Micrograph showing myelofibrosis

Final results from the PERSIST-2 trial suggest pacritinib can be more effective than best available therapy (BAT) for patients with myelofibrosis and thrombocytopenia, and the drug has no significant effect on survival.

Patients who received pacritinib were more likely to experience at least a 35% reduction in spleen volume and a 50% reduction in total symptom score (TSS).

In addition, there was no significant difference in survival between patients who received pacritinib and those who received BAT.

Interim results from PERSIST-2 had indicated that pacritinib negatively impacted survival, which was consistent with results from PERSIST-1. Because of this, the US Food and Drug Administration placed pacritinib trials on clinical hold in February 2016. The hold was lifted in January 2017.

The final results from PERSIST-2 were published in JAMA Oncology. The study was sponsored by CTI BioPharma Corp.

In this phase 3 study, researchers compared 2 dosing schedules of pacritinib to BAT. The study enrolled patients with previously treated or untreated myelofibrosis (intermediate-1/2 or high-risk) and thrombocytopenia (platelet counts ≤ 100 x 10⁹/L).

There were 311 patients randomized to receive pacritinib once daily (n=104), pacritinib twice daily (n=107), or BAT (n=100). Patients in the BAT arm received ruxolitinib (n=44), hydroxyurea (n=19), prednisone and/or prednisolone (n=13), as well as “watchful waiting” (n=19).

Patients could crossover from BAT to pacritinib after week 24 or for progression of splenomegaly. Fifty patients in the BAT arm did cross over.

All patients had discontinued treatment at a median of 23 weeks (pacritinib once daily), 25 weeks (twice daily), and 21 weeks (BAT) from the start of treatment.

Common reasons for discontinuation (in the once daily, twice daily, and BAT arms, respectively) were the clinical hold (59%, 71%, and 27%), adverse events (14%, 9%, and 4%), physician decision (5%, 3%, and 41%), progressive disease (5%, 7%, and 11%), and death (5%, 2%, and 5%).

Efficacy

The intention-to-treat efficacy population included 75 patients in the once-daily arm, 74 in the twice-daily arm, and 72 in the BAT arm. The researchers said baseline characteristics were balanced across the arms.

The co-primary endpoints were the rate of patients achieving a spleen volume reduction (SVR) of 35% or more and a 50% or more reduction in TSS at week 24.

Eighteen percent of patients in the combined pacritinib arms and 3% of patients in the BAT arm achieved an SVR of 35% or more (P=0.001). Fifteen percent of patients in the pacritinib once-daily arm and 22% of patients in the twice-daily arm achieved this endpoint (P values of 0.02 and 0.001, respectively, for comparison with BAT).

Twenty-five percent of patients in the combined pacritinib arms and 14% in the BAT arm had at least a 50% reduction in TSS (P=0.079).  Seventeen percent of patients in the pacritinib once-daily arm and 32% of patients in the twice-daily arm achieved this endpoint (P values of 0.65 and 0.01, respectively, for comparison with BAT).

“Pacritinib was shown to reduce both spleen volume and total symptom score, 2 very important clinical measures in myelofibrosis patients with thrombocytopenia, including those patients who received prior treatment with ruxolitinib,” said study author John Mascarenhas, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, New York.

Survival

When the clinical hold was placed, there was no significant difference in overall survival between the 3 treatment arms.

The rates of death were 14% (n=14) in the pacritinib once-daily arm, 9% (n=10) in the twice-daily arm, and 14% (n=14) in the BAT arm. For patients in the BAT arm, the death rate was lower for those who crossed over to pacritinib (8%, n=4) than for those who did not (20%, n=10).

The hazard ratios for death were 1.18 in the once-daily pacritinib arm and 0.68 in the twice-daily pacritinib arm.

Safety

Dr Mascarenhas said pacritinib had “a generally manageable safety profile.”

Common adverse events—in the once daily, twice daily, and BAT arms, respectively—included:

• Diarrhea­—67%, 48%, and 15%
• Nausea—38%, 32%, and 11%
• Thrombocytopenia—33%, 34%, and 23%
• Anemia—28%, 24%, and 15%
• Vomiting—21%, 19%, and 5%
• Fatigue—17%, 17%, and 16%
• Peripheral edema—13%, 2%, and 15%
• Dizziness—14%, 15%, and 5%
• Abdominal pain—19%, 9%, and 19%
• Pyrexia—11%, 15%, and 3%.

Grade 3/4 events—in the once daily, twice daily, and BAT arms, respectively­—included:

• Thrombocytopenia—31%, 32%, and 18%
• Anemia—27%, 22%, and 14%
• Neutropenia—9%, 7%, and 5%
• Pneumonia—4%, 7%, and 3%
• Fatigue—7%, 3%, and 5%
• Diarrhea—5%, 4%, and 0%
• Epistaxis—2%, 5%, and 1%.

Serious adverse events—in the once daily, twice daily, and BAT arms, respectively—included:

• Anemia—5%, 8%, and 3%
• Thrombocytopenia—2%, 6%, and 2%
• Pneumonia—5%, 6%, and 4%
• Acute renal failure—5%, 2%, and 2%
• Congestive heart failure—1%, 4%, and 2%
• Atrial fibrillation—3%, 0%, and 3%
• Cardiac arrest—2%, 0%, and 0%
• Epistaxis—2%, 2%, and 1%
• Subdural hematoma—2%, 0%, and 0%.

Micrograph showing myelofibrosis

Final results from the PERSIST-2 trial suggest pacritinib can be more effective than best available therapy (BAT) for patients with myelofibrosis and thrombocytopenia, and the drug has no significant effect on survival.

Patients who received pacritinib were more likely to experience at least a 35% reduction in spleen volume and a 50% reduction in total symptom score (TSS).

In addition, there was no significant difference in survival between patients who received pacritinib and those who received BAT.

Interim results from PERSIST-2 had indicated that pacritinib negatively impacted survival, which was consistent with results from PERSIST-1. Because of this, the US Food and Drug Administration placed pacritinib trials on clinical hold in February 2016. The hold was lifted in January 2017.

The final results from PERSIST-2 were published in JAMA Oncology. The study was sponsored by CTI BioPharma Corp.

In this phase 3 study, researchers compared 2 dosing schedules of pacritinib to BAT. The study enrolled patients with previously treated or untreated myelofibrosis (intermediate-1/2 or high-risk) and thrombocytopenia (platelet counts ≤ 100 x 10⁹/L).

There were 311 patients randomized to receive pacritinib once daily (n=104), pacritinib twice daily (n=107), or BAT (n=100). Patients in the BAT arm received ruxolitinib (n=44), hydroxyurea (n=19), prednisone and/or prednisolone (n=13), as well as “watchful waiting” (n=19).

Patients could crossover from BAT to pacritinib after week 24 or for progression of splenomegaly. Fifty patients in the BAT arm did cross over.

All patients had discontinued treatment at a median of 23 weeks (pacritinib once daily), 25 weeks (twice daily), and 21 weeks (BAT) from the start of treatment.

Common reasons for discontinuation (in the once daily, twice daily, and BAT arms, respectively) were the clinical hold (59%, 71%, and 27%), adverse events (14%, 9%, and 4%), physician decision (5%, 3%, and 41%), progressive disease (5%, 7%, and 11%), and death (5%, 2%, and 5%).

Efficacy

The intention-to-treat efficacy population included 75 patients in the once-daily arm, 74 in the twice-daily arm, and 72 in the BAT arm. The researchers said baseline characteristics were balanced across the arms.

The co-primary endpoints were the rate of patients achieving a spleen volume reduction (SVR) of 35% or more and a 50% or more reduction in TSS at week 24.

Eighteen percent of patients in the combined pacritinib arms and 3% of patients in the BAT arm achieved an SVR of 35% or more (P=0.001). Fifteen percent of patients in the pacritinib once-daily arm and 22% of patients in the twice-daily arm achieved this endpoint (P values of 0.02 and 0.001, respectively, for comparison with BAT).

Twenty-five percent of patients in the combined pacritinib arms and 14% in the BAT arm had at least a 50% reduction in TSS (P=0.079).  Seventeen percent of patients in the pacritinib once-daily arm and 32% of patients in the twice-daily arm achieved this endpoint (P values of 0.65 and 0.01, respectively, for comparison with BAT).

“Pacritinib was shown to reduce both spleen volume and total symptom score, 2 very important clinical measures in myelofibrosis patients with thrombocytopenia, including those patients who received prior treatment with ruxolitinib,” said study author John Mascarenhas, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, New York.

Survival

When the clinical hold was placed, there was no significant difference in overall survival between the 3 treatment arms.

The rates of death were 14% (n=14) in the pacritinib once-daily arm, 9% (n=10) in the twice-daily arm, and 14% (n=14) in the BAT arm. For patients in the BAT arm, the death rate was lower for those who crossed over to pacritinib (8%, n=4) than for those who did not (20%, n=10).

The hazard ratios for death were 1.18 in the once-daily pacritinib arm and 0.68 in the twice-daily pacritinib arm.

Safety

Dr Mascarenhas said pacritinib had “a generally manageable safety profile.”

Common adverse events—in the once daily, twice daily, and BAT arms, respectively—included:

• Diarrhea­—67%, 48%, and 15%
• Nausea—38%, 32%, and 11%
• Thrombocytopenia—33%, 34%, and 23%
• Anemia—28%, 24%, and 15%
• Vomiting—21%, 19%, and 5%
• Fatigue—17%, 17%, and 16%
• Peripheral edema—13%, 2%, and 15%
• Dizziness—14%, 15%, and 5%
• Abdominal pain—19%, 9%, and 19%
• Pyrexia—11%, 15%, and 3%.

Grade 3/4 events—in the once daily, twice daily, and BAT arms, respectively­—included:

• Thrombocytopenia—31%, 32%, and 18%
• Anemia—27%, 22%, and 14%
• Neutropenia—9%, 7%, and 5%
• Pneumonia—4%, 7%, and 3%
• Fatigue—7%, 3%, and 5%
• Diarrhea—5%, 4%, and 0%
• Epistaxis—2%, 5%, and 1%.

Serious adverse events—in the once daily, twice daily, and BAT arms, respectively—included:

• Anemia—5%, 8%, and 3%
• Thrombocytopenia—2%, 6%, and 2%
• Pneumonia—5%, 6%, and 4%
• Acute renal failure—5%, 2%, and 2%
• Congestive heart failure—1%, 4%, and 2%
• Atrial fibrillation—3%, 0%, and 3%
• Cardiac arrest—2%, 0%, and 0%
• Epistaxis—2%, 2%, and 1%
• Subdural hematoma—2%, 0%, and 0%.

Micrograph showing myelofibrosis

Final results from the PERSIST-2 trial suggest pacritinib can be more effective than best available therapy (BAT) for patients with myelofibrosis and thrombocytopenia, and the drug has no significant effect on survival.

Patients who received pacritinib were more likely to experience at least a 35% reduction in spleen volume and a 50% reduction in total symptom score (TSS).

In addition, there was no significant difference in survival between patients who received pacritinib and those who received BAT.

Interim results from PERSIST-2 had indicated that pacritinib negatively impacted survival, which was consistent with results from PERSIST-1. Because of this, the US Food and Drug Administration placed pacritinib trials on clinical hold in February 2016. The hold was lifted in January 2017.

The final results from PERSIST-2 were published in JAMA Oncology. The study was sponsored by CTI BioPharma Corp.

In this phase 3 study, researchers compared 2 dosing schedules of pacritinib to BAT. The study enrolled patients with previously treated or untreated myelofibrosis (intermediate-1/2 or high-risk) and thrombocytopenia (platelet counts ≤ 100 x 10⁹/L).

There were 311 patients randomized to receive pacritinib once daily (n=104), pacritinib twice daily (n=107), or BAT (n=100). Patients in the BAT arm received ruxolitinib (n=44), hydroxyurea (n=19), prednisone and/or prednisolone (n=13), as well as “watchful waiting” (n=19).

Patients could crossover from BAT to pacritinib after week 24 or for progression of splenomegaly. Fifty patients in the BAT arm did cross over.

All patients had discontinued treatment at a median of 23 weeks (pacritinib once daily), 25 weeks (twice daily), and 21 weeks (BAT) from the start of treatment.

Common reasons for discontinuation (in the once daily, twice daily, and BAT arms, respectively) were the clinical hold (59%, 71%, and 27%), adverse events (14%, 9%, and 4%), physician decision (5%, 3%, and 41%), progressive disease (5%, 7%, and 11%), and death (5%, 2%, and 5%).

Efficacy

The intention-to-treat efficacy population included 75 patients in the once-daily arm, 74 in the twice-daily arm, and 72 in the BAT arm. The researchers said baseline characteristics were balanced across the arms.

