing on the license dates, which are confidential,” the company noted.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Nivolumab Wins First-Line Indication in Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma
Approval was based on the CHECKMATE-901 trial in 608 patients randomized equally to either cisplatin and gemcitabine for ≤ six cycles or nivolumab plus cisplatin and gemcitabine for ≤ six cycles, followed by nivolumab alone for ≤ 2 years.
Median overall survival was 21.7 months with nivolumab add-on vs 18.9 months with cisplatin/gemcitabine alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; P = .0171). The nivolumab group had a slightly higher median progression-free survival of 7.9 months vs 7.6 months in the cisplatin and gemcitabine group (HR, 0.72; P = .0012).
The most common adverse events, occurring in ≥ 15% of nivolumab patients, were nausea, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, constipation, decreased appetite, rash, vomiting, peripheral neuropathy, urinary tract infection, diarrhea, edema, hypothyroidism, and pruritus.
Among numerous other oncology indications, nivolumab was previously approved for adjuvant treatment following urothelial carcinoma resection and for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma that progresses during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Approval was based on the CHECKMATE-901 trial in 608 patients randomized equally to either cisplatin and gemcitabine for ≤ six cycles or nivolumab plus cisplatin and gemcitabine for ≤ six cycles, followed by nivolumab alone for ≤ 2 years.
Median overall survival was 21.7 months with nivolumab add-on vs 18.9 months with cisplatin/gemcitabine alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; P = .0171). The nivolumab group had a slightly higher median progression-free survival of 7.9 months vs 7.6 months in the cisplatin and gemcitabine group (HR, 0.72; P = .0012).
The most common adverse events, occurring in ≥ 15% of nivolumab patients, were nausea, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, constipation, decreased appetite, rash, vomiting, peripheral neuropathy, urinary tract infection, diarrhea, edema, hypothyroidism, and pruritus.
Among numerous other oncology indications, nivolumab was previously approved for adjuvant treatment following urothelial carcinoma resection and for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma that progresses during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Approval was based on the CHECKMATE-901 trial in 608 patients randomized equally to either cisplatin and gemcitabine for ≤ six cycles or nivolumab plus cisplatin and gemcitabine for ≤ six cycles, followed by nivolumab alone for ≤ 2 years.
Median overall survival was 21.7 months with nivolumab add-on vs 18.9 months with cisplatin/gemcitabine alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; P = .0171). The nivolumab group had a slightly higher median progression-free survival of 7.9 months vs 7.6 months in the cisplatin and gemcitabine group (HR, 0.72; P = .0012).
The most common adverse events, occurring in ≥ 15% of nivolumab patients, were nausea, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, constipation, decreased appetite, rash, vomiting, peripheral neuropathy, urinary tract infection, diarrhea, edema, hypothyroidism, and pruritus.
Among numerous other oncology indications, nivolumab was previously approved for adjuvant treatment following urothelial carcinoma resection and for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma that progresses during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Leflunomide: A Fresh Look at an Old Drug
The Food and Drug Administration’s approval of leflunomide in September 1998 as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis was sandwiched between the debuts of infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars) and etanercept (Enbrel) in August and November of that year, the latter of which was so exciting that “within 2 months you couldn’t get [it],” recalled Eric M. Ruderman, MD. And “like every middle child, [leflunomide] was underloved, underappreciated, and largely dismissed.”
Yet should it have been? Is it worth another look today?
At the 2024 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium, Dr. Ruderman reflected on some of the clinical trial data published after leflunomide’s approval that “got lost in the shuffle” of the rightful embrace of biologics in United States practice, and urged reconsideration of the loading strategy still advised in the drug’s labeling.
“I’m not telling you that you should be using [leflunomide] in place of biologics, instead of biologics, or before biologics … but it should be in your toolkit,” said Dr. Ruderman, professor of medicine and associate chief of clinical affairs in the division of rheumatology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago. The drug “still has a role in RA, including in combination with methotrexate, and a potential role in other rheumatic diseases.”
“In our PsA clinic,” he noted, “we’ve actually not infrequently added leflunomide to some of the other agents we’ve been using.”
Key Findings Over the Years in RA
Leflunomide showed efficacy similar to that of sulfasalazine in a randomized trial published in 1999 that used primary endpoints of tender/swollen joints and physician and patient global scores. Then, against methotrexate, it proved just as efficacious in achieving at least 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology composite response criteria (ACR20) over 52 weeks, and in meeting endpoints similar to those of the sulfasalazine trial, in two trials, one published in 1999 and another in 2000.
“So here were two big trials [comparing it with methotrexate] that suggested the drug was just as good as what had become our standard of care by that point,” Dr. Ruderman said.
Each of these three trials used a loading dose of 100 mg leflunomide for 3 days, followed by 20 mg daily. Sulfasalazine was initiated at 2 g and escalated over 4 weeks. Methotrexate was initiated in one of the trials at a dose of 7.5 mg, then increased to 15 mg in almost two-thirds of patients; in the other methotrexate trial the initial dose was 15 mg escalated over 3 months.
Side effects of leflunomide — GI issues, rash, alopecia (reversible), and elevated liver function tests — were similar across the trials, and represented “about the same toxicities as methotrexate,” he said.
Researchers then tested leflunomide as an add-on to methotrexate in patients who had inadequate response, which “was a little bit daunting since we were still concerned about the toxicity of methotrexate at this point,” Dr. Ruderman said. “The idea that we’d take another drug with similar toxicities and add it on to the methotrexate was a little scary.”
But it worked. Patients on a mean background dose of 16.5 mg methotrexate were randomized to placebo or to a 2-day leflunomide loading dose followed by 10 mg/day that could be escalated at 8 weeks to 20 mg if needed. At 6 months, 19.5% and 46.2%, respectively, met ACR20 (P < .001), and “interestingly,” he said, “adverse events were pretty similar” between combination therapy and methotrexate monotherapy.
“This was very much like all the studies we’ve seen over the years with new biologics — they were all added to background methotrexate,” he said. “And the truth is, the [46%] response seen when adding leflunomide to background methotrexate wasn’t very different from the 50% [ACR20] response you tend to see when you add a biologic.”
However, despite the study’s conclusion that combination therapy provided significant benefit to patients with inadequate response to methotrexate alone, “the drug got lost, because everyone was prescribing the biologics,” Dr. Ruderman said.
He said he found only one study comparing leflunomide with a biologic. In a notably small but well-designed study from Sri Lanka published in 2017, 40 patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate were randomized to low-dose rituximab (500 mg x 2) or 20 mg/day leflunomide (no loading dose). At week 24, ACR20 was nearly identical (85% vs 84%), with a similar rate of adverse events.
The researchers pointed out “that there’s a potential cost benefit in developing countries where biologics aren’t as accessible,” he said, agreeing that “the big opportunity for a drug like leflunomide is outside the US, where you don’t have access to the drugs we take advantage of all the time.”
A meeting participant from Canada pointed out that rheumatologists there are “mandated to use it for PsA in combination with methotrexate before we can get a biologic, and for RA we can use it with Plaquenil [hydroxychloroquine] and methotrexate before we get a biologic, so we’re using it all the time.”
Asked about efficacy, the physician said the combination with methotrexate is “absolutely” efficacious. “It works really well” he said. “The problem is, you really have to watch the white cell count and liver function … and the half-life is long.”
Indeed, Dr. Ruderman said during his talk, the plasma half-life of teriflunomide, its active metabolite, is 15.5 days, which is challenging when adverse events occur. “And it’s a terrible drug in young women thinking about pregnancy because it’s teratogenic and stays around,” he said.
Leflunomide, which, notably, was “developed specifically for RA from the get-go” and not borrowed from another specialty, works by blocking de novo pyrimidine synthesis, Dr. Ruderman said. T-cell activation requires the upregulation of pyrimidine production (salvage pathways are insufficient); the “drug prevents that” by inhibiting an enzyme that catalyzes conversion of dihydroorotate to orotate, which, in turn, is converted to pyrimidine ribonucleotides, he explained.
Other potential mechanisms of action have been proposed — mainly, inhibition of tumor necrosis factor signaling and inhibition of kinase activity, including the JAK/STAT pathway — but “there’s not great data for any of them,” he said.
Loading vs Not Loading, and Its Role in PsA and Other Diseases
“We stopped loading years ago because at 100 mg for 3 days in a row, everyone has GI issues,” Dr. Ruderman said. “It may have made sense from a pharmacokinetic standpoint because [based on the long half-life] you could get to a higher drug level quicker, but not a practical standpoint, because patients would stop the drug — they couldn’t take it.” The first study to examine the necessity of loading leflunomide in a “prospective, careful way” was published in 2013. It randomized 120 patients to 100 mg or 20 mg for 3 days, followed by a 3-month open-label period of 20 mg, and found no clinical benefit with loading but more diarrhea and elevated liver enzymes.
“It tells us something about how we need to think about half-lives,” he said. “Maybe [loading is] not necessary because the biological effects are different than the drug levels.”
In the PsA space, in 2004, researchers reported a double-blind randomized trial in which 190 patients with active PsA and cutaneous psoriasis with at least 3% body surface area involvement were randomized to receive leflunomide (a loading dose followed by 20 mg/day) or placebo for 24 weeks. Almost 60% of leflunomide-treated patients, compared with 30% of placebo-treated patients, were classified as responders by the Psoriatic Arthritis Response criteria (P < .0001), “which is a soft endpoint” but was utilized at the time, Dr. Ruderman said. The researchers noted improvements in ACR20 and skin responses as well, and toxicity was similar to that reported in the RA studies.
