Current Drug Therapy

Ceftaroline fosamil (Teflaro), introduced to the US market in October 2010, is the first beta-lactam agent with clinically useful activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Currently, it is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections and community-acquired bacterial pneumonia caused by susceptible microorganisms.

In an era of increasing drug resistance and limited numbers of antimicrobials in the drug-production pipeline, ceftaroline is a step forward in fulfilling the Infectious Diseases Society of America’s “10 × ’20 Initiative” to increase support for drug research and manufacturing, with the goal of producing 10 new antimicrobial drugs by the year 2020.¹ Ceftaroline was the first of several antibiotics to receive FDA approval in response to this initiative. It was followed by dalbavancin (May 2014), tedizolid phosphate (June 2014), oritavancin (August 2014), ceftolozane-tazobactam (December 2014), and ceftazidime-avibactam (February 2015). These antibiotic agents are aimed at treating infections caused by drug-resistant gram-positive and gram-negative microorganisms. It is important to understand and optimize the use of these new antibiotic agents in order to decrease the risk of emerging antibiotic resistance and superinfections (eg, Clostridium difficile infection) caused by antibiotic overuse or misuse.

This article provides an overview of ceftaroline’s mechanisms of action and resistance, spectrum of activity, pharmacokinetic properties, adverse effects, and current place in therapy.

AN ERA OF MULTIDRUG-RESISTANT MICROORGANISMS

Increasing rates of antimicrobial resistance threaten the efficacy of antimicrobial drugs in the daily practice of medicine. The World Health Organization has labeled antimicrobial resistance one of the three greatest threats to human health. Global efforts are under way to stimulate development of new antimicrobial agents and to decrease rates of antimicrobial resistance.

Staphylococcus aureus: A threat, even with vancomycin

Between 1998 and 2005, S aureus was one of the most common inpatient and outpatient isolates reported by clinical laboratories throughout the United States.²

Treatment of S aureus infection is complicated by a variety of resistance mechanisms that have evolved over time. In fact, the first resistant isolate of S aureus emerged not long after penicillin’s debut into clinical practice, and now the majority of strains are resistant to penicillin.

Methicillin was designed to overcome this beta-lactamase resistance and became the treatment of choice for penicillin-resistant S aureus isolates. However, MRSA isolates soon emerged because of the organism’s acquisition of penicillin-binding protein PBP2a via the mecA gene, leading to decreased binding affinity of methicillin.³

Since then, several agents active against MRSA (vancomycin, daptomycin, linezolid, tigecycline) have been introduced and continue to be widely used. While vancomycin is considered the first-line option for a variety of MRSA infections, its use has been threatened because of the emergence of vancomycin-intermediate-resistant S aureus (VISA), S aureus strains displaying vancomycin heteroresistance (hVISA), and vancomycin-resistant S aureus (VRSA) strains.⁴

VISA and hVISA isolates emerged through sequential mutations that lead to autolytic activity and cell-wall thickening. In contrast, the mechanism of resistance in VRSA is by acquisition of the vanA resistance gene, which alters the binding site of vancomycin from d-alanine-d-alanine to d-alanine-d-lactate.⁵

Streptococcus pneumoniae resistance: A continuing problem

The prevalence of drug resistance in S pneumoniae has risen since the late 1990s. A 2013 report from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program stated that almost 20% of S pneumoniae isolates were resistant to amoxicillin-clavulanate, and similar trends have been observed for penicillin (14.8%) and ceftriaxone (11.7%).⁶

S pneumoniae resistance is acquired through modifications of the penicillin-binding proteins, namely PBP1a, PBP2b, PBP2x, and, less frequently, PBP2a. These modifications lead to decreased binding affinity for most beta-lactams.⁷

Clinical impact of multidrug-resistant S aureus and S pneumoniae

In 2011, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported an estimated 80,000 severe MRSA infections and 11,000 MRSA-related deaths in the United States.⁸ In the same report, drug-resistant S pneumoniae was estimated to be responsible for almost 1.2 million illnesses and 7,000 deaths per year, leading to upwards of $96 million in related medical costs.

While invasive drug-resistant S pneumoniae infections usually affect patients at the extremes of age (under age 5 and over age 65), they have had a serious impact on patients of all ages.⁸

In light of the increasing prevalence of multidrug-resistant organisms, newer antimicrobial agents with novel mechanisms of action are needed.

CEFTAROLINE: A BETA-LACTAM WITH ANTI-MRSA ACTIVITY

The cephalosporins, a class of beta-lactam antibiotics, were originally derived from the fungus Cephalosporium (now called Acremonium). There are now many agents in this class, each containing a nucleus consisting of a beta-lactam ring fused to a six-member dihydrothiazine ring, and two side chains that can be modified to affect antibacterial activity and pharmacokinetic properties.

Cephalosporins are typically categorized into “generations.” With some exceptions, the first- and second-generation agents have good activity against gram-positive microorganisms, including methicillin-susceptible S aureus—but not against MRSA. The third- and fourth-generation cephalosporins have better gram-negative activity, with many agents having activity against the gram-negative bacterium Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Enterococcal isolates are intrinsically resistant to cephalosporins. Additionally, cephalosporins are not active against anaerobic bacteria, except for a subset of structurally unique second-generation cephalosporins, ie, cefotetan and cefoxitin.

Ceftaroline was synthesized with specific manipulations of the side chains to provide enhanced activity against MRSA and multidrug-resistant S pneumoniae isolates, making it the first available beta-lactam with this ability.

Mechanism of action

Ceftaroline binds to penicillin-binding proteins, inhibiting transpeptidation. This interaction blocks the final stage of peptidoglycan synthesis and inhibits bacterial cell wall formation, ultimately leading to cellular autolysis and microorganism death. Ceftaroline binds with high affinity to PBP2a and PBP2x, expanding its activity to encompass MRSA and penicillin-resistant S pneumoniae isolates.⁹

Spectrum of activity

Ceftaroline has in vitro activity against many gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria,^10–13 including (Table 1):

• Methicillin-susceptible and methicillin-resistant staphylococci
• VISA, VRSA, and hVISA
• Daptomycin-nonsusceptible S aureus
• Streptococcal species, including penicillin-resistant S pneumoniae
• Enterobacteriaceae, including Klebsiella pneumoniae, Klebsiella oxytoca, Escherichia coli, Citrobacter koseri, Citrobacter freundii, Enterobacter cloacae, Enterobacter aerogenes, Moraxella catarrhalis, Morganella morganii, and Proteus mirabilis.

Of note, ceftaroline is not active against Pseudomonas species, Enterococcus species, or Bacteroides fragilis. In addition, it is not active against the “atypical” respiratory pathogens Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Chlamydophila pneumoniae, and Legionella pneumophila.

Ceftaroline resistance

Gram-negative organisms appear to develop resistance to ceftaroline at rates similar to those observed with the other oxyimino-cephalosporins (eg, ceftriaxone). Ceftaroline is inactive against gram-negative organisms producing extended-spectrum beta-lactamases, including K pneumoniae carbapenemase and metallo-beta-lactamases.¹⁴ In addition, it induces the expression of AmpC beta-lactamases.

Although currently uncommon, resistance to ceftaroline has also been reported in S aureus strains.¹⁵ The mechanism of resistance is decreased binding affinity for PBP2a due to amino acid substitutions on the nonpenicillin-binding domains.¹⁵

Pharmacokinetic profile

An understanding of pharmacokinetics is key in optimizing the dose of antimicrobials so that the drugs are used most effectively and pathogens do not develop resistance to them.

Ceftaroline fosamil is a prodrug that, upon intravenous administration, is rapidly converted by phosphatase enzymes to its active moiety, ceftaroline. Its pharmacokinetic profile is summarized in Table 2.^16,17 Its volume of distribution is similar to that of the fourth-generation cephalosporin cefepime.

Ceftaroline is then hydrolyzed into its inactive metabolite, ceftaroline M-1. It undergoes little hepatic metabolism and lacks properties to make it a substrate, inhibitor, or inducer of the CYP450 enzyme system and therefore is not likely to cause notable CYP450-related drug-drug interactions.

Like most other beta-lactams, ceftaroline is primarily excreted by the kidneys. Furthermore, an estimated 21% of a dose is eliminated with each intermittent hemodialysis session. Therefore, renal and intermittent hemodialysis dose adjustments are necessary. The estimated elimination half-life is 2.6 hours, necessitating dosing two to three times daily, depending on the indication and infectious inoculum.

Ceftaroline dosing

Ceftaroline is available only in a parenteral preparation and is typically given at a dose of 600 mg every 12 hours.¹⁰ The intravenous infusion is given over 1 hour.

The current stability data require reconstituted ceftaroline to be used within 6 hours at room temperature and within 24 hours if refrigerated.¹⁰

Ceftaroline requires dosing adjustments for patients with renal insufficiency. Per the manufacturer, renal dosing adjustments are based on the creatinine clearance rate, as estimated by the Cockroft-Gault formula:

• Creatinine clearance > 50 mL/min: no dosage adjustment necessary
• Creatinine clearance > 30 to ≤ 50 mL/min: give 400 mg every 12 hours
• Creatinine clearance ≥ 15 to ≤ 30 mL/min: give 300 mg every 12 hours
• Creatinine clearance < 15 mL/min or on intermittent dialysis: give 200 mg every 12 hours.

Ongoing clinical trials are investigating a higher-dosing strategy of 600 mg every 8 hours for patients with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia at risk of MRSA bacteremia.¹⁸

CLINICAL TRIALS LEADING TO CEFTAROLINE’S APPROVAL

Ceftaroline was approved for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia and acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections due to susceptible pathogens on the basis of phase 3 comparator trials.

Community-acquired bacterial pneumonia: The FOCUS 1 and 2 trials

The efficacy and safety of ceftaroline in the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia was studied in two randomized, double-blind, noninferiority trials, known as Ceftaroline Community-acquired Pneumonia vs Ceftriaxone (FOCUS) 1 and FOCUS 2.^19,20

Patients were adults and not critically ill, as was reflected by their being in Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team (PORT) risk class III or IV (with class V indicating the highest risk of death). Therefore, the results may not be completely applicable to critically ill patients or those not admitted to the hospital. Of note, patients were excluded from the trials if they had infections known or thought to be due to MRSA or to atypical organisms.²¹ Baseline characteristics and patient demographics were similar between study groups in both trials.

A bacterial pathogen was identified in 26.1% of the patients included in the modified intent-to-treat analysis of the pooled data of the trials; the most common pathogens were S pneumoniae, methicillin-sensitive S aureus, Haemophilus influenzae, K pneumoniae, and E coli.²¹

Treatment. Patients received either ceftaroline 600 mg every 12 hours (or a lower dose based on renal function) or ceftriaxone 1 g every 24 hours. In addition, in the FOCUS 1 trial, patients in both treatment groups received clarithromycin 500 mg every 12 hours for the first day.¹⁹

Results. In both trials and in the integrated analysis, ceftaroline was noninferior to ceftriaxone (Table 3).²² In the integrated analysis of both trials, compared with the ceftriaxone group, the ceftaroline group had a higher clinical cure rate among patients classified as PORT risk class III (86.8% vs 79.2%, weighted treatment difference 12.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3–13.8) and among patients who had not received prior antibiotic treatment (85.5% vs 74.9%, weighted treatment difference 11.2%, 95% CI 4.5–18.0).²¹

Acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections: The CANVAS 1 and 2 trials

The efficacy and safety of ceftaroline in the treatment of complicated acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections was studied in two randomized, double-blind trials: Ceftaroline Versus Vancomycin in Skin and Skin Structure Infections (CANVAS) 1 and CANVAS 2.^23,24

Patients. Adult patients with a diagnosis of community-acquired skin and skin-structure infections warranting at least 5 days of intravenous antimicrobial therapy were included in the trials. Important protocol exclusions were patients with diabetic foot ulcers, decubitus ulcers, burns, ulcers associated with peripheral vascular disease accompanied by osteomyelitis, and suspected P aeruginosa infections.²⁵ This limits the external validity of ceftaroline use in the aforementioned excluded patient populations.

Patients in each treatment group of the trials had similar demographic characteristics. The most common infections were cellulitis, major abscess requiring surgical intervention, wound infection, and infected ulcer. Bacteremia was present in 4.2% of patients in the ceftaroline group and in 3.8% of patients in the vancomycin-aztreonam group. The most common pathogen was S aureus. Methicillin resistance was present in 40% of the ceftaroline group and 34% of the control group.

Treatment. Patients received either ceftaroline 600 mg every 12 hours or the combination of vancomycin 1 g plus aztreonam 1 g given 12 hours, for 5 to 14 days.

Results. As assessed at a “test-of-cure” visit 8 to 15 days after the last dose of study medication, the efficacy of ceftaroline was similar to that of vancomycin-aztreonam, meeting the set noninferiority goal (Table 4).²⁵ Moreover, if assessed on day 2 or 3 (a new end point recommended by the FDA), the rate of cessation of erythema spread and absence of fever was higher in the ceftaroline group than in the vancomycin-aztreonam group.²⁶ However, this end point was not in the original trial protocol.

CEFTAROLINE FOR OTHER INDICATIONS

As noted, ceftaroline has been approved for treating community-acquired bacterial pneumonia and acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections. In addition, it has been used in several studies in animals, and case reports of non-FDA approved indications including endocarditis and osteomyelitis have been published. Clinical trials are evaluating its use in pediatric patients, as well as for community-acquired bacterial pneumonia with risk for MRSA and for MRSA bacteremia.