The co-primary endpoints were the rate of patients achieving a spleen volume reduction (SVR) of 35% or more and a 50% or more reduction in TSS at week 24.

Eighteen percent of patients in the combined pacritinib arms and 3% of patients in the BAT arm achieved an SVR of 35% or more (P=0.001). Fifteen percent of patients in the pacritinib once-daily arm and 22% of patients in the twice-daily arm achieved this endpoint (P values of 0.02 and 0.001, respectively, for comparison with BAT).

Twenty-five percent of patients in the combined pacritinib arms and 14% in the BAT arm had at least a 50% reduction in TSS (P=0.079).  Seventeen percent of patients in the pacritinib once-daily arm and 32% of patients in the twice-daily arm achieved this endpoint (P values of 0.65 and 0.01, respectively, for comparison with BAT).

“Pacritinib was shown to reduce both spleen volume and total symptom score, 2 very important clinical measures in myelofibrosis patients with thrombocytopenia, including those patients who received prior treatment with ruxolitinib,” said study author John Mascarenhas, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, New York.

Survival

When the clinical hold was placed, there was no significant difference in overall survival between the 3 treatment arms.

The rates of death were 14% (n=14) in the pacritinib once-daily arm, 9% (n=10) in the twice-daily arm, and 14% (n=14) in the BAT arm. For patients in the BAT arm, the death rate was lower for those who crossed over to pacritinib (8%, n=4) than for those who did not (20%, n=10).

The hazard ratios for death were 1.18 in the once-daily pacritinib arm and 0.68 in the twice-daily pacritinib arm.

Safety

Dr Mascarenhas said pacritinib had “a generally manageable safety profile.”

Common adverse events—in the once daily, twice daily, and BAT arms, respectively—included:

• Diarrhea­—67%, 48%, and 15%
• Nausea—38%, 32%, and 11%
• Thrombocytopenia—33%, 34%, and 23%
• Anemia—28%, 24%, and 15%
• Vomiting—21%, 19%, and 5%
• Fatigue—17%, 17%, and 16%
• Peripheral edema—13%, 2%, and 15%
• Dizziness—14%, 15%, and 5%
• Abdominal pain—19%, 9%, and 19%
• Pyrexia—11%, 15%, and 3%.

Grade 3/4 events—in the once daily, twice daily, and BAT arms, respectively­—included:

• Thrombocytopenia—31%, 32%, and 18%
• Anemia—27%, 22%, and 14%
• Neutropenia—9%, 7%, and 5%
• Pneumonia—4%, 7%, and 3%
• Fatigue—7%, 3%, and 5%
• Diarrhea—5%, 4%, and 0%
• Epistaxis—2%, 5%, and 1%.

Serious adverse events—in the once daily, twice daily, and BAT arms, respectively—included:

• Anemia—5%, 8%, and 3%
• Thrombocytopenia—2%, 6%, and 2%
• Pneumonia—5%, 6%, and 4%
• Acute renal failure—5%, 2%, and 2%
• Congestive heart failure—1%, 4%, and 2%
• Atrial fibrillation—3%, 0%, and 3%
• Cardiac arrest—2%, 0%, and 0%
• Epistaxis—2%, 2%, and 1%
• Subdural hematoma—2%, 0%, and 0%.

Q) How has the Affordable Care Act affected people living with multiple sclerosis—­an Americans with Disabilities Act recognized disease?

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been a source of controversy since it became law in 2010. Perhaps some of the tension surrounding it stems from misunderstanding; however, it is clear that individual experiences and/or perceptions flavor the ongoing debate. Rather than perpetuate the contention, we’d simply like to outline some of the ways in which patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) have benefited from the ACA—and what we must do to ensure continued quality and affordability of care in the event of changes to the law.

Living with MS in the United States is costly. According to the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, average annual costs—both direct and indirect (ie, lost wages)—are about $69,000. Health care costs account for more than half of this total (about $39,000). Total costs for all people in the US living with MS are estimated at $28 billion per year.¹

In 2016, according to the US Census Bureau, almost 13% of Americans lived below the federal poverty level, and 6% of Americans reported “deep poverty”—defined as household income below 50% of the poverty threshold for that year.² It has been reported that while at least 90% of people living with MS are insured, 70% are struggling to pay for health care. In fact, 30% put off seeking care because of costs; one consequence is delay in filling prescriptions.³

The burden of expense for our MS patients is considerable. Here’s how the ACA has impacted our patients by attempting to minimize the devastating cost.

Guaranteed Health Insurance Coverage for Pre-existing Conditions. When the ACA became law in March 2010, there were three main goals: making affordable health insurance available to more people, expanding the Medicaid program to cover all adults with income below 138% of the federal poverty level, and supporting innovative medical care delivery methods to lower the cost of health care.⁴

Following the ACA’s full implementation in 2014, private health insurance companies were prevented from refusing coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, such as MS. This was a game changer, since patients, regardless of their MS diagnosis, were now guaranteed individual insurance. Furthermore, they could not be charged increased premiums based on their prior medical history.⁵

Preventive Services Covered Without Cost-sharing. Under the ACA, health plans generally must provide preventive services, such as those rated A or B by the US Preventive Services Task Force. This includes routine immunizations for both adults and children, which represents a cost savings to patients living with MS. Another advantage is that women, including those living with MS, have access to sexually transmitted infection screenings, breastfeeding support and supplies, domestic violence screening, and contraceptives.⁶

Improved Coverage Through Medicare. The ACA mandated improvement in coverage with Medicare Part D benefits. In addition to the preventive care benefits noted above, which apply to Medicare recipients as well, the ACA reduced federal payments to Medicare Advantage plans over time and provided bonus payments to plans with high quality ratings.⁷

Further changes in Medicare spending included the creation of a 15-person, by-appointment board (known as the Independent Payment Advisory Board) tasked with identifying ways to “modify benefits, eligibility, premiums, or taxes,” which will hopefully continue to optimize the cost of care for patients living with MS and utilizing Medicare.⁷

Cost Savings With Medicaid Expansion. Medicaid expansion was enacted to keep patients with a costly illness, such as MS, from financial destitution because of their condition. As of January 2018, 32 states and the District of Columbia have seen expansion of their programs.⁸ In those states, people with a household income below 138% of the poverty level (less than $27,000 for a family of three) can now qualify for Medicaid. States that have not expanded coverage include Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Florida.⁸ The expansion of Medicaid helps MS patients by shrinking the ever-present gap that still prevents some from qualifying for the additional financial assistance they need due to their chronic illness.

One thing we have learned is that MS patients may not realize they have access to some of these services—particularly preventive care—or they may hesitate to obtain services due to a lack of clarity on whether they are covered. Health care providers can remind patients that they may qualify for “unrealized services,” which could provide value and optimize general preventive care. MS patients with Medicare and Medicaid, for example, may not know that they have access to colorectal cancer screenings via a waived deductible.⁶

Since last year, there has been vigorous discussion about repealing, replacing, or otherwise amending the ACA. While a political discussion is beyond the bounds of this column, we do need to be aware of how changes to the ACA would affect patients with MS.

Optimizing wellness and prevention and providing access to care to patients with a costly disease, such as MS, is important. In addition to ensuring ongoing access to affordable services, we need to do more to improve mental health access and reduce the cost of needed medications. We also need to close the insurance gap in all 50 states. Continued dialogue will be necessary to help government leaders understand the cost impact of MS (and other diseases), in order to keep our country moving in a positive direction that optimizes wellness and health care reform. —ALD

Amy L. Dix, MPAS, PA-C, MSCS
Department of Neurology at Kansas City Multiple Sclerosis Center in Overland Park, Kansas

Q) How has the Affordable Care Act affected people living with multiple sclerosis—­an Americans with Disabilities Act recognized disease?

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been a source of controversy since it became law in 2010. Perhaps some of the tension surrounding it stems from misunderstanding; however, it is clear that individual experiences and/or perceptions flavor the ongoing debate. Rather than perpetuate the contention, we’d simply like to outline some of the ways in which patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) have benefited from the ACA—and what we must do to ensure continued quality and affordability of care in the event of changes to the law.

Living with MS in the United States is costly. According to the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, average annual costs—both direct and indirect (ie, lost wages)—are about $69,000. Health care costs account for more than half of this total (about $39,000). Total costs for all people in the US living with MS are estimated at $28 billion per year.¹

In 2016, according to the US Census Bureau, almost 13% of Americans lived below the federal poverty level, and 6% of Americans reported “deep poverty”—defined as household income below 50% of the poverty threshold for that year.² It has been reported that while at least 90% of people living with MS are insured, 70% are struggling to pay for health care. In fact, 30% put off seeking care because of costs; one consequence is delay in filling prescriptions.³

The burden of expense for our MS patients is considerable. Here’s how the ACA has impacted our patients by attempting to minimize the devastating cost.

Guaranteed Health Insurance Coverage for Pre-existing Conditions. When the ACA became law in March 2010, there were three main goals: making affordable health insurance available to more people, expanding the Medicaid program to cover all adults with income below 138% of the federal poverty level, and supporting innovative medical care delivery methods to lower the cost of health care.⁴

Following the ACA’s full implementation in 2014, private health insurance companies were prevented from refusing coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, such as MS. This was a game changer, since patients, regardless of their MS diagnosis, were now guaranteed individual insurance. Furthermore, they could not be charged increased premiums based on their prior medical history.⁵

Preventive Services Covered Without Cost-sharing. Under the ACA, health plans generally must provide preventive services, such as those rated A or B by the US Preventive Services Task Force. This includes routine immunizations for both adults and children, which represents a cost savings to patients living with MS. Another advantage is that women, including those living with MS, have access to sexually transmitted infection screenings, breastfeeding support and supplies, domestic violence screening, and contraceptives.⁶

Improved Coverage Through Medicare. The ACA mandated improvement in coverage with Medicare Part D benefits. In addition to the preventive care benefits noted above, which apply to Medicare recipients as well, the ACA reduced federal payments to Medicare Advantage plans over time and provided bonus payments to plans with high quality ratings.⁷

Further changes in Medicare spending included the creation of a 15-person, by-appointment board (known as the Independent Payment Advisory Board) tasked with identifying ways to “modify benefits, eligibility, premiums, or taxes,” which will hopefully continue to optimize the cost of care for patients living with MS and utilizing Medicare.⁷

Cost Savings With Medicaid Expansion. Medicaid expansion was enacted to keep patients with a costly illness, such as MS, from financial destitution because of their condition. As of January 2018, 32 states and the District of Columbia have seen expansion of their programs.⁸ In those states, people with a household income below 138% of the poverty level (less than $27,000 for a family of three) can now qualify for Medicaid. States that have not expanded coverage include Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Florida.⁸ The expansion of Medicaid helps MS patients by shrinking the ever-present gap that still prevents some from qualifying for the additional financial assistance they need due to their chronic illness.

One thing we have learned is that MS patients may not realize they have access to some of these services—particularly preventive care—or they may hesitate to obtain services due to a lack of clarity on whether they are covered. Health care providers can remind patients that they may qualify for “unrealized services,” which could provide value and optimize general preventive care. MS patients with Medicare and Medicaid, for example, may not know that they have access to colorectal cancer screenings via a waived deductible.⁶

Since last year, there has been vigorous discussion about repealing, replacing, or otherwise amending the ACA. While a political discussion is beyond the bounds of this column, we do need to be aware of how changes to the ACA would affect patients with MS.

Optimizing wellness and prevention and providing access to care to patients with a costly disease, such as MS, is important. In addition to ensuring ongoing access to affordable services, we need to do more to improve mental health access and reduce the cost of needed medications. We also need to close the insurance gap in all 50 states. Continued dialogue will be necessary to help government leaders understand the cost impact of MS (and other diseases), in order to keep our country moving in a positive direction that optimizes wellness and health care reform. —ALD

Amy L. Dix, MPAS, PA-C, MSCS
Department of Neurology at Kansas City Multiple Sclerosis Center in Overland Park, Kansas

Q) How has the Affordable Care Act affected people living with multiple sclerosis—­an Americans with Disabilities Act recognized disease?

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been a source of controversy since it became law in 2010. Perhaps some of the tension surrounding it stems from misunderstanding; however, it is clear that individual experiences and/or perceptions flavor the ongoing debate. Rather than perpetuate the contention, we’d simply like to outline some of the ways in which patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) have benefited from the ACA—and what we must do to ensure continued quality and affordability of care in the event of changes to the law.

