Clinical Topics & News

Primary urethral carcinoma (PUC) is a rare but morbid disease, representing < 1% of all urologic malignancies.¹ Up to one-third of male patients may present with nodal metastases.^2-4 The overall survival (OS) for all male PUC is < 50% at 5 years and is lower still in patients with nodal involvement.⁴

Although surgical intervention, including radical resection, has been a mainstay in disease management, the presence of high-stage disease may warrant multimodal treatment with chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery. Recent series have described success with neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemoradiation, yet the optimal regimen remains unestablished.^5,6 Although nodal disease is commonly encountered with proximal, high-stage tumors, this case exhibits a rare presentation of a distal fungating penile mass with low pathologic stage but rapid progression to nodal disease.

Case Presentation

A male veteran aged 77 years with a history of diabetes mellitus and stroke presented with obstructive urinary symptoms, gross hematuria, and 15-pound weight loss. Examination revealed a distal penile mass with purulent exudate at the meatus but no inguinal lymphadenopathy. Two fragments of this mass detached during office cystoscopy, and pathology revealed high-grade urothelial cell carcinoma (UCC). A magnetic resonance image of the pelvis with and without IV contrast revealed a 2.4-cm tumor in the glans penis with possible extension into the subcutaneous connective tissue of the penis and penile skin, without invasion of the corpora cavernosa/spongiosum or lymphadenopathy (Figure 1). 

Prostatic urethral and random bladder biopsies, bilateral retrograde pyelograms, and selective ureteral washings revealed no abnormalities or signs of disease. Percutaneous biopsy of the inguinal node confirmed metastatic UCC. The patient underwent radical penectomy, creation of a perineal urethrostomy, and suprapubic cystostomy tube placement. Negative margins were confirmed on the urethral stump and corpus spongiosum. Final pathology revealed high-grade UCC with squamous differentiation on hematoxylin and eosin staining, arising from the penile urethra, invading the glans and corpus spongiosum, with no invasion of the corpus cavernosa (Figures 3 and 4).

Immunohistochemical stains were performed and strongly positive for cytokeratin 7 and p63. Final pathologic stage was described as pT2N1, with negative margins, indicating an American Joint Committee on Cancer classification of Stage III disease.⁷ The patient was referred postoperatively for adjuvant chemoradiation. 

Discussion

The low incidence of PUC, coupled with a high morbidity/mortality rate, creates a difficult scenario in choosing the best oncologic management for this disease. National guidelines stratify treatment algorithms by stage and location of primary tumor, as these were found to be the 2 most important prognostic factors for men.¹ The location of the primary tumor is most often in the bulbomembranous urethra, but up to one-third occur in the pendulous urethra.²

A recent review reported that UCC is the most common histologic subtype.⁴ When considering the differential diagnosis, a distal penile mass may represent a malignant penile lesion, such as squamous cell carcinoma, Buschke-Lowenstein tumor, Kaposi sarcoma, or precancerous lesions. Additional benign and infectious disorders include epidermoid and retention cysts, leukoplakia, balanitis xerotica obliterans, condyloma acuminatum, chancre/chancroid, lymphogranuloma venereum, granuloma inguinale, and tuberculosis. Clinical workup typically includes physical examination, cystourethroscopy and biopsy, chest X-ray, and pelvic/abdominal cross-sectional imaging.^9,10 Magnetic resonance imaging of the abdomen and pelvis is ideal in identifying soft tissue structures and extension of tumor.

In male patients with PUC, nodal metastases are commonly seen at initial presentation in up to one-third of patients, while distant metastases may be present in up to 6% at presentation.^2-4 When tumors arise from the anterior urethra, the primary lymphatic drainage is first to the inguinal lymph nodes, whereas posterior tumors drain to the pelvic lymph nodes. A multivariate analysis of men with PUC within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database demonstrated an OS across all stages to be 46.2% and 29.3% at 5 and 10 years, respectively. Increased likelihood of death was predicted by advanced age, high grade/stage, systemic metastases, non-UCC histology, and the lack of surgery.⁴

Surgical intervention, including radical resection via penectomy, has been the mainstay in disease management and was first described by Marshall in 1957 for bulbar urethral cancer.¹¹ In 1998, Gheiler and colleagues demonstrated that surgical resection alone yielded excellent outcomes in patients with low-stage disease with 89% of patients disease free at mean 42 months. This was in stark contrast to patients with advanced stage disease (T3 or N+) who exhibited a disease-free survival rate of 42% at the same follow-up interval and benefited from combined chemoradiation and surgical resection.³

In the presence of high-stage disease, multimodal therapy with chemotherapy, radiation, and/or surgery is warranted. A study in 2008 reviewed chemoradiation in which patients with PUC received a 5-week protocol of external beam radiotherapy to the genitals, inguinal/pelvic lymph nodes, plus an additional radiation bolus to the primary tumor.⁵ In the 18 patients reported, 15 had complete response to therapy, and only 4 patients required salvage surgical resection. The 7-year survival for the cohort was 72% with chemoradiation alone, with about half the population recurring or progressing at 7 years. However, all patients that avoided surgical resection went on to develop urethral strictures that required surgical therapy, 3 of which required complex reconstructive procedures.

To place this survival into context, the 1999 study by Dalbagni and colleagues reported a 5-year OS of 42% when surgical resection alone was performed in 40/46 men with PUC.² Last, a large retrospective series of 44 patients reported mostly advanced-stage patients with PUC and analyzed patients treated with chemotherapy based on histologic pathology. The results demonstrated a 72% overall response rate to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, with a median OS of 32 months in patients undergoing chemotherapy vs 46 months in patients who underwent subsequent surgery. This study solidified that for patients with PUC involving the lymph nodes; optimal treatment includes neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy followed by surgical resection.⁶

As medicine and oncologic therapies become more individualized, physicians are looking to new immunologic agents for systemic therapy. Immune checkpoint inhibitors were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for UCC of the bladder in 2016.¹² Unfortunately, due to the rarity of PUC and the recent development of immune checkpoint inhibitors, there have been no published reports of these or other immunotherapies in PUC. However, given the histologic similarity and pathogenesis, checkpoint inhibitors may have a future indication in the systemic management of this disease.

Conclusion

This patient’s PUC represents a rare presentation of a distal urethral carcinoma, T2-staged tumor, with rapid progression to nodal metastases. Additionally, the presentation of a fungating penile mass would usually indicate penile carcinoma, but providers should be aware of urethral carcinoma in the differential diagnosis. Notably, the patient was found to have progression to lymph node involvement during a mere 2-month period.

Recent case series have published encouraging results with neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiation.^5,6 However, radical resection in men with T2 to T4 disease is associated with significantly higher cancer-specific survival. Given our concern of a loss to follow-up, we felt that radical resection of the primary tumor and adjuvant chemoradiation represented the patient’s best oncologic outcomes. Therefore, he underwent radical penectomy and creation of a perineal urethrostomy. As of his 6-month follow-up, he showed no evidence of disease, had returned to his preoperative functional status, and was referred for chemoradiation.

Author disclosures
The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies. This article may discuss unlabeled or investigational use of certain drugs. Please review the complete prescribing information for specific drugs or drug combinations—including indications, contraindications, warnings, and adverse effects—before administering pharmacologic therapy to patients.

Primary urethral carcinoma (PUC) is a rare but morbid disease, representing < 1% of all urologic malignancies.¹ Up to one-third of male patients may present with nodal metastases.^2-4 The overall survival (OS) for all male PUC is < 50% at 5 years and is lower still in patients with nodal involvement.⁴

Although surgical intervention, including radical resection, has been a mainstay in disease management, the presence of high-stage disease may warrant multimodal treatment with chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery. Recent series have described success with neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemoradiation, yet the optimal regimen remains unestablished.^5,6 Although nodal disease is commonly encountered with proximal, high-stage tumors, this case exhibits a rare presentation of a distal fungating penile mass with low pathologic stage but rapid progression to nodal disease.

Case Presentation

A male veteran aged 77 years with a history of diabetes mellitus and stroke presented with obstructive urinary symptoms, gross hematuria, and 15-pound weight loss. Examination revealed a distal penile mass with purulent exudate at the meatus but no inguinal lymphadenopathy. Two fragments of this mass detached during office cystoscopy, and pathology revealed high-grade urothelial cell carcinoma (UCC). A magnetic resonance image of the pelvis with and without IV contrast revealed a 2.4-cm tumor in the glans penis with possible extension into the subcutaneous connective tissue of the penis and penile skin, without invasion of the corpora cavernosa/spongiosum or lymphadenopathy (Figure 1). 

Prostatic urethral and random bladder biopsies, bilateral retrograde pyelograms, and selective ureteral washings revealed no abnormalities or signs of disease. Percutaneous biopsy of the inguinal node confirmed metastatic UCC. The patient underwent radical penectomy, creation of a perineal urethrostomy, and suprapubic cystostomy tube placement. Negative margins were confirmed on the urethral stump and corpus spongiosum. Final pathology revealed high-grade UCC with squamous differentiation on hematoxylin and eosin staining, arising from the penile urethra, invading the glans and corpus spongiosum, with no invasion of the corpus cavernosa (Figures 3 and 4).

Immunohistochemical stains were performed and strongly positive for cytokeratin 7 and p63. Final pathologic stage was described as pT2N1, with negative margins, indicating an American Joint Committee on Cancer classification of Stage III disease.⁷ The patient was referred postoperatively for adjuvant chemoradiation. 

Discussion

The low incidence of PUC, coupled with a high morbidity/mortality rate, creates a difficult scenario in choosing the best oncologic management for this disease. National guidelines stratify treatment algorithms by stage and location of primary tumor, as these were found to be the 2 most important prognostic factors for men.¹ The location of the primary tumor is most often in the bulbomembranous urethra, but up to one-third occur in the pendulous urethra.²

A recent review reported that UCC is the most common histologic subtype.⁴ When considering the differential diagnosis, a distal penile mass may represent a malignant penile lesion, such as squamous cell carcinoma, Buschke-Lowenstein tumor, Kaposi sarcoma, or precancerous lesions. Additional benign and infectious disorders include epidermoid and retention cysts, leukoplakia, balanitis xerotica obliterans, condyloma acuminatum, chancre/chancroid, lymphogranuloma venereum, granuloma inguinale, and tuberculosis. Clinical workup typically includes physical examination, cystourethroscopy and biopsy, chest X-ray, and pelvic/abdominal cross-sectional imaging.^9,10 Magnetic resonance imaging of the abdomen and pelvis is ideal in identifying soft tissue structures and extension of tumor.