Endocarditis

Animal studies have demonstrated ceftaroline to have bactericidal activity against MRSA and hVISA in endocarditis.²⁷

A few case series have been published describing ceftaroline’s use as salvage therapy for persistent MRSA bacteremia and endocarditis. For example, Ho et al²⁸ reported using it in three patients who had endocarditis as a source of their persistent bacteremia. All three patients had resolution of their MRSA bloodstream infection following ceftaroline therapy. The dosage was 600 mg every 8 hours, which is higher than in the manufacturer’s prescribing information.

Lin et al²⁹ reported using ceftaroline in five patients with either possible or probable endocarditis. Three of the five patients had clinical cure as defined by resolution or improvement of all signs and symptoms of infection, and not requiring further antimicrobial therapy.²⁹

More data from clinical trials would be beneficial in defining ceftaroline’s role in treating endocarditis caused by susceptible microorganisms.

Osteomyelitis

In animal studies of osteomyelitis, ceftaroline exhibited activity against MRSA in infected bone and joint fluid. Compared with vancomycin and linezolid, ceftaroline was associated with more significant decreases in bacterial load in the infected joint fluid, bone marrow, and bone.³⁰

Lin et al²⁹ gave ceftaroline to two patients with bone and joint infections, both of whom had received other therapies that had failed. The doses of ceftaroline were higher than those recommended in the prescribing information; clinical cure was noted in both cases following the switch.

These data come from case series, and more study of ceftaroline’s role in the treatment of osteomyelitis infections is warranted.

Meningitis

The use of ceftaroline in meningitis has been studied in rabbits. While ceftaroline penetrated into the cerebrospinal fluid in only negligible amounts in healthy rabbits (3% penetration), its penetration improved to 15% in animals with inflamed meninges. Ceftaroline cerebrospinal fluid levels in inflamed meninges were sufficient to provide bactericidal activity against penicillin-sensitive and resistant S pneumoniae strains as well as K pneumoniae and E coli strains.^31,32

REPORTED ADVERSE EFFECTS OF CEFTAROLINE

Overall, ceftaroline was well tolerated in clinical trials, and its safety profile was similar to those of the comparator agents (ceftriaxone and vancomycin-aztreonam).

As with the other cephalosporins, hypersensitivity reactions have been reported with ceftaroline. In the clinical trials, 3% of patients developed a rash with ceftaroline.^33,34 Patients with a history of beta-lactam allergy were excluded from the trials, so the rate of cross-reactivity with penicillins and with other cephalosporins is unknown.

In the phase 3 clinical trials, gastrointestinal side effects including diarrhea (5%), nausea (4%), and vomiting (2%) were reported with ceftaroline. C difficile-associated diarrhea has also been reported.³³

As with other cephalosporins, ceftaroline can cause a false-positive result on the Coombs test. Approximately 11% of ceftaroline-treated patients in phase 3 clinical trials had a positive Coombs test, but hemolytic anemia did not occur in any patients.^33,34

Discontinuation of ceftaroline due to an adverse reaction was reported in 2.7% of patients receiving the drug during phase 3 trials, compared with 3.7% with comparator agents.

WHEN SHOULD CEFTAROLINE BE USED IN DAILY PRACTICE?

Ceftaroline has been shown to be at least as effective as ceftriaxone in treating community-acquired bacterial pneumonia, and at least as effective as vancomycin-aztreonam in treating acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections. The 2014 Infectious Diseases Society of America’s guidelines for the diagnosis and management of skin and soft-tissue infections recommend ceftaroline as an option for empiric therapy for purulent skin and soft-tissue infections.³⁵

The guidelines on community-acquired pneumonia have not been updated since 2007, which was before ceftaroline was approved. However, these guidelines are currently undergoing revision and may provide insight on ceftaroline’s place in the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia.³⁶

Currently, ceftaroline’s routine use for these indications should be balanced by its higher cost ($150 for a 600-mg dose) compared with ceftriaxone ($5 for a 1-g dose) or vancomycin ($25 for a 1-g dose). The drug’s in vitro activity against drug-resistant pneumococci and S aureus, including MRSA, hVISA, and VISA may help fill an unmet need or provide a safer and more tolerable alternative to currently available therapies.

However, ceftaroline’s lack of activity against P aeruginosa and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae does not meet the public health threat needs stemming from these multidrug-resistant microorganisms. Ongoing clinical trials in patients with more serious MRSA infections will provide important information about ceftaroline’s role as an anti-MRSA agent.

While the discovery of antimicrobials has had one of the greatest impacts on medicine, continued antibiotic use is threatened by the emergence of drug-resistant pathogens. Therefore, it is as important as ever to be good stewards of our currently available antimicrobials. Developing usage and dosing criteria for antimicrobials based on available data and literature is a step forward in optimizing the use of antibiotics—a precious medical resource.

Ceftaroline fosamil (Teflaro), introduced to the US market in October 2010, is the first beta-lactam agent with clinically useful activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Currently, it is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections and community-acquired bacterial pneumonia caused by susceptible microorganisms.

In an era of increasing drug resistance and limited numbers of antimicrobials in the drug-production pipeline, ceftaroline is a step forward in fulfilling the Infectious Diseases Society of America’s “10 × ’20 Initiative” to increase support for drug research and manufacturing, with the goal of producing 10 new antimicrobial drugs by the year 2020.¹ Ceftaroline was the first of several antibiotics to receive FDA approval in response to this initiative. It was followed by dalbavancin (May 2014), tedizolid phosphate (June 2014), oritavancin (August 2014), ceftolozane-tazobactam (December 2014), and ceftazidime-avibactam (February 2015). These antibiotic agents are aimed at treating infections caused by drug-resistant gram-positive and gram-negative microorganisms. It is important to understand and optimize the use of these new antibiotic agents in order to decrease the risk of emerging antibiotic resistance and superinfections (eg, Clostridium difficile infection) caused by antibiotic overuse or misuse.

This article provides an overview of ceftaroline’s mechanisms of action and resistance, spectrum of activity, pharmacokinetic properties, adverse effects, and current place in therapy.

AN ERA OF MULTIDRUG-RESISTANT MICROORGANISMS

Increasing rates of antimicrobial resistance threaten the efficacy of antimicrobial drugs in the daily practice of medicine. The World Health Organization has labeled antimicrobial resistance one of the three greatest threats to human health. Global efforts are under way to stimulate development of new antimicrobial agents and to decrease rates of antimicrobial resistance.

Staphylococcus aureus: A threat, even with vancomycin

Between 1998 and 2005, S aureus was one of the most common inpatient and outpatient isolates reported by clinical laboratories throughout the United States.²

Treatment of S aureus infection is complicated by a variety of resistance mechanisms that have evolved over time. In fact, the first resistant isolate of S aureus emerged not long after penicillin’s debut into clinical practice, and now the majority of strains are resistant to penicillin.

Methicillin was designed to overcome this beta-lactamase resistance and became the treatment of choice for penicillin-resistant S aureus isolates. However, MRSA isolates soon emerged because of the organism’s acquisition of penicillin-binding protein PBP2a via the mecA gene, leading to decreased binding affinity of methicillin.³

Since then, several agents active against MRSA (vancomycin, daptomycin, linezolid, tigecycline) have been introduced and continue to be widely used. While vancomycin is considered the first-line option for a variety of MRSA infections, its use has been threatened because of the emergence of vancomycin-intermediate-resistant S aureus (VISA), S aureus strains displaying vancomycin heteroresistance (hVISA), and vancomycin-resistant S aureus (VRSA) strains.⁴

VISA and hVISA isolates emerged through sequential mutations that lead to autolytic activity and cell-wall thickening. In contrast, the mechanism of resistance in VRSA is by acquisition of the vanA resistance gene, which alters the binding site of vancomycin from d-alanine-d-alanine to d-alanine-d-lactate.⁵

Streptococcus pneumoniae resistance: A continuing problem

The prevalence of drug resistance in S pneumoniae has risen since the late 1990s. A 2013 report from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program stated that almost 20% of S pneumoniae isolates were resistant to amoxicillin-clavulanate, and similar trends have been observed for penicillin (14.8%) and ceftriaxone (11.7%).⁶

S pneumoniae resistance is acquired through modifications of the penicillin-binding proteins, namely PBP1a, PBP2b, PBP2x, and, less frequently, PBP2a. These modifications lead to decreased binding affinity for most beta-lactams.⁷

Clinical impact of multidrug-resistant S aureus and S pneumoniae

In 2011, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported an estimated 80,000 severe MRSA infections and 11,000 MRSA-related deaths in the United States.⁸ In the same report, drug-resistant S pneumoniae was estimated to be responsible for almost 1.2 million illnesses and 7,000 deaths per year, leading to upwards of $96 million in related medical costs.

While invasive drug-resistant S pneumoniae infections usually affect patients at the extremes of age (under age 5 and over age 65), they have had a serious impact on patients of all ages.⁸

In light of the increasing prevalence of multidrug-resistant organisms, newer antimicrobial agents with novel mechanisms of action are needed.

CEFTAROLINE: A BETA-LACTAM WITH ANTI-MRSA ACTIVITY

The cephalosporins, a class of beta-lactam antibiotics, were originally derived from the fungus Cephalosporium (now called Acremonium). There are now many agents in this class, each containing a nucleus consisting of a beta-lactam ring fused to a six-member dihydrothiazine ring, and two side chains that can be modified to affect antibacterial activity and pharmacokinetic properties.

Cephalosporins are typically categorized into “generations.” With some exceptions, the first- and second-generation agents have good activity against gram-positive microorganisms, including methicillin-susceptible S aureus—but not against MRSA. The third- and fourth-generation cephalosporins have better gram-negative activity, with many agents having activity against the gram-negative bacterium Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Enterococcal isolates are intrinsically resistant to cephalosporins. Additionally, cephalosporins are not active against anaerobic bacteria, except for a subset of structurally unique second-generation cephalosporins, ie, cefotetan and cefoxitin.

Ceftaroline was synthesized with specific manipulations of the side chains to provide enhanced activity against MRSA and multidrug-resistant S pneumoniae isolates, making it the first available beta-lactam with this ability.

Mechanism of action

Ceftaroline binds to penicillin-binding proteins, inhibiting transpeptidation. This interaction blocks the final stage of peptidoglycan synthesis and inhibits bacterial cell wall formation, ultimately leading to cellular autolysis and microorganism death. Ceftaroline binds with high affinity to PBP2a and PBP2x, expanding its activity to encompass MRSA and penicillin-resistant S pneumoniae isolates.⁹

Spectrum of activity

Ceftaroline has in vitro activity against many gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria,^10–13 including (Table 1):

• Methicillin-susceptible and methicillin-resistant staphylococci
• VISA, VRSA, and hVISA
• Daptomycin-nonsusceptible S aureus
• Streptococcal species, including penicillin-resistant S pneumoniae
• Enterobacteriaceae, including Klebsiella pneumoniae, Klebsiella oxytoca, Escherichia coli, Citrobacter koseri, Citrobacter freundii, Enterobacter cloacae, Enterobacter aerogenes, Moraxella catarrhalis, Morganella morganii, and Proteus mirabilis.

Of note, ceftaroline is not active against Pseudomonas species, Enterococcus species, or Bacteroides fragilis. In addition, it is not active against the “atypical” respiratory pathogens Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Chlamydophila pneumoniae, and Legionella pneumophila.

Ceftaroline resistance

Gram-negative organisms appear to develop resistance to ceftaroline at rates similar to those observed with the other oxyimino-cephalosporins (eg, ceftriaxone). Ceftaroline is inactive against gram-negative organisms producing extended-spectrum beta-lactamases, including K pneumoniae carbapenemase and metallo-beta-lactamases.¹⁴ In addition, it induces the expression of AmpC beta-lactamases.

Although currently uncommon, resistance to ceftaroline has also been reported in S aureus strains.¹⁵ The mechanism of resistance is decreased binding affinity for PBP2a due to amino acid substitutions on the nonpenicillin-binding domains.¹⁵

Pharmacokinetic profile

An understanding of pharmacokinetics is key in optimizing the dose of antimicrobials so that the drugs are used most effectively and pathogens do not develop resistance to them.

Ceftaroline fosamil is a prodrug that, upon intravenous administration, is rapidly converted by phosphatase enzymes to its active moiety, ceftaroline. Its pharmacokinetic profile is summarized in Table 2.^16,17 Its volume of distribution is similar to that of the fourth-generation cephalosporin cefepime.

Ceftaroline is then hydrolyzed into its inactive metabolite, ceftaroline M-1. It undergoes little hepatic metabolism and lacks properties to make it a substrate, inhibitor, or inducer of the CYP450 enzyme system and therefore is not likely to cause notable CYP450-related drug-drug interactions.

Like most other beta-lactams, ceftaroline is primarily excreted by the kidneys. Furthermore, an estimated 21% of a dose is eliminated with each intermittent hemodialysis session. Therefore, renal and intermittent hemodialysis dose adjustments are necessary. The estimated elimination half-life is 2.6 hours, necessitating dosing two to three times daily, depending on the indication and infectious inoculum.

Ceftaroline dosing

Ceftaroline is available only in a parenteral preparation and is typically given at a dose of 600 mg every 12 hours.¹⁰ The intravenous infusion is given over 1 hour.