Living with MS in the United States is costly. According to the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, average annual costs—both direct and indirect (ie, lost wages)—are about $69,000. Health care costs account for more than half of this total (about $39,000). Total costs for all people in the US living with MS are estimated at $28 billion per year.¹

In 2016, according to the US Census Bureau, almost 13% of Americans lived below the federal poverty level, and 6% of Americans reported “deep poverty”—defined as household income below 50% of the poverty threshold for that year.² It has been reported that while at least 90% of people living with MS are insured, 70% are struggling to pay for health care. In fact, 30% put off seeking care because of costs; one consequence is delay in filling prescriptions.³

The burden of expense for our MS patients is considerable. Here’s how the ACA has impacted our patients by attempting to minimize the devastating cost.

Guaranteed Health Insurance Coverage for Pre-existing Conditions. When the ACA became law in March 2010, there were three main goals: making affordable health insurance available to more people, expanding the Medicaid program to cover all adults with income below 138% of the federal poverty level, and supporting innovative medical care delivery methods to lower the cost of health care.⁴

Following the ACA’s full implementation in 2014, private health insurance companies were prevented from refusing coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, such as MS. This was a game changer, since patients, regardless of their MS diagnosis, were now guaranteed individual insurance. Furthermore, they could not be charged increased premiums based on their prior medical history.⁵

Preventive Services Covered Without Cost-sharing. Under the ACA, health plans generally must provide preventive services, such as those rated A or B by the US Preventive Services Task Force. This includes routine immunizations for both adults and children, which represents a cost savings to patients living with MS. Another advantage is that women, including those living with MS, have access to sexually transmitted infection screenings, breastfeeding support and supplies, domestic violence screening, and contraceptives.⁶

Improved Coverage Through Medicare. The ACA mandated improvement in coverage with Medicare Part D benefits. In addition to the preventive care benefits noted above, which apply to Medicare recipients as well, the ACA reduced federal payments to Medicare Advantage plans over time and provided bonus payments to plans with high quality ratings.⁷

Further changes in Medicare spending included the creation of a 15-person, by-appointment board (known as the Independent Payment Advisory Board) tasked with identifying ways to “modify benefits, eligibility, premiums, or taxes,” which will hopefully continue to optimize the cost of care for patients living with MS and utilizing Medicare.⁷

Cost Savings With Medicaid Expansion. Medicaid expansion was enacted to keep patients with a costly illness, such as MS, from financial destitution because of their condition. As of January 2018, 32 states and the District of Columbia have seen expansion of their programs.⁸ In those states, people with a household income below 138% of the poverty level (less than $27,000 for a family of three) can now qualify for Medicaid. States that have not expanded coverage include Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Florida.⁸ The expansion of Medicaid helps MS patients by shrinking the ever-present gap that still prevents some from qualifying for the additional financial assistance they need due to their chronic illness.

One thing we have learned is that MS patients may not realize they have access to some of these services—particularly preventive care—or they may hesitate to obtain services due to a lack of clarity on whether they are covered. Health care providers can remind patients that they may qualify for “unrealized services,” which could provide value and optimize general preventive care. MS patients with Medicare and Medicaid, for example, may not know that they have access to colorectal cancer screenings via a waived deductible.⁶

Since last year, there has been vigorous discussion about repealing, replacing, or otherwise amending the ACA. While a political discussion is beyond the bounds of this column, we do need to be aware of how changes to the ACA would affect patients with MS.

Optimizing wellness and prevention and providing access to care to patients with a costly disease, such as MS, is important. In addition to ensuring ongoing access to affordable services, we need to do more to improve mental health access and reduce the cost of needed medications. We also need to close the insurance gap in all 50 states. Continued dialogue will be necessary to help government leaders understand the cost impact of MS (and other diseases), in order to keep our country moving in a positive direction that optimizes wellness and health care reform. —ALD

Amy L. Dix, MPAS, PA-C, MSCS
Department of Neurology at Kansas City Multiple Sclerosis Center in Overland Park, Kansas

This video was filmed at Metabolic & Endocrine Disease Summit (MEDS). Click here to learn more.

This video was filmed at Metabolic & Endocrine Disease Summit (MEDS). Click here to learn more.

This video was filmed at Metabolic & Endocrine Disease Summit (MEDS). Click here to learn more.

Evacetrapib missed its primary MACE endpoint compared with placebo among patients with high-risk vascular disease, including those who were homozygous (AA) for polymorphism rs1967309 of the ADCY gene, in a large nested case-control analysis of the ACCELERATE trial.
The results contradict those for another cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) inhibitor – dalcetrapib –  which has shown significant cardiovascular benefits only among AA patients.

“Although directionally similar to the dalcetrapib analysis, there was no significant interaction between genotype and cardiovascular outcome with evacetrapib,” Steven E. Nissen, MD, and his associates wrote simultaneously in JAMA Cardiology and reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.

Four CETP inhibitors have reached full-scale development: evacetrapib, dalcetrapib, torcetrapib, and anacetrapib. They all markedly increase circulating HDL, and all except dalcetrapib cut circulating LDL. But those benefits largely haven’t extended to the key endpoint, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). In large trials, torcetrapib increased MACE, anacetrapib reduced MACE by such a small amount that its maker did not file for FDA approval, and evacetrapib and dalcetrapib had no effect on MACE. 

But there was a caveat for dalcetrapib. In a post-hoc analysis of its placebo-controlled trial, the CETP inhibitor reduced MACE by 39% among AA individuals and increased MACE by 27% among GG individuals, those homozygous negative for the SNP rs1967309. 

These findings could make sense because ADCY gene variants have been linked to carotid intimal medial thickness, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, and cholesterol efflux capacity, wrote Dr. Nissen of the department of cardiovascular medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio (JAMA Cardiol. 2018 Mar 11. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2018.0569). 

To explore whether ADCY genotypep also affects evacetrapib response, he and his associates compared 1,427 cases with MACE with 1,532 matched controls from the international, randomized, double-blind ACCELERATE (Assessment of Clinical Effects of Cholesteryl Ester Transfer Protein Inhibition with Evacetrapib in Patients at a High Risk for Vascular Outcomes) trial (NCT01687998). Participants had cerebrovascular atherosclerotic disease, peripheral arterial disease, coronary artery disease with diabetes, or recent acute coronary syndrome. They received oral evacetrapib (130 mg) or placebo, and the primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina.

Evacetrapib missed this primary endpoint in all genetic subgroups. Odds ratios for evacetrapib compared with placebo were 0.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.69 to 1.12) among AA patients, 1.04 (95% CI, 0.90 to 1.21) among heterozygous (AG) patients, and 1.18 (95% CI, 0.98 to 1.41) among GG patients. A test for interaction also was insignificant (P = .17). A test for trend nearly reached significance (P = .06), but weakened when the investigators controlled for cardiovascular risk factors or looked only at hard cardiovascular outcomes, they said.

Thus, the relationship between evacetrapib response and AA genotype “was far less in magnitude than observed in the pharmacogenetic study with dalcetrapib,” they wrote. Dalcetrapib is a weaker CETP inhibitor than evacetrapib, the study populations weren’t identical, and the trials used different statistical methods, all of which could explain the discrepant findings, they added. “The completion of the dalcetrapib pharmacogenetics outcome trial should clarify whether this is a false signal or a paradigm-shifting discovery.”

Eli Lilly provided funding, helped design and conduct the study, and helped write the manuscript. Dr. Nissen reported receiving grants and nonfinancial support from Eli Lilly while conducting the study. Several coinvestigators also disclosed ties to Eli Lilly and six reported being employees of the company.

Source: JAMA Cardiol. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2018.0569.

Evacetrapib missed its primary MACE endpoint compared with placebo among patients with high-risk vascular disease, including those who were homozygous (AA) for polymorphism rs1967309 of the ADCY gene, in a large nested case-control analysis of the ACCELERATE trial.
The results contradict those for another cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) inhibitor – dalcetrapib –  which has shown significant cardiovascular benefits only among AA patients.

“Although directionally similar to the dalcetrapib analysis, there was no significant interaction between genotype and cardiovascular outcome with evacetrapib,” Steven E. Nissen, MD, and his associates wrote simultaneously in JAMA Cardiology and reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.

Four CETP inhibitors have reached full-scale development: evacetrapib, dalcetrapib, torcetrapib, and anacetrapib. They all markedly increase circulating HDL, and all except dalcetrapib cut circulating LDL. But those benefits largely haven’t extended to the key endpoint, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). In large trials, torcetrapib increased MACE, anacetrapib reduced MACE by such a small amount that its maker did not file for FDA approval, and evacetrapib and dalcetrapib had no effect on MACE. 

But there was a caveat for dalcetrapib. In a post-hoc analysis of its placebo-controlled trial, the CETP inhibitor reduced MACE by 39% among AA individuals and increased MACE by 27% among GG individuals, those homozygous negative for the SNP rs1967309. 

These findings could make sense because ADCY gene variants have been linked to carotid intimal medial thickness, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, and cholesterol efflux capacity, wrote Dr. Nissen of the department of cardiovascular medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio (JAMA Cardiol. 2018 Mar 11. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2018.0569). 

To explore whether ADCY genotypep also affects evacetrapib response, he and his associates compared 1,427 cases with MACE with 1,532 matched controls from the international, randomized, double-blind ACCELERATE (Assessment of Clinical Effects of Cholesteryl Ester Transfer Protein Inhibition with Evacetrapib in Patients at a High Risk for Vascular Outcomes) trial (NCT01687998). Participants had cerebrovascular atherosclerotic disease, peripheral arterial disease, coronary artery disease with diabetes, or recent acute coronary syndrome. They received oral evacetrapib (130 mg) or placebo, and the primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina.

Evacetrapib missed this primary endpoint in all genetic subgroups. Odds ratios for evacetrapib compared with placebo were 0.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.69 to 1.12) among AA patients, 1.04 (95% CI, 0.90 to 1.21) among heterozygous (AG) patients, and 1.18 (95% CI, 0.98 to 1.41) among GG patients. A test for interaction also was insignificant (P = .17). A test for trend nearly reached significance (P = .06), but weakened when the investigators controlled for cardiovascular risk factors or looked only at hard cardiovascular outcomes, they said.

Thus, the relationship between evacetrapib response and AA genotype “was far less in magnitude than observed in the pharmacogenetic study with dalcetrapib,” they wrote. Dalcetrapib is a weaker CETP inhibitor than evacetrapib, the study populations weren’t identical, and the trials used different statistical methods, all of which could explain the discrepant findings, they added. “The completion of the dalcetrapib pharmacogenetics outcome trial should clarify whether this is a false signal or a paradigm-shifting discovery.”

Eli Lilly provided funding, helped design and conduct the study, and helped write the manuscript. Dr. Nissen reported receiving grants and nonfinancial support from Eli Lilly while conducting the study. Several coinvestigators also disclosed ties to Eli Lilly and six reported being employees of the company.

Source: JAMA Cardiol. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2018.0569.

Evacetrapib missed its primary MACE endpoint compared with placebo among patients with high-risk vascular disease, including those who were homozygous (AA) for polymorphism rs1967309 of the ADCY gene, in a large nested case-control analysis of the ACCELERATE trial.
The results contradict those for another cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) inhibitor – dalcetrapib –  which has shown significant cardiovascular benefits only among AA patients.

“Although directionally similar to the dalcetrapib analysis, there was no significant interaction between genotype and cardiovascular outcome with evacetrapib,” Steven E. Nissen, MD, and his associates wrote simultaneously in JAMA Cardiology and reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.

Four CETP inhibitors have reached full-scale development: evacetrapib, dalcetrapib, torcetrapib, and anacetrapib. They all markedly increase circulating HDL, and all except dalcetrapib cut circulating LDL. But those benefits largely haven’t extended to the key endpoint, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). In large trials, torcetrapib increased MACE, anacetrapib reduced MACE by such a small amount that its maker did not file for FDA approval, and evacetrapib and dalcetrapib had no effect on MACE. 

But there was a caveat for dalcetrapib. In a post-hoc analysis of its placebo-controlled trial, the CETP inhibitor reduced MACE by 39% among AA individuals and increased MACE by 27% among GG individuals, those homozygous negative for the SNP rs1967309. 

These findings could make sense because ADCY gene variants have been linked to carotid intimal medial thickness, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, and cholesterol efflux capacity, wrote Dr. Nissen of the department of cardiovascular medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio (JAMA Cardiol. 2018 Mar 11. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2018.0569). 

To explore whether ADCY genotypep also affects evacetrapib response, he and his associates compared 1,427 cases with MACE with 1,532 matched controls from the international, randomized, double-blind ACCELERATE (Assessment of Clinical Effects of Cholesteryl Ester Transfer Protein Inhibition with Evacetrapib in Patients at a High Risk for Vascular Outcomes) trial (NCT01687998). Participants had cerebrovascular atherosclerotic disease, peripheral arterial disease, coronary artery disease with diabetes, or recent acute coronary syndrome. They received oral evacetrapib (130 mg) or placebo, and the primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina.