However, approval was never sought, and the drug was infrequently prescribed, “because etanercept came out for this disease, and then adalimumab … and then the world changed,” he said.
More recently, a single-center, double-blind, randomized trial that included 78 Dutch patients with PsA tested leflunomide plus methotrexate vs methotrexate monotherapy and was published in The Lancet Rheumatology. After 16 weeks, mean Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) had improved for patients in the combination therapy group in comparison with the monotherapy group (3.1 [standard deviation (SD), 1.4] vs 3.7 [SD, 1.3]; treatment difference, -0.6; 90% CI, -1.0 to -0.1; P = .025). The combination therapy group also achieved PASDAS low disease activity at a higher rate (59%) than that of the monotherapy group (34%; P = .019). Three patients in the combination therapy group experienced serious adverse events, two of which were deemed unrelated to leflunomide. The most frequently occurring adverse events were nausea or vomiting, tiredness, and elevated alanine aminotransferase. Mild adverse events were more common in the methotrexate plus leflunomide group.
In an interview after the meeting, Dr. Ruderman explained that in his practice, about 15 years ago, leflunomide was sometimes prescribed as an alternative to a biologic change for patients whose skin disease improved significantly with ustekinumab (Stelara) but who “suddenly had more joint symptoms that they didn’t have before.”
And “we’ve found ourselves a bit recently with the same sort of story, where patients are prescribed IL-23 inhibitors like Skyrizi [risankizumab] and Tremfya [guselkumab] and their skin does really well but now they’re having more joint symptoms than previously,” he said. “Our choices are to switch to a whole different biologic, or to think about adding something as an adjunct — and maybe leflunomide is a reasonable option.”
In the last 5 years, Dr. Ruderman noted, randomized trial data has been published on leflunomide in lupus nephritis induction, and in lupus nephritis maintenance, as well as in IgG4-related disease.
Dr. Ruderman disclosed consulting and/or drug safety monitoring board work for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, NS Pharma, and UCB.
The Food and Drug Administration’s approval of leflunomide in September 1998 as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis was sandwiched between the debuts of infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars) and etanercept (Enbrel) in August and November of that year, the latter of which was so exciting that “within 2 months you couldn’t get [it],” recalled Eric M. Ruderman, MD. And “like every middle child, [leflunomide] was underloved, underappreciated, and largely dismissed.”
Yet should it have been? Is it worth another look today?
At the 2024 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium, Dr. Ruderman reflected on some of the clinical trial data published after leflunomide’s approval that “got lost in the shuffle” of the rightful embrace of biologics in United States practice, and urged reconsideration of the loading strategy still advised in the drug’s labeling.
“I’m not telling you that you should be using [leflunomide] in place of biologics, instead of biologics, or before biologics … but it should be in your toolkit,” said Dr. Ruderman, professor of medicine and associate chief of clinical affairs in the division of rheumatology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago. The drug “still has a role in RA, including in combination with methotrexate, and a potential role in other rheumatic diseases.”
“In our PsA clinic,” he noted, “we’ve actually not infrequently added leflunomide to some of the other agents we’ve been using.”
Key Findings Over the Years in RA
Leflunomide showed efficacy similar to that of sulfasalazine in a randomized trial published in 1999 that used primary endpoints of tender/swollen joints and physician and patient global scores. Then, against methotrexate, it proved just as efficacious in achieving at least 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology composite response criteria (ACR20) over 52 weeks, and in meeting endpoints similar to those of the sulfasalazine trial, in two trials, one published in 1999 and another in 2000.
“So here were two big trials [comparing it with methotrexate] that suggested the drug was just as good as what had become our standard of care by that point,” Dr. Ruderman said.
Each of these three trials used a loading dose of 100 mg leflunomide for 3 days, followed by 20 mg daily. Sulfasalazine was initiated at 2 g and escalated over 4 weeks. Methotrexate was initiated in one of the trials at a dose of 7.5 mg, then increased to 15 mg in almost two-thirds of patients; in the other methotrexate trial the initial dose was 15 mg escalated over 3 months.
Side effects of leflunomide — GI issues, rash, alopecia (reversible), and elevated liver function tests — were similar across the trials, and represented “about the same toxicities as methotrexate,” he said.
Researchers then tested leflunomide as an add-on to methotrexate in patients who had inadequate response, which “was a little bit daunting since we were still concerned about the toxicity of methotrexate at this point,” Dr. Ruderman said. “The idea that we’d take another drug with similar toxicities and add it on to the methotrexate was a little scary.”
But it worked. Patients on a mean background dose of 16.5 mg methotrexate were randomized to placebo or to a 2-day leflunomide loading dose followed by 10 mg/day that could be escalated at 8 weeks to 20 mg if needed. At 6 months, 19.5% and 46.2%, respectively, met ACR20 (P < .001), and “interestingly,” he said, “adverse events were pretty similar” between combination therapy and methotrexate monotherapy.
“This was very much like all the studies we’ve seen over the years with new biologics — they were all added to background methotrexate,” he said. “And the truth is, the [46%] response seen when adding leflunomide to background methotrexate wasn’t very different from the 50% [ACR20] response you tend to see when you add a biologic.”
However, despite the study’s conclusion that combination therapy provided significant benefit to patients with inadequate response to methotrexate alone, “the drug got lost, because everyone was prescribing the biologics,” Dr. Ruderman said.
He said he found only one study comparing leflunomide with a biologic. In a notably small but well-designed study from Sri Lanka published in 2017, 40 patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate were randomized to low-dose rituximab (500 mg x 2) or 20 mg/day leflunomide (no loading dose). At week 24, ACR20 was nearly identical (85% vs 84%), with a similar rate of adverse events.
The researchers pointed out “that there’s a potential cost benefit in developing countries where biologics aren’t as accessible,” he said, agreeing that “the big opportunity for a drug like leflunomide is outside the US, where you don’t have access to the drugs we take advantage of all the time.”
A meeting participant from Canada pointed out that rheumatologists there are “mandated to use it for PsA in combination with methotrexate before we can get a biologic, and for RA we can use it with Plaquenil [hydroxychloroquine] and methotrexate before we get a biologic, so we’re using it all the time.”
Asked about efficacy, the physician said the combination with methotrexate is “absolutely” efficacious. “It works really well” he said. “The problem is, you really have to watch the white cell count and liver function … and the half-life is long.”
Indeed, Dr. Ruderman said during his talk, the plasma half-life of teriflunomide, its active metabolite, is 15.5 days, which is challenging when adverse events occur. “And it’s a terrible drug in young women thinking about pregnancy because it’s teratogenic and stays around,” he said.
Leflunomide, which, notably, was “developed specifically for RA from the get-go” and not borrowed from another specialty, works by blocking de novo pyrimidine synthesis, Dr. Ruderman said. T-cell activation requires the upregulation of pyrimidine production (salvage pathways are insufficient); the “drug prevents that” by inhibiting an enzyme that catalyzes conversion of dihydroorotate to orotate, which, in turn, is converted to pyrimidine ribonucleotides, he explained.
Other potential mechanisms of action have been proposed — mainly, inhibition of tumor necrosis factor signaling and inhibition of kinase activity, including the JAK/STAT pathway — but “there’s not great data for any of them,” he said.
Loading vs Not Loading, and Its Role in PsA and Other Diseases
“We stopped loading years ago because at 100 mg for 3 days in a row, everyone has GI issues,” Dr. Ruderman said. “It may have made sense from a pharmacokinetic standpoint because [based on the long half-life] you could get to a higher drug level quicker, but not a practical standpoint, because patients would stop the drug — they couldn’t take it.” The first study to examine the necessity of loading leflunomide in a “prospective, careful way” was published in 2013. It randomized 120 patients to 100 mg or 20 mg for 3 days, followed by a 3-month open-label period of 20 mg, and found no clinical benefit with loading but more diarrhea and elevated liver enzymes.
“It tells us something about how we need to think about half-lives,” he said. “Maybe [loading is] not necessary because the biological effects are different than the drug levels.”
In the PsA space, in 2004, researchers reported a double-blind randomized trial in which 190 patients with active PsA and cutaneous psoriasis with at least 3% body surface area involvement were randomized to receive leflunomide (a loading dose followed by 20 mg/day) or placebo for 24 weeks. Almost 60% of leflunomide-treated patients, compared with 30% of placebo-treated patients, were classified as responders by the Psoriatic Arthritis Response criteria (P < .0001), “which is a soft endpoint” but was utilized at the time, Dr. Ruderman said. The researchers noted improvements in ACR20 and skin responses as well, and toxicity was similar to that reported in the RA studies.
However, approval was never sought, and the drug was infrequently prescribed, “because etanercept came out for this disease, and then adalimumab … and then the world changed,” he said.
More recently, a single-center, double-blind, randomized trial that included 78 Dutch patients with PsA tested leflunomide plus methotrexate vs methotrexate monotherapy and was published in The Lancet Rheumatology. After 16 weeks, mean Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) had improved for patients in the combination therapy group in comparison with the monotherapy group (3.1 [standard deviation (SD), 1.4] vs 3.7 [SD, 1.3]; treatment difference, -0.6; 90% CI, -1.0 to -0.1; P = .025). The combination therapy group also achieved PASDAS low disease activity at a higher rate (59%) than that of the monotherapy group (34%; P = .019). Three patients in the combination therapy group experienced serious adverse events, two of which were deemed unrelated to leflunomide. The most frequently occurring adverse events were nausea or vomiting, tiredness, and elevated alanine aminotransferase. Mild adverse events were more common in the methotrexate plus leflunomide group.