The current stability data require reconstituted ceftaroline to be used within 6 hours at room temperature and within 24 hours if refrigerated.¹⁰

Ceftaroline requires dosing adjustments for patients with renal insufficiency. Per the manufacturer, renal dosing adjustments are based on the creatinine clearance rate, as estimated by the Cockroft-Gault formula:

• Creatinine clearance > 50 mL/min: no dosage adjustment necessary
• Creatinine clearance > 30 to ≤ 50 mL/min: give 400 mg every 12 hours
• Creatinine clearance ≥ 15 to ≤ 30 mL/min: give 300 mg every 12 hours
• Creatinine clearance < 15 mL/min or on intermittent dialysis: give 200 mg every 12 hours.

Ongoing clinical trials are investigating a higher-dosing strategy of 600 mg every 8 hours for patients with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia at risk of MRSA bacteremia.¹⁸

CLINICAL TRIALS LEADING TO CEFTAROLINE’S APPROVAL

Ceftaroline was approved for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia and acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections due to susceptible pathogens on the basis of phase 3 comparator trials.

Community-acquired bacterial pneumonia: The FOCUS 1 and 2 trials

The efficacy and safety of ceftaroline in the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia was studied in two randomized, double-blind, noninferiority trials, known as Ceftaroline Community-acquired Pneumonia vs Ceftriaxone (FOCUS) 1 and FOCUS 2.^19,20

Patients were adults and not critically ill, as was reflected by their being in Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team (PORT) risk class III or IV (with class V indicating the highest risk of death). Therefore, the results may not be completely applicable to critically ill patients or those not admitted to the hospital. Of note, patients were excluded from the trials if they had infections known or thought to be due to MRSA or to atypical organisms.²¹ Baseline characteristics and patient demographics were similar between study groups in both trials.

A bacterial pathogen was identified in 26.1% of the patients included in the modified intent-to-treat analysis of the pooled data of the trials; the most common pathogens were S pneumoniae, methicillin-sensitive S aureus, Haemophilus influenzae, K pneumoniae, and E coli.²¹

Treatment. Patients received either ceftaroline 600 mg every 12 hours (or a lower dose based on renal function) or ceftriaxone 1 g every 24 hours. In addition, in the FOCUS 1 trial, patients in both treatment groups received clarithromycin 500 mg every 12 hours for the first day.¹⁹

Results. In both trials and in the integrated analysis, ceftaroline was noninferior to ceftriaxone (Table 3).²² In the integrated analysis of both trials, compared with the ceftriaxone group, the ceftaroline group had a higher clinical cure rate among patients classified as PORT risk class III (86.8% vs 79.2%, weighted treatment difference 12.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3–13.8) and among patients who had not received prior antibiotic treatment (85.5% vs 74.9%, weighted treatment difference 11.2%, 95% CI 4.5–18.0).²¹

Acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections: The CANVAS 1 and 2 trials

The efficacy and safety of ceftaroline in the treatment of complicated acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections was studied in two randomized, double-blind trials: Ceftaroline Versus Vancomycin in Skin and Skin Structure Infections (CANVAS) 1 and CANVAS 2.^23,24

Patients. Adult patients with a diagnosis of community-acquired skin and skin-structure infections warranting at least 5 days of intravenous antimicrobial therapy were included in the trials. Important protocol exclusions were patients with diabetic foot ulcers, decubitus ulcers, burns, ulcers associated with peripheral vascular disease accompanied by osteomyelitis, and suspected P aeruginosa infections.²⁵ This limits the external validity of ceftaroline use in the aforementioned excluded patient populations.

Patients in each treatment group of the trials had similar demographic characteristics. The most common infections were cellulitis, major abscess requiring surgical intervention, wound infection, and infected ulcer. Bacteremia was present in 4.2% of patients in the ceftaroline group and in 3.8% of patients in the vancomycin-aztreonam group. The most common pathogen was S aureus. Methicillin resistance was present in 40% of the ceftaroline group and 34% of the control group.

Treatment. Patients received either ceftaroline 600 mg every 12 hours or the combination of vancomycin 1 g plus aztreonam 1 g given 12 hours, for 5 to 14 days.

Results. As assessed at a “test-of-cure” visit 8 to 15 days after the last dose of study medication, the efficacy of ceftaroline was similar to that of vancomycin-aztreonam, meeting the set noninferiority goal (Table 4).²⁵ Moreover, if assessed on day 2 or 3 (a new end point recommended by the FDA), the rate of cessation of erythema spread and absence of fever was higher in the ceftaroline group than in the vancomycin-aztreonam group.²⁶ However, this end point was not in the original trial protocol.

CEFTAROLINE FOR OTHER INDICATIONS

As noted, ceftaroline has been approved for treating community-acquired bacterial pneumonia and acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections. In addition, it has been used in several studies in animals, and case reports of non-FDA approved indications including endocarditis and osteomyelitis have been published. Clinical trials are evaluating its use in pediatric patients, as well as for community-acquired bacterial pneumonia with risk for MRSA and for MRSA bacteremia.

Endocarditis

Animal studies have demonstrated ceftaroline to have bactericidal activity against MRSA and hVISA in endocarditis.²⁷

A few case series have been published describing ceftaroline’s use as salvage therapy for persistent MRSA bacteremia and endocarditis. For example, Ho et al²⁸ reported using it in three patients who had endocarditis as a source of their persistent bacteremia. All three patients had resolution of their MRSA bloodstream infection following ceftaroline therapy. The dosage was 600 mg every 8 hours, which is higher than in the manufacturer’s prescribing information.

Lin et al²⁹ reported using ceftaroline in five patients with either possible or probable endocarditis. Three of the five patients had clinical cure as defined by resolution or improvement of all signs and symptoms of infection, and not requiring further antimicrobial therapy.²⁹

More data from clinical trials would be beneficial in defining ceftaroline’s role in treating endocarditis caused by susceptible microorganisms.

Osteomyelitis

In animal studies of osteomyelitis, ceftaroline exhibited activity against MRSA in infected bone and joint fluid. Compared with vancomycin and linezolid, ceftaroline was associated with more significant decreases in bacterial load in the infected joint fluid, bone marrow, and bone.³⁰

Lin et al²⁹ gave ceftaroline to two patients with bone and joint infections, both of whom had received other therapies that had failed. The doses of ceftaroline were higher than those recommended in the prescribing information; clinical cure was noted in both cases following the switch.

These data come from case series, and more study of ceftaroline’s role in the treatment of osteomyelitis infections is warranted.

Meningitis

The use of ceftaroline in meningitis has been studied in rabbits. While ceftaroline penetrated into the cerebrospinal fluid in only negligible amounts in healthy rabbits (3% penetration), its penetration improved to 15% in animals with inflamed meninges. Ceftaroline cerebrospinal fluid levels in inflamed meninges were sufficient to provide bactericidal activity against penicillin-sensitive and resistant S pneumoniae strains as well as K pneumoniae and E coli strains.^31,32

REPORTED ADVERSE EFFECTS OF CEFTAROLINE

Overall, ceftaroline was well tolerated in clinical trials, and its safety profile was similar to those of the comparator agents (ceftriaxone and vancomycin-aztreonam).

As with the other cephalosporins, hypersensitivity reactions have been reported with ceftaroline. In the clinical trials, 3% of patients developed a rash with ceftaroline.^33,34 Patients with a history of beta-lactam allergy were excluded from the trials, so the rate of cross-reactivity with penicillins and with other cephalosporins is unknown.

In the phase 3 clinical trials, gastrointestinal side effects including diarrhea (5%), nausea (4%), and vomiting (2%) were reported with ceftaroline. C difficile-associated diarrhea has also been reported.³³

As with other cephalosporins, ceftaroline can cause a false-positive result on the Coombs test. Approximately 11% of ceftaroline-treated patients in phase 3 clinical trials had a positive Coombs test, but hemolytic anemia did not occur in any patients.^33,34

Discontinuation of ceftaroline due to an adverse reaction was reported in 2.7% of patients receiving the drug during phase 3 trials, compared with 3.7% with comparator agents.

WHEN SHOULD CEFTAROLINE BE USED IN DAILY PRACTICE?

Ceftaroline has been shown to be at least as effective as ceftriaxone in treating community-acquired bacterial pneumonia, and at least as effective as vancomycin-aztreonam in treating acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections. The 2014 Infectious Diseases Society of America’s guidelines for the diagnosis and management of skin and soft-tissue infections recommend ceftaroline as an option for empiric therapy for purulent skin and soft-tissue infections.³⁵

The guidelines on community-acquired pneumonia have not been updated since 2007, which was before ceftaroline was approved. However, these guidelines are currently undergoing revision and may provide insight on ceftaroline’s place in the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia.³⁶

Currently, ceftaroline’s routine use for these indications should be balanced by its higher cost ($150 for a 600-mg dose) compared with ceftriaxone ($5 for a 1-g dose) or vancomycin ($25 for a 1-g dose). The drug’s in vitro activity against drug-resistant pneumococci and S aureus, including MRSA, hVISA, and VISA may help fill an unmet need or provide a safer and more tolerable alternative to currently available therapies.

However, ceftaroline’s lack of activity against P aeruginosa and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae does not meet the public health threat needs stemming from these multidrug-resistant microorganisms. Ongoing clinical trials in patients with more serious MRSA infections will provide important information about ceftaroline’s role as an anti-MRSA agent.

While the discovery of antimicrobials has had one of the greatest impacts on medicine, continued antibiotic use is threatened by the emergence of drug-resistant pathogens. Therefore, it is as important as ever to be good stewards of our currently available antimicrobials. Developing usage and dosing criteria for antimicrobials based on available data and literature is a step forward in optimizing the use of antibiotics—a precious medical resource.

Ceftaroline fosamil (Teflaro), introduced to the US market in October 2010, is the first beta-lactam agent with clinically useful activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Currently, it is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections and community-acquired bacterial pneumonia caused by susceptible microorganisms.

In an era of increasing drug resistance and limited numbers of antimicrobials in the drug-production pipeline, ceftaroline is a step forward in fulfilling the Infectious Diseases Society of America’s “10 × ’20 Initiative” to increase support for drug research and manufacturing, with the goal of producing 10 new antimicrobial drugs by the year 2020.¹ Ceftaroline was the first of several antibiotics to receive FDA approval in response to this initiative. It was followed by dalbavancin (May 2014), tedizolid phosphate (June 2014), oritavancin (August 2014), ceftolozane-tazobactam (December 2014), and ceftazidime-avibactam (February 2015). These antibiotic agents are aimed at treating infections caused by drug-resistant gram-positive and gram-negative microorganisms. It is important to understand and optimize the use of these new antibiotic agents in order to decrease the risk of emerging antibiotic resistance and superinfections (eg, Clostridium difficile infection) caused by antibiotic overuse or misuse.

This article provides an overview of ceftaroline’s mechanisms of action and resistance, spectrum of activity, pharmacokinetic properties, adverse effects, and current place in therapy.

AN ERA OF MULTIDRUG-RESISTANT MICROORGANISMS

Increasing rates of antimicrobial resistance threaten the efficacy of antimicrobial drugs in the daily practice of medicine. The World Health Organization has labeled antimicrobial resistance one of the three greatest threats to human health. Global efforts are under way to stimulate development of new antimicrobial agents and to decrease rates of antimicrobial resistance.

Staphylococcus aureus: A threat, even with vancomycin

Between 1998 and 2005, S aureus was one of the most common inpatient and outpatient isolates reported by clinical laboratories throughout the United States.²

Treatment of S aureus infection is complicated by a variety of resistance mechanisms that have evolved over time. In fact, the first resistant isolate of S aureus emerged not long after penicillin’s debut into clinical practice, and now the majority of strains are resistant to penicillin.

Methicillin was designed to overcome this beta-lactamase resistance and became the treatment of choice for penicillin-resistant S aureus isolates. However, MRSA isolates soon emerged because of the organism’s acquisition of penicillin-binding protein PBP2a via the mecA gene, leading to decreased binding affinity of methicillin.³

Since then, several agents active against MRSA (vancomycin, daptomycin, linezolid, tigecycline) have been introduced and continue to be widely used. While vancomycin is considered the first-line option for a variety of MRSA infections, its use has been threatened because of the emergence of vancomycin-intermediate-resistant S aureus (VISA), S aureus strains displaying vancomycin heteroresistance (hVISA), and vancomycin-resistant S aureus (VRSA) strains.⁴

VISA and hVISA isolates emerged through sequential mutations that lead to autolytic activity and cell-wall thickening. In contrast, the mechanism of resistance in VRSA is by acquisition of the vanA resistance gene, which alters the binding site of vancomycin from d-alanine-d-alanine to d-alanine-d-lactate.⁵

Streptococcus pneumoniae resistance: A continuing problem

The prevalence of drug resistance in S pneumoniae has risen since the late 1990s. A 2013 report from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program stated that almost 20% of S pneumoniae isolates were resistant to amoxicillin-clavulanate, and similar trends have been observed for penicillin (14.8%) and ceftriaxone (11.7%).⁶

S pneumoniae resistance is acquired through modifications of the penicillin-binding proteins, namely PBP1a, PBP2b, PBP2x, and, less frequently, PBP2a. These modifications lead to decreased binding affinity for most beta-lactams.⁷

Clinical impact of multidrug-resistant S aureus and S pneumoniae

In 2011, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported an estimated 80,000 severe MRSA infections and 11,000 MRSA-related deaths in the United States.⁸ In the same report, drug-resistant S pneumoniae was estimated to be responsible for almost 1.2 million illnesses and 7,000 deaths per year, leading to upwards of $96 million in related medical costs.