Evacetrapib missed this primary endpoint in all genetic subgroups. Odds ratios for evacetrapib compared with placebo were 0.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.69 to 1.12) among AA patients, 1.04 (95% CI, 0.90 to 1.21) among heterozygous (AG) patients, and 1.18 (95% CI, 0.98 to 1.41) among GG patients. A test for interaction also was insignificant (P = .17). A test for trend nearly reached significance (P = .06), but weakened when the investigators controlled for cardiovascular risk factors or looked only at hard cardiovascular outcomes, they said.

Thus, the relationship between evacetrapib response and AA genotype “was far less in magnitude than observed in the pharmacogenetic study with dalcetrapib,” they wrote. Dalcetrapib is a weaker CETP inhibitor than evacetrapib, the study populations weren’t identical, and the trials used different statistical methods, all of which could explain the discrepant findings, they added. “The completion of the dalcetrapib pharmacogenetics outcome trial should clarify whether this is a false signal or a paradigm-shifting discovery.”

Eli Lilly provided funding, helped design and conduct the study, and helped write the manuscript. Dr. Nissen reported receiving grants and nonfinancial support from Eli Lilly while conducting the study. Several coinvestigators also disclosed ties to Eli Lilly and six reported being employees of the company.

Source: JAMA Cardiol. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2018.0569.

ORLANDO – Anthracycline chemotherapy was associated with a cardiotoxicity incidence of roughly 14% of breast cancer patients regardless of treatment with carvedilol, based on data from a randomized trial of 200 patients.

“Cardio-oncology has been neglected,” Monica Samuel Avila, MD, of Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade in São Paulo, Brazil, said in a video interview at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. “We have seen improvement of survival in patients with cancer, but with that comes complications related to treatment. I think that the interactions between cardiologists and oncologists are increasing in a more important way,” she said.

In the Carvedilol for Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Cardiotoxicity (CECCY) Trial, Dr. Avila and colleagues evaluated primary prevention of cardiotoxicity in women with normal hearts who were undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer.

SOURCE: Avila, M. ACC 18

ORLANDO – Anthracycline chemotherapy was associated with a cardiotoxicity incidence of roughly 14% of breast cancer patients regardless of treatment with carvedilol, based on data from a randomized trial of 200 patients.

“Cardio-oncology has been neglected,” Monica Samuel Avila, MD, of Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade in São Paulo, Brazil, said in a video interview at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. “We have seen improvement of survival in patients with cancer, but with that comes complications related to treatment. I think that the interactions between cardiologists and oncologists are increasing in a more important way,” she said.

In the Carvedilol for Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Cardiotoxicity (CECCY) Trial, Dr. Avila and colleagues evaluated primary prevention of cardiotoxicity in women with normal hearts who were undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer.

SOURCE: Avila, M. ACC 18

ORLANDO – Anthracycline chemotherapy was associated with a cardiotoxicity incidence of roughly 14% of breast cancer patients regardless of treatment with carvedilol, based on data from a randomized trial of 200 patients.

“Cardio-oncology has been neglected,” Monica Samuel Avila, MD, of Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade in São Paulo, Brazil, said in a video interview at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. “We have seen improvement of survival in patients with cancer, but with that comes complications related to treatment. I think that the interactions between cardiologists and oncologists are increasing in a more important way,” she said.

In the Carvedilol for Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Cardiotoxicity (CECCY) Trial, Dr. Avila and colleagues evaluated primary prevention of cardiotoxicity in women with normal hearts who were undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer.

SOURCE: Avila, M. ACC 18

ORLANDO –  Wearable cardioverter defibrillator vests failed to significantly cut the rate of arrhythmic death in at-risk post-MI patients but succeeded in significantly dropping total mortality during a median of 84 days of use in the first randomized trial of nonimplanted defibrillators in such patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

ORLANDO –  Wearable cardioverter defibrillator vests failed to significantly cut the rate of arrhythmic death in at-risk post-MI patients but succeeded in significantly dropping total mortality during a median of 84 days of use in the first randomized trial of nonimplanted defibrillators in such patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

ORLANDO –  Wearable cardioverter defibrillator vests failed to significantly cut the rate of arrhythmic death in at-risk post-MI patients but succeeded in significantly dropping total mortality during a median of 84 days of use in the first randomized trial of nonimplanted defibrillators in such patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

For patients under age 75 years with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, switching from clopidogrel to ticagrelor was noninferior to continuing clopidogrel in terms of 30-day rates of major bleeding, investigators reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.

Catherine Hackett/Frontline Medical News

Rates of thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) major bleeding through 30 days were 0.73% in the ticagrelor group and 0.69% in the clopidogrel group, for an absolute difference of 0.04% (95% confidence interval, −0.49% to 0.58%; P less than .001 for noninferiority). “However, minor bleeding was increased with ticagrelor, and there was no benefit on efficacy outcomes,” Otavio Berwanger, MD, PhD, wrote simultaneously in JAMA Cardiology, on behalf of the writing committee for the randomized, phase 3, open-label TREAT trial.

Abundant, robust data support prompt revascularization in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), but the real world doesn’t always meet this standard, and lytics remain in wide use in many countries, noted Dr. Berwanger, Director of the Research Institute at the Heart Hospital of Sao Paulo (Brazil). In the early 2000s, two large trials showed that dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel reduced major adverse cardiovascular events in patients receiving fibrinolytics for STEMI. More recently, the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) study favored ticagrelor over clopidogrel for reducing cardiovascular or stroke-related death, with no increase in the risk of major bleeding, despite ticagrelor’s boxed warning.  

However, PLATO excluded patients who received fibrinolytics in the 24 hours before treatment because of concerns that ticagrelor might contribute to serious or fatal bleeding. To assess this risk, Dr. Berwanger and his associates from 10 countries randomly assigned 3,799 patients with STEMI to receive either ticagrelor (180-mg loading dose; 90 mg twice daily thereafter) or clopidogrel (300-mg to 600-mg loading dose; 75 mg daily thereafter) a median of 11.4 hours after fibrinolysis. Patients averaged 58 years in age (standard deviation, 9.5 years), 77% were men, and 57% were white. 

Because about 90% of patients had been pretreated with clopidogrel, the study primarily compared the effect of staying on clopidogrel with switching to ticagrelor, the investigators noted. “Our trial was an investigator- initiated trial with limited funding that did not allow a double-dummy design,” they added. “We attempted to minimize the risk of bias associated with the open-label nature of the study by performing blinded outcome adjudication.”

In terms of secondary endpoints, 23 patients (1.2%) on ticagrelor developed major bleeding according to PLATO criteria and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria, as did 26 patients (1.4%) on clopidogrel at 30-day follow-up (absolute difference, −0.18%; 95% CI, −0.89% to 0.54; P = .001 for noninferiority). Ticagrelor and clopidogrel also resembled each other in terms of fatal bleeds (0.16% versus 0.11%, respectively; P = .67) and intracranial bleeds (0.42% versus 0.37%; P = .82).

However, minimal PLATO bleeding was significantly more common with ticagrelor (3.2%) than with clopidogrel (2%; P = .02), the researchers reported. Clinically significant TIMI bleeding requiring medical attention occurred in 2% of the ticagrelor group and 1.2% of the clopidogrel group (P = .06), and ticagrelor was no more effective than clopidogrel in terms of preventing death from vascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke, with a composite rate of 4% in each arm and a statistically insignificant hazard ratio of (0.91; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.25; P = .57). 

Additionally, while similar proportions of patients stopped treatment because of adverse events, dyspnea was more common with ticagrelor (13.9%) than clopidogrel (7.6%). “Based on our findings, patients with STEMI younger than 75 years who initially received clopidogrel can be safely switched to ticagrelor in the first 24 hours after fibrinolysis,” the researchers wrote. “Whether this strategy will result in fewer cardiovascular events in the long term remains to be determined.”

AstraZeneca makes ticagrelor and funded the trial. Dr. Berwanger disclosed grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca and several other pharmaceutical companies.

Source: JAMA Cardiol. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2018.0612

For patients under age 75 years with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, switching from clopidogrel to ticagrelor was noninferior to continuing clopidogrel in terms of 30-day rates of major bleeding, investigators reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.

Catherine Hackett/Frontline Medical News

Rates of thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) major bleeding through 30 days were 0.73% in the ticagrelor group and 0.69% in the clopidogrel group, for an absolute difference of 0.04% (95% confidence interval, −0.49% to 0.58%; P less than .001 for noninferiority). “However, minor bleeding was increased with ticagrelor, and there was no benefit on efficacy outcomes,” Otavio Berwanger, MD, PhD, wrote simultaneously in JAMA Cardiology, on behalf of the writing committee for the randomized, phase 3, open-label TREAT trial.

Abundant, robust data support prompt revascularization in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), but the real world doesn’t always meet this standard, and lytics remain in wide use in many countries, noted Dr. Berwanger, Director of the Research Institute at the Heart Hospital of Sao Paulo (Brazil). In the early 2000s, two large trials showed that dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel reduced major adverse cardiovascular events in patients receiving fibrinolytics for STEMI. More recently, the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) study favored ticagrelor over clopidogrel for reducing cardiovascular or stroke-related death, with no increase in the risk of major bleeding, despite ticagrelor’s boxed warning.  

However, PLATO excluded patients who received fibrinolytics in the 24 hours before treatment because of concerns that ticagrelor might contribute to serious or fatal bleeding. To assess this risk, Dr. Berwanger and his associates from 10 countries randomly assigned 3,799 patients with STEMI to receive either ticagrelor (180-mg loading dose; 90 mg twice daily thereafter) or clopidogrel (300-mg to 600-mg loading dose; 75 mg daily thereafter) a median of 11.4 hours after fibrinolysis. Patients averaged 58 years in age (standard deviation, 9.5 years), 77% were men, and 57% were white. 

Because about 90% of patients had been pretreated with clopidogrel, the study primarily compared the effect of staying on clopidogrel with switching to ticagrelor, the investigators noted. “Our trial was an investigator- initiated trial with limited funding that did not allow a double-dummy design,” they added. “We attempted to minimize the risk of bias associated with the open-label nature of the study by performing blinded outcome adjudication.”

In terms of secondary endpoints, 23 patients (1.2%) on ticagrelor developed major bleeding according to PLATO criteria and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria, as did 26 patients (1.4%) on clopidogrel at 30-day follow-up (absolute difference, −0.18%; 95% CI, −0.89% to 0.54; P = .001 for noninferiority). Ticagrelor and clopidogrel also resembled each other in terms of fatal bleeds (0.16% versus 0.11%, respectively; P = .67) and intracranial bleeds (0.42% versus 0.37%; P = .82).

However, minimal PLATO bleeding was significantly more common with ticagrelor (3.2%) than with clopidogrel (2%; P = .02), the researchers reported. Clinically significant TIMI bleeding requiring medical attention occurred in 2% of the ticagrelor group and 1.2% of the clopidogrel group (P = .06), and ticagrelor was no more effective than clopidogrel in terms of preventing death from vascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke, with a composite rate of 4% in each arm and a statistically insignificant hazard ratio of (0.91; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.25; P = .57). 

Additionally, while similar proportions of patients stopped treatment because of adverse events, dyspnea was more common with ticagrelor (13.9%) than clopidogrel (7.6%). “Based on our findings, patients with STEMI younger than 75 years who initially received clopidogrel can be safely switched to ticagrelor in the first 24 hours after fibrinolysis,” the researchers wrote. “Whether this strategy will result in fewer cardiovascular events in the long term remains to be determined.”

AstraZeneca makes ticagrelor and funded the trial. Dr. Berwanger disclosed grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca and several other pharmaceutical companies.

Source: JAMA Cardiol. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2018.0612

For patients under age 75 years with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, switching from clopidogrel to ticagrelor was noninferior to continuing clopidogrel in terms of 30-day rates of major bleeding, investigators reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.

Catherine Hackett/Frontline Medical News

Rates of thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) major bleeding through 30 days were 0.73% in the ticagrelor group and 0.69% in the clopidogrel group, for an absolute difference of 0.04% (95% confidence interval, −0.49% to 0.58%; P less than .001 for noninferiority). “However, minor bleeding was increased with ticagrelor, and there was no benefit on efficacy outcomes,” Otavio Berwanger, MD, PhD, wrote simultaneously in JAMA Cardiology, on behalf of the writing committee for the randomized, phase 3, open-label TREAT trial.