In male patients with PUC, nodal metastases are commonly seen at initial presentation in up to one-third of patients, while distant metastases may be present in up to 6% at presentation.^2-4 When tumors arise from the anterior urethra, the primary lymphatic drainage is first to the inguinal lymph nodes, whereas posterior tumors drain to the pelvic lymph nodes. A multivariate analysis of men with PUC within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database demonstrated an OS across all stages to be 46.2% and 29.3% at 5 and 10 years, respectively. Increased likelihood of death was predicted by advanced age, high grade/stage, systemic metastases, non-UCC histology, and the lack of surgery.⁴

Surgical intervention, including radical resection via penectomy, has been the mainstay in disease management and was first described by Marshall in 1957 for bulbar urethral cancer.¹¹ In 1998, Gheiler and colleagues demonstrated that surgical resection alone yielded excellent outcomes in patients with low-stage disease with 89% of patients disease free at mean 42 months. This was in stark contrast to patients with advanced stage disease (T3 or N+) who exhibited a disease-free survival rate of 42% at the same follow-up interval and benefited from combined chemoradiation and surgical resection.³

In the presence of high-stage disease, multimodal therapy with chemotherapy, radiation, and/or surgery is warranted. A study in 2008 reviewed chemoradiation in which patients with PUC received a 5-week protocol of external beam radiotherapy to the genitals, inguinal/pelvic lymph nodes, plus an additional radiation bolus to the primary tumor.⁵ In the 18 patients reported, 15 had complete response to therapy, and only 4 patients required salvage surgical resection. The 7-year survival for the cohort was 72% with chemoradiation alone, with about half the population recurring or progressing at 7 years. However, all patients that avoided surgical resection went on to develop urethral strictures that required surgical therapy, 3 of which required complex reconstructive procedures.

To place this survival into context, the 1999 study by Dalbagni and colleagues reported a 5-year OS of 42% when surgical resection alone was performed in 40/46 men with PUC.² Last, a large retrospective series of 44 patients reported mostly advanced-stage patients with PUC and analyzed patients treated with chemotherapy based on histologic pathology. The results demonstrated a 72% overall response rate to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, with a median OS of 32 months in patients undergoing chemotherapy vs 46 months in patients who underwent subsequent surgery. This study solidified that for patients with PUC involving the lymph nodes; optimal treatment includes neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy followed by surgical resection.⁶

As medicine and oncologic therapies become more individualized, physicians are looking to new immunologic agents for systemic therapy. Immune checkpoint inhibitors were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for UCC of the bladder in 2016.¹² Unfortunately, due to the rarity of PUC and the recent development of immune checkpoint inhibitors, there have been no published reports of these or other immunotherapies in PUC. However, given the histologic similarity and pathogenesis, checkpoint inhibitors may have a future indication in the systemic management of this disease.

Conclusion

This patient’s PUC represents a rare presentation of a distal urethral carcinoma, T2-staged tumor, with rapid progression to nodal metastases. Additionally, the presentation of a fungating penile mass would usually indicate penile carcinoma, but providers should be aware of urethral carcinoma in the differential diagnosis. Notably, the patient was found to have progression to lymph node involvement during a mere 2-month period.

Recent case series have published encouraging results with neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiation.^5,6 However, radical resection in men with T2 to T4 disease is associated with significantly higher cancer-specific survival. Given our concern of a loss to follow-up, we felt that radical resection of the primary tumor and adjuvant chemoradiation represented the patient’s best oncologic outcomes. Therefore, he underwent radical penectomy and creation of a perineal urethrostomy. As of his 6-month follow-up, he showed no evidence of disease, had returned to his preoperative functional status, and was referred for chemoradiation.

Author disclosures
The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies. This article may discuss unlabeled or investigational use of certain drugs. Please review the complete prescribing information for specific drugs or drug combinations—including indications, contraindications, warnings, and adverse effects—before administering pharmacologic therapy to patients.

Primary urethral carcinoma (PUC) is a rare but morbid disease, representing < 1% of all urologic malignancies.¹ Up to one-third of male patients may present with nodal metastases.^2-4 The overall survival (OS) for all male PUC is < 50% at 5 years and is lower still in patients with nodal involvement.⁴

Although surgical intervention, including radical resection, has been a mainstay in disease management, the presence of high-stage disease may warrant multimodal treatment with chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery. Recent series have described success with neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemoradiation, yet the optimal regimen remains unestablished.^5,6 Although nodal disease is commonly encountered with proximal, high-stage tumors, this case exhibits a rare presentation of a distal fungating penile mass with low pathologic stage but rapid progression to nodal disease.

Case Presentation

A male veteran aged 77 years with a history of diabetes mellitus and stroke presented with obstructive urinary symptoms, gross hematuria, and 15-pound weight loss. Examination revealed a distal penile mass with purulent exudate at the meatus but no inguinal lymphadenopathy. Two fragments of this mass detached during office cystoscopy, and pathology revealed high-grade urothelial cell carcinoma (UCC). A magnetic resonance image of the pelvis with and without IV contrast revealed a 2.4-cm tumor in the glans penis with possible extension into the subcutaneous connective tissue of the penis and penile skin, without invasion of the corpora cavernosa/spongiosum or lymphadenopathy (Figure 1). 

Prostatic urethral and random bladder biopsies, bilateral retrograde pyelograms, and selective ureteral washings revealed no abnormalities or signs of disease. Percutaneous biopsy of the inguinal node confirmed metastatic UCC. The patient underwent radical penectomy, creation of a perineal urethrostomy, and suprapubic cystostomy tube placement. Negative margins were confirmed on the urethral stump and corpus spongiosum. Final pathology revealed high-grade UCC with squamous differentiation on hematoxylin and eosin staining, arising from the penile urethra, invading the glans and corpus spongiosum, with no invasion of the corpus cavernosa (Figures 3 and 4).

Immunohistochemical stains were performed and strongly positive for cytokeratin 7 and p63. Final pathologic stage was described as pT2N1, with negative margins, indicating an American Joint Committee on Cancer classification of Stage III disease.⁷ The patient was referred postoperatively for adjuvant chemoradiation. 

Discussion

The low incidence of PUC, coupled with a high morbidity/mortality rate, creates a difficult scenario in choosing the best oncologic management for this disease. National guidelines stratify treatment algorithms by stage and location of primary tumor, as these were found to be the 2 most important prognostic factors for men.¹ The location of the primary tumor is most often in the bulbomembranous urethra, but up to one-third occur in the pendulous urethra.²

A recent review reported that UCC is the most common histologic subtype.⁴ When considering the differential diagnosis, a distal penile mass may represent a malignant penile lesion, such as squamous cell carcinoma, Buschke-Lowenstein tumor, Kaposi sarcoma, or precancerous lesions. Additional benign and infectious disorders include epidermoid and retention cysts, leukoplakia, balanitis xerotica obliterans, condyloma acuminatum, chancre/chancroid, lymphogranuloma venereum, granuloma inguinale, and tuberculosis. Clinical workup typically includes physical examination, cystourethroscopy and biopsy, chest X-ray, and pelvic/abdominal cross-sectional imaging.^9,10 Magnetic resonance imaging of the abdomen and pelvis is ideal in identifying soft tissue structures and extension of tumor.

In male patients with PUC, nodal metastases are commonly seen at initial presentation in up to one-third of patients, while distant metastases may be present in up to 6% at presentation.^2-4 When tumors arise from the anterior urethra, the primary lymphatic drainage is first to the inguinal lymph nodes, whereas posterior tumors drain to the pelvic lymph nodes. A multivariate analysis of men with PUC within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database demonstrated an OS across all stages to be 46.2% and 29.3% at 5 and 10 years, respectively. Increased likelihood of death was predicted by advanced age, high grade/stage, systemic metastases, non-UCC histology, and the lack of surgery.⁴

Surgical intervention, including radical resection via penectomy, has been the mainstay in disease management and was first described by Marshall in 1957 for bulbar urethral cancer.¹¹ In 1998, Gheiler and colleagues demonstrated that surgical resection alone yielded excellent outcomes in patients with low-stage disease with 89% of patients disease free at mean 42 months. This was in stark contrast to patients with advanced stage disease (T3 or N+) who exhibited a disease-free survival rate of 42% at the same follow-up interval and benefited from combined chemoradiation and surgical resection.³

In the presence of high-stage disease, multimodal therapy with chemotherapy, radiation, and/or surgery is warranted. A study in 2008 reviewed chemoradiation in which patients with PUC received a 5-week protocol of external beam radiotherapy to the genitals, inguinal/pelvic lymph nodes, plus an additional radiation bolus to the primary tumor.⁵ In the 18 patients reported, 15 had complete response to therapy, and only 4 patients required salvage surgical resection. The 7-year survival for the cohort was 72% with chemoradiation alone, with about half the population recurring or progressing at 7 years. However, all patients that avoided surgical resection went on to develop urethral strictures that required surgical therapy, 3 of which required complex reconstructive procedures.

To place this survival into context, the 1999 study by Dalbagni and colleagues reported a 5-year OS of 42% when surgical resection alone was performed in 40/46 men with PUC.² Last, a large retrospective series of 44 patients reported mostly advanced-stage patients with PUC and analyzed patients treated with chemotherapy based on histologic pathology. The results demonstrated a 72% overall response rate to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, with a median OS of 32 months in patients undergoing chemotherapy vs 46 months in patients who underwent subsequent surgery. This study solidified that for patients with PUC involving the lymph nodes; optimal treatment includes neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy followed by surgical resection.⁶

As medicine and oncologic therapies become more individualized, physicians are looking to new immunologic agents for systemic therapy. Immune checkpoint inhibitors were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for UCC of the bladder in 2016.¹² Unfortunately, due to the rarity of PUC and the recent development of immune checkpoint inhibitors, there have been no published reports of these or other immunotherapies in PUC. However, given the histologic similarity and pathogenesis, checkpoint inhibitors may have a future indication in the systemic management of this disease.

Conclusion

This patient’s PUC represents a rare presentation of a distal urethral carcinoma, T2-staged tumor, with rapid progression to nodal metastases. Additionally, the presentation of a fungating penile mass would usually indicate penile carcinoma, but providers should be aware of urethral carcinoma in the differential diagnosis. Notably, the patient was found to have progression to lymph node involvement during a mere 2-month period.

Recent case series have published encouraging results with neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiation.^5,6 However, radical resection in men with T2 to T4 disease is associated with significantly higher cancer-specific survival. Given our concern of a loss to follow-up, we felt that radical resection of the primary tumor and adjuvant chemoradiation represented the patient’s best oncologic outcomes. Therefore, he underwent radical penectomy and creation of a perineal urethrostomy. As of his 6-month follow-up, he showed no evidence of disease, had returned to his preoperative functional status, and was referred for chemoradiation.

Author disclosures
The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies. This article may discuss unlabeled or investigational use of certain drugs. Please review the complete prescribing information for specific drugs or drug combinations—including indications, contraindications, warnings, and adverse effects—before administering pharmacologic therapy to patients.