In an interview after the meeting, Dr. Ruderman explained that in his practice, about 15 years ago, leflunomide was sometimes prescribed as an alternative to a biologic change for patients whose skin disease improved significantly with ustekinumab (Stelara) but who “suddenly had more joint symptoms that they didn’t have before.”
And “we’ve found ourselves a bit recently with the same sort of story, where patients are prescribed IL-23 inhibitors like Skyrizi [risankizumab] and Tremfya [guselkumab] and their skin does really well but now they’re having more joint symptoms than previously,” he said. “Our choices are to switch to a whole different biologic, or to think about adding something as an adjunct — and maybe leflunomide is a reasonable option.”
In the last 5 years, Dr. Ruderman noted, randomized trial data has been published on leflunomide in lupus nephritis induction, and in lupus nephritis maintenance, as well as in IgG4-related disease.
Dr. Ruderman disclosed consulting and/or drug safety monitoring board work for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, NS Pharma, and UCB.
The Food and Drug Administration’s approval of leflunomide in September 1998 as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis was sandwiched between the debuts of infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars) and etanercept (Enbrel) in August and November of that year, the latter of which was so exciting that “within 2 months you couldn’t get [it],” recalled Eric M. Ruderman, MD. And “like every middle child, [leflunomide] was underloved, underappreciated, and largely dismissed.”
Yet should it have been? Is it worth another look today?
At the 2024 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium, Dr. Ruderman reflected on some of the clinical trial data published after leflunomide’s approval that “got lost in the shuffle” of the rightful embrace of biologics in United States practice, and urged reconsideration of the loading strategy still advised in the drug’s labeling.
“I’m not telling you that you should be using [leflunomide] in place of biologics, instead of biologics, or before biologics … but it should be in your toolkit,” said Dr. Ruderman, professor of medicine and associate chief of clinical affairs in the division of rheumatology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago. The drug “still has a role in RA, including in combination with methotrexate, and a potential role in other rheumatic diseases.”
“In our PsA clinic,” he noted, “we’ve actually not infrequently added leflunomide to some of the other agents we’ve been using.”
Key Findings Over the Years in RA
Leflunomide showed efficacy similar to that of sulfasalazine in a randomized trial published in 1999 that used primary endpoints of tender/swollen joints and physician and patient global scores. Then, against methotrexate, it proved just as efficacious in achieving at least 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology composite response criteria (ACR20) over 52 weeks, and in meeting endpoints similar to those of the sulfasalazine trial, in two trials, one published in 1999 and another in 2000.
“So here were two big trials [comparing it with methotrexate] that suggested the drug was just as good as what had become our standard of care by that point,” Dr. Ruderman said.
Each of these three trials used a loading dose of 100 mg leflunomide for 3 days, followed by 20 mg daily. Sulfasalazine was initiated at 2 g and escalated over 4 weeks. Methotrexate was initiated in one of the trials at a dose of 7.5 mg, then increased to 15 mg in almost two-thirds of patients; in the other methotrexate trial the initial dose was 15 mg escalated over 3 months.
Side effects of leflunomide — GI issues, rash, alopecia (reversible), and elevated liver function tests — were similar across the trials, and represented “about the same toxicities as methotrexate,” he said.
Researchers then tested leflunomide as an add-on to methotrexate in patients who had inadequate response, which “was a little bit daunting since we were still concerned about the toxicity of methotrexate at this point,” Dr. Ruderman said. “The idea that we’d take another drug with similar toxicities and add it on to the methotrexate was a little scary.”
But it worked. Patients on a mean background dose of 16.5 mg methotrexate were randomized to placebo or to a 2-day leflunomide loading dose followed by 10 mg/day that could be escalated at 8 weeks to 20 mg if needed. At 6 months, 19.5% and 46.2%, respectively, met ACR20 (P < .001), and “interestingly,” he said, “adverse events were pretty similar” between combination therapy and methotrexate monotherapy.
“This was very much like all the studies we’ve seen over the years with new biologics — they were all added to background methotrexate,” he said. “And the truth is, the [46%] response seen when adding leflunomide to background methotrexate wasn’t very different from the 50% [ACR20] response you tend to see when you add a biologic.”
However, despite the study’s conclusion that combination therapy provided significant benefit to patients with inadequate response to methotrexate alone, “the drug got lost, because everyone was prescribing the biologics,” Dr. Ruderman said.
He said he found only one study comparing leflunomide with a biologic. In a notably small but well-designed study from Sri Lanka published in 2017, 40 patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate were randomized to low-dose rituximab (500 mg x 2) or 20 mg/day leflunomide (no loading dose). At week 24, ACR20 was nearly identical (85% vs 84%), with a similar rate of adverse events.
The researchers pointed out “that there’s a potential cost benefit in developing countries where biologics aren’t as accessible,” he said, agreeing that “the big opportunity for a drug like leflunomide is outside the US, where you don’t have access to the drugs we take advantage of all the time.”
A meeting participant from Canada pointed out that rheumatologists there are “mandated to use it for PsA in combination with methotrexate before we can get a biologic, and for RA we can use it with Plaquenil [hydroxychloroquine] and methotrexate before we get a biologic, so we’re using it all the time.”
Asked about efficacy, the physician said the combination with methotrexate is “absolutely” efficacious. “It works really well” he said. “The problem is, you really have to watch the white cell count and liver function … and the half-life is long.”
Indeed, Dr. Ruderman said during his talk, the plasma half-life of teriflunomide, its active metabolite, is 15.5 days, which is challenging when adverse events occur. “And it’s a terrible drug in young women thinking about pregnancy because it’s teratogenic and stays around,” he said.
Leflunomide, which, notably, was “developed specifically for RA from the get-go” and not borrowed from another specialty, works by blocking de novo pyrimidine synthesis, Dr. Ruderman said. T-cell activation requires the upregulation of pyrimidine production (salvage pathways are insufficient); the “drug prevents that” by inhibiting an enzyme that catalyzes conversion of dihydroorotate to orotate, which, in turn, is converted to pyrimidine ribonucleotides, he explained.
Other potential mechanisms of action have been proposed — mainly, inhibition of tumor necrosis factor signaling and inhibition of kinase activity, including the JAK/STAT pathway — but “there’s not great data for any of them,” he said.
Loading vs Not Loading, and Its Role in PsA and Other Diseases
“We stopped loading years ago because at 100 mg for 3 days in a row, everyone has GI issues,” Dr. Ruderman said. “It may have made sense from a pharmacokinetic standpoint because [based on the long half-life] you could get to a higher drug level quicker, but not a practical standpoint, because patients would stop the drug — they couldn’t take it.” The first study to examine the necessity of loading leflunomide in a “prospective, careful way” was published in 2013. It randomized 120 patients to 100 mg or 20 mg for 3 days, followed by a 3-month open-label period of 20 mg, and found no clinical benefit with loading but more diarrhea and elevated liver enzymes.
“It tells us something about how we need to think about half-lives,” he said. “Maybe [loading is] not necessary because the biological effects are different than the drug levels.”
In the PsA space, in 2004, researchers reported a double-blind randomized trial in which 190 patients with active PsA and cutaneous psoriasis with at least 3% body surface area involvement were randomized to receive leflunomide (a loading dose followed by 20 mg/day) or placebo for 24 weeks. Almost 60% of leflunomide-treated patients, compared with 30% of placebo-treated patients, were classified as responders by the Psoriatic Arthritis Response criteria (P < .0001), “which is a soft endpoint” but was utilized at the time, Dr. Ruderman said. The researchers noted improvements in ACR20 and skin responses as well, and toxicity was similar to that reported in the RA studies.
However, approval was never sought, and the drug was infrequently prescribed, “because etanercept came out for this disease, and then adalimumab … and then the world changed,” he said.
More recently, a single-center, double-blind, randomized trial that included 78 Dutch patients with PsA tested leflunomide plus methotrexate vs methotrexate monotherapy and was published in The Lancet Rheumatology. After 16 weeks, mean Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) had improved for patients in the combination therapy group in comparison with the monotherapy group (3.1 [standard deviation (SD), 1.4] vs 3.7 [SD, 1.3]; treatment difference, -0.6; 90% CI, -1.0 to -0.1; P = .025). The combination therapy group also achieved PASDAS low disease activity at a higher rate (59%) than that of the monotherapy group (34%; P = .019). Three patients in the combination therapy group experienced serious adverse events, two of which were deemed unrelated to leflunomide. The most frequently occurring adverse events were nausea or vomiting, tiredness, and elevated alanine aminotransferase. Mild adverse events were more common in the methotrexate plus leflunomide group.
In an interview after the meeting, Dr. Ruderman explained that in his practice, about 15 years ago, leflunomide was sometimes prescribed as an alternative to a biologic change for patients whose skin disease improved significantly with ustekinumab (Stelara) but who “suddenly had more joint symptoms that they didn’t have before.”
And “we’ve found ourselves a bit recently with the same sort of story, where patients are prescribed IL-23 inhibitors like Skyrizi [risankizumab] and Tremfya [guselkumab] and their skin does really well but now they’re having more joint symptoms than previously,” he said. “Our choices are to switch to a whole different biologic, or to think about adding something as an adjunct — and maybe leflunomide is a reasonable option.”
In the last 5 years, Dr. Ruderman noted, randomized trial data has been published on leflunomide in lupus nephritis induction, and in lupus nephritis maintenance, as well as in IgG4-related disease.