Abundant, robust data support prompt revascularization in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), but the real world doesn’t always meet this standard, and lytics remain in wide use in many countries, noted Dr. Berwanger, Director of the Research Institute at the Heart Hospital of Sao Paulo (Brazil). In the early 2000s, two large trials showed that dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel reduced major adverse cardiovascular events in patients receiving fibrinolytics for STEMI. More recently, the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) study favored ticagrelor over clopidogrel for reducing cardiovascular or stroke-related death, with no increase in the risk of major bleeding, despite ticagrelor’s boxed warning.  

However, PLATO excluded patients who received fibrinolytics in the 24 hours before treatment because of concerns that ticagrelor might contribute to serious or fatal bleeding. To assess this risk, Dr. Berwanger and his associates from 10 countries randomly assigned 3,799 patients with STEMI to receive either ticagrelor (180-mg loading dose; 90 mg twice daily thereafter) or clopidogrel (300-mg to 600-mg loading dose; 75 mg daily thereafter) a median of 11.4 hours after fibrinolysis. Patients averaged 58 years in age (standard deviation, 9.5 years), 77% were men, and 57% were white. 

Because about 90% of patients had been pretreated with clopidogrel, the study primarily compared the effect of staying on clopidogrel with switching to ticagrelor, the investigators noted. “Our trial was an investigator- initiated trial with limited funding that did not allow a double-dummy design,” they added. “We attempted to minimize the risk of bias associated with the open-label nature of the study by performing blinded outcome adjudication.”

In terms of secondary endpoints, 23 patients (1.2%) on ticagrelor developed major bleeding according to PLATO criteria and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria, as did 26 patients (1.4%) on clopidogrel at 30-day follow-up (absolute difference, −0.18%; 95% CI, −0.89% to 0.54; P = .001 for noninferiority). Ticagrelor and clopidogrel also resembled each other in terms of fatal bleeds (0.16% versus 0.11%, respectively; P = .67) and intracranial bleeds (0.42% versus 0.37%; P = .82).

However, minimal PLATO bleeding was significantly more common with ticagrelor (3.2%) than with clopidogrel (2%; P = .02), the researchers reported. Clinically significant TIMI bleeding requiring medical attention occurred in 2% of the ticagrelor group and 1.2% of the clopidogrel group (P = .06), and ticagrelor was no more effective than clopidogrel in terms of preventing death from vascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke, with a composite rate of 4% in each arm and a statistically insignificant hazard ratio of (0.91; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.25; P = .57). 

Additionally, while similar proportions of patients stopped treatment because of adverse events, dyspnea was more common with ticagrelor (13.9%) than clopidogrel (7.6%). “Based on our findings, patients with STEMI younger than 75 years who initially received clopidogrel can be safely switched to ticagrelor in the first 24 hours after fibrinolysis,” the researchers wrote. “Whether this strategy will result in fewer cardiovascular events in the long term remains to be determined.”

AstraZeneca makes ticagrelor and funded the trial. Dr. Berwanger disclosed grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca and several other pharmaceutical companies.

Source: JAMA Cardiol. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2018.0612

Failure of fear extinction is a core feature of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).¹ Recently, it was confirmed that the amygdala and the orbitofrontal cortex are crucial for both fear acquisition and fear extinction.² The amygdala was found to have neurons active only during fear acquisition, and other neurons active only during fear extinction.³ In essence, the balance of activity between these 2 neuronal populations determines whether if an incoming stimulus is feared or not feared. This balance is under the influence of several cognitive domains, including memory, reward, and executive function.

In PTSD, the equilibrium is shifted heavily toward fear acquisition. The majority of patients spontaneously regain the capacity for fear extinction over time⁴ or with the help of treatment.^5,6 Nonetheless, some patients with severe PTSD seem unable to recover the ability of fear extinction and remain refractory to both standard and novel psychotherapeutic or psychopharmacologic treatments.⁷ For these patients, direct modulation of the neural activity in the amygdala may permit fear extinction. This article describes the rationale for using deep brain stimulation (DBS) and initial results from the first-ever clinical trial.

Deep Brain Stimulation

Deep brain stimulation involves inserting electrodes in precise cerebral targets and then connecting the leads to a pulse generator (similar to a pacemaker) inserted in a subclavicular pocket. The generator controls the electrical signal (amplitude, pulse width, pulse frequency) delivered to the brain target and can be adjusted with use of a noninvasive programmer. In 1997, the FDA approved DBS for patients with Parkinson disease or essential tremor. Since then, its efficacy in these movement disorders has been confirmed in several studies.^8,9

The mechanism by which the small electrical pulses of DBS influence activity is not clear. Clinically, DBS functionally inhibits the activity of local neurons.¹⁰ One theory describes “frequency jamming,” a concept similar to cardiac overdrive pacing in which the resultant high-frequency neuronal signal is meaningless and discounted by the rest of the brain.¹¹

Over the years, DBS has demonstrated a strong safety profile.¹² The risks of electrode insertion are mitigated with targeting based on high-quality magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (Figure). Unlike a destructive lesion, DBS is reversible, and the implanted system can be removed in its entirety. Histologic analyses have shown only a small amount of scarring around the electrode tip.¹³ In movement disorder treatment, clinical experience has shown that stimulation-related adverse effects (AEs) are reversible with readjustment of stimulation parameters by external programmer.¹⁴

Novel Applications of DBS

The advantageous safety profile of DBS has permitted its evaluation in the treatment of other conditions thought to have malfunctioning networks at their core—such as intractable epilepsy (in resective surgery noncandidates).^15,16 Although several trials have shown promising results of using DBS for treatment-resistant depression,¹⁷ the results of pivotal sham-controlled trials have been mixed.^18,19 Obsessive-compulsive disorder, on the other hand, received the FDA humanitarian device exemption designation on the basis of positive long-term results.²⁰ In treatment-resistant depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder, functional neuroimaging has identified DBS targets.^21,22 Functional MRI or positron emission tomography (PET) images can be compared at resting state, at symptomatic state, and after treatment response. Nodes hyperactive during a symptomatic state and less active after successful treatment can be targeted with high-frequency DBS to directly reduce the hyperactivity and indirectly modulate or normalize the overall function of the circuit.²³

Given the functional MRI and O15 (oxygen-15) PET evidence of amygdala hyperactivity in patients with PTSD having core symptoms,^24-26 the authors hypothesized that high-frequency DBS targeting of the amygdala would improve PTSD-associated hyperarousal and reexperiencing symptoms in treatment-refractory patients. Indirect data supporting this hypothesis include a correlation between amygdala hyperactivity of increased intensity and symptom severity measured with the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS),²⁷ and a correlation between reduced pretreatment amygdala hyperactivity and successful cognitive-behavioral treatment.^28,29

Preclinical Work

Using a rodent model in which a novel object serves as a cue reminder of foot shocks (traumatic event), the authors tested the hypothesis that amygdala DBS would reduce PTSD-like symptoms.³⁰ When untreated rats were presented with the object in their cage a week after the initial exposure, they immediately buried the object under bedding to avoid being reminded of the shocks. In contrast, rats treated with DBS did not bury the object. In most cases, in fact, they played with it.

The authors also replicated their results but with the addition of rats treated with paroxetine.³¹ Using the same rodent model, they found DBS superior to paroxetine in treating PTSD-like symptoms. This study had a crossover design: DBS and sham DBS. Briefly, 20 rats received an electrode in the amygdala and were exposed to inescapable shocks in the presence of the cue object. The rats were then randomly assigned to a DBS group (10 rats) or a sham-DBS group (10 rats). After 1 week, behavioral testing showed fear extinction in the DBS group and no improvement in the sham-DBS group. Then the groups were switched: The rats originally treated with DBS received no treatment, and the rats that were originally sham-treated underwent DBS. One week later, behavioral testing showed acquisition of fear extinction in all the rats. These results suggested DBS can be effective even when delayed after establishment of fear persistence and PTSD symptoms. These results also showed that DBS effects persist even after therapy discontinuation.

Similarly, other investigators have reported that the role of the amygdala is not limited to fear acquisition; it extends to fear expression. A lesion in the amygdala can prevent fear expression even if the disruption is performed subsequent to fear-conditioning training.³² This finding is important for humans, as DBS would be initiated during the chronic phase of the disorder, after failure of less invasive treatment options, such as pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy.

Early Clinical Experience

The authors have initiated the first ever clinical trial (NCT02091843) evaluating use of DBS for PTSD and are now recruiting patients. Enrollment is limited to 6 combat veterans with disabling PTSD that has not responded to pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy. This VA-funded single-site study, being conducted at the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System (VAGLAHS), was approved by the VAGLAHS Institutional Review Board and the FDA. The authors have published the 2-year trial’s protocol, which includes an active-versus-sham stimulation phase; continuous electroencephalogram monitoring; baseline and posttreatment ¹⁸FDG (fluorodeoxyglucose) PET performed during a resting state vs during investigator-guided exposure to trauma reminders; and extensive psychological and neuropsychological assessments.³³ The literature includes only 1 case report on amygdala DBS.³⁴ The authors of that report used DBS of the basolateral nucleus of the amygdala to treat a teenaged boy with severe autism and found that the therapy was safe.

As of this writing, the authors have recruited and implanted 1 patient and reported on his clinical results (including baseline PET) over the first 8 months of stimulation³⁵ and on the electrophysiologic findings over the first year.³⁶ After experiencing extremely severe combat PTSD refractory to pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy treatments for more than 20 years, the patient treated with DBS is now experiencing substantial symptom relief, and his CAPS score (primary outcome measure) has improved by about 40%. He has tolerated continuous stimulation without any serious DBS-related AEs for up to 16 months. Notably, he has not had a single severe combat nightmare in a year—in stark contrast to nightly combat nightmares during the 20-year period leading to the trial. Furthermore, he has not been having any episodes of severe dissociation, which had been a common disabling problem before the trial. He has taken a second trip out of the country, improved his relationships with family, and made strides (albeit limited) in pursuing additional social interactions.

Avoidance remains a major problem. He recently left his job after 7 years, because he prefers a more nature-oriented rather than people-oriented environment. In addition, his interest in intensive psychotherapy has increased, and he has been considering options for spending more time working on his therapy.

Over 15 months of treatment, the patient’s CAPS total and subscale scores have decreased—his symptoms have improved (Table).²¹ He has had rapid and substantial reductions in recurrence and hyperarousal symptoms but slower improvement in avoidance. Improvements in emotional reactivity would be expected to occur before any change in behavior (eg, avoidance). Patients likely must first recognize changes in emotional reactivity to events before they can engage in a cognitive process to modify learned behavioral responses to those events.

After about 9 months of treatment, all of the study patient’s symptoms were somewhat stabilized, and the authors began making gradual stimulation adjustments to the latest parameters—3.5 V, 60 µs, and 160 Hz for the right electrode and 1.5 V, 60 µs, and 160 Hz for the left electrode—using the contacts in the basolateral nucleus of the amygdala, per postoperative neuroimaging.³⁵ A thin cuts computed tomography (CT) scan of the brain was obtained postoperatively and merged to the preoperative MRI. The CT scan captured the location of the DBS electrode contacts and the MRI superimposition to determine the position of those contacts in the brain.

After 15 to 18 months, when improvement peaked at 48% symptom reduction from baseline, the patient experienced psychiatric decompensation (depression, suicide gesture) not attributable to changes in stimulation settings and not associated with exacerbation of PTSD symptoms. Treatment team members and independent psychiatric consultants attributed the decompensation to the patient’s difficulty in changing a long-standing avoidant behavior routine, owing to severe recurrence and hyperarousal symptoms in the past. His persistent inability to overcome avoidance and isolation, despite core PTSD symptom improvement, had left him feeling worthless.

The patient remains in the study but also is participating in other medication and psychotherapy trials and is making a career change. Periodic decompensations may be part of the treatment course as patients reach a more complex and volatile phase of improvement that requires more intensive cognitive reprocessing. If this proves to be the case with other patients enrolling in the study, intensive psychotherapy that addresses cognitive and emotional PTSD symptoms may be needed once there is improvement in intrusive and hyperarousal symptoms.

Conclusion

Deep brain stimulation has been successful in treating Parkinson disease and essential tremor. Physiologically, DBS seems to inhibit specific brain regions’ dysfunctional activity stemming from a disease process. Deep brain stimulation-induced inhibition of a dysfunctional node improves clinical outcomes in movement disorders.

Given the reversibility and positive safety profile of DBS, new applications are being studied. The authors propose that DBS may benefit patients with severe treatment-refractory PTSD. Their first patient’s core PTSD symptoms have improved significantly, as expected, but as in other psychiatric DBS cases, the seriousness and chronicity of his illness may be complicating the course of recovery. The authors plan to recruit 6 patients for this early-phase safety trial.