Bone pain is one of the most common causes of morbidity in multiple myeloma (MM) and metastatic prostate cancer (CaP). This pain originates with the underlying pathologic processes of the cancer and with downstream skeletal-related events (SREs). SREs—fractures, spinal cord compression, and irradiation or surgery performed in ≥ 1 bone sites—represent a significant health care burden, particularly given the incidence of the underlying malignancies. According to American Cancer Society statistics, CaP is the second most common cancer in American men, and MM the second most common hematologic malignancy, despite its relatively low overall lifetime risk.^1,2 Regardless of the underlying malignancy, bisphosphonates are the cornerstone of SRE prevention, though the optimal dosing strategy is the subject of clinical debate.

Although similar in SRE incidence, MM and CaP have distinct pathophysiologic processes in the dysregulation of bone resorption. MM is a hematologic malignancy that increases the risk of SREs by osteoclast up-regulation, primarily through the RANK (receptor activator of nuclear factor α-B) signaling pathway.³ CaP is a solid tumor malignancy that metastasizes to bone. Dysregulation of the bone resorption or formation cycle and net bone loss are a result of endogenous osteoclast up-regulation in response to abnormal bone formation in osteoblastic bone metastases.⁴ Androgen-deprivation therapy, the cornerstone of CaP treatment, further predisposes CaP patients to osteoporosis and SREs.

Prevention of SREs is pharmacologically driven by bisphosphonates, which have antiresorptive effects on bone through promotion of osteoclast apoptosis.⁵ Two IV formulations, pamidronate and zoledronic acid (ZA), are US Food and Drug Administration approved for use in bone metastases from MM or solid tumors.^6-10 Although generally well tolerated, bisphosphonates can cause osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), an avascular death of bone tissue, particularly with prolonged use.¹¹ With its documented incidence of 5% to 6.7% in bone metastasis, ONJ represents a significant morbidity risk in patients with MM and CaP who are treated with IV bisphosphonates.¹²

Investigators are exploring bisphosphonate dosing intervals to determine which is most appropriate in mitigating the risk of ONJ. Before 2006, bisphosphonates were consistently dosed once monthly in patients with MM or metastatic bone disease—a standard derived empirically rather than from comparative studies or compelling pharmacodynamic data.^13-15 In a 2006 consensus statement, the Mayo Clinic issued an expert opinion recommendation for increasing the bisphosphonate dosing interval to every 3 months in patients with MM.¹⁶ The first objective evidence for the clinical applicability of extending the ZA dosing interval was reported by Himelstein and colleagues in 2017.¹⁷ The randomized clinical trial found no differences in SRE rates when ZA was dosed every 12 weeks,¹⁷ prompting a conditional recommendation for dosing interval extension in the American Society of Clinical Oncology MM treatment guidelines (2018).¹³ Because of the age and racial demographics of the patients in these studies, many questions remain unanswered.

For the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) population, the pharmacokinetic and dynamic differences imposed by age and race limit the applicability of the available data. However, in veterans with MM or CaP, extending the bisphosphonate dosing interval may help decrease medication-related morbidity (eg, ONJ, nephrotoxicity) without compromising therapeutic benefit. To this end at the Memphis VA Medical Center (VAMC), we assessed for differences in SRE rates by comparing outcomes of patients who received ZA in standard- vs extended-interval dosing.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the Computerized Patient Record System for veterans with MM or metastatic CaP treated with ZA at the Memphis VAMC. Study inclusion criteria were aged > 18 years and care provided by a Memphis VAMC oncologist between January 2003 and January 2018. The study was approved by the Memphis VAMC’s Institutional Review Board, and procedures were followed in accordance with the ethical standards of its committee on human experimentation.

Using Microsoft SQL 2016 (Redmond, WA), we performed a query to identify patients who were prescribed ZA during the study period. Exclusion criteria were ZA prescribed for an indication other than MM or CaP (ie, osteoporosis) and receipt of ≤ 1 dose of ZA. Once a list was compiled, patients were stratified by ZA dosing interval: standard (mean, every month) or extended (mean, every 3 months). Patients whose ZA dosing interval was changed during treatment were included as independent data points in each group.

Skeletal-related events included fractures, spinal compression, irradiation, and surgery. Fractures and spinal compression were pertinent in the presence of radiographic documentation (eg, X-ray, magnetic resonance imaging scan) during the period the patient received ZA or within 1 dosing interval of the last recorded ZA dose. Irradiation was defined as documented application of radiation therapy to ≥ 1 bone sites for palliation of pain or as an intervention in the setting of spinal compression. Surgery was defined as any procedure performed to correct a fracture or spinal compression. Each SRE was counted as a single occurrence.

Osteonecrosis of the jaw was defined as radiographically documented necrosis of the mandible or associated structures with assessment by a VA dentist. Records from non-VA dental practices were not available for assessment. Documentation of dental assessment before the first dose of ZA and any assessments during treatment were recorded.

Medication use was assessed before and during ZA treatment. Number of ZA doses and reasons for any discontinuations were documented, as was concomitant use of calcium supplements, vitamin D supplements, calcitriol, paricalcitol, calcitonin, cinacalcet, and pamidronate.

The primary study outcome was observed difference in incidence of SREs between standard- and extended-interval dosing of ZA. Secondary outcomes included difference in incidence of ONJ as well as incidence of SREs and ONJ by disease subtype (MM, CaP).

Descriptive statistics were used to summarize demographic data and assess prespecified outcomes. Differences in rates of SREs and ONJ between dosing interval groups were analyzed with the Pearson χ² test. The predetermined a priori level of significance was .05.

Results

Of the 300 patients prescribed ZA at the Memphis VAMC, 177 were excluded (96 for indication,78 for receiving only 1 dose of ZA, 3 for not receiving any doses of ZA). The remaining 123 patients were stratified into a standard-interval dosing group (121) and an extended-interval dosing group (35). Of the 123 patients, 33 received both standard- and extended-interval dosing of ZA over the course of the study period and were included discretely in each group for the duration of each dosing strategy. 

Pre-ZA dental screenings were documented in 14% of standard-interval patients and 17% of extended-interval patients, and during-ZA screenings were documented in 17% of standard-interval patients and 20% of extended-interval patients. Chi-square analysis revealed no significant difference in rates of dental screening before or during use of ZA.

Standard-interval patients received a mean (SD) 11.4 (13.5) doses of ZA (range, 2-124). Extended-interval patients received a mean (SD) of 5.9 (3.18) doses (range, 2-14). All standard-interval patients had discontinued treatment at the time of the study, most commonly because of death or for an unknown reason. Sixty percent of extended-interval patients had discontinued treatment, most commonly because of patient/physician choice or for an unknown reason (Table 2). 

Skeletal-related events were observed in 31% of standard-interval patients and 23% of extended-interval patients. There were no statistically significant differences in SRE rates between groups (P = .374). The most common SRE in both groups was bone irradiation (42% and 60%, respectively), with no statistically significant difference in proportion between groups (Table 4). 

Discussion

This retrospective review of patients with MM and CaP receiving ZA for bone metastasesfound no differences in the rates of SREs when ZA was dosed monthly vs every 3 months. 

Earlier studies found that ZA can decrease SRE rates, but a major concern is that frequent, prolonged exposure to IV bisphosphonates may increase the risk of ONJ. No significant differences in ONJ rates existed between dosing groups, but all documented cases of ONJ occurred in the standard-interval group, suggesting a trend toward decreased incidence with an extension of the dosing interval.

Limitations

This study had several limitations. Geriatric African American men comprised the majority of the study population, and patients with MM accounted for only 22% of included regimens, limiting external validity. Patient overlap between groups may have confounded the results. The retrospective design precluded the ability to control for confounding variables, such as concomitant medication use and medication adherence, and significant heterogeneity was noted in rates of adherence with ZA infusion schedules regardless of dosing group. Use of medications associated with increased risk of osteoporosis—including corticosteroids and proton pump inhibitors—was not assessed.

Assessment of ONJ incidence was limited by the lack of access to dental records from providers outside the VA. Many patients in this review were not eligible for VA dental benefits because of requirements involving time and service connection, a reimbursement measurement that reflects health conditions “incurred or aggravated during active military service.”¹⁸

The results of this study provide further support for extended-interval dosing of ZA as a potential method of increasing patient adherence and decreasing the possibility of adverse drug reactions without compromising therapeutic benefit. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to define the potential decrease in ONJ incidence.

Conclusion

In comparisons of standard- and extended-interval dosing of ZA, there was no difference in the incidence of skeletal-related events in veteran patients with bone metastases from MM or CaP.

Author disclosures
The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies. This article may discuss unlabeled or investigational use of certain drugs. Please review the complete prescribing information for specific drugs or drug combinations—including indications, contraindications, warnings, and adverse effects—before administering pharmacologic therapy to patients.

Bone pain is one of the most common causes of morbidity in multiple myeloma (MM) and metastatic prostate cancer (CaP). This pain originates with the underlying pathologic processes of the cancer and with downstream skeletal-related events (SREs). SREs—fractures, spinal cord compression, and irradiation or surgery performed in ≥ 1 bone sites—represent a significant health care burden, particularly given the incidence of the underlying malignancies. According to American Cancer Society statistics, CaP is the second most common cancer in American men, and MM the second most common hematologic malignancy, despite its relatively low overall lifetime risk.^1,2 Regardless of the underlying malignancy, bisphosphonates are the cornerstone of SRE prevention, though the optimal dosing strategy is the subject of clinical debate.

Although similar in SRE incidence, MM and CaP have distinct pathophysiologic processes in the dysregulation of bone resorption. MM is a hematologic malignancy that increases the risk of SREs by osteoclast up-regulation, primarily through the RANK (receptor activator of nuclear factor α-B) signaling pathway.³ CaP is a solid tumor malignancy that metastasizes to bone. Dysregulation of the bone resorption or formation cycle and net bone loss are a result of endogenous osteoclast up-regulation in response to abnormal bone formation in osteoblastic bone metastases.⁴ Androgen-deprivation therapy, the cornerstone of CaP treatment, further predisposes CaP patients to osteoporosis and SREs.