Dr. Ruderman disclosed consulting and/or drug safety monitoring board work for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, NS Pharma, and UCB.
FROM RWCS 2024
TIL for Melanoma: What Are the Costs and Other Challenges to Getting It to Patients?
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved the tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte cell therapy (TIL) for use in certain adults with unresectable or metastatic melanoma. This marks the first time the FDA has allowed a cellular therapy to be marketed for a solid tumor cancer.
Lifileucel is made from a patient’s surgically removed tumor. Tissue from that tumor is then sent to a manufacturing center. Turnaround time to when the drug is ready to be sent back to the cancer center for use is approximately 34 days, according to the drug’s manufacturer, Iovance.
Insurance Adjustments
The cost of the one-time lifileucel treatment is $515,000, according to the manufacturer.
Two investigators in the clinical trials of lifileucel, Allison Betof Warner, MD, of Stanford University, Stanford, California, and Igor Puzanov, MD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York, shared their expectations regarding factors that would contribute to how much a patient paid for the drug.
Given the drug’s recent approval, the logistical details are still being worked out between cancer centers and insurers regarding how much patients will pay out of pocket for lifileucel, said Dr. Betof Warner, who is assistant professor in the Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology at Stanford University.
The associated costs, including the surgery that is needed to procure the TIL cells for expansion into the final drug product, will be different for each patient, she told this publication.
Patients’ costs for lifileucel will vary based on their insurance, explained Dr. Puzanov, chief of melanoma and professor of oncology at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center.
At Roswell Park, “we will work with our regionally-based payers on a case-by-case basis to seek approval for those patients we believe can most benefit from lifileucel,” he said in an interview. Preauthorization will be required, as is standard for many cancer treatments, he added.
Once payer approval is in place, Dr. Puzanov said, he did not anticipate significant delays in access for patients.
Certified centers such as the multidisciplinary team at Roswell Park are ready to treat patients now. Other centers are similarly prepared, especially those involved in the clinical trials of lifileucel, he said.
Logistics and Infrastructure
A position article and guidelines on the management of and best practices for TIL was published in the Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer on February 29. The paper, of which both Dr. Betof Warner and Dr. Puzanov served as authors, noted that one of the barriers to the use of TIL cell therapy in clinical practice is the need for state-of-the art infrastructure at centers that want to offer the treatment. Scheduling, patient referrals, and surgery, as well as the production and infusion of TIL, must be organized and streamlined for successful treatment, the authors wrote.
The two supply chains involved in TIL — the transportation of the tumor tissue from the treatment center to the manufacturer and transport of the TIL infusion product back to the treatment center — must be timely and precise, they emphasized.
Docs Hope TIL Improves in Several Ways
Although the TIL technology is a breakthrough, “we hope to see even better efficacy and lower toxicity as further research looks at ways to improve on the current TIL standard,” Dr. Puzanov said.
More research and dose adjustments may impact patient costs and side effects, he noted. “I am looking to see TILs used in the front line, with or without checkpoint inhibitors.”
Research is needed to explore how to lower the chemotherapy doses and possibly the associated toxicity, he added. Finally, researchers must consider whether high-dose IL-2 therapy — given as part of the TIL cell therapy — could be replaced with other cytokines, or whether the number of doses could be lowered. Another avenue of exploration is engineering genes for cytokines into TILs, he said.
“The key is to think about TIL therapy before you need it — ideally, when the patient is still doing well on their frontline checkpoint inhibition immunotherapy,” Dr. Puzanov said in an interview. That is the time for evaluation, and specialty centers can provide an expert assessment, he said.
“We are constantly working to improve TIL therapy,” Dr. Betof Warner told this publication. More research is needed optimize the regimen to reduce side effects, which would not only make treatment easier for currently eligible patients, but might allow treatment for patients not currently eligible.
“For example, we are looking for ways to reduce the dose of preparative chemotherapy, which prepares the body for the cells to maximize their longevity and efficacy, and to reduce or eliminate the need to give IL-2 after the cell administration,” continued Dr. Betof Warner, who is also Director of Melanoma Medical Oncology, Director of Solid Tumor Cellular Therapy, and Codirector of the Pigmented Lesion and Melanoma Program at Stanford University. “We are also actively studying next-generation TIL therapies to try to increase the efficacy.”
“Lifileucel has about a 30% success rate for melanoma that has progressed after standard therapy; we are working hard to do better than that,” she noted.
In a press release, Iovance summarized the results of the trial that supported the FDA’s accelerated approval of lifileucel. In an open-label single-arm study, including multiple sites worldwide, 73 adults with unresectable or metastatic melanoma who had received at least one previous systemic therapy underwent a lymphodepleting regimen followed by treatments with fludarabine and aldesleukin. Patients then received lifileucel at a median dose of 21.1 x 109 viable cells; the recommended dose ranges from 7.5 x 109 to 72 x 109 cells.
The primary efficacy outcome was objective response rate (ORR). The ORR in the study was 31.5%, and the median time to initial lifileucel response was 1.5 months.
The clinical trials of lifileucel for which Dr. Betof Warner and Dr. Puzanov served as investigators were sponsored by Iovance.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved the tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte cell therapy (TIL) for use in certain adults with unresectable or metastatic melanoma. This marks the first time the FDA has allowed a cellular therapy to be marketed for a solid tumor cancer.
Lifileucel is made from a patient’s surgically removed tumor. Tissue from that tumor is then sent to a manufacturing center. Turnaround time to when the drug is ready to be sent back to the cancer center for use is approximately 34 days, according to the drug’s manufacturer, Iovance.
Insurance Adjustments
The cost of the one-time lifileucel treatment is $515,000, according to the manufacturer.
Two investigators in the clinical trials of lifileucel, Allison Betof Warner, MD, of Stanford University, Stanford, California, and Igor Puzanov, MD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York, shared their expectations regarding factors that would contribute to how much a patient paid for the drug.
Given the drug’s recent approval, the logistical details are still being worked out between cancer centers and insurers regarding how much patients will pay out of pocket for lifileucel, said Dr. Betof Warner, who is assistant professor in the Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology at Stanford University.
The associated costs, including the surgery that is needed to procure the TIL cells for expansion into the final drug product, will be different for each patient, she told this publication.
Patients’ costs for lifileucel will vary based on their insurance, explained Dr. Puzanov, chief of melanoma and professor of oncology at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center.
At Roswell Park, “we will work with our regionally-based payers on a case-by-case basis to seek approval for those patients we believe can most benefit from lifileucel,” he said in an interview. Preauthorization will be required, as is standard for many cancer treatments, he added.
Once payer approval is in place, Dr. Puzanov said, he did not anticipate significant delays in access for patients.
Certified centers such as the multidisciplinary team at Roswell Park are ready to treat patients now. Other centers are similarly prepared, especially those involved in the clinical trials of lifileucel, he said.
Logistics and Infrastructure
A position article and guidelines on the management of and best practices for TIL was published in the Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer on February 29. The paper, of which both Dr. Betof Warner and Dr. Puzanov served as authors, noted that one of the barriers to the use of TIL cell therapy in clinical practice is the need for state-of-the art infrastructure at centers that want to offer the treatment. Scheduling, patient referrals, and surgery, as well as the production and infusion of TIL, must be organized and streamlined for successful treatment, the authors wrote.
The two supply chains involved in TIL — the transportation of the tumor tissue from the treatment center to the manufacturer and transport of the TIL infusion product back to the treatment center — must be timely and precise, they emphasized.
Docs Hope TIL Improves in Several Ways
Although the TIL technology is a breakthrough, “we hope to see even better efficacy and lower toxicity as further research looks at ways to improve on the current TIL standard,” Dr. Puzanov said.
More research and dose adjustments may impact patient costs and side effects, he noted. “I am looking to see TILs used in the front line, with or without checkpoint inhibitors.”
Research is needed to explore how to lower the chemotherapy doses and possibly the associated toxicity, he added. Finally, researchers must consider whether high-dose IL-2 therapy — given as part of the TIL cell therapy — could be replaced with other cytokines, or whether the number of doses could be lowered. Another avenue of exploration is engineering genes for cytokines into TILs, he said.
“The key is to think about TIL therapy before you need it — ideally, when the patient is still doing well on their frontline checkpoint inhibition immunotherapy,” Dr. Puzanov said in an interview. That is the time for evaluation, and specialty centers can provide an expert assessment, he said.
“We are constantly working to improve TIL therapy,” Dr. Betof Warner told this publication. More research is needed optimize the regimen to reduce side effects, which would not only make treatment easier for currently eligible patients, but might allow treatment for patients not currently eligible.
“For example, we are looking for ways to reduce the dose of preparative chemotherapy, which prepares the body for the cells to maximize their longevity and efficacy, and to reduce or eliminate the need to give IL-2 after the cell administration,” continued Dr. Betof Warner, who is also Director of Melanoma Medical Oncology, Director of Solid Tumor Cellular Therapy, and Codirector of the Pigmented Lesion and Melanoma Program at Stanford University. “We are also actively studying next-generation TIL therapies to try to increase the efficacy.”
“Lifileucel has about a 30% success rate for melanoma that has progressed after standard therapy; we are working hard to do better than that,” she noted.
In a press release, Iovance summarized the results of the trial that supported the FDA’s accelerated approval of lifileucel. In an open-label single-arm study, including multiple sites worldwide, 73 adults with unresectable or metastatic melanoma who had received at least one previous systemic therapy underwent a lymphodepleting regimen followed by treatments with fludarabine and aldesleukin. Patients then received lifileucel at a median dose of 21.1 x 109 viable cells; the recommended dose ranges from 7.5 x 109 to 72 x 109 cells.