While invasive drug-resistant S pneumoniae infections usually affect patients at the extremes of age (under age 5 and over age 65), they have had a serious impact on patients of all ages.⁸

In light of the increasing prevalence of multidrug-resistant organisms, newer antimicrobial agents with novel mechanisms of action are needed.

CEFTAROLINE: A BETA-LACTAM WITH ANTI-MRSA ACTIVITY

The cephalosporins, a class of beta-lactam antibiotics, were originally derived from the fungus Cephalosporium (now called Acremonium). There are now many agents in this class, each containing a nucleus consisting of a beta-lactam ring fused to a six-member dihydrothiazine ring, and two side chains that can be modified to affect antibacterial activity and pharmacokinetic properties.

Cephalosporins are typically categorized into “generations.” With some exceptions, the first- and second-generation agents have good activity against gram-positive microorganisms, including methicillin-susceptible S aureus—but not against MRSA. The third- and fourth-generation cephalosporins have better gram-negative activity, with many agents having activity against the gram-negative bacterium Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Enterococcal isolates are intrinsically resistant to cephalosporins. Additionally, cephalosporins are not active against anaerobic bacteria, except for a subset of structurally unique second-generation cephalosporins, ie, cefotetan and cefoxitin.

Ceftaroline was synthesized with specific manipulations of the side chains to provide enhanced activity against MRSA and multidrug-resistant S pneumoniae isolates, making it the first available beta-lactam with this ability.

Mechanism of action

Ceftaroline binds to penicillin-binding proteins, inhibiting transpeptidation. This interaction blocks the final stage of peptidoglycan synthesis and inhibits bacterial cell wall formation, ultimately leading to cellular autolysis and microorganism death. Ceftaroline binds with high affinity to PBP2a and PBP2x, expanding its activity to encompass MRSA and penicillin-resistant S pneumoniae isolates.⁹

Spectrum of activity

Ceftaroline has in vitro activity against many gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria,^10–13 including (Table 1):

• Methicillin-susceptible and methicillin-resistant staphylococci
• VISA, VRSA, and hVISA
• Daptomycin-nonsusceptible S aureus
• Streptococcal species, including penicillin-resistant S pneumoniae
• Enterobacteriaceae, including Klebsiella pneumoniae, Klebsiella oxytoca, Escherichia coli, Citrobacter koseri, Citrobacter freundii, Enterobacter cloacae, Enterobacter aerogenes, Moraxella catarrhalis, Morganella morganii, and Proteus mirabilis.

Of note, ceftaroline is not active against Pseudomonas species, Enterococcus species, or Bacteroides fragilis. In addition, it is not active against the “atypical” respiratory pathogens Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Chlamydophila pneumoniae, and Legionella pneumophila.

Ceftaroline resistance

Gram-negative organisms appear to develop resistance to ceftaroline at rates similar to those observed with the other oxyimino-cephalosporins (eg, ceftriaxone). Ceftaroline is inactive against gram-negative organisms producing extended-spectrum beta-lactamases, including K pneumoniae carbapenemase and metallo-beta-lactamases.¹⁴ In addition, it induces the expression of AmpC beta-lactamases.

Although currently uncommon, resistance to ceftaroline has also been reported in S aureus strains.¹⁵ The mechanism of resistance is decreased binding affinity for PBP2a due to amino acid substitutions on the nonpenicillin-binding domains.¹⁵

Pharmacokinetic profile

An understanding of pharmacokinetics is key in optimizing the dose of antimicrobials so that the drugs are used most effectively and pathogens do not develop resistance to them.

Ceftaroline fosamil is a prodrug that, upon intravenous administration, is rapidly converted by phosphatase enzymes to its active moiety, ceftaroline. Its pharmacokinetic profile is summarized in Table 2.^16,17 Its volume of distribution is similar to that of the fourth-generation cephalosporin cefepime.

Ceftaroline is then hydrolyzed into its inactive metabolite, ceftaroline M-1. It undergoes little hepatic metabolism and lacks properties to make it a substrate, inhibitor, or inducer of the CYP450 enzyme system and therefore is not likely to cause notable CYP450-related drug-drug interactions.

Like most other beta-lactams, ceftaroline is primarily excreted by the kidneys. Furthermore, an estimated 21% of a dose is eliminated with each intermittent hemodialysis session. Therefore, renal and intermittent hemodialysis dose adjustments are necessary. The estimated elimination half-life is 2.6 hours, necessitating dosing two to three times daily, depending on the indication and infectious inoculum.

Ceftaroline dosing

Ceftaroline is available only in a parenteral preparation and is typically given at a dose of 600 mg every 12 hours.¹⁰ The intravenous infusion is given over 1 hour.

The current stability data require reconstituted ceftaroline to be used within 6 hours at room temperature and within 24 hours if refrigerated.¹⁰

Ceftaroline requires dosing adjustments for patients with renal insufficiency. Per the manufacturer, renal dosing adjustments are based on the creatinine clearance rate, as estimated by the Cockroft-Gault formula:

• Creatinine clearance > 50 mL/min: no dosage adjustment necessary
• Creatinine clearance > 30 to ≤ 50 mL/min: give 400 mg every 12 hours
• Creatinine clearance ≥ 15 to ≤ 30 mL/min: give 300 mg every 12 hours
• Creatinine clearance < 15 mL/min or on intermittent dialysis: give 200 mg every 12 hours.

Ongoing clinical trials are investigating a higher-dosing strategy of 600 mg every 8 hours for patients with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia at risk of MRSA bacteremia.¹⁸

CLINICAL TRIALS LEADING TO CEFTAROLINE’S APPROVAL

Ceftaroline was approved for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia and acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections due to susceptible pathogens on the basis of phase 3 comparator trials.

Community-acquired bacterial pneumonia: The FOCUS 1 and 2 trials

The efficacy and safety of ceftaroline in the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia was studied in two randomized, double-blind, noninferiority trials, known as Ceftaroline Community-acquired Pneumonia vs Ceftriaxone (FOCUS) 1 and FOCUS 2.^19,20

Patients were adults and not critically ill, as was reflected by their being in Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team (PORT) risk class III or IV (with class V indicating the highest risk of death). Therefore, the results may not be completely applicable to critically ill patients or those not admitted to the hospital. Of note, patients were excluded from the trials if they had infections known or thought to be due to MRSA or to atypical organisms.²¹ Baseline characteristics and patient demographics were similar between study groups in both trials.

A bacterial pathogen was identified in 26.1% of the patients included in the modified intent-to-treat analysis of the pooled data of the trials; the most common pathogens were S pneumoniae, methicillin-sensitive S aureus, Haemophilus influenzae, K pneumoniae, and E coli.²¹

Treatment. Patients received either ceftaroline 600 mg every 12 hours (or a lower dose based on renal function) or ceftriaxone 1 g every 24 hours. In addition, in the FOCUS 1 trial, patients in both treatment groups received clarithromycin 500 mg every 12 hours for the first day.¹⁹

Results. In both trials and in the integrated analysis, ceftaroline was noninferior to ceftriaxone (Table 3).²² In the integrated analysis of both trials, compared with the ceftriaxone group, the ceftaroline group had a higher clinical cure rate among patients classified as PORT risk class III (86.8% vs 79.2%, weighted treatment difference 12.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3–13.8) and among patients who had not received prior antibiotic treatment (85.5% vs 74.9%, weighted treatment difference 11.2%, 95% CI 4.5–18.0).²¹

Acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections: The CANVAS 1 and 2 trials

The efficacy and safety of ceftaroline in the treatment of complicated acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections was studied in two randomized, double-blind trials: Ceftaroline Versus Vancomycin in Skin and Skin Structure Infections (CANVAS) 1 and CANVAS 2.^23,24

Patients. Adult patients with a diagnosis of community-acquired skin and skin-structure infections warranting at least 5 days of intravenous antimicrobial therapy were included in the trials. Important protocol exclusions were patients with diabetic foot ulcers, decubitus ulcers, burns, ulcers associated with peripheral vascular disease accompanied by osteomyelitis, and suspected P aeruginosa infections.²⁵ This limits the external validity of ceftaroline use in the aforementioned excluded patient populations.

Patients in each treatment group of the trials had similar demographic characteristics. The most common infections were cellulitis, major abscess requiring surgical intervention, wound infection, and infected ulcer. Bacteremia was present in 4.2% of patients in the ceftaroline group and in 3.8% of patients in the vancomycin-aztreonam group. The most common pathogen was S aureus. Methicillin resistance was present in 40% of the ceftaroline group and 34% of the control group.

Treatment. Patients received either ceftaroline 600 mg every 12 hours or the combination of vancomycin 1 g plus aztreonam 1 g given 12 hours, for 5 to 14 days.

Results. As assessed at a “test-of-cure” visit 8 to 15 days after the last dose of study medication, the efficacy of ceftaroline was similar to that of vancomycin-aztreonam, meeting the set noninferiority goal (Table 4).²⁵ Moreover, if assessed on day 2 or 3 (a new end point recommended by the FDA), the rate of cessation of erythema spread and absence of fever was higher in the ceftaroline group than in the vancomycin-aztreonam group.²⁶ However, this end point was not in the original trial protocol.

CEFTAROLINE FOR OTHER INDICATIONS

As noted, ceftaroline has been approved for treating community-acquired bacterial pneumonia and acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections. In addition, it has been used in several studies in animals, and case reports of non-FDA approved indications including endocarditis and osteomyelitis have been published. Clinical trials are evaluating its use in pediatric patients, as well as for community-acquired bacterial pneumonia with risk for MRSA and for MRSA bacteremia.

Endocarditis

Animal studies have demonstrated ceftaroline to have bactericidal activity against MRSA and hVISA in endocarditis.²⁷

A few case series have been published describing ceftaroline’s use as salvage therapy for persistent MRSA bacteremia and endocarditis. For example, Ho et al²⁸ reported using it in three patients who had endocarditis as a source of their persistent bacteremia. All three patients had resolution of their MRSA bloodstream infection following ceftaroline therapy. The dosage was 600 mg every 8 hours, which is higher than in the manufacturer’s prescribing information.

Lin et al²⁹ reported using ceftaroline in five patients with either possible or probable endocarditis. Three of the five patients had clinical cure as defined by resolution or improvement of all signs and symptoms of infection, and not requiring further antimicrobial therapy.²⁹

More data from clinical trials would be beneficial in defining ceftaroline’s role in treating endocarditis caused by susceptible microorganisms.

Osteomyelitis

In animal studies of osteomyelitis, ceftaroline exhibited activity against MRSA in infected bone and joint fluid. Compared with vancomycin and linezolid, ceftaroline was associated with more significant decreases in bacterial load in the infected joint fluid, bone marrow, and bone.³⁰

Lin et al²⁹ gave ceftaroline to two patients with bone and joint infections, both of whom had received other therapies that had failed. The doses of ceftaroline were higher than those recommended in the prescribing information; clinical cure was noted in both cases following the switch.

These data come from case series, and more study of ceftaroline’s role in the treatment of osteomyelitis infections is warranted.

Meningitis

The use of ceftaroline in meningitis has been studied in rabbits. While ceftaroline penetrated into the cerebrospinal fluid in only negligible amounts in healthy rabbits (3% penetration), its penetration improved to 15% in animals with inflamed meninges. Ceftaroline cerebrospinal fluid levels in inflamed meninges were sufficient to provide bactericidal activity against penicillin-sensitive and resistant S pneumoniae strains as well as K pneumoniae and E coli strains.^31,32

REPORTED ADVERSE EFFECTS OF CEFTAROLINE

Overall, ceftaroline was well tolerated in clinical trials, and its safety profile was similar to those of the comparator agents (ceftriaxone and vancomycin-aztreonam).

As with the other cephalosporins, hypersensitivity reactions have been reported with ceftaroline. In the clinical trials, 3% of patients developed a rash with ceftaroline.^33,34 Patients with a history of beta-lactam allergy were excluded from the trials, so the rate of cross-reactivity with penicillins and with other cephalosporins is unknown.

In the phase 3 clinical trials, gastrointestinal side effects including diarrhea (5%), nausea (4%), and vomiting (2%) were reported with ceftaroline. C difficile-associated diarrhea has also been reported.³³

As with other cephalosporins, ceftaroline can cause a false-positive result on the Coombs test. Approximately 11% of ceftaroline-treated patients in phase 3 clinical trials had a positive Coombs test, but hemolytic anemia did not occur in any patients.^33,34

Discontinuation of ceftaroline due to an adverse reaction was reported in 2.7% of patients receiving the drug during phase 3 trials, compared with 3.7% with comparator agents.

WHEN SHOULD CEFTAROLINE BE USED IN DAILY PRACTICE?

Ceftaroline has been shown to be at least as effective as ceftriaxone in treating community-acquired bacterial pneumonia, and at least as effective as vancomycin-aztreonam in treating acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections. The 2014 Infectious Diseases Society of America’s guidelines for the diagnosis and management of skin and soft-tissue infections recommend ceftaroline as an option for empiric therapy for purulent skin and soft-tissue infections.³⁵

The guidelines on community-acquired pneumonia have not been updated since 2007, which was before ceftaroline was approved. However, these guidelines are currently undergoing revision and may provide insight on ceftaroline’s place in the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia.³⁶

Currently, ceftaroline’s routine use for these indications should be balanced by its higher cost ($150 for a 600-mg dose) compared with ceftriaxone ($5 for a 1-g dose) or vancomycin ($25 for a 1-g dose). The drug’s in vitro activity against drug-resistant pneumococci and S aureus, including MRSA, hVISA, and VISA may help fill an unmet need or provide a safer and more tolerable alternative to currently available therapies.