Click here to read the digital edition.

Failure of fear extinction is a core feature of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).¹ Recently, it was confirmed that the amygdala and the orbitofrontal cortex are crucial for both fear acquisition and fear extinction.² The amygdala was found to have neurons active only during fear acquisition, and other neurons active only during fear extinction.³ In essence, the balance of activity between these 2 neuronal populations determines whether if an incoming stimulus is feared or not feared. This balance is under the influence of several cognitive domains, including memory, reward, and executive function.

In PTSD, the equilibrium is shifted heavily toward fear acquisition. The majority of patients spontaneously regain the capacity for fear extinction over time⁴ or with the help of treatment.^5,6 Nonetheless, some patients with severe PTSD seem unable to recover the ability of fear extinction and remain refractory to both standard and novel psychotherapeutic or psychopharmacologic treatments.⁷ For these patients, direct modulation of the neural activity in the amygdala may permit fear extinction. This article describes the rationale for using deep brain stimulation (DBS) and initial results from the first-ever clinical trial.

Deep Brain Stimulation

Deep brain stimulation involves inserting electrodes in precise cerebral targets and then connecting the leads to a pulse generator (similar to a pacemaker) inserted in a subclavicular pocket. The generator controls the electrical signal (amplitude, pulse width, pulse frequency) delivered to the brain target and can be adjusted with use of a noninvasive programmer. In 1997, the FDA approved DBS for patients with Parkinson disease or essential tremor. Since then, its efficacy in these movement disorders has been confirmed in several studies.^8,9

The mechanism by which the small electrical pulses of DBS influence activity is not clear. Clinically, DBS functionally inhibits the activity of local neurons.¹⁰ One theory describes “frequency jamming,” a concept similar to cardiac overdrive pacing in which the resultant high-frequency neuronal signal is meaningless and discounted by the rest of the brain.¹¹

Over the years, DBS has demonstrated a strong safety profile.¹² The risks of electrode insertion are mitigated with targeting based on high-quality magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (Figure). Unlike a destructive lesion, DBS is reversible, and the implanted system can be removed in its entirety. Histologic analyses have shown only a small amount of scarring around the electrode tip.¹³ In movement disorder treatment, clinical experience has shown that stimulation-related adverse effects (AEs) are reversible with readjustment of stimulation parameters by external programmer.¹⁴

Novel Applications of DBS

The advantageous safety profile of DBS has permitted its evaluation in the treatment of other conditions thought to have malfunctioning networks at their core—such as intractable epilepsy (in resective surgery noncandidates).^15,16 Although several trials have shown promising results of using DBS for treatment-resistant depression,¹⁷ the results of pivotal sham-controlled trials have been mixed.^18,19 Obsessive-compulsive disorder, on the other hand, received the FDA humanitarian device exemption designation on the basis of positive long-term results.²⁰ In treatment-resistant depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder, functional neuroimaging has identified DBS targets.^21,22 Functional MRI or positron emission tomography (PET) images can be compared at resting state, at symptomatic state, and after treatment response. Nodes hyperactive during a symptomatic state and less active after successful treatment can be targeted with high-frequency DBS to directly reduce the hyperactivity and indirectly modulate or normalize the overall function of the circuit.²³

Given the functional MRI and O15 (oxygen-15) PET evidence of amygdala hyperactivity in patients with PTSD having core symptoms,^24-26 the authors hypothesized that high-frequency DBS targeting of the amygdala would improve PTSD-associated hyperarousal and reexperiencing symptoms in treatment-refractory patients. Indirect data supporting this hypothesis include a correlation between amygdala hyperactivity of increased intensity and symptom severity measured with the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS),²⁷ and a correlation between reduced pretreatment amygdala hyperactivity and successful cognitive-behavioral treatment.^28,29

Preclinical Work

Using a rodent model in which a novel object serves as a cue reminder of foot shocks (traumatic event), the authors tested the hypothesis that amygdala DBS would reduce PTSD-like symptoms.³⁰ When untreated rats were presented with the object in their cage a week after the initial exposure, they immediately buried the object under bedding to avoid being reminded of the shocks. In contrast, rats treated with DBS did not bury the object. In most cases, in fact, they played with it.

The authors also replicated their results but with the addition of rats treated with paroxetine.³¹ Using the same rodent model, they found DBS superior to paroxetine in treating PTSD-like symptoms. This study had a crossover design: DBS and sham DBS. Briefly, 20 rats received an electrode in the amygdala and were exposed to inescapable shocks in the presence of the cue object. The rats were then randomly assigned to a DBS group (10 rats) or a sham-DBS group (10 rats). After 1 week, behavioral testing showed fear extinction in the DBS group and no improvement in the sham-DBS group. Then the groups were switched: The rats originally treated with DBS received no treatment, and the rats that were originally sham-treated underwent DBS. One week later, behavioral testing showed acquisition of fear extinction in all the rats. These results suggested DBS can be effective even when delayed after establishment of fear persistence and PTSD symptoms. These results also showed that DBS effects persist even after therapy discontinuation.

Similarly, other investigators have reported that the role of the amygdala is not limited to fear acquisition; it extends to fear expression. A lesion in the amygdala can prevent fear expression even if the disruption is performed subsequent to fear-conditioning training.³² This finding is important for humans, as DBS would be initiated during the chronic phase of the disorder, after failure of less invasive treatment options, such as pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy.

Early Clinical Experience

The authors have initiated the first ever clinical trial (NCT02091843) evaluating use of DBS for PTSD and are now recruiting patients. Enrollment is limited to 6 combat veterans with disabling PTSD that has not responded to pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy. This VA-funded single-site study, being conducted at the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System (VAGLAHS), was approved by the VAGLAHS Institutional Review Board and the FDA. The authors have published the 2-year trial’s protocol, which includes an active-versus-sham stimulation phase; continuous electroencephalogram monitoring; baseline and posttreatment ¹⁸FDG (fluorodeoxyglucose) PET performed during a resting state vs during investigator-guided exposure to trauma reminders; and extensive psychological and neuropsychological assessments.³³ The literature includes only 1 case report on amygdala DBS.³⁴ The authors of that report used DBS of the basolateral nucleus of the amygdala to treat a teenaged boy with severe autism and found that the therapy was safe.

As of this writing, the authors have recruited and implanted 1 patient and reported on his clinical results (including baseline PET) over the first 8 months of stimulation³⁵ and on the electrophysiologic findings over the first year.³⁶ After experiencing extremely severe combat PTSD refractory to pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy treatments for more than 20 years, the patient treated with DBS is now experiencing substantial symptom relief, and his CAPS score (primary outcome measure) has improved by about 40%. He has tolerated continuous stimulation without any serious DBS-related AEs for up to 16 months. Notably, he has not had a single severe combat nightmare in a year—in stark contrast to nightly combat nightmares during the 20-year period leading to the trial. Furthermore, he has not been having any episodes of severe dissociation, which had been a common disabling problem before the trial. He has taken a second trip out of the country, improved his relationships with family, and made strides (albeit limited) in pursuing additional social interactions.

Avoidance remains a major problem. He recently left his job after 7 years, because he prefers a more nature-oriented rather than people-oriented environment. In addition, his interest in intensive psychotherapy has increased, and he has been considering options for spending more time working on his therapy.

Over 15 months of treatment, the patient’s CAPS total and subscale scores have decreased—his symptoms have improved (Table).²¹ He has had rapid and substantial reductions in recurrence and hyperarousal symptoms but slower improvement in avoidance. Improvements in emotional reactivity would be expected to occur before any change in behavior (eg, avoidance). Patients likely must first recognize changes in emotional reactivity to events before they can engage in a cognitive process to modify learned behavioral responses to those events.

After about 9 months of treatment, all of the study patient’s symptoms were somewhat stabilized, and the authors began making gradual stimulation adjustments to the latest parameters—3.5 V, 60 µs, and 160 Hz for the right electrode and 1.5 V, 60 µs, and 160 Hz for the left electrode—using the contacts in the basolateral nucleus of the amygdala, per postoperative neuroimaging.³⁵ A thin cuts computed tomography (CT) scan of the brain was obtained postoperatively and merged to the preoperative MRI. The CT scan captured the location of the DBS electrode contacts and the MRI superimposition to determine the position of those contacts in the brain.

After 15 to 18 months, when improvement peaked at 48% symptom reduction from baseline, the patient experienced psychiatric decompensation (depression, suicide gesture) not attributable to changes in stimulation settings and not associated with exacerbation of PTSD symptoms. Treatment team members and independent psychiatric consultants attributed the decompensation to the patient’s difficulty in changing a long-standing avoidant behavior routine, owing to severe recurrence and hyperarousal symptoms in the past. His persistent inability to overcome avoidance and isolation, despite core PTSD symptom improvement, had left him feeling worthless.

The patient remains in the study but also is participating in other medication and psychotherapy trials and is making a career change. Periodic decompensations may be part of the treatment course as patients reach a more complex and volatile phase of improvement that requires more intensive cognitive reprocessing. If this proves to be the case with other patients enrolling in the study, intensive psychotherapy that addresses cognitive and emotional PTSD symptoms may be needed once there is improvement in intrusive and hyperarousal symptoms.

Conclusion

Deep brain stimulation has been successful in treating Parkinson disease and essential tremor. Physiologically, DBS seems to inhibit specific brain regions’ dysfunctional activity stemming from a disease process. Deep brain stimulation-induced inhibition of a dysfunctional node improves clinical outcomes in movement disorders.

Given the reversibility and positive safety profile of DBS, new applications are being studied. The authors propose that DBS may benefit patients with severe treatment-refractory PTSD. Their first patient’s core PTSD symptoms have improved significantly, as expected, but as in other psychiatric DBS cases, the seriousness and chronicity of his illness may be complicating the course of recovery. The authors plan to recruit 6 patients for this early-phase safety trial.

Click here to read the digital edition.

Failure of fear extinction is a core feature of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).¹ Recently, it was confirmed that the amygdala and the orbitofrontal cortex are crucial for both fear acquisition and fear extinction.² The amygdala was found to have neurons active only during fear acquisition, and other neurons active only during fear extinction.³ In essence, the balance of activity between these 2 neuronal populations determines whether if an incoming stimulus is feared or not feared. This balance is under the influence of several cognitive domains, including memory, reward, and executive function.

In PTSD, the equilibrium is shifted heavily toward fear acquisition. The majority of patients spontaneously regain the capacity for fear extinction over time⁴ or with the help of treatment.^5,6 Nonetheless, some patients with severe PTSD seem unable to recover the ability of fear extinction and remain refractory to both standard and novel psychotherapeutic or psychopharmacologic treatments.⁷ For these patients, direct modulation of the neural activity in the amygdala may permit fear extinction. This article describes the rationale for using deep brain stimulation (DBS) and initial results from the first-ever clinical trial.

Deep Brain Stimulation

Deep brain stimulation involves inserting electrodes in precise cerebral targets and then connecting the leads to a pulse generator (similar to a pacemaker) inserted in a subclavicular pocket. The generator controls the electrical signal (amplitude, pulse width, pulse frequency) delivered to the brain target and can be adjusted with use of a noninvasive programmer. In 1997, the FDA approved DBS for patients with Parkinson disease or essential tremor. Since then, its efficacy in these movement disorders has been confirmed in several studies.^8,9

The mechanism by which the small electrical pulses of DBS influence activity is not clear. Clinically, DBS functionally inhibits the activity of local neurons.¹⁰ One theory describes “frequency jamming,” a concept similar to cardiac overdrive pacing in which the resultant high-frequency neuronal signal is meaningless and discounted by the rest of the brain.¹¹

Over the years, DBS has demonstrated a strong safety profile.¹² The risks of electrode insertion are mitigated with targeting based on high-quality magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (Figure). Unlike a destructive lesion, DBS is reversible, and the implanted system can be removed in its entirety. Histologic analyses have shown only a small amount of scarring around the electrode tip.¹³ In movement disorder treatment, clinical experience has shown that stimulation-related adverse effects (AEs) are reversible with readjustment of stimulation parameters by external programmer.¹⁴

Novel Applications of DBS

The advantageous safety profile of DBS has permitted its evaluation in the treatment of other conditions thought to have malfunctioning networks at their core—such as intractable epilepsy (in resective surgery noncandidates).^15,16 Although several trials have shown promising results of using DBS for treatment-resistant depression,¹⁷ the results of pivotal sham-controlled trials have been mixed.^18,19 Obsessive-compulsive disorder, on the other hand, received the FDA humanitarian device exemption designation on the basis of positive long-term results.²⁰ In treatment-resistant depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder, functional neuroimaging has identified DBS targets.^21,22 Functional MRI or positron emission tomography (PET) images can be compared at resting state, at symptomatic state, and after treatment response. Nodes hyperactive during a symptomatic state and less active after successful treatment can be targeted with high-frequency DBS to directly reduce the hyperactivity and indirectly modulate or normalize the overall function of the circuit.²³

Given the functional MRI and O15 (oxygen-15) PET evidence of amygdala hyperactivity in patients with PTSD having core symptoms,^24-26 the authors hypothesized that high-frequency DBS targeting of the amygdala would improve PTSD-associated hyperarousal and reexperiencing symptoms in treatment-refractory patients. Indirect data supporting this hypothesis include a correlation between amygdala hyperactivity of increased intensity and symptom severity measured with the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS),²⁷ and a correlation between reduced pretreatment amygdala hyperactivity and successful cognitive-behavioral treatment.^28,29

Preclinical Work

Using a rodent model in which a novel object serves as a cue reminder of foot shocks (traumatic event), the authors tested the hypothesis that amygdala DBS would reduce PTSD-like symptoms.³⁰ When untreated rats were presented with the object in their cage a week after the initial exposure, they immediately buried the object under bedding to avoid being reminded of the shocks. In contrast, rats treated with DBS did not bury the object. In most cases, in fact, they played with it.