The primary efficacy outcome was objective response rate (ORR). The ORR in the study was 31.5%, and the median time to initial lifileucel response was 1.5 months.
The clinical trials of lifileucel for which Dr. Betof Warner and Dr. Puzanov served as investigators were sponsored by Iovance.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved the tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte cell therapy (TIL) for use in certain adults with unresectable or metastatic melanoma. This marks the first time the FDA has allowed a cellular therapy to be marketed for a solid tumor cancer.
Lifileucel is made from a patient’s surgically removed tumor. Tissue from that tumor is then sent to a manufacturing center. Turnaround time to when the drug is ready to be sent back to the cancer center for use is approximately 34 days, according to the drug’s manufacturer, Iovance.
Insurance Adjustments
The cost of the one-time lifileucel treatment is $515,000, according to the manufacturer.
Two investigators in the clinical trials of lifileucel, Allison Betof Warner, MD, of Stanford University, Stanford, California, and Igor Puzanov, MD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York, shared their expectations regarding factors that would contribute to how much a patient paid for the drug.
Given the drug’s recent approval, the logistical details are still being worked out between cancer centers and insurers regarding how much patients will pay out of pocket for lifileucel, said Dr. Betof Warner, who is assistant professor in the Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology at Stanford University.
The associated costs, including the surgery that is needed to procure the TIL cells for expansion into the final drug product, will be different for each patient, she told this publication.
Patients’ costs for lifileucel will vary based on their insurance, explained Dr. Puzanov, chief of melanoma and professor of oncology at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center.
At Roswell Park, “we will work with our regionally-based payers on a case-by-case basis to seek approval for those patients we believe can most benefit from lifileucel,” he said in an interview. Preauthorization will be required, as is standard for many cancer treatments, he added.
Once payer approval is in place, Dr. Puzanov said, he did not anticipate significant delays in access for patients.
Certified centers such as the multidisciplinary team at Roswell Park are ready to treat patients now. Other centers are similarly prepared, especially those involved in the clinical trials of lifileucel, he said.
Logistics and Infrastructure
A position article and guidelines on the management of and best practices for TIL was published in the Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer on February 29. The paper, of which both Dr. Betof Warner and Dr. Puzanov served as authors, noted that one of the barriers to the use of TIL cell therapy in clinical practice is the need for state-of-the art infrastructure at centers that want to offer the treatment. Scheduling, patient referrals, and surgery, as well as the production and infusion of TIL, must be organized and streamlined for successful treatment, the authors wrote.
The two supply chains involved in TIL — the transportation of the tumor tissue from the treatment center to the manufacturer and transport of the TIL infusion product back to the treatment center — must be timely and precise, they emphasized.
Docs Hope TIL Improves in Several Ways
Although the TIL technology is a breakthrough, “we hope to see even better efficacy and lower toxicity as further research looks at ways to improve on the current TIL standard,” Dr. Puzanov said.
More research and dose adjustments may impact patient costs and side effects, he noted. “I am looking to see TILs used in the front line, with or without checkpoint inhibitors.”
Research is needed to explore how to lower the chemotherapy doses and possibly the associated toxicity, he added. Finally, researchers must consider whether high-dose IL-2 therapy — given as part of the TIL cell therapy — could be replaced with other cytokines, or whether the number of doses could be lowered. Another avenue of exploration is engineering genes for cytokines into TILs, he said.
“The key is to think about TIL therapy before you need it — ideally, when the patient is still doing well on their frontline checkpoint inhibition immunotherapy,” Dr. Puzanov said in an interview. That is the time for evaluation, and specialty centers can provide an expert assessment, he said.
“We are constantly working to improve TIL therapy,” Dr. Betof Warner told this publication. More research is needed optimize the regimen to reduce side effects, which would not only make treatment easier for currently eligible patients, but might allow treatment for patients not currently eligible.
“For example, we are looking for ways to reduce the dose of preparative chemotherapy, which prepares the body for the cells to maximize their longevity and efficacy, and to reduce or eliminate the need to give IL-2 after the cell administration,” continued Dr. Betof Warner, who is also Director of Melanoma Medical Oncology, Director of Solid Tumor Cellular Therapy, and Codirector of the Pigmented Lesion and Melanoma Program at Stanford University. “We are also actively studying next-generation TIL therapies to try to increase the efficacy.”
“Lifileucel has about a 30% success rate for melanoma that has progressed after standard therapy; we are working hard to do better than that,” she noted.
In a press release, Iovance summarized the results of the trial that supported the FDA’s accelerated approval of lifileucel. In an open-label single-arm study, including multiple sites worldwide, 73 adults with unresectable or metastatic melanoma who had received at least one previous systemic therapy underwent a lymphodepleting regimen followed by treatments with fludarabine and aldesleukin. Patients then received lifileucel at a median dose of 21.1 x 109 viable cells; the recommended dose ranges from 7.5 x 109 to 72 x 109 cells.
The primary efficacy outcome was objective response rate (ORR). The ORR in the study was 31.5%, and the median time to initial lifileucel response was 1.5 months.
The clinical trials of lifileucel for which Dr. Betof Warner and Dr. Puzanov served as investigators were sponsored by Iovance.
Air Pollution Tied to Greater Amyloid Burden in the Brain
TOPLINE:
, a new postmortem study showed.
METHODOLOGY:
- Investigators examined the brain tissue of 224 people living in the Atlanta area who agreed to donate their brains after death (average age of death, 76 years) for the presence of amyloid plaques and tau tangles.
- They also studied the amount of fine particulate matter < 2.5 microns (PM2.5) from traffic-related air pollution at participants’ home addresses at 1, 3, and 5 years before death.
- The presence of the APOE e4 gene was examined for evidence of any effect on the relationship between air pollution and evidence of Alzheimer’s disease (AD).
TAKEAWAY:
The average level of exposure in the year before death was 1.32 µg/m3 and 1.35 µg/m3 in the 3 years before death.
People with 1 µg/m3 higher PM2.5 exposure in the year before death were nearly twice as likely to have higher levels of plaques (odds ratio [OR], 1.92; 95% CI, 1.12-3.30), while those with higher exposure in the 3 years before death were 87% more likely to have higher levels of plaques (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.01-3.17).
A little more than half (56%) of the sample were positive for the APOE e4 genotype, but the strongest association between pollution and neuropathology markers was for noncarriers of the genotype, although this relationship did not reach statistical significance.
IN PRACTICE:
“More research is needed to establish causality for the association between PM2.5 and AD, including epidemiologic and mechanistic studies. Future studies should also investigate the association between PM2.5 and other dementia-related pathologies, including cerebrovascular pathology,” the study authors wrote.
SOURCE:
Anke Hüls, PhD, of Emory University in Atlanta, led the study, which was published online on February 21, 2024, in Neurology.
LIMITATIONS:
The sample was not population-based but a convenience sample composed mostly of highly educated White participants.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the Goizueta Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, the National Institute on Aging, and the National Institutes of Health. There were no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
, a new postmortem study showed.
METHODOLOGY:
- Investigators examined the brain tissue of 224 people living in the Atlanta area who agreed to donate their brains after death (average age of death, 76 years) for the presence of amyloid plaques and tau tangles.
- They also studied the amount of fine particulate matter < 2.5 microns (PM2.5) from traffic-related air pollution at participants’ home addresses at 1, 3, and 5 years before death.
- The presence of the APOE e4 gene was examined for evidence of any effect on the relationship between air pollution and evidence of Alzheimer’s disease (AD).
TAKEAWAY:
The average level of exposure in the year before death was 1.32 µg/m3 and 1.35 µg/m3 in the 3 years before death.
People with 1 µg/m3 higher PM2.5 exposure in the year before death were nearly twice as likely to have higher levels of plaques (odds ratio [OR], 1.92; 95% CI, 1.12-3.30), while those with higher exposure in the 3 years before death were 87% more likely to have higher levels of plaques (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.01-3.17).
A little more than half (56%) of the sample were positive for the APOE e4 genotype, but the strongest association between pollution and neuropathology markers was for noncarriers of the genotype, although this relationship did not reach statistical significance.
IN PRACTICE:
“More research is needed to establish causality for the association between PM2.5 and AD, including epidemiologic and mechanistic studies. Future studies should also investigate the association between PM2.5 and other dementia-related pathologies, including cerebrovascular pathology,” the study authors wrote.
SOURCE:
Anke Hüls, PhD, of Emory University in Atlanta, led the study, which was published online on February 21, 2024, in Neurology.
LIMITATIONS:
The sample was not population-based but a convenience sample composed mostly of highly educated White participants.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the Goizueta Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, the National Institute on Aging, and the National Institutes of Health. There were no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
, a new postmortem study showed.
METHODOLOGY:
- Investigators examined the brain tissue of 224 people living in the Atlanta area who agreed to donate their brains after death (average age of death, 76 years) for the presence of amyloid plaques and tau tangles.
- They also studied the amount of fine particulate matter < 2.5 microns (PM2.5) from traffic-related air pollution at participants’ home addresses at 1, 3, and 5 years before death.
- The presence of the APOE e4 gene was examined for evidence of any effect on the relationship between air pollution and evidence of Alzheimer’s disease (AD).
TAKEAWAY:
The average level of exposure in the year before death was 1.32 µg/m3 and 1.35 µg/m3 in the 3 years before death.