Prevention of SREs is pharmacologically driven by bisphosphonates, which have antiresorptive effects on bone through promotion of osteoclast apoptosis.⁵ Two IV formulations, pamidronate and zoledronic acid (ZA), are US Food and Drug Administration approved for use in bone metastases from MM or solid tumors.^6-10 Although generally well tolerated, bisphosphonates can cause osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), an avascular death of bone tissue, particularly with prolonged use.¹¹ With its documented incidence of 5% to 6.7% in bone metastasis, ONJ represents a significant morbidity risk in patients with MM and CaP who are treated with IV bisphosphonates.¹²

Investigators are exploring bisphosphonate dosing intervals to determine which is most appropriate in mitigating the risk of ONJ. Before 2006, bisphosphonates were consistently dosed once monthly in patients with MM or metastatic bone disease—a standard derived empirically rather than from comparative studies or compelling pharmacodynamic data.^13-15 In a 2006 consensus statement, the Mayo Clinic issued an expert opinion recommendation for increasing the bisphosphonate dosing interval to every 3 months in patients with MM.¹⁶ The first objective evidence for the clinical applicability of extending the ZA dosing interval was reported by Himelstein and colleagues in 2017.¹⁷ The randomized clinical trial found no differences in SRE rates when ZA was dosed every 12 weeks,¹⁷ prompting a conditional recommendation for dosing interval extension in the American Society of Clinical Oncology MM treatment guidelines (2018).¹³ Because of the age and racial demographics of the patients in these studies, many questions remain unanswered.

For the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) population, the pharmacokinetic and dynamic differences imposed by age and race limit the applicability of the available data. However, in veterans with MM or CaP, extending the bisphosphonate dosing interval may help decrease medication-related morbidity (eg, ONJ, nephrotoxicity) without compromising therapeutic benefit. To this end at the Memphis VA Medical Center (VAMC), we assessed for differences in SRE rates by comparing outcomes of patients who received ZA in standard- vs extended-interval dosing.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the Computerized Patient Record System for veterans with MM or metastatic CaP treated with ZA at the Memphis VAMC. Study inclusion criteria were aged > 18 years and care provided by a Memphis VAMC oncologist between January 2003 and January 2018. The study was approved by the Memphis VAMC’s Institutional Review Board, and procedures were followed in accordance with the ethical standards of its committee on human experimentation.

Using Microsoft SQL 2016 (Redmond, WA), we performed a query to identify patients who were prescribed ZA during the study period. Exclusion criteria were ZA prescribed for an indication other than MM or CaP (ie, osteoporosis) and receipt of ≤ 1 dose of ZA. Once a list was compiled, patients were stratified by ZA dosing interval: standard (mean, every month) or extended (mean, every 3 months). Patients whose ZA dosing interval was changed during treatment were included as independent data points in each group.

Skeletal-related events included fractures, spinal compression, irradiation, and surgery. Fractures and spinal compression were pertinent in the presence of radiographic documentation (eg, X-ray, magnetic resonance imaging scan) during the period the patient received ZA or within 1 dosing interval of the last recorded ZA dose. Irradiation was defined as documented application of radiation therapy to ≥ 1 bone sites for palliation of pain or as an intervention in the setting of spinal compression. Surgery was defined as any procedure performed to correct a fracture or spinal compression. Each SRE was counted as a single occurrence.

Osteonecrosis of the jaw was defined as radiographically documented necrosis of the mandible or associated structures with assessment by a VA dentist. Records from non-VA dental practices were not available for assessment. Documentation of dental assessment before the first dose of ZA and any assessments during treatment were recorded.

Medication use was assessed before and during ZA treatment. Number of ZA doses and reasons for any discontinuations were documented, as was concomitant use of calcium supplements, vitamin D supplements, calcitriol, paricalcitol, calcitonin, cinacalcet, and pamidronate.

The primary study outcome was observed difference in incidence of SREs between standard- and extended-interval dosing of ZA. Secondary outcomes included difference in incidence of ONJ as well as incidence of SREs and ONJ by disease subtype (MM, CaP).

Descriptive statistics were used to summarize demographic data and assess prespecified outcomes. Differences in rates of SREs and ONJ between dosing interval groups were analyzed with the Pearson χ² test. The predetermined a priori level of significance was .05.

Results

Of the 300 patients prescribed ZA at the Memphis VAMC, 177 were excluded (96 for indication,78 for receiving only 1 dose of ZA, 3 for not receiving any doses of ZA). The remaining 123 patients were stratified into a standard-interval dosing group (121) and an extended-interval dosing group (35). Of the 123 patients, 33 received both standard- and extended-interval dosing of ZA over the course of the study period and were included discretely in each group for the duration of each dosing strategy. 

Pre-ZA dental screenings were documented in 14% of standard-interval patients and 17% of extended-interval patients, and during-ZA screenings were documented in 17% of standard-interval patients and 20% of extended-interval patients. Chi-square analysis revealed no significant difference in rates of dental screening before or during use of ZA.

Standard-interval patients received a mean (SD) 11.4 (13.5) doses of ZA (range, 2-124). Extended-interval patients received a mean (SD) of 5.9 (3.18) doses (range, 2-14). All standard-interval patients had discontinued treatment at the time of the study, most commonly because of death or for an unknown reason. Sixty percent of extended-interval patients had discontinued treatment, most commonly because of patient/physician choice or for an unknown reason (Table 2). 

Skeletal-related events were observed in 31% of standard-interval patients and 23% of extended-interval patients. There were no statistically significant differences in SRE rates between groups (P = .374). The most common SRE in both groups was bone irradiation (42% and 60%, respectively), with no statistically significant difference in proportion between groups (Table 4). 

Discussion

This retrospective review of patients with MM and CaP receiving ZA for bone metastasesfound no differences in the rates of SREs when ZA was dosed monthly vs every 3 months. 

Earlier studies found that ZA can decrease SRE rates, but a major concern is that frequent, prolonged exposure to IV bisphosphonates may increase the risk of ONJ. No significant differences in ONJ rates existed between dosing groups, but all documented cases of ONJ occurred in the standard-interval group, suggesting a trend toward decreased incidence with an extension of the dosing interval.

Limitations

This study had several limitations. Geriatric African American men comprised the majority of the study population, and patients with MM accounted for only 22% of included regimens, limiting external validity. Patient overlap between groups may have confounded the results. The retrospective design precluded the ability to control for confounding variables, such as concomitant medication use and medication adherence, and significant heterogeneity was noted in rates of adherence with ZA infusion schedules regardless of dosing group. Use of medications associated with increased risk of osteoporosis—including corticosteroids and proton pump inhibitors—was not assessed.

Assessment of ONJ incidence was limited by the lack of access to dental records from providers outside the VA. Many patients in this review were not eligible for VA dental benefits because of requirements involving time and service connection, a reimbursement measurement that reflects health conditions “incurred or aggravated during active military service.”¹⁸

The results of this study provide further support for extended-interval dosing of ZA as a potential method of increasing patient adherence and decreasing the possibility of adverse drug reactions without compromising therapeutic benefit. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to define the potential decrease in ONJ incidence.

Conclusion

In comparisons of standard- and extended-interval dosing of ZA, there was no difference in the incidence of skeletal-related events in veteran patients with bone metastases from MM or CaP.

Author disclosures
The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies. This article may discuss unlabeled or investigational use of certain drugs. Please review the complete prescribing information for specific drugs or drug combinations—including indications, contraindications, warnings, and adverse effects—before administering pharmacologic therapy to patients.

Bone pain is one of the most common causes of morbidity in multiple myeloma (MM) and metastatic prostate cancer (CaP). This pain originates with the underlying pathologic processes of the cancer and with downstream skeletal-related events (SREs). SREs—fractures, spinal cord compression, and irradiation or surgery performed in ≥ 1 bone sites—represent a significant health care burden, particularly given the incidence of the underlying malignancies. According to American Cancer Society statistics, CaP is the second most common cancer in American men, and MM the second most common hematologic malignancy, despite its relatively low overall lifetime risk.^1,2 Regardless of the underlying malignancy, bisphosphonates are the cornerstone of SRE prevention, though the optimal dosing strategy is the subject of clinical debate.

Although similar in SRE incidence, MM and CaP have distinct pathophysiologic processes in the dysregulation of bone resorption. MM is a hematologic malignancy that increases the risk of SREs by osteoclast up-regulation, primarily through the RANK (receptor activator of nuclear factor α-B) signaling pathway.³ CaP is a solid tumor malignancy that metastasizes to bone. Dysregulation of the bone resorption or formation cycle and net bone loss are a result of endogenous osteoclast up-regulation in response to abnormal bone formation in osteoblastic bone metastases.⁴ Androgen-deprivation therapy, the cornerstone of CaP treatment, further predisposes CaP patients to osteoporosis and SREs.

Prevention of SREs is pharmacologically driven by bisphosphonates, which have antiresorptive effects on bone through promotion of osteoclast apoptosis.⁵ Two IV formulations, pamidronate and zoledronic acid (ZA), are US Food and Drug Administration approved for use in bone metastases from MM or solid tumors.^6-10 Although generally well tolerated, bisphosphonates can cause osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), an avascular death of bone tissue, particularly with prolonged use.¹¹ With its documented incidence of 5% to 6.7% in bone metastasis, ONJ represents a significant morbidity risk in patients with MM and CaP who are treated with IV bisphosphonates.¹²

Investigators are exploring bisphosphonate dosing intervals to determine which is most appropriate in mitigating the risk of ONJ. Before 2006, bisphosphonates were consistently dosed once monthly in patients with MM or metastatic bone disease—a standard derived empirically rather than from comparative studies or compelling pharmacodynamic data.^13-15 In a 2006 consensus statement, the Mayo Clinic issued an expert opinion recommendation for increasing the bisphosphonate dosing interval to every 3 months in patients with MM.¹⁶ The first objective evidence for the clinical applicability of extending the ZA dosing interval was reported by Himelstein and colleagues in 2017.¹⁷ The randomized clinical trial found no differences in SRE rates when ZA was dosed every 12 weeks,¹⁷ prompting a conditional recommendation for dosing interval extension in the American Society of Clinical Oncology MM treatment guidelines (2018).¹³ Because of the age and racial demographics of the patients in these studies, many questions remain unanswered.

For the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) population, the pharmacokinetic and dynamic differences imposed by age and race limit the applicability of the available data. However, in veterans with MM or CaP, extending the bisphosphonate dosing interval may help decrease medication-related morbidity (eg, ONJ, nephrotoxicity) without compromising therapeutic benefit. To this end at the Memphis VA Medical Center (VAMC), we assessed for differences in SRE rates by comparing outcomes of patients who received ZA in standard- vs extended-interval dosing.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the Computerized Patient Record System for veterans with MM or metastatic CaP treated with ZA at the Memphis VAMC. Study inclusion criteria were aged > 18 years and care provided by a Memphis VAMC oncologist between January 2003 and January 2018. The study was approved by the Memphis VAMC’s Institutional Review Board, and procedures were followed in accordance with the ethical standards of its committee on human experimentation.

Using Microsoft SQL 2016 (Redmond, WA), we performed a query to identify patients who were prescribed ZA during the study period. Exclusion criteria were ZA prescribed for an indication other than MM or CaP (ie, osteoporosis) and receipt of ≤ 1 dose of ZA. Once a list was compiled, patients were stratified by ZA dosing interval: standard (mean, every month) or extended (mean, every 3 months). Patients whose ZA dosing interval was changed during treatment were included as independent data points in each group.