The authors also replicated their results but with the addition of rats treated with paroxetine.³¹ Using the same rodent model, they found DBS superior to paroxetine in treating PTSD-like symptoms. This study had a crossover design: DBS and sham DBS. Briefly, 20 rats received an electrode in the amygdala and were exposed to inescapable shocks in the presence of the cue object. The rats were then randomly assigned to a DBS group (10 rats) or a sham-DBS group (10 rats). After 1 week, behavioral testing showed fear extinction in the DBS group and no improvement in the sham-DBS group. Then the groups were switched: The rats originally treated with DBS received no treatment, and the rats that were originally sham-treated underwent DBS. One week later, behavioral testing showed acquisition of fear extinction in all the rats. These results suggested DBS can be effective even when delayed after establishment of fear persistence and PTSD symptoms. These results also showed that DBS effects persist even after therapy discontinuation.

Similarly, other investigators have reported that the role of the amygdala is not limited to fear acquisition; it extends to fear expression. A lesion in the amygdala can prevent fear expression even if the disruption is performed subsequent to fear-conditioning training.³² This finding is important for humans, as DBS would be initiated during the chronic phase of the disorder, after failure of less invasive treatment options, such as pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy.

Early Clinical Experience

The authors have initiated the first ever clinical trial (NCT02091843) evaluating use of DBS for PTSD and are now recruiting patients. Enrollment is limited to 6 combat veterans with disabling PTSD that has not responded to pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy. This VA-funded single-site study, being conducted at the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System (VAGLAHS), was approved by the VAGLAHS Institutional Review Board and the FDA. The authors have published the 2-year trial’s protocol, which includes an active-versus-sham stimulation phase; continuous electroencephalogram monitoring; baseline and posttreatment ¹⁸FDG (fluorodeoxyglucose) PET performed during a resting state vs during investigator-guided exposure to trauma reminders; and extensive psychological and neuropsychological assessments.³³ The literature includes only 1 case report on amygdala DBS.³⁴ The authors of that report used DBS of the basolateral nucleus of the amygdala to treat a teenaged boy with severe autism and found that the therapy was safe.

As of this writing, the authors have recruited and implanted 1 patient and reported on his clinical results (including baseline PET) over the first 8 months of stimulation³⁵ and on the electrophysiologic findings over the first year.³⁶ After experiencing extremely severe combat PTSD refractory to pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy treatments for more than 20 years, the patient treated with DBS is now experiencing substantial symptom relief, and his CAPS score (primary outcome measure) has improved by about 40%. He has tolerated continuous stimulation without any serious DBS-related AEs for up to 16 months. Notably, he has not had a single severe combat nightmare in a year—in stark contrast to nightly combat nightmares during the 20-year period leading to the trial. Furthermore, he has not been having any episodes of severe dissociation, which had been a common disabling problem before the trial. He has taken a second trip out of the country, improved his relationships with family, and made strides (albeit limited) in pursuing additional social interactions.

Avoidance remains a major problem. He recently left his job after 7 years, because he prefers a more nature-oriented rather than people-oriented environment. In addition, his interest in intensive psychotherapy has increased, and he has been considering options for spending more time working on his therapy.

Over 15 months of treatment, the patient’s CAPS total and subscale scores have decreased—his symptoms have improved (Table).²¹ He has had rapid and substantial reductions in recurrence and hyperarousal symptoms but slower improvement in avoidance. Improvements in emotional reactivity would be expected to occur before any change in behavior (eg, avoidance). Patients likely must first recognize changes in emotional reactivity to events before they can engage in a cognitive process to modify learned behavioral responses to those events.

After about 9 months of treatment, all of the study patient’s symptoms were somewhat stabilized, and the authors began making gradual stimulation adjustments to the latest parameters—3.5 V, 60 µs, and 160 Hz for the right electrode and 1.5 V, 60 µs, and 160 Hz for the left electrode—using the contacts in the basolateral nucleus of the amygdala, per postoperative neuroimaging.³⁵ A thin cuts computed tomography (CT) scan of the brain was obtained postoperatively and merged to the preoperative MRI. The CT scan captured the location of the DBS electrode contacts and the MRI superimposition to determine the position of those contacts in the brain.

After 15 to 18 months, when improvement peaked at 48% symptom reduction from baseline, the patient experienced psychiatric decompensation (depression, suicide gesture) not attributable to changes in stimulation settings and not associated with exacerbation of PTSD symptoms. Treatment team members and independent psychiatric consultants attributed the decompensation to the patient’s difficulty in changing a long-standing avoidant behavior routine, owing to severe recurrence and hyperarousal symptoms in the past. His persistent inability to overcome avoidance and isolation, despite core PTSD symptom improvement, had left him feeling worthless.

The patient remains in the study but also is participating in other medication and psychotherapy trials and is making a career change. Periodic decompensations may be part of the treatment course as patients reach a more complex and volatile phase of improvement that requires more intensive cognitive reprocessing. If this proves to be the case with other patients enrolling in the study, intensive psychotherapy that addresses cognitive and emotional PTSD symptoms may be needed once there is improvement in intrusive and hyperarousal symptoms.

Conclusion

Deep brain stimulation has been successful in treating Parkinson disease and essential tremor. Physiologically, DBS seems to inhibit specific brain regions’ dysfunctional activity stemming from a disease process. Deep brain stimulation-induced inhibition of a dysfunctional node improves clinical outcomes in movement disorders.

Given the reversibility and positive safety profile of DBS, new applications are being studied. The authors propose that DBS may benefit patients with severe treatment-refractory PTSD. Their first patient’s core PTSD symptoms have improved significantly, as expected, but as in other psychiatric DBS cases, the seriousness and chronicity of his illness may be complicating the course of recovery. The authors plan to recruit 6 patients for this early-phase safety trial.

Click here to read the digital edition.

Red blood cells

Researchers say they have discovered a mutation associated with hereditary erythrocytosis.

The mutation causes a messenger RNA (mRNA) that is not normally involved in the formation of proteins to be reprogrammed so that it produces erythropoietin (EPO), thereby abnormally increasing red blood cell production.

Radek Skoda, MD, of the University of Basel in Switzerland, and his colleagues described this discovery in NEJM.

The team found the mutation in a family with hereditary erythrocytosis. The researchers studied 10 affected family members spanning 4 generations.

Genome-wide linkage analysis and gene sequencing revealed a heterozygous single-base deletion in exon 2 of EPO (chromosome 7: 100,319,199 GG→G) in all 10 affected family members.

However, the researchers were initially puzzled. This c.32delG mutation should actually lead to a loss of function of the EPO gene because the absence of the base shifts the reading frame of the genetic code, meaning that no more EPO protein can be formed.

Despite this, the concentration of EPO hormone in the patients’ blood measurably increased rather than decreased.

To investigate this, the researchers used CRISPR to engineer cells carrying the c.32delG mutation. In this way, they found a second, hidden mRNA in the EPO gene that is not normally involved in the production of a protein.

The c.32delG mutation also leads to a shift in the reading frame of this second mRNA, with the result that more biologically active EPO hormone is produced.

“The mechanism is intriguing,” Dr Skoda said. “The mutation reprograms the gene product so that it gains a new function and is misused to overproduce EPO.”

Red blood cells

Researchers say they have discovered a mutation associated with hereditary erythrocytosis.

The mutation causes a messenger RNA (mRNA) that is not normally involved in the formation of proteins to be reprogrammed so that it produces erythropoietin (EPO), thereby abnormally increasing red blood cell production.

Radek Skoda, MD, of the University of Basel in Switzerland, and his colleagues described this discovery in NEJM.

The team found the mutation in a family with hereditary erythrocytosis. The researchers studied 10 affected family members spanning 4 generations.

Genome-wide linkage analysis and gene sequencing revealed a heterozygous single-base deletion in exon 2 of EPO (chromosome 7: 100,319,199 GG→G) in all 10 affected family members.

However, the researchers were initially puzzled. This c.32delG mutation should actually lead to a loss of function of the EPO gene because the absence of the base shifts the reading frame of the genetic code, meaning that no more EPO protein can be formed.

Despite this, the concentration of EPO hormone in the patients’ blood measurably increased rather than decreased.

To investigate this, the researchers used CRISPR to engineer cells carrying the c.32delG mutation. In this way, they found a second, hidden mRNA in the EPO gene that is not normally involved in the production of a protein.

The c.32delG mutation also leads to a shift in the reading frame of this second mRNA, with the result that more biologically active EPO hormone is produced.

“The mechanism is intriguing,” Dr Skoda said. “The mutation reprograms the gene product so that it gains a new function and is misused to overproduce EPO.”

Red blood cells

Researchers say they have discovered a mutation associated with hereditary erythrocytosis.

The mutation causes a messenger RNA (mRNA) that is not normally involved in the formation of proteins to be reprogrammed so that it produces erythropoietin (EPO), thereby abnormally increasing red blood cell production.

Radek Skoda, MD, of the University of Basel in Switzerland, and his colleagues described this discovery in NEJM.

The team found the mutation in a family with hereditary erythrocytosis. The researchers studied 10 affected family members spanning 4 generations.

Genome-wide linkage analysis and gene sequencing revealed a heterozygous single-base deletion in exon 2 of EPO (chromosome 7: 100,319,199 GG→G) in all 10 affected family members.

However, the researchers were initially puzzled. This c.32delG mutation should actually lead to a loss of function of the EPO gene because the absence of the base shifts the reading frame of the genetic code, meaning that no more EPO protein can be formed.

Despite this, the concentration of EPO hormone in the patients’ blood measurably increased rather than decreased.

To investigate this, the researchers used CRISPR to engineer cells carrying the c.32delG mutation. In this way, they found a second, hidden mRNA in the EPO gene that is not normally involved in the production of a protein.

The c.32delG mutation also leads to a shift in the reading frame of this second mRNA, with the result that more biologically active EPO hormone is produced.

“The mechanism is intriguing,” Dr Skoda said. “The mutation reprograms the gene product so that it gains a new function and is misused to overproduce EPO.”

ORLANDO – In what was hailed as a major advance in preventive cardiology, the ODYSSEY Outcomes trial has shown that adding the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab on top of intensive statin therapy reduced major adverse cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality significantly more than placebo plus intensive statin therapy in patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome and an elevated on-statin LDL cholesterol level. 

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

ODYSSEY Outcomes was a double-blind trial in which 18,924 patients at 1,315 sites in 57 countries were randomized to alirocumab (Praluent) or placebo plus background high-intensity statin therapy starting a median of 2.5 months after an acute coronary syndrome. All participants had to have a baseline LDL cholesterol level of 70 mg/dL or higher despite intensive statin therapy. Alirocumab was titrated to maintain a target LDL of 25-50 mg/dL. An LDL of 15-25 mg/dL was deemed acceptable, but if the level dropped below 15 mg/dL on two consecutive measurements the patient was blindly switched to placebo, as occurred in 7.7% of the alirocumab group. 

The primary study endpoint was a composite outcome comprised of CHD (coronary heart disease) death, nonfatal MI, ischemic stroke, or unstable angina requiring hospitalization. During a median 2.8 years of follow-up, this outcome occurred in 9.5% of the overall population randomized to alirocumab and 11.1% of those on placebo, for a statistically significant and clinically meaningful 15% reduction in relative risk. The CHD death rates in the two study arms were similar; however, the other three components of the primary endpoint occurred significantly less often in the alirocumab group: The risk of nonfatal MI was 14% less (6.6% vs. 7.6%), ischemic stroke was 27% less (1.2 vs. 1.6%), and unstable angina was 39% less (0.4% vs. 0.6%).