However, ceftaroline’s lack of activity against P aeruginosa and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae does not meet the public health threat needs stemming from these multidrug-resistant microorganisms. Ongoing clinical trials in patients with more serious MRSA infections will provide important information about ceftaroline’s role as an anti-MRSA agent.

While the discovery of antimicrobials has had one of the greatest impacts on medicine, continued antibiotic use is threatened by the emergence of drug-resistant pathogens. Therefore, it is as important as ever to be good stewards of our currently available antimicrobials. Developing usage and dosing criteria for antimicrobials based on available data and literature is a step forward in optimizing the use of antibiotics—a precious medical resource.

A 68-year-old white woman presents with mid-  thoracic back pain. Plain radiographs reveal a compression fracture of the 10th thoracic vertebra. She is diagnosed with osteoporosis on the basis of dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans that show T scores of –2.9 in her lumbar spine and –2.6 in her left femoral neck. Her 10-year probability of fracture is estimated as 23% for major osteoporotic fracture and 5.9% for hip fracture (based on the World Health Organization’s absolute fracture risk assessment tool, adapted for the United States, and available at www.shef.ac.uk/FRAX).

After excluding common secondary causes of osteoporosis, her physician recommends a bisphosphonate to reduce her risk of fracture, but she develops upper-gastrointestinal adverse effects with both alendronate and risedronate despite correctly following the instructions for oral administration.

What should her physician consider next?

OSTEOPOROSIS IS A MAJOR PROBLEM

Osteoporosis is a systemic skeletal disease characterized by low bone mass and microarchitectural deterioration of bone tissue, predisposing to an increased risk of fragility fractures, particularly of the spine, hip, and wrist.

It is a major public health problem, affecting 200 million people throughout the world, with 9 million osteoporotic fractures reported in the year 2000.¹ The incidence of hip fracture alone is predicted to rise to 2.6 million by the year 2025, and to 4.5 million by the year 2050.² In the United States, the total burden was estimated to be about 2 million incident fractures in the year 2005, projected to rise by another 50% by the year 2025,³ primarily because of the aging of the population. Population studies have indeed suggested that about 40% of white women and 13% of white men over the age of 50 are at risk of sustaining an osteoporotic fracture during the remainder of their lifetime.⁴

The consequences of osteoporotic fractures can be devastating. Hip fractures are associated with a risk of death ranging from 8.4% to 36% during the first year after fracture.⁵ One-fifth of patients who sustain a hip fracture require long-term nursing home care, and more than half of the survivors do not regain their previous level of independence.

Patients with vertebral fractures are also at increased risk of death, although the results of some studies suggest that this could be the result of comorbid factors.^6–9 Vertebral fractures can result in chronic back pain, loss of height from spinal deformity, reduced mobility, loss of self-esteem, and in severe cases, respiratory and digestive problems because of contact between the lower ribs and pelvis.

A person with one vertebral compression fracture is five times more likely to have another vertebral fracture,¹⁰ and a person with two or more compression fractures is 12 times more likely.¹¹

The costs of treating osteoporotic fractures are greater than those of treating myocardial infarction or stroke^12,13; they include not only direct costs incurred in treating the fracture, but also indirect societal costs owing to the long-term morbidity associated with the fracture. In the United States, the total cost of treating osteoporotic fractures was estimated at $19 billion in the year 2005.³ By 2025, the annual costs are projected to rise by almost 50%.³

A NEED FOR MORE OPTIONS

Until fairly recently, bisphosphonates were the only drugs of first choice, but adherence to oral bisphosphonate therapy is generally poor (< 50% at 1 year),¹⁴ most commonly because of dyspepsia,¹⁵ and poor adherence has been shown to be associated with increased fracture risk.^16,17 Hence the need for additional therapeutic options.

In this review, we discuss denosumab, an antiresorptive drug approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2010. First, we discuss its mechanism of action, efficacy, and safety, and then we offer recommendations for its use in clinical practice.

WHAT IS DENOSUMAB AND HOW DOES IT WORK?

Bone remodeling is a dynamic process involving a balance between bone resorption by osteoclasts on the one hand and new bone formation by osteoblasts on the other. A net gain in bone occurs when the activity of osteoblasts exceeds that of osteoclasts, and bone loss occurs when there is increased osteoclast activity or reduced osteoblast activity, or both. The activities of osteoblasts and osteoclasts are tightly coupled because of the opposing effects of two sets of proteins, namely, receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa b ligand (RANKL) and osteoprotegerin.

Both RANKL and osteoprotegerin are produced by osteoblasts. RANKL binds to its receptor (RANK) on preosteoclasts and osteoclasts and induces their differentiation and activation, respectively. Osteoprotegerin is the decoy receptor and natural antagonist for RANKL. By binding with RANKL, it blocks its interaction with RANK.¹⁸ In healthy individuals, a fine balance between RANKL and osteoprotegerin ensures that bone remodeling is regulated.

In postmenopausal women, estrogen deficiency leads to an imbalance between RANKL and osteoprotegerin (increased RANKL and reduced osteoprotegerin), resulting in net bone loss. This imbalance is also a feature of rheumatoid arthritis, myeloma bone disease, and osteolytic metastatic bone disease; it also occurs in those receiving androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer or aromatase inhibitors for breast cancer.

Denosumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that targets RANKL.¹⁹ By binding to RANKL, this drug prevents the maturation and differentiation of preosteoclasts and promotes apoptosis of osteoclasts. Bone resorption is therefore slowed. It was parenteral osteoprotegerin that was initially developed by denosumab’s manufacturer,²⁰ but this approach failed because neutralizing antibodies developed to osteoprotegerin, rendering it ineffective. Development of neutralizing antibodies has thus far not been a problem with denosumab.

Denosumab, with its property of RANKL inhibition, has also been used to prevent skeletal events in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors and to treat unresectable giant cell tumors of the bone (both FDA-approved indications) and hypercalcemia of malignancy. There is limited clinical experience in Paget disease of the bone as well.^21–23 These other potential uses of denosumab are beyond the scope of this review.

HOW WELL DOES DENOSUMAB WORK FOR OSTEOPOROSIS?

Several phase 2 and phase 3 randomized controlled trials have evaluated the efficacy of denosumab, but only one, the Fracture Reduction Evaluation of Denosumab in Osteoporosis Every 6 Months (FREEDOM) trial, included fracture reduction as the primary outcome measure. The rest evaluated changes in bone mineral density or in markers of bone turnover, or both.

FREEDOM was a double-blind, randomized controlled trial in 7,808 postmenopausal women with T scores between –2.5 and –4.0 at the lumbar spine or hip.²⁴ Twenty-four percent of the patients had vertebral fractures at baseline. Patients were randomized to receive either denosumab 60 mg (n = 3,902) or placebo (n = 3,906) every 6 months for up to 36 months. All patients also received adequate calcium and vitamin D supplementation.

At 36 months, compared with those who were randomized to receive placebo, those who were randomized to denosumab had lower incidence rates of:

• New vertebral fracture
  (2.3% vs 7.2%, risk ratio 0.32,
  95% CI 0.26–0.41, P < .001)
• Nonvertebral fracture
  (6.5% vs 8.0%, risk ratio 0.80,
  95% CI 0.67–0.95, P = .01)
• Hip fracture
  (0.7% vs 1.2%, risk ratio 0.60,
  95% CI 0.37–0.97, P = .04).

Increases in bone mineral density at the lumbar spine and hip, and decreases in bone turnover markers were also significantly greater in the denosumab group. The number needed to treat to prevent one new fracture over 3 years was 21 for vertebral fracture, 67 for nonvertebral fracture, and 200 for hip fracture, reflecting the relatively low event rate in the study.

In an open-label extension of the FREEDOM trial, the fracture incidence rates among participants who continued to receive denosumab for an additional 5 years remained low, and still below those projected for a “virtual placebo cohort” (total duration of exposure of 8 years). The rates among participants who switched from placebo to denosumab were similar to those of the denosumab group from the parent trial.^25,26

A subgroup analysis of the FREEDOM trial suggested that denosumab reduced the risk of new vertebral fractures irrespective of age, body mass index, femoral neck bone mineral density, prevalent vertebral fractures, or prior nonvertebral fractures (risk ratio 0.32; 95% CI 0.26–0.41, P < .001), whereas the risk of nonvertebral fractures was only reduced in those women with body mass indices less than 25 kg/m², femoral neck bone mineral density T scores less than  –2.5, and in those without a prevalent vertebral fracture.²⁷

A post hoc analysis revealed that denosumab significantly reduced the risk of new vertebral and hip fractures even in subgroups of women at higher risk of fracture.²⁸ At 10% fracture probability (as estimated by the FRAX risk calculator), denosumab reduced the fracture risk by 11% (P = .629), whereas at 30% probability (moderate to high risk), the reduction was 50% (P = .001).²⁹

Other phase 2 and phase 3 trials, in postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density, demonstrated that compared with placebo, denosumab significantly increased bone mineral density at all skeletal sites, increased volumetric bone mineral density at the distal radius, improved hip structural analysis parameters, and reduced bone turnover markers.^30–33 Increases in bone mineral density and reductions in bone turnover markers with denosumab have been shown in men as well.³⁴

In a randomized controlled trial,³⁵ improvement in bone mineral density was better in those who received the combination of denosumab and teriparatide than in those who received either drug on its own.

Denosumab has also been shown to reduce the incidence of new vertebral fractures and improve bone mineral density in men receiving androgen-deprivation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer,³⁶ and to improve bone mineral density in women with metastatic breast cancer and low bone mass who were receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy.³⁷

HOW DOES DENOSUMAB COMPARE WITH OTHER OSTEOPOROSIS DRUGS?

A double-blind randomized controlled trial in postmenopausal women with low bone mass demonstrated that denosumab was superior to alendronate in improving bone mineral density at all skeletal sites (3.5% vs 2.6% for total hip bone mineral density, P < .0001).³⁸

Another double-blind trial demonstrated that in patients previously treated with alendronate, switching to denosumab resulted in significantly greater increases in bone mineral density at all skeletal sites compared with continuing with alendronate (P < .0001).³⁹

Denosumab has also been shown to be superior to alendronate in improving cortical bone mineral density, as measured by quantitative computed tomography.⁴⁰

No trial has directly compared the efficacy of denosumab with other osteoporosis drugs in reducing fracture risk, but a systematic literature review of multiple databases,⁴¹ comparing the antifracture efficacy of nine osteoporosis drugs, concluded that teriparatide, zoledronic acid, and denosumab had the highest probabilities of being most efficacious for nonvertebral and vertebral fractures, with the greatest effect sizes. Indirect comparisons of the relative risk of fracture with denosumab (based on the results of FREEDOM), alendronate, risedronate, raloxifene, and strontium (based on a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials) are presented in Table 1.⁴²

A 2-year randomized, open-label, crossover study⁴³ randomized patients to receive either denosumab followed by alendronate or alendronate followed by denosumab over successive 12-month periods. The results suggested that postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were more adherent, compliant, and persistent with denosumab therapy (a subcutaneous injection every 6 months) than with alendronate therapy in the form of oral tablets, self-administered weekly (7.5% nonadherence vs 36.5% at the end of 2 years). After receiving both treatments, women reported greater satisfaction with denosumab, with 92.4% preferring it over oral alendronate. Bone mineral density remained stable when patients were switched from denosumab to alendronate, but improved further when they were switched from alendronate to denosumab.

HOW SAFE IS DENOSUMAB?

The most frequent adverse events with denosumab reported in the long-term extension of one phase 2 study were upper respiratory tract infections (13.5%), arthralgia (11.5%), and back pain (9.0%).³⁰

Increased risk of infection, cancer, and dermatologic reactions has been a concern, as RANKL and RANK are expressed by a wide variety of cells, including T lymphocytes, B cells, and dendritic cells.⁴⁴ However, there were no significant differences in the overall incidences of adverse events between patients who received denosumab and those who received placebo or alendronate in any of the phase 2, phase 3, or extension studies.

In the FREEDOM trial,²⁴ there was no significant difference between the two groups in the overall incidence of infection (52.9% with denosumab vs 54.4% with placebo, P = .17), or serious infection (4.1% with denosumab vs 3.4% with placebo, P = .14), although the incidence of “serious” cellulitis requiring hospitalization was higher in the denosumab group (0.3% vs < 0.1%, P = .002). There were more serious infections involving the gastrointestinal system, urinary tract, and ear and cases of endocarditis in the denosumab group, but the number of events was small, and there was no relationship with the timing of administration or duration of exposure to denosumab.⁴⁵ Eczema was more common in the denosumab than in the placebo group (3.0% vs 1.7%, P < .001), but the extension data from the first 3 years did not provide any evidence for an increased risk of cellulitis or eczema with denosumab.²⁶

Although randomized controlled trials reported more cases of neoplasms in the denosumab than in the placebo groups, meta-analyses have failed to detect a statistically significant difference (risk ratio 1.11, 95% CI 0.91–1.36).⁴⁶ The overall incidence of adverse and serious adverse events reported in the 8-year extension of FREEDOM were consistent with data reported in the previous extension studies.²⁵

In the FREEDOM extension trial, four events in the long-term group (n = 2,343), and two in the crossover group (n = 2,207) were adjudicated as being consistent with osteonecrosis of the jaw.²⁶ One mid-shaft fracture in the crossover group was adjudicated as an atypical femoral fracture. There were, however, no reports of osteonecrosis of the jaw or atypical femoral fracture in the long-term phase 2 trial after 8 years of follow-up.³⁰ By September 2013, postmarketing safety surveillance data for denosumab (estimated exposure of 1.2 million patient-years) had recorded four cases of atypical femoral fracture. All four patients had previously been on bisphosphonates. There were also 32 reports of osteonecrosis of the jaw.⁴⁷

Denosumab’s manufacturer aims to communicate the risks of treatment to health care professionals and patients. Information is available online at www.proliahcp.com/risk-evaluation-mitigation-strategy/.