Skeletal-related events included fractures, spinal compression, irradiation, and surgery. Fractures and spinal compression were pertinent in the presence of radiographic documentation (eg, X-ray, magnetic resonance imaging scan) during the period the patient received ZA or within 1 dosing interval of the last recorded ZA dose. Irradiation was defined as documented application of radiation therapy to ≥ 1 bone sites for palliation of pain or as an intervention in the setting of spinal compression. Surgery was defined as any procedure performed to correct a fracture or spinal compression. Each SRE was counted as a single occurrence.

Osteonecrosis of the jaw was defined as radiographically documented necrosis of the mandible or associated structures with assessment by a VA dentist. Records from non-VA dental practices were not available for assessment. Documentation of dental assessment before the first dose of ZA and any assessments during treatment were recorded.

Medication use was assessed before and during ZA treatment. Number of ZA doses and reasons for any discontinuations were documented, as was concomitant use of calcium supplements, vitamin D supplements, calcitriol, paricalcitol, calcitonin, cinacalcet, and pamidronate.

The primary study outcome was observed difference in incidence of SREs between standard- and extended-interval dosing of ZA. Secondary outcomes included difference in incidence of ONJ as well as incidence of SREs and ONJ by disease subtype (MM, CaP).

Descriptive statistics were used to summarize demographic data and assess prespecified outcomes. Differences in rates of SREs and ONJ between dosing interval groups were analyzed with the Pearson χ² test. The predetermined a priori level of significance was .05.

Results

Of the 300 patients prescribed ZA at the Memphis VAMC, 177 were excluded (96 for indication,78 for receiving only 1 dose of ZA, 3 for not receiving any doses of ZA). The remaining 123 patients were stratified into a standard-interval dosing group (121) and an extended-interval dosing group (35). Of the 123 patients, 33 received both standard- and extended-interval dosing of ZA over the course of the study period and were included discretely in each group for the duration of each dosing strategy. 

Pre-ZA dental screenings were documented in 14% of standard-interval patients and 17% of extended-interval patients, and during-ZA screenings were documented in 17% of standard-interval patients and 20% of extended-interval patients. Chi-square analysis revealed no significant difference in rates of dental screening before or during use of ZA.

Standard-interval patients received a mean (SD) 11.4 (13.5) doses of ZA (range, 2-124). Extended-interval patients received a mean (SD) of 5.9 (3.18) doses (range, 2-14). All standard-interval patients had discontinued treatment at the time of the study, most commonly because of death or for an unknown reason. Sixty percent of extended-interval patients had discontinued treatment, most commonly because of patient/physician choice or for an unknown reason (Table 2). 

Skeletal-related events were observed in 31% of standard-interval patients and 23% of extended-interval patients. There were no statistically significant differences in SRE rates between groups (P = .374). The most common SRE in both groups was bone irradiation (42% and 60%, respectively), with no statistically significant difference in proportion between groups (Table 4). 

Discussion

This retrospective review of patients with MM and CaP receiving ZA for bone metastasesfound no differences in the rates of SREs when ZA was dosed monthly vs every 3 months. 

Earlier studies found that ZA can decrease SRE rates, but a major concern is that frequent, prolonged exposure to IV bisphosphonates may increase the risk of ONJ. No significant differences in ONJ rates existed between dosing groups, but all documented cases of ONJ occurred in the standard-interval group, suggesting a trend toward decreased incidence with an extension of the dosing interval.

Limitations

This study had several limitations. Geriatric African American men comprised the majority of the study population, and patients with MM accounted for only 22% of included regimens, limiting external validity. Patient overlap between groups may have confounded the results. The retrospective design precluded the ability to control for confounding variables, such as concomitant medication use and medication adherence, and significant heterogeneity was noted in rates of adherence with ZA infusion schedules regardless of dosing group. Use of medications associated with increased risk of osteoporosis—including corticosteroids and proton pump inhibitors—was not assessed.

Assessment of ONJ incidence was limited by the lack of access to dental records from providers outside the VA. Many patients in this review were not eligible for VA dental benefits because of requirements involving time and service connection, a reimbursement measurement that reflects health conditions “incurred or aggravated during active military service.”¹⁸

The results of this study provide further support for extended-interval dosing of ZA as a potential method of increasing patient adherence and decreasing the possibility of adverse drug reactions without compromising therapeutic benefit. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to define the potential decrease in ONJ incidence.

Conclusion

In comparisons of standard- and extended-interval dosing of ZA, there was no difference in the incidence of skeletal-related events in veteran patients with bone metastases from MM or CaP.

Author disclosures
The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies. This article may discuss unlabeled or investigational use of certain drugs. Please review the complete prescribing information for specific drugs or drug combinations—including indications, contraindications, warnings, and adverse effects—before administering pharmacologic therapy to patients.

Prescription pricing is a primary reason why Medicaid spending on multiple sclerosis disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) has more than doubled between 2011 and 2017 and the introduction of a generic glatiramer acetate is having nominal effect on pricing and utilization within the class, new research is showing.

Kenishirotie/Thinkstock

“Gross spending on self-administered and infusible MS DMTs in the Medicaid program increased 2.9-fold from $453 million in 2011 to $1.32 billion in 2017,” Daniel Hartung, PharmD, of Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, and his colleagues wrote in a research report published Jan. 15 in Neurology. Net spending after accounting for rebates during this period showed a doubling of spending from $278 million per year to $600 million per year.

Use of MS DMTs during this period overall remained stable, but there was a shift from injectable DMTs to oral DMTs during this time window, the researchers found, with the plurality of utilization attributed to glatiramer acetate.

Sandoz began marketing a generic version of glatiramer acetate 20 mg in the second quarter of 2015, which led to an immediate increase in the cost per prescription of $441 for the branded version of glatiramer acetate 20 mg, although that cost has come down gradually by $52 per prescription over time. Other DMTs saw minimal price changes at that time, Dr. Hartung and his colleagues noted.

The researchers attributed the increased Medicaid spending to rising prices of DMTs.

“Although some of this increase is attributable to the 2014 Medicaid expansion, the primary driver was rising DMT costs per prescription, which doubled over the period,” the researchers wrote. “Thus, we assert that rising prices, not increasing use, are the primary driver of spending for DMTs in the Medicaid program.”

In addition, the introduction of the first generic DMT “appeared to have little effect on the overall trajectory of DMT costs,” they continued. “In fact, the cost of Teva’s 20-mg glatiramer acetate increased significantly following the release of Sandoz’s generic. ... The increase possibly signified efforts to both retain revenue and further push market share to the 40-mg version. Although the costs for generic glatiramer acetate declined over time, its introduction appears not to have fundamentally affected the overall trend in DMT costs.”

Indeed, the researchers’ examination of utilization trends found that Teva executed a successful preemptive strategy of converting 20-mg users of glatiramer acetate to 40-mg users, something that is not interchangeable with the generic product.

“Low generic penetration is also due to the fact that Sandoz’s product was only 15% less expensive than branded glatiramer acetate 20 mg and approximately the same cost as the 40-mg version at launch,” Dr. Hartung and his colleagues stated. “This difference may have been further diminished by rebates that Teva may have provided to maintain preferred status on state Medicaid formularies.”

These factors reflect an “urgent need for robust generic competition within the DMT class,” the authors wrote.

The study was supported by the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. Lead author Dr. Hartung reported receiving research support from AbbVie.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hartung D et al. Neurology. Jan 15. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008936.

Prescription pricing is a primary reason why Medicaid spending on multiple sclerosis disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) has more than doubled between 2011 and 2017 and the introduction of a generic glatiramer acetate is having nominal effect on pricing and utilization within the class, new research is showing.

Kenishirotie/Thinkstock

“Gross spending on self-administered and infusible MS DMTs in the Medicaid program increased 2.9-fold from $453 million in 2011 to $1.32 billion in 2017,” Daniel Hartung, PharmD, of Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, and his colleagues wrote in a research report published Jan. 15 in Neurology. Net spending after accounting for rebates during this period showed a doubling of spending from $278 million per year to $600 million per year.

Use of MS DMTs during this period overall remained stable, but there was a shift from injectable DMTs to oral DMTs during this time window, the researchers found, with the plurality of utilization attributed to glatiramer acetate.

Sandoz began marketing a generic version of glatiramer acetate 20 mg in the second quarter of 2015, which led to an immediate increase in the cost per prescription of $441 for the branded version of glatiramer acetate 20 mg, although that cost has come down gradually by $52 per prescription over time. Other DMTs saw minimal price changes at that time, Dr. Hartung and his colleagues noted.

The researchers attributed the increased Medicaid spending to rising prices of DMTs.

“Although some of this increase is attributable to the 2014 Medicaid expansion, the primary driver was rising DMT costs per prescription, which doubled over the period,” the researchers wrote. “Thus, we assert that rising prices, not increasing use, are the primary driver of spending for DMTs in the Medicaid program.”

In addition, the introduction of the first generic DMT “appeared to have little effect on the overall trajectory of DMT costs,” they continued. “In fact, the cost of Teva’s 20-mg glatiramer acetate increased significantly following the release of Sandoz’s generic. ... The increase possibly signified efforts to both retain revenue and further push market share to the 40-mg version. Although the costs for generic glatiramer acetate declined over time, its introduction appears not to have fundamentally affected the overall trend in DMT costs.”

Indeed, the researchers’ examination of utilization trends found that Teva executed a successful preemptive strategy of converting 20-mg users of glatiramer acetate to 40-mg users, something that is not interchangeable with the generic product.

“Low generic penetration is also due to the fact that Sandoz’s product was only 15% less expensive than branded glatiramer acetate 20 mg and approximately the same cost as the 40-mg version at launch,” Dr. Hartung and his colleagues stated. “This difference may have been further diminished by rebates that Teva may have provided to maintain preferred status on state Medicaid formularies.”

These factors reflect an “urgent need for robust generic competition within the DMT class,” the authors wrote.

The study was supported by the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. Lead author Dr. Hartung reported receiving research support from AbbVie.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hartung D et al. Neurology. Jan 15. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008936.

Prescription pricing is a primary reason why Medicaid spending on multiple sclerosis disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) has more than doubled between 2011 and 2017 and the introduction of a generic glatiramer acetate is having nominal effect on pricing and utilization within the class, new research is showing.

Kenishirotie/Thinkstock

“Gross spending on self-administered and infusible MS DMTs in the Medicaid program increased 2.9-fold from $453 million in 2011 to $1.32 billion in 2017,” Daniel Hartung, PharmD, of Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, and his colleagues wrote in a research report published Jan. 15 in Neurology. Net spending after accounting for rebates during this period showed a doubling of spending from $278 million per year to $600 million per year.