All-cause mortality occurred in 3.5% of patients receiving alirocumab and 4.1% on placebo, once again for a statistically significant 15% reduction in risk. This was a major achievement, since even statins haven’t shown a mortality benefit in the post-ACS setting, observed Dr. Steg, cochair of the study. 

The greatest benefits were seen in the 5,629 participants with a baseline LDL of 100 mg/dL or more on high-intensity statin therapy. In this large subgroup at highest baseline risk, alirocumab resulted in an absolute 3.4% risk reduction and a 24% reduction in relative risk of MACE. All-cause mortality decreased by an absolute 1.7%, translating to a 29% relative risk reduction. The number-needed-to-treat (NNT) for the duration of the study in order to prevent one additional MACE event in this group was 29, with an NNT to prevent one additional death of 60, added Dr. Steg, professor of cardiology at the University of Paris and chief of cardiology at Bichat Hospital. 

“The risk/benefit for alirocumab is extraordinarily favorable. There was almost no risk over the course of the trial. There was no increase in neurocognitive disorders, new-onset or worsening diabetes, cataracts, or hemorrhagic stroke,” the cardiologist said. 
Indeed, the sole adverse event that occurred more frequently in the alirocumab group was mild local injection site reactions, which occurred in 3.8% of the alirocumab group and 2.1% of controls. 

There was a tendency for LDL to creep upward in both the alirocumab and placebo arms over the course of follow-up. Dr. Steg attributed this to down-titration or cessation of alirocumab as per protocol along with the inability of a substantial proportion of patients to tolerate intensive statin therapy. Most study participants had never been on a statin until their ACS. 

A year ago at ACC 2017, other investigators presented the results of FOURIER, a large clinical outcomes trial of evolocumab (Repatha), another PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitor. FOURIER also showed a 15% relative risk reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events, but unlike in ODYSSEY Outcomes, there was no significant impact upon mortality. Dr. Steg attributed this to several key differences between the two trials.

The post-ACS population of ODYSSEY Outcomes was on average higher-risk than FOURIER participants, who had stable atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The background statin therapy was more intensive in ODYSSEY, and the average follow-up was close to 8 months longer, too. 

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

The study population is representative of an enormous number of patients seen in clinical practice, added Dr. Fuster, professor of medicine and physician-in-chief at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York. He estimated that one-third of patients who experience ACS can’t subsequently get their LDL down to the 70 mg/dL range on statin therapy, generally because of drug intolerance. 
He voiced a concern: “Up until now, the feasibility and affordability of using this type of drug has been extremely difficult. I hope this particular study is a trigger – a catalyzer – for making this drug much more available to people who need it.” 

The study met with an enthusiastic audience reception. Prior to presentation of the results at the meeting’s opening session, 79% of the audience of more than 4,000 in the main arena indicated they either don’t prescribe PCSK9 inhibitors or do so only a handful of times per year.

Immediately after seeing the data, 62% of the audience said their practice will change as a result of the study findings. 

ODYSSEY Outcomes was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Steg reported serving as a consultant to and receiving research grants from those pharmaceutical companies and numerous others. 

[email protected] 
SOURCE: Steg GP. 

ORLANDO – In what was hailed as a major advance in preventive cardiology, the ODYSSEY Outcomes trial has shown that adding the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab on top of intensive statin therapy reduced major adverse cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality significantly more than placebo plus intensive statin therapy in patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome and an elevated on-statin LDL cholesterol level. 

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

ODYSSEY Outcomes was a double-blind trial in which 18,924 patients at 1,315 sites in 57 countries were randomized to alirocumab (Praluent) or placebo plus background high-intensity statin therapy starting a median of 2.5 months after an acute coronary syndrome. All participants had to have a baseline LDL cholesterol level of 70 mg/dL or higher despite intensive statin therapy. Alirocumab was titrated to maintain a target LDL of 25-50 mg/dL. An LDL of 15-25 mg/dL was deemed acceptable, but if the level dropped below 15 mg/dL on two consecutive measurements the patient was blindly switched to placebo, as occurred in 7.7% of the alirocumab group. 

The primary study endpoint was a composite outcome comprised of CHD (coronary heart disease) death, nonfatal MI, ischemic stroke, or unstable angina requiring hospitalization. During a median 2.8 years of follow-up, this outcome occurred in 9.5% of the overall population randomized to alirocumab and 11.1% of those on placebo, for a statistically significant and clinically meaningful 15% reduction in relative risk. The CHD death rates in the two study arms were similar; however, the other three components of the primary endpoint occurred significantly less often in the alirocumab group: The risk of nonfatal MI was 14% less (6.6% vs. 7.6%), ischemic stroke was 27% less (1.2 vs. 1.6%), and unstable angina was 39% less (0.4% vs. 0.6%).

All-cause mortality occurred in 3.5% of patients receiving alirocumab and 4.1% on placebo, once again for a statistically significant 15% reduction in risk. This was a major achievement, since even statins haven’t shown a mortality benefit in the post-ACS setting, observed Dr. Steg, cochair of the study. 

The greatest benefits were seen in the 5,629 participants with a baseline LDL of 100 mg/dL or more on high-intensity statin therapy. In this large subgroup at highest baseline risk, alirocumab resulted in an absolute 3.4% risk reduction and a 24% reduction in relative risk of MACE. All-cause mortality decreased by an absolute 1.7%, translating to a 29% relative risk reduction. The number-needed-to-treat (NNT) for the duration of the study in order to prevent one additional MACE event in this group was 29, with an NNT to prevent one additional death of 60, added Dr. Steg, professor of cardiology at the University of Paris and chief of cardiology at Bichat Hospital. 

“The risk/benefit for alirocumab is extraordinarily favorable. There was almost no risk over the course of the trial. There was no increase in neurocognitive disorders, new-onset or worsening diabetes, cataracts, or hemorrhagic stroke,” the cardiologist said. 
Indeed, the sole adverse event that occurred more frequently in the alirocumab group was mild local injection site reactions, which occurred in 3.8% of the alirocumab group and 2.1% of controls. 

There was a tendency for LDL to creep upward in both the alirocumab and placebo arms over the course of follow-up. Dr. Steg attributed this to down-titration or cessation of alirocumab as per protocol along with the inability of a substantial proportion of patients to tolerate intensive statin therapy. Most study participants had never been on a statin until their ACS. 

A year ago at ACC 2017, other investigators presented the results of FOURIER, a large clinical outcomes trial of evolocumab (Repatha), another PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitor. FOURIER also showed a 15% relative risk reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events, but unlike in ODYSSEY Outcomes, there was no significant impact upon mortality. Dr. Steg attributed this to several key differences between the two trials.

The post-ACS population of ODYSSEY Outcomes was on average higher-risk than FOURIER participants, who had stable atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The background statin therapy was more intensive in ODYSSEY, and the average follow-up was close to 8 months longer, too. 

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

The study population is representative of an enormous number of patients seen in clinical practice, added Dr. Fuster, professor of medicine and physician-in-chief at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York. He estimated that one-third of patients who experience ACS can’t subsequently get their LDL down to the 70 mg/dL range on statin therapy, generally because of drug intolerance. 
He voiced a concern: “Up until now, the feasibility and affordability of using this type of drug has been extremely difficult. I hope this particular study is a trigger – a catalyzer – for making this drug much more available to people who need it.” 

The study met with an enthusiastic audience reception. Prior to presentation of the results at the meeting’s opening session, 79% of the audience of more than 4,000 in the main arena indicated they either don’t prescribe PCSK9 inhibitors or do so only a handful of times per year.

Immediately after seeing the data, 62% of the audience said their practice will change as a result of the study findings. 

ODYSSEY Outcomes was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Steg reported serving as a consultant to and receiving research grants from those pharmaceutical companies and numerous others. 

[email protected] 
SOURCE: Steg GP. 

ORLANDO – In what was hailed as a major advance in preventive cardiology, the ODYSSEY Outcomes trial has shown that adding the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab on top of intensive statin therapy reduced major adverse cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality significantly more than placebo plus intensive statin therapy in patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome and an elevated on-statin LDL cholesterol level. 

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

ODYSSEY Outcomes was a double-blind trial in which 18,924 patients at 1,315 sites in 57 countries were randomized to alirocumab (Praluent) or placebo plus background high-intensity statin therapy starting a median of 2.5 months after an acute coronary syndrome. All participants had to have a baseline LDL cholesterol level of 70 mg/dL or higher despite intensive statin therapy. Alirocumab was titrated to maintain a target LDL of 25-50 mg/dL. An LDL of 15-25 mg/dL was deemed acceptable, but if the level dropped below 15 mg/dL on two consecutive measurements the patient was blindly switched to placebo, as occurred in 7.7% of the alirocumab group. 

The primary study endpoint was a composite outcome comprised of CHD (coronary heart disease) death, nonfatal MI, ischemic stroke, or unstable angina requiring hospitalization. During a median 2.8 years of follow-up, this outcome occurred in 9.5% of the overall population randomized to alirocumab and 11.1% of those on placebo, for a statistically significant and clinically meaningful 15% reduction in relative risk. The CHD death rates in the two study arms were similar; however, the other three components of the primary endpoint occurred significantly less often in the alirocumab group: The risk of nonfatal MI was 14% less (6.6% vs. 7.6%), ischemic stroke was 27% less (1.2 vs. 1.6%), and unstable angina was 39% less (0.4% vs. 0.6%).

All-cause mortality occurred in 3.5% of patients receiving alirocumab and 4.1% on placebo, once again for a statistically significant 15% reduction in risk. This was a major achievement, since even statins haven’t shown a mortality benefit in the post-ACS setting, observed Dr. Steg, cochair of the study. 

The greatest benefits were seen in the 5,629 participants with a baseline LDL of 100 mg/dL or more on high-intensity statin therapy. In this large subgroup at highest baseline risk, alirocumab resulted in an absolute 3.4% risk reduction and a 24% reduction in relative risk of MACE. All-cause mortality decreased by an absolute 1.7%, translating to a 29% relative risk reduction. The number-needed-to-treat (NNT) for the duration of the study in order to prevent one additional MACE event in this group was 29, with an NNT to prevent one additional death of 60, added Dr. Steg, professor of cardiology at the University of Paris and chief of cardiology at Bichat Hospital. 

“The risk/benefit for alirocumab is extraordinarily favorable. There was almost no risk over the course of the trial. There was no increase in neurocognitive disorders, new-onset or worsening diabetes, cataracts, or hemorrhagic stroke,” the cardiologist said. 
Indeed, the sole adverse event that occurred more frequently in the alirocumab group was mild local injection site reactions, which occurred in 3.8% of the alirocumab group and 2.1% of controls. 

There was a tendency for LDL to creep upward in both the alirocumab and placebo arms over the course of follow-up. Dr. Steg attributed this to down-titration or cessation of alirocumab as per protocol along with the inability of a substantial proportion of patients to tolerate intensive statin therapy. Most study participants had never been on a statin until their ACS. 

A year ago at ACC 2017, other investigators presented the results of FOURIER, a large clinical outcomes trial of evolocumab (Repatha), another PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitor. FOURIER also showed a 15% relative risk reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events, but unlike in ODYSSEY Outcomes, there was no significant impact upon mortality. Dr. Steg attributed this to several key differences between the two trials.

The post-ACS population of ODYSSEY Outcomes was on average higher-risk than FOURIER participants, who had stable atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The background statin therapy was more intensive in ODYSSEY, and the average follow-up was close to 8 months longer, too. 

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

The study population is representative of an enormous number of patients seen in clinical practice, added Dr. Fuster, professor of medicine and physician-in-chief at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York. He estimated that one-third of patients who experience ACS can’t subsequently get their LDL down to the 70 mg/dL range on statin therapy, generally because of drug intolerance. 
He voiced a concern: “Up until now, the feasibility and affordability of using this type of drug has been extremely difficult. I hope this particular study is a trigger – a catalyzer – for making this drug much more available to people who need it.” 

The study met with an enthusiastic audience reception. Prior to presentation of the results at the meeting’s opening session, 79% of the audience of more than 4,000 in the main arena indicated they either don’t prescribe PCSK9 inhibitors or do so only a handful of times per year.

Immediately after seeing the data, 62% of the audience said their practice will change as a result of the study findings. 

ODYSSEY Outcomes was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Steg reported serving as a consultant to and receiving research grants from those pharmaceutical companies and numerous others. 

[email protected] 
SOURCE: Steg GP.