WHAT ARE THE PRECAUTIONS?

Several precautions need to be taken when considering treatment with denosumab.

Antiresorptives can aggravate hypocalcemia by inhibiting bone turnover. Serum calcium should therefore be checked and preexisting hypocalcemia should be corrected before starting denosumab.⁴⁸

Denosumab is contraindicated in women who are pregnant or are planning to become pregnant, as fetal loss and teratogenicity have been reported in animal experiments. (Denosumab is unlikely to be used in premenopausal women, as it is not approved for use in this group.)

There are no data on excretion of denosumab in human milk, so it should not be given to nursing mothers.

Renal impairment is not a contraindication, and no dose adjustment is necessary (even for patients on renal replacement therapy), as denosumab, being an antibody, is eliminated through the reticuloendothelial system.^49,50 However, in practice, any antiresorptive agent should be used with caution in patients with severe renal impairment because of the possible presence of adynamic bone disease. Further reduction of bone turnover would be detrimental in such patients. Also, severe hypocalcemia has been reported in patients with a creatinine clearance rate less than 30 mL/min and in those receiving dialysis.^51,52 Postmarketing surveillance data have reported eight cases of severe symptomatic hypocalcemia, of which seven were in patients with chronic kidney disease.⁴⁷

The manufacturer suggests that patients receive a dental examination with appropriate preventive dentistry before starting denosumab to reduce the incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw, despite the lack of evidence in support of this strategy. The American Dental Association recommends regular dental visits and maintenance of good oral hygiene for patients already established on antiresorptive therapy.^53,54

SHOULD PATIENTS ON DENOSUMAB BE OFFERED A DRUG HOLIDAY?

A drug holiday (temporary discontinuation of the drug after a certain duration of treatment) has been proposed for patients receiving bisphosphonates because of the risk of atypical femoral fracture and osteonecrosis of the jaw (although small) consequent to long-term continuous suppression of bone turnover.⁵⁵ The antifracture efficacy of bisphosphonates is likely to persist for an unknown length of time after discontinuation because of their long skeletal half-life, while the risks gradually diminish.

By contrast, denosumab targets RANKL in the extracellular fluid and does not become embedded within the bone tissue.⁵⁶ Pharmacokinetic studies have shown that denosumab has a rapid offset of action, with a half-life of only 26 days and biological activity lasting only 6 months.⁵⁷ The results of a phase 2 extension study suggest that bone mineral density starts to decline and bone turnover markers start to rise within 12 months of discontinuing denosumab.⁵⁸

Although fracture risk did not increase in those who were randomized to stopping the treatment and bone mineral density increased further when treatment was restarted, a drug holiday cannot presently be recommended for patients receiving denosumab because of the lack of supportive data.

HOW COST-EFFECTIVE IS DENOSUMAB?

The wholesale acquisition cost is $825 per 60-mg prefilled syringe of denosumab, although this may vary depending on where the drug is obtained. This does not include physician-related service costs associated with administration of denosumab.

Cost-effectiveness analyses conducted in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Sweden have all concluded that denosumab would offer a cost-effective alternative to other osteoporosis medications for primary prevention and secondary prevention of fractures.^59–61

The Swedish study also incorporated adherence in the cost-effectiveness model and showed that denosumab was a cost-effective alternative to oral bisphosphonates, particularly for patients who were not expected to adhere well to oral treatments.⁶¹

WHICH OSTEOPOROSIS PATIENTS ARE CANDIDATES FOR DENOSUMAB?

The FDA has approved denosumab for the treatment of postmenopausal women and men at high risk of fracture (defined as having a history of osteoporotic fracture or multiple risk factors for fracture), or in those who cannot tolerate other osteoporosis medications or for whom other medications have failed.

Denosumab is also approved for men at high risk of fracture receiving androgen deprivation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer, and for women at high risk of fracture receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy for breast cancer.

WHAT DO THE GUIDELINES RECOMMEND?

The National Osteoporosis Foundation guidelines recommend pharmacologic treatment for patients with hip or vertebral fractures (clinical or asymptomatic); T scores lower than –2.5 at the femoral neck, total hip, or lumbar spine; and those with a 10-year probability of hip fracture of more than 3% or of a major osteoporotic fracture more than 20% based on the US-adapted FRAX calculator.⁶² The American College of Endocrinology guidelines have proposed similar thresholds for pharmacologic treatment, and they recommend alendronate, risedronate, zoledronate, and denosumab as first-line agents.⁶³

The 2010 Osteoporosis Canada guidelines recommend denosumab, alendronate, risedronate, and zoledronate as first-line therapies for preventing hip, nonvertebral, and vertebral fractures in postmenopausal women (grade A recommendation).⁶⁴ The National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence in England and Wales, on the other hand, recommends denosumab only for patients who are unable to take a bisphosphonate.⁶⁵

PRACTICAL PRESCRIBING TIPS

The patient described at the beginning of this article has already sustained a vertebral compression fracture, and her DXA scan shows T scores in the osteoporotic range. She is therefore at increased risk of another fragility fracture (with a fivefold higher risk of another vertebral fracture). Pharmacologic therapy should be considered. In addition, she should be encouraged to adhere to lifestyle measures such as a healthy diet and regular weight-bearing exercise, her risk of falling should be assessed, and adequate calcium and vitamin D supplementation should be given.

Secondary causes of osteoporosis are present in about 30% of women and 55% of men who have vertebral fractures.⁶⁶ A complete blood count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, bone biochemistry, 25-hydroxyvitamin D, thyroid-stimulating hormone, and renal and liver function tests should be requested in all patients. Further tests should be considered depending on the clinical evaluation and results of initial investigations.

Because this patient cannot tolerate oral bisphosphonates, she could be offered the option of annual intravenous zoledronic acid infusions or 6-monthly subcutaneous denosumab injections. In clinical trials, gastrointestinal adverse effects were noted with intravenous bisphosphonates as well, but the adverse effects reported were no different than those with placebo. The potential advantages with denosumab include better bone mineral density gains, adherence and patient satisfaction compared with oral bisphosphonates, convenient twice-yearly administration, safety in patients with renal impairment, and absence of gastrointestinal effects.

Raloxifene, a selective estrogen receptor modulator, has estrogen-like action on the bone and antiestrogen actions on the breast and uterus. Unlike standard hormone replacement therapy, raloxifene can therefore increase bone mineral density without increasing the risk of breast and endometrial cancers. However, it has only been shown to reduce the risk of vertebral fracture, not hip fracture. Hence, it would be a more appropriate choice for younger postmenopausal women. Moreover, it may cause troublesome menopausal symptoms.

Teriparatide, the recombinant parathyroid hormone, is an anabolic agent. It is very expensive, and because of this, guidelines in several countries restrict its use to women with severe osteoporosis and multiple fractures who fail to respond to standard treatments. It cannot be used for longer than 2 years because of its association with osteosarcoma in rats.

If our patient prefers denosumab, therapy should be initiated after appropriate counseling (see precautions above). The dose is 60 mg, given subcutaneously, once every 6 months.

Monitoring

There is no consensus regarding the optimal frequency for monitoring patients on treatment, owing to the lack of prospective trial data. The National Osteoporosis Foundation recommends repeating the bone mineral density measurements about 2 years after starting therapy, and about every 2 years thereafter.⁶² Some studies suggest that changes in bone mineral density correlate with reduction in fracture risk.^67,68 A change in bone mineral density is considered significant when it is greater than the range of error of the densitometer (also known as the least significant change).⁶⁹ If the bone mineral density is stable or improving, therapy could be continued, but if it is declining and the decline is greater than the least significant change, a change in therapy should be considered if no secondary causes for bone loss are evident (but see What are the areas of uncertainty? below).

The National Osteoporosis Foundation also recommends measuring a bone turnover marker at baseline and then 3 to 6 months later, as its suppression predicts greater bone mineral density responses and fracture risk reduction.⁷⁰ If there is a decrease of more than 30% in serum carboxy-terminal collagen crosslinks (CTX) or more than 50% in urinary N-telopeptide (NTX),⁷¹ the patient can be reassured that the next bone mineral density measurement will be stable or improved. In patients on oral bisphosphonates, measurement of bone turnover markers also provides evidence of compliance.

Clinical trials suggest that a numerical increase in bone mineral density can be expected in most patients on treatment, though this depends on the measurement site and the length of time between examinations. In one phase 3 trial of denosumab in postmenopausal women, only 5% of the participants had unchanged or diminished bone mineral density at the lumbar spine, and 8% at the hip, after 36 months of treatment.⁷² However, the CTX levels fell to below the lower limit of the reference interval as early as 1 month after commencing treatment in all denosumab-treated patients.⁶⁸

Hence, bone turnover markers may be a more sensitive indicator of treatment effect than bone mineral density, but this would ultimately need to be evaluated against fracture rates in a real-world setting.

WHAT ARE THE AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY?

There are currently no guidelines for long-term management of patients on denosumab, and also no data to suggest whether patients should be switched to a weaker antiresorptive drug after a certain number of years in order to reduce the possible risk of atypical femoral fracture or osteonecrosis of the jaw.

No head-to-head trials have directly compared the antifracture efficacy of denosumab with that of other standard osteoporosis therapies. The antifracture efficacy and safety of combination therapies involving denosumab are also uncertain. For adherent patients who have a suboptimal response, there is no evidence to guide the further course of action. The International Osteoporosis Foundation guidelines suggest replacing a stronger antiresorptive with an anabolic agent, but acknowledge that this is only based on expert opinion.⁷¹

The very-long-term effects (beyond 8 years) of continuous denosumab administration on increasing the risk of atypical femoral fracture, osteonecrosis of the jaw, malignancy, or infection or the duration after which risks would start to outweigh benefits is not known. However, postmarketing safety data continue to be collected through the voluntary Post-marketing Active Safety Surveillance Program (for prespecified adverse events) in addition to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

CASE PROGRESSION

The patient described in the vignette is presented with two options—zoledronate and denosumab. She chooses denosumab. Her renal function and serum calcium are checked and are found to be satisfactory. She undergoes a dental examination, which is also satisfactory. She is counseled about the possible increased risk of infection, and then she is started on 60 mg of denosumab subcutaneously, once every 6 months.

When reviewed after 2 years, she reports no further fractures. Her bone mineral density remains stable compared with the values obtained before starting treatment. She reports no adverse effects and is happy to continue with denosumab.

A 68-year-old white woman presents with mid-  thoracic back pain. Plain radiographs reveal a compression fracture of the 10th thoracic vertebra. She is diagnosed with osteoporosis on the basis of dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans that show T scores of –2.9 in her lumbar spine and –2.6 in her left femoral neck. Her 10-year probability of fracture is estimated as 23% for major osteoporotic fracture and 5.9% for hip fracture (based on the World Health Organization’s absolute fracture risk assessment tool, adapted for the United States, and available at www.shef.ac.uk/FRAX).

After excluding common secondary causes of osteoporosis, her physician recommends a bisphosphonate to reduce her risk of fracture, but she develops upper-gastrointestinal adverse effects with both alendronate and risedronate despite correctly following the instructions for oral administration.

What should her physician consider next?

OSTEOPOROSIS IS A MAJOR PROBLEM

Osteoporosis is a systemic skeletal disease characterized by low bone mass and microarchitectural deterioration of bone tissue, predisposing to an increased risk of fragility fractures, particularly of the spine, hip, and wrist.

It is a major public health problem, affecting 200 million people throughout the world, with 9 million osteoporotic fractures reported in the year 2000.¹ The incidence of hip fracture alone is predicted to rise to 2.6 million by the year 2025, and to 4.5 million by the year 2050.² In the United States, the total burden was estimated to be about 2 million incident fractures in the year 2005, projected to rise by another 50% by the year 2025,³ primarily because of the aging of the population. Population studies have indeed suggested that about 40% of white women and 13% of white men over the age of 50 are at risk of sustaining an osteoporotic fracture during the remainder of their lifetime.⁴

The consequences of osteoporotic fractures can be devastating. Hip fractures are associated with a risk of death ranging from 8.4% to 36% during the first year after fracture.⁵ One-fifth of patients who sustain a hip fracture require long-term nursing home care, and more than half of the survivors do not regain their previous level of independence.

Patients with vertebral fractures are also at increased risk of death, although the results of some studies suggest that this could be the result of comorbid factors.^6–9 Vertebral fractures can result in chronic back pain, loss of height from spinal deformity, reduced mobility, loss of self-esteem, and in severe cases, respiratory and digestive problems because of contact between the lower ribs and pelvis.