Use of MS DMTs during this period overall remained stable, but there was a shift from injectable DMTs to oral DMTs during this time window, the researchers found, with the plurality of utilization attributed to glatiramer acetate.

Sandoz began marketing a generic version of glatiramer acetate 20 mg in the second quarter of 2015, which led to an immediate increase in the cost per prescription of $441 for the branded version of glatiramer acetate 20 mg, although that cost has come down gradually by $52 per prescription over time. Other DMTs saw minimal price changes at that time, Dr. Hartung and his colleagues noted.

The researchers attributed the increased Medicaid spending to rising prices of DMTs.

“Although some of this increase is attributable to the 2014 Medicaid expansion, the primary driver was rising DMT costs per prescription, which doubled over the period,” the researchers wrote. “Thus, we assert that rising prices, not increasing use, are the primary driver of spending for DMTs in the Medicaid program.”

In addition, the introduction of the first generic DMT “appeared to have little effect on the overall trajectory of DMT costs,” they continued. “In fact, the cost of Teva’s 20-mg glatiramer acetate increased significantly following the release of Sandoz’s generic. ... The increase possibly signified efforts to both retain revenue and further push market share to the 40-mg version. Although the costs for generic glatiramer acetate declined over time, its introduction appears not to have fundamentally affected the overall trend in DMT costs.”

Indeed, the researchers’ examination of utilization trends found that Teva executed a successful preemptive strategy of converting 20-mg users of glatiramer acetate to 40-mg users, something that is not interchangeable with the generic product.

“Low generic penetration is also due to the fact that Sandoz’s product was only 15% less expensive than branded glatiramer acetate 20 mg and approximately the same cost as the 40-mg version at launch,” Dr. Hartung and his colleagues stated. “This difference may have been further diminished by rebates that Teva may have provided to maintain preferred status on state Medicaid formularies.”

These factors reflect an “urgent need for robust generic competition within the DMT class,” the authors wrote.

The study was supported by the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. Lead author Dr. Hartung reported receiving research support from AbbVie.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hartung D et al. Neurology. Jan 15. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008936.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Valtoco (diazepam nasal) for the acute treatment of seizure clusters in patients with epilepsy aged 6 years and older.

The drug may be administered by a care partner outside of a medical setting for the treatment of intermittent, stereotypic episodes of frequent seizure activity that are distinct from a patient’s usual seizure pattern. The formulation is the first nasal spray approved by the FDA as a rescue treatment for people with epilepsy aged 6 years and older, according to Neurelis, the developer of the drug. Midazolam nasal spray, approved in May 2019, is indicated for patients with epilepsy aged 12 years and older.

Investigators evaluated the safety of diazepam nasal spray in a long-term, open-label, repeat-dose, clinical trial. The study enrolled 130 patients aged 6 years and older; more than 2,000 seizures were treated. The drug generally was safe and well tolerated, and the most common adverse reactions were somnolence, headache, and nasal discomfort.

The FDA has granted Valtoco 7 years of orphan drug exclusivity. In the United States, about 170,000 patients with epilepsy are at risk of cluster or acute repetitive seizures, the company said. Until recently, approved rescue medications had been rectally administered.

Patients may receive a second dose of diazepam nasal spray at least 4 hours after an initial dose if needed, but caregivers should not use more than two doses to treat a single episode, according to the prescribing information. In addition, the prescribing information recommends that diazepam nasal spray be used for no more than one episode every 5 days and no more than five episodes per month.
 

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Valtoco (diazepam nasal) for the acute treatment of seizure clusters in patients with epilepsy aged 6 years and older.

The drug may be administered by a care partner outside of a medical setting for the treatment of intermittent, stereotypic episodes of frequent seizure activity that are distinct from a patient’s usual seizure pattern. The formulation is the first nasal spray approved by the FDA as a rescue treatment for people with epilepsy aged 6 years and older, according to Neurelis, the developer of the drug. Midazolam nasal spray, approved in May 2019, is indicated for patients with epilepsy aged 12 years and older.

Investigators evaluated the safety of diazepam nasal spray in a long-term, open-label, repeat-dose, clinical trial. The study enrolled 130 patients aged 6 years and older; more than 2,000 seizures were treated. The drug generally was safe and well tolerated, and the most common adverse reactions were somnolence, headache, and nasal discomfort.

The FDA has granted Valtoco 7 years of orphan drug exclusivity. In the United States, about 170,000 patients with epilepsy are at risk of cluster or acute repetitive seizures, the company said. Until recently, approved rescue medications had been rectally administered.

Patients may receive a second dose of diazepam nasal spray at least 4 hours after an initial dose if needed, but caregivers should not use more than two doses to treat a single episode, according to the prescribing information. In addition, the prescribing information recommends that diazepam nasal spray be used for no more than one episode every 5 days and no more than five episodes per month.
 

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Valtoco (diazepam nasal) for the acute treatment of seizure clusters in patients with epilepsy aged 6 years and older.

The drug may be administered by a care partner outside of a medical setting for the treatment of intermittent, stereotypic episodes of frequent seizure activity that are distinct from a patient’s usual seizure pattern. The formulation is the first nasal spray approved by the FDA as a rescue treatment for people with epilepsy aged 6 years and older, according to Neurelis, the developer of the drug. Midazolam nasal spray, approved in May 2019, is indicated for patients with epilepsy aged 12 years and older.

Investigators evaluated the safety of diazepam nasal spray in a long-term, open-label, repeat-dose, clinical trial. The study enrolled 130 patients aged 6 years and older; more than 2,000 seizures were treated. The drug generally was safe and well tolerated, and the most common adverse reactions were somnolence, headache, and nasal discomfort.

The FDA has granted Valtoco 7 years of orphan drug exclusivity. In the United States, about 170,000 patients with epilepsy are at risk of cluster or acute repetitive seizures, the company said. Until recently, approved rescue medications had been rectally administered.

Patients may receive a second dose of diazepam nasal spray at least 4 hours after an initial dose if needed, but caregivers should not use more than two doses to treat a single episode, according to the prescribing information. In addition, the prescribing information recommends that diazepam nasal spray be used for no more than one episode every 5 days and no more than five episodes per month.
 

[email protected]

Key Points:

• The “Migraine and Neck Pain Study” analyzed data from nearly 500 adult participants in an effort to uncover an association between migraine-related episodic vertigo and the phases of migraine.
• The study participants included men and women aged 18 to 65, who had episodic migraine with aura and/or without aura.
• Migraines were divided into 3 time segments for evaluation: (1) Onset of headache, (2) less than 2 hours before the onset of headache, and (3) 2 to 48 hours before the onset of headache.
• 30% of participants reported episodic vertigo at any point during their migraine attack, while 16% reported it at the start of headache, 10% reported it within 2 hours before their headache, and just 3% reported symptoms between 2 and 24 hours beforehand.
• The study concluded that episodic vertigo could be considered more of a “headache phase phenomenon” rather than a prodromal symptom.

Alan M. Rapoport, MD:

Vertigo in a migraineur has long created confusion as to diagnosis and treatment. I myself always wondered how much I had to work up vertigo or even dizziness if a patient had migraine. I also did not know what to do when a patient with migraine had attacks of vertigo without headache. Were they manifestations of migraine and should they be treated that way?

This study examined a 500 adult patient population who had migraine with or without aura. Christian Lampl was interested in seeing how many had headache, and the timing of when vertigo occurred. It was carefully measured to determine if it usually occurred during or before the headache phase. Migraines were divided into 3 time segments for evaluation: (1) Onset of headache, (2) less than 2 hours before the onset of headache, and (3) 2 to 48 hours before the onset of headache, when prodrome occurs.

• The study determined that 30 % of the patients reported vertigo at some point during their migraine attack; 16% reported it at the start of headache, 10% reported it within 2 hours before their headache, and just 3% reported symptoms between 2 and 24 hours beforehand., which would have been in the prodromal phase.  
• The study concluded that episodic vertigo could be considered more of a “headache phase phenomenon” rather than a prodromal symptom. This was interesting but it left unanswered one of my questions which is, how many had vertigo unrelated to headache and what is that and how do we treat it.
• Although not addressed in this study, there is consensus that if there is enough vertigo in a migraineur, they should be placed on a migraine preventive therapy. It will be interesting to see what the new monoclonal antibodies to CGRP do to vertigo in a treated migraineur. Some headache specialists will even treat an attack of vertigo without headache with a triptan.

Key Points:

• The “Migraine and Neck Pain Study” analyzed data from nearly 500 adult participants in an effort to uncover an association between migraine-related episodic vertigo and the phases of migraine.
• The study participants included men and women aged 18 to 65, who had episodic migraine with aura and/or without aura.
• Migraines were divided into 3 time segments for evaluation: (1) Onset of headache, (2) less than 2 hours before the onset of headache, and (3) 2 to 48 hours before the onset of headache.
• 30% of participants reported episodic vertigo at any point during their migraine attack, while 16% reported it at the start of headache, 10% reported it within 2 hours before their headache, and just 3% reported symptoms between 2 and 24 hours beforehand.
• The study concluded that episodic vertigo could be considered more of a “headache phase phenomenon” rather than a prodromal symptom.

Alan M. Rapoport, MD:

Vertigo in a migraineur has long created confusion as to diagnosis and treatment. I myself always wondered how much I had to work up vertigo or even dizziness if a patient had migraine. I also did not know what to do when a patient with migraine had attacks of vertigo without headache. Were they manifestations of migraine and should they be treated that way?

This study examined a 500 adult patient population who had migraine with or without aura. Christian Lampl was interested in seeing how many had headache, and the timing of when vertigo occurred. It was carefully measured to determine if it usually occurred during or before the headache phase. Migraines were divided into 3 time segments for evaluation: (1) Onset of headache, (2) less than 2 hours before the onset of headache, and (3) 2 to 48 hours before the onset of headache, when prodrome occurs.

• The study determined that 30 % of the patients reported vertigo at some point during their migraine attack; 16% reported it at the start of headache, 10% reported it within 2 hours before their headache, and just 3% reported symptoms between 2 and 24 hours beforehand., which would have been in the prodromal phase.  
• The study concluded that episodic vertigo could be considered more of a “headache phase phenomenon” rather than a prodromal symptom. This was interesting but it left unanswered one of my questions which is, how many had vertigo unrelated to headache and what is that and how do we treat it.
• Although not addressed in this study, there is consensus that if there is enough vertigo in a migraineur, they should be placed on a migraine preventive therapy. It will be interesting to see what the new monoclonal antibodies to CGRP do to vertigo in a treated migraineur. Some headache specialists will even treat an attack of vertigo without headache with a triptan.