People with 1 µg/m3 higher PM2.5 exposure in the year before death were nearly twice as likely to have higher levels of plaques (odds ratio [OR], 1.92; 95% CI, 1.12-3.30), while those with higher exposure in the 3 years before death were 87% more likely to have higher levels of plaques (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.01-3.17).
A little more than half (56%) of the sample were positive for the APOE e4 genotype, but the strongest association between pollution and neuropathology markers was for noncarriers of the genotype, although this relationship did not reach statistical significance.
IN PRACTICE:
“More research is needed to establish causality for the association between PM2.5 and AD, including epidemiologic and mechanistic studies. Future studies should also investigate the association between PM2.5 and other dementia-related pathologies, including cerebrovascular pathology,” the study authors wrote.
SOURCE:
Anke Hüls, PhD, of Emory University in Atlanta, led the study, which was published online on February 21, 2024, in Neurology.
LIMITATIONS:
The sample was not population-based but a convenience sample composed mostly of highly educated White participants.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the Goizueta Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, the National Institute on Aging, and the National Institutes of Health. There were no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
AGA Guides Usage of GLP-1 Receptor Agonists Before Endoscopy
The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has issued a rapid clinical practice update on the use of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists prior to endoscopy.
The update was partly prompted by consensus-based perioperative guidance issued by the American Society of Anesthesiologists in June 2023, which advises withholding GLP-1 receptor agonists before endoscopy. This recommendation has caused some anesthesia providers to cancel or postpone endoscopic procedures, or even elect general endotracheal intubation over standard sedation.
“Many facilities and medical centers are now struggling to revise preprocedural protocols for patients taking this class of medications despite the lack of high-level evidence regarding how to proceed,” the panelists wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Important questions include whether these preprocedural changes are necessary, if they truly mitigate periprocedural aspiration, or if the delays instituted by following this guidance might further compound the major problem currently faced nationwide: that of large numbers of patients awaiting endoscopic procedures because of delays from the COVID-19 pandemic, reduction in the recommended age threshold to start colorectal cancer screening in 2018, and workforce challenges.”
The rapid clinical practice update, commissioned and approved by the AGA, includes background on the relationship between GLP-1 receptor agonists and endoscopic procedures, followed by clinical strategies for patients taking these medications.
Lead panelist Jana G. Al Hashash, MD, MSc, AGAF, of Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, and colleagues began by noting that GLP-1 receptor agonists have been associated with increased gastric residue in patients with diabetes, and among nondiabetic patients, increased gastric retention of solids but not liquids. Delayed gastric emptying and increased residual gastric contents may be more common among patients on GLP-1 agonists who have vomiting, nausea, dyspepsia, or abdominal bloating, they added.
The above findings “imply an increased risk of aspiration in patients receiving GLP-1 receptor agonist medications who present for procedures that require sedation,” the panelists wrote, but more data is needed to support this hypothesis.
Yet the implications for endoscopic risk are still unclear.
Residual liquid in the stomach, at least, is “less of an issue,” according to the update, since “it is easily removed during an esophagogastroduodenoscopy, and this is the first maneuver performed by endoscopists on entering the stomach.”
While residual solids in the stomach could theoretically increase risk of aspiration, other patients with gastroparesis, such as those taking opioids, are not routinely given “special dietary precautions or medication adjustments” prior to endoscopy, Dr. Al Hashash and colleagues wrote. Even patients with severe gastroparesis who are undergoing gastric peroral endoscopic myotomy (which depends upon an empty stomach), are only required to stop ingesting solid foods the day before the procedure, they noted.
“It is appropriate that the ASA’s perioperative suggestions for patients on GLP-1 [receptor agonists] are labeled ‘consensus-based guidance on perioperative management,’ because there is clearly insufficient published evidence for a robust systematic review and guideline,” they wrote. “As such, the ASA’s suggestions are expert opinions, which may inform but should not replace clinical judgment.”
, for whom withholding these medications “might provide more risk than benefit.”
Withholding GLP-1 receptor agonists may be safe and reasonable for patients taking them solely for weight loss, but “this should not be considered mandatory or evidence-based,” as it remains unclear whether withholding one dose is enough to restore normal gastric motility.
“Generally, in patients on GLP-1 receptor agonists who have followed standard perioperative procedures (typically an 8-hour solid-food fast and a 2-hour liquid fast) and who do not have symptoms of nausea, vomiting, dyspepsia, or abdominal distention, we advise proceeding with upper and/or lower endoscopy,” the panelists concluded.
The rapid clinical practice update was commissioned and approved by the AGA. The update panelists disclosed relationships with Apollo Endosurgery, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and others.
The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has issued a rapid clinical practice update on the use of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists prior to endoscopy.
The update was partly prompted by consensus-based perioperative guidance issued by the American Society of Anesthesiologists in June 2023, which advises withholding GLP-1 receptor agonists before endoscopy. This recommendation has caused some anesthesia providers to cancel or postpone endoscopic procedures, or even elect general endotracheal intubation over standard sedation.
“Many facilities and medical centers are now struggling to revise preprocedural protocols for patients taking this class of medications despite the lack of high-level evidence regarding how to proceed,” the panelists wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Important questions include whether these preprocedural changes are necessary, if they truly mitigate periprocedural aspiration, or if the delays instituted by following this guidance might further compound the major problem currently faced nationwide: that of large numbers of patients awaiting endoscopic procedures because of delays from the COVID-19 pandemic, reduction in the recommended age threshold to start colorectal cancer screening in 2018, and workforce challenges.”
The rapid clinical practice update, commissioned and approved by the AGA, includes background on the relationship between GLP-1 receptor agonists and endoscopic procedures, followed by clinical strategies for patients taking these medications.
Lead panelist Jana G. Al Hashash, MD, MSc, AGAF, of Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, and colleagues began by noting that GLP-1 receptor agonists have been associated with increased gastric residue in patients with diabetes, and among nondiabetic patients, increased gastric retention of solids but not liquids. Delayed gastric emptying and increased residual gastric contents may be more common among patients on GLP-1 agonists who have vomiting, nausea, dyspepsia, or abdominal bloating, they added.
The above findings “imply an increased risk of aspiration in patients receiving GLP-1 receptor agonist medications who present for procedures that require sedation,” the panelists wrote, but more data is needed to support this hypothesis.
Yet the implications for endoscopic risk are still unclear.
Residual liquid in the stomach, at least, is “less of an issue,” according to the update, since “it is easily removed during an esophagogastroduodenoscopy, and this is the first maneuver performed by endoscopists on entering the stomach.”
While residual solids in the stomach could theoretically increase risk of aspiration, other patients with gastroparesis, such as those taking opioids, are not routinely given “special dietary precautions or medication adjustments” prior to endoscopy, Dr. Al Hashash and colleagues wrote. Even patients with severe gastroparesis who are undergoing gastric peroral endoscopic myotomy (which depends upon an empty stomach), are only required to stop ingesting solid foods the day before the procedure, they noted.
“It is appropriate that the ASA’s perioperative suggestions for patients on GLP-1 [receptor agonists] are labeled ‘consensus-based guidance on perioperative management,’ because there is clearly insufficient published evidence for a robust systematic review and guideline,” they wrote. “As such, the ASA’s suggestions are expert opinions, which may inform but should not replace clinical judgment.”
, for whom withholding these medications “might provide more risk than benefit.”
Withholding GLP-1 receptor agonists may be safe and reasonable for patients taking them solely for weight loss, but “this should not be considered mandatory or evidence-based,” as it remains unclear whether withholding one dose is enough to restore normal gastric motility.
“Generally, in patients on GLP-1 receptor agonists who have followed standard perioperative procedures (typically an 8-hour solid-food fast and a 2-hour liquid fast) and who do not have symptoms of nausea, vomiting, dyspepsia, or abdominal distention, we advise proceeding with upper and/or lower endoscopy,” the panelists concluded.
The rapid clinical practice update was commissioned and approved by the AGA. The update panelists disclosed relationships with Apollo Endosurgery, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and others.
The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has issued a rapid clinical practice update on the use of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists prior to endoscopy.
The update was partly prompted by consensus-based perioperative guidance issued by the American Society of Anesthesiologists in June 2023, which advises withholding GLP-1 receptor agonists before endoscopy. This recommendation has caused some anesthesia providers to cancel or postpone endoscopic procedures, or even elect general endotracheal intubation over standard sedation.
“Many facilities and medical centers are now struggling to revise preprocedural protocols for patients taking this class of medications despite the lack of high-level evidence regarding how to proceed,” the panelists wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Important questions include whether these preprocedural changes are necessary, if they truly mitigate periprocedural aspiration, or if the delays instituted by following this guidance might further compound the major problem currently faced nationwide: that of large numbers of patients awaiting endoscopic procedures because of delays from the COVID-19 pandemic, reduction in the recommended age threshold to start colorectal cancer screening in 2018, and workforce challenges.”
The rapid clinical practice update, commissioned and approved by the AGA, includes background on the relationship between GLP-1 receptor agonists and endoscopic procedures, followed by clinical strategies for patients taking these medications.
Lead panelist Jana G. Al Hashash, MD, MSc, AGAF, of Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, and colleagues began by noting that GLP-1 receptor agonists have been associated with increased gastric residue in patients with diabetes, and among nondiabetic patients, increased gastric retention of solids but not liquids. Delayed gastric emptying and increased residual gastric contents may be more common among patients on GLP-1 agonists who have vomiting, nausea, dyspepsia, or abdominal bloating, they added.