A person with one vertebral compression fracture is five times more likely to have another vertebral fracture,¹⁰ and a person with two or more compression fractures is 12 times more likely.¹¹

The costs of treating osteoporotic fractures are greater than those of treating myocardial infarction or stroke^12,13; they include not only direct costs incurred in treating the fracture, but also indirect societal costs owing to the long-term morbidity associated with the fracture. In the United States, the total cost of treating osteoporotic fractures was estimated at $19 billion in the year 2005.³ By 2025, the annual costs are projected to rise by almost 50%.³

A NEED FOR MORE OPTIONS

Until fairly recently, bisphosphonates were the only drugs of first choice, but adherence to oral bisphosphonate therapy is generally poor (< 50% at 1 year),¹⁴ most commonly because of dyspepsia,¹⁵ and poor adherence has been shown to be associated with increased fracture risk.^16,17 Hence the need for additional therapeutic options.

In this review, we discuss denosumab, an antiresorptive drug approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2010. First, we discuss its mechanism of action, efficacy, and safety, and then we offer recommendations for its use in clinical practice.

WHAT IS DENOSUMAB AND HOW DOES IT WORK?

Bone remodeling is a dynamic process involving a balance between bone resorption by osteoclasts on the one hand and new bone formation by osteoblasts on the other. A net gain in bone occurs when the activity of osteoblasts exceeds that of osteoclasts, and bone loss occurs when there is increased osteoclast activity or reduced osteoblast activity, or both. The activities of osteoblasts and osteoclasts are tightly coupled because of the opposing effects of two sets of proteins, namely, receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa b ligand (RANKL) and osteoprotegerin.

Both RANKL and osteoprotegerin are produced by osteoblasts. RANKL binds to its receptor (RANK) on preosteoclasts and osteoclasts and induces their differentiation and activation, respectively. Osteoprotegerin is the decoy receptor and natural antagonist for RANKL. By binding with RANKL, it blocks its interaction with RANK.¹⁸ In healthy individuals, a fine balance between RANKL and osteoprotegerin ensures that bone remodeling is regulated.

In postmenopausal women, estrogen deficiency leads to an imbalance between RANKL and osteoprotegerin (increased RANKL and reduced osteoprotegerin), resulting in net bone loss. This imbalance is also a feature of rheumatoid arthritis, myeloma bone disease, and osteolytic metastatic bone disease; it also occurs in those receiving androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer or aromatase inhibitors for breast cancer.

Denosumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that targets RANKL.¹⁹ By binding to RANKL, this drug prevents the maturation and differentiation of preosteoclasts and promotes apoptosis of osteoclasts. Bone resorption is therefore slowed. It was parenteral osteoprotegerin that was initially developed by denosumab’s manufacturer,²⁰ but this approach failed because neutralizing antibodies developed to osteoprotegerin, rendering it ineffective. Development of neutralizing antibodies has thus far not been a problem with denosumab.

Denosumab, with its property of RANKL inhibition, has also been used to prevent skeletal events in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors and to treat unresectable giant cell tumors of the bone (both FDA-approved indications) and hypercalcemia of malignancy. There is limited clinical experience in Paget disease of the bone as well.^21–23 These other potential uses of denosumab are beyond the scope of this review.

HOW WELL DOES DENOSUMAB WORK FOR OSTEOPOROSIS?

Several phase 2 and phase 3 randomized controlled trials have evaluated the efficacy of denosumab, but only one, the Fracture Reduction Evaluation of Denosumab in Osteoporosis Every 6 Months (FREEDOM) trial, included fracture reduction as the primary outcome measure. The rest evaluated changes in bone mineral density or in markers of bone turnover, or both.

FREEDOM was a double-blind, randomized controlled trial in 7,808 postmenopausal women with T scores between –2.5 and –4.0 at the lumbar spine or hip.²⁴ Twenty-four percent of the patients had vertebral fractures at baseline. Patients were randomized to receive either denosumab 60 mg (n = 3,902) or placebo (n = 3,906) every 6 months for up to 36 months. All patients also received adequate calcium and vitamin D supplementation.

At 36 months, compared with those who were randomized to receive placebo, those who were randomized to denosumab had lower incidence rates of:

• New vertebral fracture
  (2.3% vs 7.2%, risk ratio 0.32,
  95% CI 0.26–0.41, P < .001)
• Nonvertebral fracture
  (6.5% vs 8.0%, risk ratio 0.80,
  95% CI 0.67–0.95, P = .01)
• Hip fracture
  (0.7% vs 1.2%, risk ratio 0.60,
  95% CI 0.37–0.97, P = .04).

Increases in bone mineral density at the lumbar spine and hip, and decreases in bone turnover markers were also significantly greater in the denosumab group. The number needed to treat to prevent one new fracture over 3 years was 21 for vertebral fracture, 67 for nonvertebral fracture, and 200 for hip fracture, reflecting the relatively low event rate in the study.

In an open-label extension of the FREEDOM trial, the fracture incidence rates among participants who continued to receive denosumab for an additional 5 years remained low, and still below those projected for a “virtual placebo cohort” (total duration of exposure of 8 years). The rates among participants who switched from placebo to denosumab were similar to those of the denosumab group from the parent trial.^25,26

A subgroup analysis of the FREEDOM trial suggested that denosumab reduced the risk of new vertebral fractures irrespective of age, body mass index, femoral neck bone mineral density, prevalent vertebral fractures, or prior nonvertebral fractures (risk ratio 0.32; 95% CI 0.26–0.41, P < .001), whereas the risk of nonvertebral fractures was only reduced in those women with body mass indices less than 25 kg/m², femoral neck bone mineral density T scores less than  –2.5, and in those without a prevalent vertebral fracture.²⁷

A post hoc analysis revealed that denosumab significantly reduced the risk of new vertebral and hip fractures even in subgroups of women at higher risk of fracture.²⁸ At 10% fracture probability (as estimated by the FRAX risk calculator), denosumab reduced the fracture risk by 11% (P = .629), whereas at 30% probability (moderate to high risk), the reduction was 50% (P = .001).²⁹

Other phase 2 and phase 3 trials, in postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density, demonstrated that compared with placebo, denosumab significantly increased bone mineral density at all skeletal sites, increased volumetric bone mineral density at the distal radius, improved hip structural analysis parameters, and reduced bone turnover markers.^30–33 Increases in bone mineral density and reductions in bone turnover markers with denosumab have been shown in men as well.³⁴

In a randomized controlled trial,³⁵ improvement in bone mineral density was better in those who received the combination of denosumab and teriparatide than in those who received either drug on its own.

Denosumab has also been shown to reduce the incidence of new vertebral fractures and improve bone mineral density in men receiving androgen-deprivation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer,³⁶ and to improve bone mineral density in women with metastatic breast cancer and low bone mass who were receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy.³⁷

HOW DOES DENOSUMAB COMPARE WITH OTHER OSTEOPOROSIS DRUGS?

A double-blind randomized controlled trial in postmenopausal women with low bone mass demonstrated that denosumab was superior to alendronate in improving bone mineral density at all skeletal sites (3.5% vs 2.6% for total hip bone mineral density, P < .0001).³⁸

Another double-blind trial demonstrated that in patients previously treated with alendronate, switching to denosumab resulted in significantly greater increases in bone mineral density at all skeletal sites compared with continuing with alendronate (P < .0001).³⁹

Denosumab has also been shown to be superior to alendronate in improving cortical bone mineral density, as measured by quantitative computed tomography.⁴⁰

No trial has directly compared the efficacy of denosumab with other osteoporosis drugs in reducing fracture risk, but a systematic literature review of multiple databases,⁴¹ comparing the antifracture efficacy of nine osteoporosis drugs, concluded that teriparatide, zoledronic acid, and denosumab had the highest probabilities of being most efficacious for nonvertebral and vertebral fractures, with the greatest effect sizes. Indirect comparisons of the relative risk of fracture with denosumab (based on the results of FREEDOM), alendronate, risedronate, raloxifene, and strontium (based on a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials) are presented in Table 1.⁴²

A 2-year randomized, open-label, crossover study⁴³ randomized patients to receive either denosumab followed by alendronate or alendronate followed by denosumab over successive 12-month periods. The results suggested that postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were more adherent, compliant, and persistent with denosumab therapy (a subcutaneous injection every 6 months) than with alendronate therapy in the form of oral tablets, self-administered weekly (7.5% nonadherence vs 36.5% at the end of 2 years). After receiving both treatments, women reported greater satisfaction with denosumab, with 92.4% preferring it over oral alendronate. Bone mineral density remained stable when patients were switched from denosumab to alendronate, but improved further when they were switched from alendronate to denosumab.

HOW SAFE IS DENOSUMAB?

The most frequent adverse events with denosumab reported in the long-term extension of one phase 2 study were upper respiratory tract infections (13.5%), arthralgia (11.5%), and back pain (9.0%).³⁰

Increased risk of infection, cancer, and dermatologic reactions has been a concern, as RANKL and RANK are expressed by a wide variety of cells, including T lymphocytes, B cells, and dendritic cells.⁴⁴ However, there were no significant differences in the overall incidences of adverse events between patients who received denosumab and those who received placebo or alendronate in any of the phase 2, phase 3, or extension studies.

In the FREEDOM trial,²⁴ there was no significant difference between the two groups in the overall incidence of infection (52.9% with denosumab vs 54.4% with placebo, P = .17), or serious infection (4.1% with denosumab vs 3.4% with placebo, P = .14), although the incidence of “serious” cellulitis requiring hospitalization was higher in the denosumab group (0.3% vs < 0.1%, P = .002). There were more serious infections involving the gastrointestinal system, urinary tract, and ear and cases of endocarditis in the denosumab group, but the number of events was small, and there was no relationship with the timing of administration or duration of exposure to denosumab.⁴⁵ Eczema was more common in the denosumab than in the placebo group (3.0% vs 1.7%, P < .001), but the extension data from the first 3 years did not provide any evidence for an increased risk of cellulitis or eczema with denosumab.²⁶

Although randomized controlled trials reported more cases of neoplasms in the denosumab than in the placebo groups, meta-analyses have failed to detect a statistically significant difference (risk ratio 1.11, 95% CI 0.91–1.36).⁴⁶ The overall incidence of adverse and serious adverse events reported in the 8-year extension of FREEDOM were consistent with data reported in the previous extension studies.²⁵

In the FREEDOM extension trial, four events in the long-term group (n = 2,343), and two in the crossover group (n = 2,207) were adjudicated as being consistent with osteonecrosis of the jaw.²⁶ One mid-shaft fracture in the crossover group was adjudicated as an atypical femoral fracture. There were, however, no reports of osteonecrosis of the jaw or atypical femoral fracture in the long-term phase 2 trial after 8 years of follow-up.³⁰ By September 2013, postmarketing safety surveillance data for denosumab (estimated exposure of 1.2 million patient-years) had recorded four cases of atypical femoral fracture. All four patients had previously been on bisphosphonates. There were also 32 reports of osteonecrosis of the jaw.⁴⁷

Denosumab’s manufacturer aims to communicate the risks of treatment to health care professionals and patients. Information is available online at www.proliahcp.com/risk-evaluation-mitigation-strategy/.

WHAT ARE THE PRECAUTIONS?

Several precautions need to be taken when considering treatment with denosumab.

Antiresorptives can aggravate hypocalcemia by inhibiting bone turnover. Serum calcium should therefore be checked and preexisting hypocalcemia should be corrected before starting denosumab.⁴⁸

Denosumab is contraindicated in women who are pregnant or are planning to become pregnant, as fetal loss and teratogenicity have been reported in animal experiments. (Denosumab is unlikely to be used in premenopausal women, as it is not approved for use in this group.)

There are no data on excretion of denosumab in human milk, so it should not be given to nursing mothers.

Renal impairment is not a contraindication, and no dose adjustment is necessary (even for patients on renal replacement therapy), as denosumab, being an antibody, is eliminated through the reticuloendothelial system.^49,50 However, in practice, any antiresorptive agent should be used with caution in patients with severe renal impairment because of the possible presence of adynamic bone disease. Further reduction of bone turnover would be detrimental in such patients. Also, severe hypocalcemia has been reported in patients with a creatinine clearance rate less than 30 mL/min and in those receiving dialysis.^51,52 Postmarketing surveillance data have reported eight cases of severe symptomatic hypocalcemia, of which seven were in patients with chronic kidney disease.⁴⁷

The manufacturer suggests that patients receive a dental examination with appropriate preventive dentistry before starting denosumab to reduce the incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw, despite the lack of evidence in support of this strategy. The American Dental Association recommends regular dental visits and maintenance of good oral hygiene for patients already established on antiresorptive therapy.^53,54

SHOULD PATIENTS ON DENOSUMAB BE OFFERED A DRUG HOLIDAY?

A drug holiday (temporary discontinuation of the drug after a certain duration of treatment) has been proposed for patients receiving bisphosphonates because of the risk of atypical femoral fracture and osteonecrosis of the jaw (although small) consequent to long-term continuous suppression of bone turnover.⁵⁵ The antifracture efficacy of bisphosphonates is likely to persist for an unknown length of time after discontinuation because of their long skeletal half-life, while the risks gradually diminish.

By contrast, denosumab targets RANKL in the extracellular fluid and does not become embedded within the bone tissue.⁵⁶ Pharmacokinetic studies have shown that denosumab has a rapid offset of action, with a half-life of only 26 days and biological activity lasting only 6 months.⁵⁷ The results of a phase 2 extension study suggest that bone mineral density starts to decline and bone turnover markers start to rise within 12 months of discontinuing denosumab.⁵⁸

Although fracture risk did not increase in those who were randomized to stopping the treatment and bone mineral density increased further when treatment was restarted, a drug holiday cannot presently be recommended for patients receiving denosumab because of the lack of supportive data.