Key Points:

• The “Migraine and Neck Pain Study” analyzed data from nearly 500 adult participants in an effort to uncover an association between migraine-related episodic vertigo and the phases of migraine.
• The study participants included men and women aged 18 to 65, who had episodic migraine with aura and/or without aura.
• Migraines were divided into 3 time segments for evaluation: (1) Onset of headache, (2) less than 2 hours before the onset of headache, and (3) 2 to 48 hours before the onset of headache.
• 30% of participants reported episodic vertigo at any point during their migraine attack, while 16% reported it at the start of headache, 10% reported it within 2 hours before their headache, and just 3% reported symptoms between 2 and 24 hours beforehand.
• The study concluded that episodic vertigo could be considered more of a “headache phase phenomenon” rather than a prodromal symptom.

Alan M. Rapoport, MD:

Vertigo in a migraineur has long created confusion as to diagnosis and treatment. I myself always wondered how much I had to work up vertigo or even dizziness if a patient had migraine. I also did not know what to do when a patient with migraine had attacks of vertigo without headache. Were they manifestations of migraine and should they be treated that way?

This study examined a 500 adult patient population who had migraine with or without aura. Christian Lampl was interested in seeing how many had headache, and the timing of when vertigo occurred. It was carefully measured to determine if it usually occurred during or before the headache phase. Migraines were divided into 3 time segments for evaluation: (1) Onset of headache, (2) less than 2 hours before the onset of headache, and (3) 2 to 48 hours before the onset of headache, when prodrome occurs.

• The study determined that 30 % of the patients reported vertigo at some point during their migraine attack; 16% reported it at the start of headache, 10% reported it within 2 hours before their headache, and just 3% reported symptoms between 2 and 24 hours beforehand., which would have been in the prodromal phase.  
• The study concluded that episodic vertigo could be considered more of a “headache phase phenomenon” rather than a prodromal symptom. This was interesting but it left unanswered one of my questions which is, how many had vertigo unrelated to headache and what is that and how do we treat it.
• Although not addressed in this study, there is consensus that if there is enough vertigo in a migraineur, they should be placed on a migraine preventive therapy. It will be interesting to see what the new monoclonal antibodies to CGRP do to vertigo in a treated migraineur. Some headache specialists will even treat an attack of vertigo without headache with a triptan.

Gabapentin and pregabalin are associated with serious breathing problems when used with central nervous system depressants or in patients with lung problems, according to a Dec. 19 drug safety alert from the Food and Drug Administration. Elderly patients who take these drugs also are at increased risk of breathing problems, the announcement said.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Gabapentin (marketed as Neurontin, Gralise, and Horizant) and pregabalin (Lyrica and Lyrica CR) are used to treat seizures, nerve pain, and restless legs syndrome. Physicians increasingly are prescribing these medications, and people are misusing and abusing these drugs more frequently, the agency said. Gabapentin and pregabalin often are combined with central nervous system depressants such as opioids, antianxiety medicines, antidepressants, and antihistamines, which increases the risk of respiratory depression.

Conditions that reduce lung function, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), also increase the likelihood of breathing problems when taking gabapentin and pregabalin.

“There is less evidence supporting the risk of serious breathing difficulties in healthy individuals taking gabapentinoids alone. We will continue to monitor these medicines as part of our routine monitoring of all FDA-approved drugs,” the announcement said.

The FDA is requiring new warnings about the risk of respiratory depression in the prescribing information of gabapentinoids. In addition, drug manufacturers must further assess the abuse potential of these drugs, particularly in combination with opioids.

Patients and caregivers should seek immediate medical attention for respiratory problems, which can be life threatening. Symptoms include confusion or disorientation; unusual dizziness or lightheadedness; extreme sleepiness or lethargy; slowed, shallow, or difficult breathing; unresponsiveness; and bluish-colored or tinted skin, especially on the lips, fingers, and toes.

Physicians should start gabapentinoids at the lowest dose and monitor patients for symptoms of respiratory depression and sedation when coprescribing these drugs with an opioid or other central nervous system depressant such as a benzodiazepine, according to the FDA.

The agency reviewed 49 case reports that were submitted between 2012 and 2017. Among these cases, 12 people died from respiratory depression with gabapentinoids. All of the patients who died had at least one risk factor.

Gabapentin first was approved in 1993, and pregabalin was approved in 2004. Drug adverse events and side effects can be reported online, the agency noted.

[email protected]

Gabapentin and pregabalin are associated with serious breathing problems when used with central nervous system depressants or in patients with lung problems, according to a Dec. 19 drug safety alert from the Food and Drug Administration. Elderly patients who take these drugs also are at increased risk of breathing problems, the announcement said.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Gabapentin (marketed as Neurontin, Gralise, and Horizant) and pregabalin (Lyrica and Lyrica CR) are used to treat seizures, nerve pain, and restless legs syndrome. Physicians increasingly are prescribing these medications, and people are misusing and abusing these drugs more frequently, the agency said. Gabapentin and pregabalin often are combined with central nervous system depressants such as opioids, antianxiety medicines, antidepressants, and antihistamines, which increases the risk of respiratory depression.

Conditions that reduce lung function, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), also increase the likelihood of breathing problems when taking gabapentin and pregabalin.

“There is less evidence supporting the risk of serious breathing difficulties in healthy individuals taking gabapentinoids alone. We will continue to monitor these medicines as part of our routine monitoring of all FDA-approved drugs,” the announcement said.

The FDA is requiring new warnings about the risk of respiratory depression in the prescribing information of gabapentinoids. In addition, drug manufacturers must further assess the abuse potential of these drugs, particularly in combination with opioids.

Patients and caregivers should seek immediate medical attention for respiratory problems, which can be life threatening. Symptoms include confusion or disorientation; unusual dizziness or lightheadedness; extreme sleepiness or lethargy; slowed, shallow, or difficult breathing; unresponsiveness; and bluish-colored or tinted skin, especially on the lips, fingers, and toes.

Physicians should start gabapentinoids at the lowest dose and monitor patients for symptoms of respiratory depression and sedation when coprescribing these drugs with an opioid or other central nervous system depressant such as a benzodiazepine, according to the FDA.

The agency reviewed 49 case reports that were submitted between 2012 and 2017. Among these cases, 12 people died from respiratory depression with gabapentinoids. All of the patients who died had at least one risk factor.

Gabapentin first was approved in 1993, and pregabalin was approved in 2004. Drug adverse events and side effects can be reported online, the agency noted.

[email protected]

Gabapentin and pregabalin are associated with serious breathing problems when used with central nervous system depressants or in patients with lung problems, according to a Dec. 19 drug safety alert from the Food and Drug Administration. Elderly patients who take these drugs also are at increased risk of breathing problems, the announcement said.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Gabapentin (marketed as Neurontin, Gralise, and Horizant) and pregabalin (Lyrica and Lyrica CR) are used to treat seizures, nerve pain, and restless legs syndrome. Physicians increasingly are prescribing these medications, and people are misusing and abusing these drugs more frequently, the agency said. Gabapentin and pregabalin often are combined with central nervous system depressants such as opioids, antianxiety medicines, antidepressants, and antihistamines, which increases the risk of respiratory depression.

Conditions that reduce lung function, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), also increase the likelihood of breathing problems when taking gabapentin and pregabalin.

“There is less evidence supporting the risk of serious breathing difficulties in healthy individuals taking gabapentinoids alone. We will continue to monitor these medicines as part of our routine monitoring of all FDA-approved drugs,” the announcement said.

The FDA is requiring new warnings about the risk of respiratory depression in the prescribing information of gabapentinoids. In addition, drug manufacturers must further assess the abuse potential of these drugs, particularly in combination with opioids.

Patients and caregivers should seek immediate medical attention for respiratory problems, which can be life threatening. Symptoms include confusion or disorientation; unusual dizziness or lightheadedness; extreme sleepiness or lethargy; slowed, shallow, or difficult breathing; unresponsiveness; and bluish-colored or tinted skin, especially on the lips, fingers, and toes.

Physicians should start gabapentinoids at the lowest dose and monitor patients for symptoms of respiratory depression and sedation when coprescribing these drugs with an opioid or other central nervous system depressant such as a benzodiazepine, according to the FDA.

The agency reviewed 49 case reports that were submitted between 2012 and 2017. Among these cases, 12 people died from respiratory depression with gabapentinoids. All of the patients who died had at least one risk factor.

Gabapentin first was approved in 1993, and pregabalin was approved in 2004. Drug adverse events and side effects can be reported online, the agency noted.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first generics of fingolimod (Gilenya) for the treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis.

The three generic fingolimod applications came from HEC Pharm, Biocon, and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries.

Fingolimod is a widely used, orally administered treatment option for relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis in adults. The most common adverse events associated with fingolimod in clinical trials include headache, elevation of liver enzymes, diarrhea, cough, influenza, sinusitis, back pain, abdominal pain, and pain in the extremities.

The drug must be dispensed with a medication guide that contains important information on its usage and risk, the FDA noted. Serious risks associated with fingolimod include slowing of the heart rate, vision problems, posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome, respiratory problems, liver injury, increased blood pressure, skin cancer, and risk of serious infection including a rare and often deadly brain infection called progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. Fingolimod can also cause harm to a developing fetus.

Find the full press release on the FDA website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first generics of fingolimod (Gilenya) for the treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis.

The three generic fingolimod applications came from HEC Pharm, Biocon, and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries.

Fingolimod is a widely used, orally administered treatment option for relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis in adults. The most common adverse events associated with fingolimod in clinical trials include headache, elevation of liver enzymes, diarrhea, cough, influenza, sinusitis, back pain, abdominal pain, and pain in the extremities.

The drug must be dispensed with a medication guide that contains important information on its usage and risk, the FDA noted. Serious risks associated with fingolimod include slowing of the heart rate, vision problems, posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome, respiratory problems, liver injury, increased blood pressure, skin cancer, and risk of serious infection including a rare and often deadly brain infection called progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. Fingolimod can also cause harm to a developing fetus.

Find the full press release on the FDA website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first generics of fingolimod (Gilenya) for the treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis.

The three generic fingolimod applications came from HEC Pharm, Biocon, and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries.

Fingolimod is a widely used, orally administered treatment option for relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis in adults. The most common adverse events associated with fingolimod in clinical trials include headache, elevation of liver enzymes, diarrhea, cough, influenza, sinusitis, back pain, abdominal pain, and pain in the extremities.

The drug must be dispensed with a medication guide that contains important information on its usage and risk, the FDA noted. Serious risks associated with fingolimod include slowing of the heart rate, vision problems, posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome, respiratory problems, liver injury, increased blood pressure, skin cancer, and risk of serious infection including a rare and often deadly brain infection called progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. Fingolimod can also cause harm to a developing fetus.

Find the full press release on the FDA website.