The above findings “imply an increased risk of aspiration in patients receiving GLP-1 receptor agonist medications who present for procedures that require sedation,” the panelists wrote, but more data is needed to support this hypothesis.
Yet the implications for endoscopic risk are still unclear.
Residual liquid in the stomach, at least, is “less of an issue,” according to the update, since “it is easily removed during an esophagogastroduodenoscopy, and this is the first maneuver performed by endoscopists on entering the stomach.”
While residual solids in the stomach could theoretically increase risk of aspiration, other patients with gastroparesis, such as those taking opioids, are not routinely given “special dietary precautions or medication adjustments” prior to endoscopy, Dr. Al Hashash and colleagues wrote. Even patients with severe gastroparesis who are undergoing gastric peroral endoscopic myotomy (which depends upon an empty stomach), are only required to stop ingesting solid foods the day before the procedure, they noted.
“It is appropriate that the ASA’s perioperative suggestions for patients on GLP-1 [receptor agonists] are labeled ‘consensus-based guidance on perioperative management,’ because there is clearly insufficient published evidence for a robust systematic review and guideline,” they wrote. “As such, the ASA’s suggestions are expert opinions, which may inform but should not replace clinical judgment.”
, for whom withholding these medications “might provide more risk than benefit.”
Withholding GLP-1 receptor agonists may be safe and reasonable for patients taking them solely for weight loss, but “this should not be considered mandatory or evidence-based,” as it remains unclear whether withholding one dose is enough to restore normal gastric motility.
“Generally, in patients on GLP-1 receptor agonists who have followed standard perioperative procedures (typically an 8-hour solid-food fast and a 2-hour liquid fast) and who do not have symptoms of nausea, vomiting, dyspepsia, or abdominal distention, we advise proceeding with upper and/or lower endoscopy,” the panelists concluded.
The rapid clinical practice update was commissioned and approved by the AGA. The update panelists disclosed relationships with Apollo Endosurgery, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and others.
FROM CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
AGA Offers Practical Advice on IBD Diets
.
The new guidance, authored by Jana G. Al Hashash, MD, MSc, AGAF, of Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, and colleagues, includes 12 best practices that address dietary options, enteral and parenteral nutrition, patient monitoring, and the need for multidisciplinary care.
“There is growing recognition of the role of diet in the care of patients with IBD, as both an etiopathogenic risk factor and, more recently, as a disease-modifying modality,” the update panelists wrote in Gastroenterology.
Historically, they noted, patients with IBD had been advised to avoid many different foods including fiber, but this strategy may result in unintended consequences.
“[T]hese approaches frequently led patients with IBD to avoid what are traditionally considered healthy foods, even after achieving clinical remission,” Dr. Al Hashash and colleagues wrote.
With an increasing body of data available for dietary interventions in both Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, they wrote the present clinical practice update to offer some needed clarity.
A Starting Point
First, the panelists advise that, unless contraindicated, all patients with IBD follow a Mediterranean diet while minimizing salt, sugar, and ultraprocessed foods.
Patients with symptomatic intestinal strictures may struggle to digest raw fruits and vegetables due to their fibrous nature, they added, so these patients should first soften these foods through cooking, steaming, or “careful chewing” before consumption.
“No diet has consistently been found to decrease the rate of flares in adults with IBD,” the update panelists noted. “A diet low in red and processed meat may reduce ulcerative colitis flares, but has not been found to reduce relapse in Crohn’s disease.”
Beyond these dietary suggestions for adults, the update advises breastfeeding for newborns and a Mediterranean diet for children, as both may reduce risk of developing IBD.
Enteral Nutrition
The update suggests that exclusive enteral nutrition is a reasonable option to induce clinical remission and endoscopic response, or as a steroid-sparing bridge, in Crohn’s disease, although this may be more effective in children than adults.
Malnourished patients may also benefit from exclusive enteral nutrition prior to elective surgery for Crohn’s disease, Dr. Al Hashash and colleagues added, as this strategy can “optimize nutritional status and reduce postoperative complications.”
A Crohn’s disease exclusion diet, which involves partial enteral nutrition therapy, may be considered in mild or moderate cases, according to the update.
“Data on the use of enteral nutrition in the treatment of active ulcerative colitis are limited,” the panelists wrote, although early data suggest it is safe and well tolerated, and can improve prealbumin levels.
Parenteral Nutrition
The update recommends short-term parenteral nutrition for patients with phlegmonous inflammation and/or an intra-abdominal abscess, as this can act as a bridge to surgical intervention.
Patients with prolonged ileus, short bowel syndrome, or high-output gastrointestinal fistula may also be candidates for parenteral nutrition, as well as those who have tried and failed both oral and enteral nutrition.
Lastly, the update encourages transition from long-term parenteral nutrition to oral intake and customized hydration management “whenever possible.”
Monitoring and Multidisciplinary Care
Dr. Al Hashash and colleagues concluded by advising that all patients with complicated IBD be comanaged by a gastroenterologist and a registered dietitian, both of whom should remain watchful for signs of malnutrition.
Using serum protein as a surrogate marker of malnutrition is no longer recommended and there are different criteria that should be utilized to identify malnutrition. Routine iron and vitamin D testing are warranted, as well as B12 testing for patients with extensive ileal disease or a history of ileal surgery.
This clinical practice update was commissioned and approved by the AGA. The update panelists disclosed relationships with Merck, Celgene, Janssen, and others.
.
The new guidance, authored by Jana G. Al Hashash, MD, MSc, AGAF, of Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, and colleagues, includes 12 best practices that address dietary options, enteral and parenteral nutrition, patient monitoring, and the need for multidisciplinary care.
“There is growing recognition of the role of diet in the care of patients with IBD, as both an etiopathogenic risk factor and, more recently, as a disease-modifying modality,” the update panelists wrote in Gastroenterology.
Historically, they noted, patients with IBD had been advised to avoid many different foods including fiber, but this strategy may result in unintended consequences.
“[T]hese approaches frequently led patients with IBD to avoid what are traditionally considered healthy foods, even after achieving clinical remission,” Dr. Al Hashash and colleagues wrote.
With an increasing body of data available for dietary interventions in both Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, they wrote the present clinical practice update to offer some needed clarity.
A Starting Point
First, the panelists advise that, unless contraindicated, all patients with IBD follow a Mediterranean diet while minimizing salt, sugar, and ultraprocessed foods.
Patients with symptomatic intestinal strictures may struggle to digest raw fruits and vegetables due to their fibrous nature, they added, so these patients should first soften these foods through cooking, steaming, or “careful chewing” before consumption.
“No diet has consistently been found to decrease the rate of flares in adults with IBD,” the update panelists noted. “A diet low in red and processed meat may reduce ulcerative colitis flares, but has not been found to reduce relapse in Crohn’s disease.”
Beyond these dietary suggestions for adults, the update advises breastfeeding for newborns and a Mediterranean diet for children, as both may reduce risk of developing IBD.
Enteral Nutrition
The update suggests that exclusive enteral nutrition is a reasonable option to induce clinical remission and endoscopic response, or as a steroid-sparing bridge, in Crohn’s disease, although this may be more effective in children than adults.
Malnourished patients may also benefit from exclusive enteral nutrition prior to elective surgery for Crohn’s disease, Dr. Al Hashash and colleagues added, as this strategy can “optimize nutritional status and reduce postoperative complications.”
A Crohn’s disease exclusion diet, which involves partial enteral nutrition therapy, may be considered in mild or moderate cases, according to the update.
“Data on the use of enteral nutrition in the treatment of active ulcerative colitis are limited,” the panelists wrote, although early data suggest it is safe and well tolerated, and can improve prealbumin levels.
Parenteral Nutrition
The update recommends short-term parenteral nutrition for patients with phlegmonous inflammation and/or an intra-abdominal abscess, as this can act as a bridge to surgical intervention.
Patients with prolonged ileus, short bowel syndrome, or high-output gastrointestinal fistula may also be candidates for parenteral nutrition, as well as those who have tried and failed both oral and enteral nutrition.
Lastly, the update encourages transition from long-term parenteral nutrition to oral intake and customized hydration management “whenever possible.”
Monitoring and Multidisciplinary Care
Dr. Al Hashash and colleagues concluded by advising that all patients with complicated IBD be comanaged by a gastroenterologist and a registered dietitian, both of whom should remain watchful for signs of malnutrition.
Using serum protein as a surrogate marker of malnutrition is no longer recommended and there are different criteria that should be utilized to identify malnutrition. Routine iron and vitamin D testing are warranted, as well as B12 testing for patients with extensive ileal disease or a history of ileal surgery.
This clinical practice update was commissioned and approved by the AGA. The update panelists disclosed relationships with Merck, Celgene, Janssen, and others.
.
The new guidance, authored by Jana G. Al Hashash, MD, MSc, AGAF, of Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, and colleagues, includes 12 best practices that address dietary options, enteral and parenteral nutrition, patient monitoring, and the need for multidisciplinary care.
“There is growing recognition of the role of diet in the care of patients with IBD, as both an etiopathogenic risk factor and, more recently, as a disease-modifying modality,” the update panelists wrote in Gastroenterology.
Historically, they noted, patients with IBD had been advised to avoid many different foods including fiber, but this strategy may result in unintended consequences.
“[T]hese approaches frequently led patients with IBD to avoid what are traditionally considered healthy foods, even after achieving clinical remission,” Dr. Al Hashash and colleagues wrote.
With an increasing body of data available for dietary interventions in both Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, they wrote the present clinical practice update to offer some needed clarity.
A Starting Point
First, the panelists advise that, unless contraindicated, all patients with IBD follow a Mediterranean diet while minimizing salt, sugar, and ultraprocessed foods.
Patients with symptomatic intestinal strictures may struggle to digest raw fruits and vegetables due to their fibrous nature, they added, so these patients should first soften these foods through cooking, steaming, or “careful chewing” before consumption.
“No diet has consistently been found to decrease the rate of flares in adults with IBD,” the update panelists noted. “A diet low in red and processed meat may reduce ulcerative colitis flares, but has not been found to reduce relapse in Crohn’s disease.”
Beyond these dietary suggestions for adults, the update advises breastfeeding for newborns and a Mediterranean diet for children, as both may reduce risk of developing IBD.
Enteral Nutrition
The update suggests that exclusive enteral nutrition is a reasonable option to induce clinical remission and endoscopic response, or as a steroid-sparing bridge, in Crohn’s disease, although this may be more effective in children than adults.
Malnourished patients may also benefit from exclusive enteral nutrition prior to elective surgery for Crohn’s disease, Dr. Al Hashash and colleagues added, as this strategy can “optimize nutritional status and reduce postoperative complications.”
A Crohn’s disease exclusion diet, which involves partial enteral nutrition therapy, may be considered in mild or moderate cases, according to the update.
“Data on the use of enteral nutrition in the treatment of active ulcerative colitis are limited,” the panelists wrote, although early data suggest it is safe and well tolerated, and can improve prealbumin levels.
Parenteral Nutrition
The update recommends short-term parenteral nutrition for patients with phlegmonous inflammation and/or an intra-abdominal abscess, as this can act as a bridge to surgical intervention.
Patients with prolonged ileus, short bowel syndrome, or high-output gastrointestinal fistula may also be candidates for parenteral nutrition, as well as those who have tried and failed both oral and enteral nutrition.
Lastly, the update encourages transition from long-term parenteral nutrition to oral intake and customized hydration management “whenever possible.”
Monitoring and Multidisciplinary Care
Dr. Al Hashash and colleagues concluded by advising that all patients with complicated IBD be comanaged by a gastroenterologist and a registered dietitian, both of whom should remain watchful for signs of malnutrition.
Using serum protein as a surrogate marker of malnutrition is no longer recommended and there are different criteria that should be utilized to identify malnutrition. Routine iron and vitamin D testing are warranted, as well as B12 testing for patients with extensive ileal disease or a history of ileal surgery.
This clinical practice update was commissioned and approved by the AGA. The update panelists disclosed relationships with Merck, Celgene, Janssen, and others.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
Home Insulin Pumps Safe for In-Hospital Pediatric Care
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Clinical guidelines support the use of home insulin pumps in adults hospitalized for noncritical illnesses, but it has been unclear if adult safety data translate to pediatric inpatients.
- The study evaluated if insulin can be safely and precisely delivered using home insulin pumps managed by patients or caregivers in 2738 patients (0.5-25 years old; median age about 16) with insulin-dependent diabetes admitted to non–intensive care units of a tertiary children’s hospital between January 2016 and December 2021.
- Insulin was delivered either using home insulin pumps managed by patients or caregivers or using hospital insulin pumps or subcutaneous injections managed by hospital staff.
- Safety was measured by hyperglycemia (glucose level > 250 mg/dL), hypoglycemia (moderate: glucose level, 45-59 mg/dL or severe: glucose level, < 45 mg/dL), glucose variability, and the incidence of diabetic ketoacidosis for each delivery method.
- Results were calculated by the number of days a patient had one or more glucose levels meeting the definition of hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia and divided by the number of days a patient receive any insulin dose.
TAKEAWAY:
The number of hyperglycemic days was lower in patients using a hospital (15.7%) or a home (27.0%) insulin pump than in those receiving subcutaneous insulin injections (45.2%; P < .001).
At least one moderate hypoglycemic day was noted in patients receiving insulin through subcutaneous injections (5.1%) compared with those receiving it through hospital (3.1%) or home insulin pumps (4.5%; P = .02).
The proportion of days within the desired blood glucose range and glucose variability were similar in patients using hospital or home insulin pumps and worse in patients managed with injections (P < .001).
No patients using home or hospital pumps developed diabetic ketoacidosis, but two cases of diabetic ketoacidosis were noted among patients using injections.
IN PRACTICE:
“Safety is not sacrificed when patients or caregivers use home pumps during pediatric non–intensive care unit admissions,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The investigation, led by Jodi Owens, MSN, RN, Division of Endocrinology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, was published along with an invited commentary in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The strategies employed for insulin safety and awareness by the institution may have led to improved rates of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia. Moreover, the study did not assess changes in glycemic levels during transition in the insulin delivery method. The study was limited to non–intensive care units and hence cannot be generalized to intensive care unit settings or in patients with diabetic ketoacidosis. The study did not include patients using hybrid-closed loop insulin pumps.
DISCLOSURES:
The study did not disclose any source of funding. The authors did not report any conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Clinical guidelines support the use of home insulin pumps in adults hospitalized for noncritical illnesses, but it has been unclear if adult safety data translate to pediatric inpatients.
- The study evaluated if insulin can be safely and precisely delivered using home insulin pumps managed by patients or caregivers in 2738 patients (0.5-25 years old; median age about 16) with insulin-dependent diabetes admitted to non–intensive care units of a tertiary children’s hospital between January 2016 and December 2021.
- Insulin was delivered either using home insulin pumps managed by patients or caregivers or using hospital insulin pumps or subcutaneous injections managed by hospital staff.
- Safety was measured by hyperglycemia (glucose level > 250 mg/dL), hypoglycemia (moderate: glucose level, 45-59 mg/dL or severe: glucose level, < 45 mg/dL), glucose variability, and the incidence of diabetic ketoacidosis for each delivery method.
- Results were calculated by the number of days a patient had one or more glucose levels meeting the definition of hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia and divided by the number of days a patient receive any insulin dose.
TAKEAWAY:
The number of hyperglycemic days was lower in patients using a hospital (15.7%) or a home (27.0%) insulin pump than in those receiving subcutaneous insulin injections (45.2%; P < .001).
At least one moderate hypoglycemic day was noted in patients receiving insulin through subcutaneous injections (5.1%) compared with those receiving it through hospital (3.1%) or home insulin pumps (4.5%; P = .02).
The proportion of days within the desired blood glucose range and glucose variability were similar in patients using hospital or home insulin pumps and worse in patients managed with injections (P < .001).
No patients using home or hospital pumps developed diabetic ketoacidosis, but two cases of diabetic ketoacidosis were noted among patients using injections.
IN PRACTICE:
“Safety is not sacrificed when patients or caregivers use home pumps during pediatric non–intensive care unit admissions,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The investigation, led by Jodi Owens, MSN, RN, Division of Endocrinology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, was published along with an invited commentary in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The strategies employed for insulin safety and awareness by the institution may have led to improved rates of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia. Moreover, the study did not assess changes in glycemic levels during transition in the insulin delivery method. The study was limited to non–intensive care units and hence cannot be generalized to intensive care unit settings or in patients with diabetic ketoacidosis. The study did not include patients using hybrid-closed loop insulin pumps.
DISCLOSURES:
The study did not disclose any source of funding. The authors did not report any conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Clinical guidelines support the use of home insulin pumps in adults hospitalized for noncritical illnesses, but it has been unclear if adult safety data translate to pediatric inpatients.
- The study evaluated if insulin can be safely and precisely delivered using home insulin pumps managed by patients or caregivers in 2738 patients (0.5-25 years old; median age about 16) with insulin-dependent diabetes admitted to non–intensive care units of a tertiary children’s hospital between January 2016 and December 2021.
- Insulin was delivered either using home insulin pumps managed by patients or caregivers or using hospital insulin pumps or subcutaneous injections managed by hospital staff.
- Safety was measured by hyperglycemia (glucose level > 250 mg/dL), hypoglycemia (moderate: glucose level, 45-59 mg/dL or severe: glucose level, < 45 mg/dL), glucose variability, and the incidence of diabetic ketoacidosis for each delivery method.
- Results were calculated by the number of days a patient had one or more glucose levels meeting the definition of hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia and divided by the number of days a patient receive any insulin dose.
TAKEAWAY:
The number of hyperglycemic days was lower in patients using a hospital (15.7%) or a home (27.0%) insulin pump than in those receiving subcutaneous insulin injections (45.2%; P < .001).
At least one moderate hypoglycemic day was noted in patients receiving insulin through subcutaneous injections (5.1%) compared with those receiving it through hospital (3.1%) or home insulin pumps (4.5%; P = .02).
The proportion of days within the desired blood glucose range and glucose variability were similar in patients using hospital or home insulin pumps and worse in patients managed with injections (P < .001).
No patients using home or hospital pumps developed diabetic ketoacidosis, but two cases of diabetic ketoacidosis were noted among patients using injections.
IN PRACTICE:
“Safety is not sacrificed when patients or caregivers use home pumps during pediatric non–intensive care unit admissions,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The investigation, led by Jodi Owens, MSN, RN, Division of Endocrinology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, was published along with an invited commentary in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The strategies employed for insulin safety and awareness by the institution may have led to improved rates of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia. Moreover, the study did not assess changes in glycemic levels during transition in the insulin delivery method. The study was limited to non–intensive care units and hence cannot be generalized to intensive care unit settings or in patients with diabetic ketoacidosis. The study did not include patients using hybrid-closed loop insulin pumps.
DISCLOSURES:
The study did not disclose any source of funding. The authors did not report any conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.