[email protected]

Clyde E. Markowitz, MD, is the director of the Multiple Sclerosis Center at Penn Neuroscience Center and an Associate Professor of Neurology at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. We sat down with Dr. Markowitz to talk about different multiple sclerosis (MS) therapies and how to determine when it might be time to switch a patient’s current regimen.

Why would an MS specialist switch a patient from one drug therapy to another?

The main reason we switch a patient from one treatment to another is usually related to an inadequate response to their current treatment. This can be seen when a patient is having new clinical symptoms suggestive of a relapse. Additional situations which would cause us to consider a switch in treatment include if the patient has had a new abnormalities seen on MRI scans, such as new T2 lesions or gadolinium- enhancing lesions. We might also switch a patient due to intolerance towards the medication they are on. For example, if they are experiencing flu-like symptoms or having Gastrointestinal issues.

In addition, the expectation that the treatment should slow the rate of progression may not be adequately demonstrating the desired effect. In that setting, we may consider a switch to a drug with a different mechanism of action to hopefully better control disease progression.

Laboratory abnormalities while on treatment might also be a consideration for a switch in therapy. Elevated LFTs, or low WBCs can occur on DMTs and may require a change in treatment. Patients on Natalizumab, require JC virus antibody testing. If the patient’s JCV Ab status changes from negative to positive or a rising index may require a change in therapy to avoid the development of PML.  

What are some special considerations for patients during a switch in therapy?

We need to take into consideration the patient’s comorbidities. Does the patient have a history of diabetes, hypertension, cardiac concerns or a risk for infectious complications? What is the patient’s age? As individuals age the immune system becomes less robust at fighting infections or surveillance for malignancies. Some of the medications are immunosuppressive and might increase the risk of developing opportunistic infections or cancers.

Family planning should be taken into consideration during the discussion of which medications might be appropriate. Is the patient planning to have a pregnancy in the near future? Some medications might not be appropriate in that case.

Route of administration could be a factor to consider, since there are several medications that are administered as an infusion in a medical office or hospital setting. This could create issues for some patients who are employed and may have to miss work during these infusions. This could be as frequent as monthly or 2-3 times per year. Some patients just starting a new job, may feel uncomfortable taking time off or disclosing that they have MS leading to concerns for job security.

We also consider the side effects of the new treatment. What side effects and safety monitoring are required for a particular medication? Are there frequent blood tests, cardiac monitoring, dermatologic and ophthalmologic monitoring? How will this impact the patient’s quality of life?

In the end, it comes down to the level of monitoring required for a particular treatment, where the patient is in his or her life, and where he or she is in the disease course.

What are some potential complications when switching therapies?

When switching therapies, one of the bigger concerns is how quickly can we get the patient on the new therapy. Some medications when stopped can lead to return of disease activity or possibly lead to a rebound phenomenon with significant inflammatory activity. We focus on transitioning a patient quickly to a new drug that has a rapid mechanism of action thus limiting the amount of time that a patient is without a treatment. However, based on the mechanism of action of the drug you must consider if a wash out is necessary. The question is how quickly can the patient start the new drug thus preventing a rebound phenomenon. Ideally, no wash out would protect the patient best but might have safety concerns depending on the switch drug profile. If the switch was related to concerns for high JC virus antibody titer going off of natalizumab, there may be a need to make sure the patient does not have PML before making the switch. This may require MRIs and CSF analysis prior to switching.

Ultimately, we consider whether the drug we are switching the patient to is going to be more efficacious than the drug that the patient was previously on. We consider the safety and side effect profile of the new medication. We balance the risk of the disease with the risk of the medication. We must factor in the patient’s tolerance for risk as well and make the best decision with all the available factors considered.

Clyde E. Markowitz, MD, is the director of the Multiple Sclerosis Center at Penn Neuroscience Center and an Associate Professor of Neurology at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. We sat down with Dr. Markowitz to talk about different multiple sclerosis (MS) therapies and how to determine when it might be time to switch a patient’s current regimen.

Why would an MS specialist switch a patient from one drug therapy to another?

The main reason we switch a patient from one treatment to another is usually related to an inadequate response to their current treatment. This can be seen when a patient is having new clinical symptoms suggestive of a relapse. Additional situations which would cause us to consider a switch in treatment include if the patient has had a new abnormalities seen on MRI scans, such as new T2 lesions or gadolinium- enhancing lesions. We might also switch a patient due to intolerance towards the medication they are on. For example, if they are experiencing flu-like symptoms or having Gastrointestinal issues.

In addition, the expectation that the treatment should slow the rate of progression may not be adequately demonstrating the desired effect. In that setting, we may consider a switch to a drug with a different mechanism of action to hopefully better control disease progression.

Laboratory abnormalities while on treatment might also be a consideration for a switch in therapy. Elevated LFTs, or low WBCs can occur on DMTs and may require a change in treatment. Patients on Natalizumab, require JC virus antibody testing. If the patient’s JCV Ab status changes from negative to positive or a rising index may require a change in therapy to avoid the development of PML.  

What are some special considerations for patients during a switch in therapy?

We need to take into consideration the patient’s comorbidities. Does the patient have a history of diabetes, hypertension, cardiac concerns or a risk for infectious complications? What is the patient’s age? As individuals age the immune system becomes less robust at fighting infections or surveillance for malignancies. Some of the medications are immunosuppressive and might increase the risk of developing opportunistic infections or cancers.

Family planning should be taken into consideration during the discussion of which medications might be appropriate. Is the patient planning to have a pregnancy in the near future? Some medications might not be appropriate in that case.

Route of administration could be a factor to consider, since there are several medications that are administered as an infusion in a medical office or hospital setting. This could create issues for some patients who are employed and may have to miss work during these infusions. This could be as frequent as monthly or 2-3 times per year. Some patients just starting a new job, may feel uncomfortable taking time off or disclosing that they have MS leading to concerns for job security.

We also consider the side effects of the new treatment. What side effects and safety monitoring are required for a particular medication? Are there frequent blood tests, cardiac monitoring, dermatologic and ophthalmologic monitoring? How will this impact the patient’s quality of life?

In the end, it comes down to the level of monitoring required for a particular treatment, where the patient is in his or her life, and where he or she is in the disease course.

What are some potential complications when switching therapies?

When switching therapies, one of the bigger concerns is how quickly can we get the patient on the new therapy. Some medications when stopped can lead to return of disease activity or possibly lead to a rebound phenomenon with significant inflammatory activity. We focus on transitioning a patient quickly to a new drug that has a rapid mechanism of action thus limiting the amount of time that a patient is without a treatment. However, based on the mechanism of action of the drug you must consider if a wash out is necessary. The question is how quickly can the patient start the new drug thus preventing a rebound phenomenon. Ideally, no wash out would protect the patient best but might have safety concerns depending on the switch drug profile. If the switch was related to concerns for high JC virus antibody titer going off of natalizumab, there may be a need to make sure the patient does not have PML before making the switch. This may require MRIs and CSF analysis prior to switching.

Ultimately, we consider whether the drug we are switching the patient to is going to be more efficacious than the drug that the patient was previously on. We consider the safety and side effect profile of the new medication. We balance the risk of the disease with the risk of the medication. We must factor in the patient’s tolerance for risk as well and make the best decision with all the available factors considered.

Clyde E. Markowitz, MD, is the director of the Multiple Sclerosis Center at Penn Neuroscience Center and an Associate Professor of Neurology at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. We sat down with Dr. Markowitz to talk about different multiple sclerosis (MS) therapies and how to determine when it might be time to switch a patient’s current regimen.

Why would an MS specialist switch a patient from one drug therapy to another?

The main reason we switch a patient from one treatment to another is usually related to an inadequate response to their current treatment. This can be seen when a patient is having new clinical symptoms suggestive of a relapse. Additional situations which would cause us to consider a switch in treatment include if the patient has had a new abnormalities seen on MRI scans, such as new T2 lesions or gadolinium- enhancing lesions. We might also switch a patient due to intolerance towards the medication they are on. For example, if they are experiencing flu-like symptoms or having Gastrointestinal issues.

In addition, the expectation that the treatment should slow the rate of progression may not be adequately demonstrating the desired effect. In that setting, we may consider a switch to a drug with a different mechanism of action to hopefully better control disease progression.

Laboratory abnormalities while on treatment might also be a consideration for a switch in therapy. Elevated LFTs, or low WBCs can occur on DMTs and may require a change in treatment. Patients on Natalizumab, require JC virus antibody testing. If the patient’s JCV Ab status changes from negative to positive or a rising index may require a change in therapy to avoid the development of PML.  

What are some special considerations for patients during a switch in therapy?

We need to take into consideration the patient’s comorbidities. Does the patient have a history of diabetes, hypertension, cardiac concerns or a risk for infectious complications? What is the patient’s age? As individuals age the immune system becomes less robust at fighting infections or surveillance for malignancies. Some of the medications are immunosuppressive and might increase the risk of developing opportunistic infections or cancers.

Family planning should be taken into consideration during the discussion of which medications might be appropriate. Is the patient planning to have a pregnancy in the near future? Some medications might not be appropriate in that case.

Route of administration could be a factor to consider, since there are several medications that are administered as an infusion in a medical office or hospital setting. This could create issues for some patients who are employed and may have to miss work during these infusions. This could be as frequent as monthly or 2-3 times per year. Some patients just starting a new job, may feel uncomfortable taking time off or disclosing that they have MS leading to concerns for job security.

We also consider the side effects of the new treatment. What side effects and safety monitoring are required for a particular medication? Are there frequent blood tests, cardiac monitoring, dermatologic and ophthalmologic monitoring? How will this impact the patient’s quality of life?

In the end, it comes down to the level of monitoring required for a particular treatment, where the patient is in his or her life, and where he or she is in the disease course.

What are some potential complications when switching therapies?

When switching therapies, one of the bigger concerns is how quickly can we get the patient on the new therapy. Some medications when stopped can lead to return of disease activity or possibly lead to a rebound phenomenon with significant inflammatory activity. We focus on transitioning a patient quickly to a new drug that has a rapid mechanism of action thus limiting the amount of time that a patient is without a treatment. However, based on the mechanism of action of the drug you must consider if a wash out is necessary. The question is how quickly can the patient start the new drug thus preventing a rebound phenomenon. Ideally, no wash out would protect the patient best but might have safety concerns depending on the switch drug profile. If the switch was related to concerns for high JC virus antibody titer going off of natalizumab, there may be a need to make sure the patient does not have PML before making the switch. This may require MRIs and CSF analysis prior to switching.

Ultimately, we consider whether the drug we are switching the patient to is going to be more efficacious than the drug that the patient was previously on. We consider the safety and side effect profile of the new medication. We balance the risk of the disease with the risk of the medication. We must factor in the patient’s tolerance for risk as well and make the best decision with all the available factors considered.