HOW COST-EFFECTIVE IS DENOSUMAB?

The wholesale acquisition cost is $825 per 60-mg prefilled syringe of denosumab, although this may vary depending on where the drug is obtained. This does not include physician-related service costs associated with administration of denosumab.

Cost-effectiveness analyses conducted in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Sweden have all concluded that denosumab would offer a cost-effective alternative to other osteoporosis medications for primary prevention and secondary prevention of fractures.^59–61

The Swedish study also incorporated adherence in the cost-effectiveness model and showed that denosumab was a cost-effective alternative to oral bisphosphonates, particularly for patients who were not expected to adhere well to oral treatments.⁶¹

WHICH OSTEOPOROSIS PATIENTS ARE CANDIDATES FOR DENOSUMAB?

The FDA has approved denosumab for the treatment of postmenopausal women and men at high risk of fracture (defined as having a history of osteoporotic fracture or multiple risk factors for fracture), or in those who cannot tolerate other osteoporosis medications or for whom other medications have failed.

Denosumab is also approved for men at high risk of fracture receiving androgen deprivation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer, and for women at high risk of fracture receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy for breast cancer.

WHAT DO THE GUIDELINES RECOMMEND?

The National Osteoporosis Foundation guidelines recommend pharmacologic treatment for patients with hip or vertebral fractures (clinical or asymptomatic); T scores lower than –2.5 at the femoral neck, total hip, or lumbar spine; and those with a 10-year probability of hip fracture of more than 3% or of a major osteoporotic fracture more than 20% based on the US-adapted FRAX calculator.⁶² The American College of Endocrinology guidelines have proposed similar thresholds for pharmacologic treatment, and they recommend alendronate, risedronate, zoledronate, and denosumab as first-line agents.⁶³

The 2010 Osteoporosis Canada guidelines recommend denosumab, alendronate, risedronate, and zoledronate as first-line therapies for preventing hip, nonvertebral, and vertebral fractures in postmenopausal women (grade A recommendation).⁶⁴ The National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence in England and Wales, on the other hand, recommends denosumab only for patients who are unable to take a bisphosphonate.⁶⁵

PRACTICAL PRESCRIBING TIPS

The patient described at the beginning of this article has already sustained a vertebral compression fracture, and her DXA scan shows T scores in the osteoporotic range. She is therefore at increased risk of another fragility fracture (with a fivefold higher risk of another vertebral fracture). Pharmacologic therapy should be considered. In addition, she should be encouraged to adhere to lifestyle measures such as a healthy diet and regular weight-bearing exercise, her risk of falling should be assessed, and adequate calcium and vitamin D supplementation should be given.

Secondary causes of osteoporosis are present in about 30% of women and 55% of men who have vertebral fractures.⁶⁶ A complete blood count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, bone biochemistry, 25-hydroxyvitamin D, thyroid-stimulating hormone, and renal and liver function tests should be requested in all patients. Further tests should be considered depending on the clinical evaluation and results of initial investigations.

Because this patient cannot tolerate oral bisphosphonates, she could be offered the option of annual intravenous zoledronic acid infusions or 6-monthly subcutaneous denosumab injections. In clinical trials, gastrointestinal adverse effects were noted with intravenous bisphosphonates as well, but the adverse effects reported were no different than those with placebo. The potential advantages with denosumab include better bone mineral density gains, adherence and patient satisfaction compared with oral bisphosphonates, convenient twice-yearly administration, safety in patients with renal impairment, and absence of gastrointestinal effects.

Raloxifene, a selective estrogen receptor modulator, has estrogen-like action on the bone and antiestrogen actions on the breast and uterus. Unlike standard hormone replacement therapy, raloxifene can therefore increase bone mineral density without increasing the risk of breast and endometrial cancers. However, it has only been shown to reduce the risk of vertebral fracture, not hip fracture. Hence, it would be a more appropriate choice for younger postmenopausal women. Moreover, it may cause troublesome menopausal symptoms.

Teriparatide, the recombinant parathyroid hormone, is an anabolic agent. It is very expensive, and because of this, guidelines in several countries restrict its use to women with severe osteoporosis and multiple fractures who fail to respond to standard treatments. It cannot be used for longer than 2 years because of its association with osteosarcoma in rats.

If our patient prefers denosumab, therapy should be initiated after appropriate counseling (see precautions above). The dose is 60 mg, given subcutaneously, once every 6 months.

Monitoring

There is no consensus regarding the optimal frequency for monitoring patients on treatment, owing to the lack of prospective trial data. The National Osteoporosis Foundation recommends repeating the bone mineral density measurements about 2 years after starting therapy, and about every 2 years thereafter.⁶² Some studies suggest that changes in bone mineral density correlate with reduction in fracture risk.^67,68 A change in bone mineral density is considered significant when it is greater than the range of error of the densitometer (also known as the least significant change).⁶⁹ If the bone mineral density is stable or improving, therapy could be continued, but if it is declining and the decline is greater than the least significant change, a change in therapy should be considered if no secondary causes for bone loss are evident (but see What are the areas of uncertainty? below).

The National Osteoporosis Foundation also recommends measuring a bone turnover marker at baseline and then 3 to 6 months later, as its suppression predicts greater bone mineral density responses and fracture risk reduction.⁷⁰ If there is a decrease of more than 30% in serum carboxy-terminal collagen crosslinks (CTX) or more than 50% in urinary N-telopeptide (NTX),⁷¹ the patient can be reassured that the next bone mineral density measurement will be stable or improved. In patients on oral bisphosphonates, measurement of bone turnover markers also provides evidence of compliance.

Clinical trials suggest that a numerical increase in bone mineral density can be expected in most patients on treatment, though this depends on the measurement site and the length of time between examinations. In one phase 3 trial of denosumab in postmenopausal women, only 5% of the participants had unchanged or diminished bone mineral density at the lumbar spine, and 8% at the hip, after 36 months of treatment.⁷² However, the CTX levels fell to below the lower limit of the reference interval as early as 1 month after commencing treatment in all denosumab-treated patients.⁶⁸

Hence, bone turnover markers may be a more sensitive indicator of treatment effect than bone mineral density, but this would ultimately need to be evaluated against fracture rates in a real-world setting.

WHAT ARE THE AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY?

There are currently no guidelines for long-term management of patients on denosumab, and also no data to suggest whether patients should be switched to a weaker antiresorptive drug after a certain number of years in order to reduce the possible risk of atypical femoral fracture or osteonecrosis of the jaw.

No head-to-head trials have directly compared the antifracture efficacy of denosumab with that of other standard osteoporosis therapies. The antifracture efficacy and safety of combination therapies involving denosumab are also uncertain. For adherent patients who have a suboptimal response, there is no evidence to guide the further course of action. The International Osteoporosis Foundation guidelines suggest replacing a stronger antiresorptive with an anabolic agent, but acknowledge that this is only based on expert opinion.⁷¹

The very-long-term effects (beyond 8 years) of continuous denosumab administration on increasing the risk of atypical femoral fracture, osteonecrosis of the jaw, malignancy, or infection or the duration after which risks would start to outweigh benefits is not known. However, postmarketing safety data continue to be collected through the voluntary Post-marketing Active Safety Surveillance Program (for prespecified adverse events) in addition to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

CASE PROGRESSION

The patient described in the vignette is presented with two options—zoledronate and denosumab. She chooses denosumab. Her renal function and serum calcium are checked and are found to be satisfactory. She undergoes a dental examination, which is also satisfactory. She is counseled about the possible increased risk of infection, and then she is started on 60 mg of denosumab subcutaneously, once every 6 months.

When reviewed after 2 years, she reports no further fractures. Her bone mineral density remains stable compared with the values obtained before starting treatment. She reports no adverse effects and is happy to continue with denosumab.

A 68-year-old white woman presents with mid-  thoracic back pain. Plain radiographs reveal a compression fracture of the 10th thoracic vertebra. She is diagnosed with osteoporosis on the basis of dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans that show T scores of –2.9 in her lumbar spine and –2.6 in her left femoral neck. Her 10-year probability of fracture is estimated as 23% for major osteoporotic fracture and 5.9% for hip fracture (based on the World Health Organization’s absolute fracture risk assessment tool, adapted for the United States, and available at www.shef.ac.uk/FRAX).

After excluding common secondary causes of osteoporosis, her physician recommends a bisphosphonate to reduce her risk of fracture, but she develops upper-gastrointestinal adverse effects with both alendronate and risedronate despite correctly following the instructions for oral administration.

What should her physician consider next?

OSTEOPOROSIS IS A MAJOR PROBLEM

Osteoporosis is a systemic skeletal disease characterized by low bone mass and microarchitectural deterioration of bone tissue, predisposing to an increased risk of fragility fractures, particularly of the spine, hip, and wrist.

It is a major public health problem, affecting 200 million people throughout the world, with 9 million osteoporotic fractures reported in the year 2000.¹ The incidence of hip fracture alone is predicted to rise to 2.6 million by the year 2025, and to 4.5 million by the year 2050.² In the United States, the total burden was estimated to be about 2 million incident fractures in the year 2005, projected to rise by another 50% by the year 2025,³ primarily because of the aging of the population. Population studies have indeed suggested that about 40% of white women and 13% of white men over the age of 50 are at risk of sustaining an osteoporotic fracture during the remainder of their lifetime.⁴

The consequences of osteoporotic fractures can be devastating. Hip fractures are associated with a risk of death ranging from 8.4% to 36% during the first year after fracture.⁵ One-fifth of patients who sustain a hip fracture require long-term nursing home care, and more than half of the survivors do not regain their previous level of independence.

Patients with vertebral fractures are also at increased risk of death, although the results of some studies suggest that this could be the result of comorbid factors.^6–9 Vertebral fractures can result in chronic back pain, loss of height from spinal deformity, reduced mobility, loss of self-esteem, and in severe cases, respiratory and digestive problems because of contact between the lower ribs and pelvis.

A person with one vertebral compression fracture is five times more likely to have another vertebral fracture,¹⁰ and a person with two or more compression fractures is 12 times more likely.¹¹

The costs of treating osteoporotic fractures are greater than those of treating myocardial infarction or stroke^12,13; they include not only direct costs incurred in treating the fracture, but also indirect societal costs owing to the long-term morbidity associated with the fracture. In the United States, the total cost of treating osteoporotic fractures was estimated at $19 billion in the year 2005.³ By 2025, the annual costs are projected to rise by almost 50%.³

A NEED FOR MORE OPTIONS

Until fairly recently, bisphosphonates were the only drugs of first choice, but adherence to oral bisphosphonate therapy is generally poor (< 50% at 1 year),¹⁴ most commonly because of dyspepsia,¹⁵ and poor adherence has been shown to be associated with increased fracture risk.^16,17 Hence the need for additional therapeutic options.

In this review, we discuss denosumab, an antiresorptive drug approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2010. First, we discuss its mechanism of action, efficacy, and safety, and then we offer recommendations for its use in clinical practice.

WHAT IS DENOSUMAB AND HOW DOES IT WORK?

Bone remodeling is a dynamic process involving a balance between bone resorption by osteoclasts on the one hand and new bone formation by osteoblasts on the other. A net gain in bone occurs when the activity of osteoblasts exceeds that of osteoclasts, and bone loss occurs when there is increased osteoclast activity or reduced osteoblast activity, or both. The activities of osteoblasts and osteoclasts are tightly coupled because of the opposing effects of two sets of proteins, namely, receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa b ligand (RANKL) and osteoprotegerin.

Both RANKL and osteoprotegerin are produced by osteoblasts. RANKL binds to its receptor (RANK) on preosteoclasts and osteoclasts and induces their differentiation and activation, respectively. Osteoprotegerin is the decoy receptor and natural antagonist for RANKL. By binding with RANKL, it blocks its interaction with RANK.¹⁸ In healthy individuals, a fine balance between RANKL and osteoprotegerin ensures that bone remodeling is regulated.

In postmenopausal women, estrogen deficiency leads to an imbalance between RANKL and osteoprotegerin (increased RANKL and reduced osteoprotegerin), resulting in net bone loss. This imbalance is also a feature of rheumatoid arthritis, myeloma bone disease, and osteolytic metastatic bone disease; it also occurs in those receiving androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer or aromatase inhibitors for breast cancer.

Denosumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that targets RANKL.¹⁹ By binding to RANKL, this drug prevents the maturation and differentiation of preosteoclasts and promotes apoptosis of osteoclasts. Bone resorption is therefore slowed. It was parenteral osteoprotegerin that was initially developed by denosumab’s manufacturer,²⁰ but this approach failed because neutralizing antibodies developed to osteoprotegerin, rendering it ineffective. Development of neutralizing antibodies has thus far not been a problem with denosumab.

Denosumab, with its property of RANKL inhibition, has also been used to prevent skeletal events in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors and to treat unresectable giant cell tumors of the bone (both FDA-approved indications) and hypercalcemia of malignancy. There is limited clinical experience in Paget disease of the bone as well.^21–23 These other potential uses of denosumab are beyond the scope of this review.

HOW WELL DOES DENOSUMAB WORK FOR OSTEOPOROSIS?

Several phase 2 and phase 3 randomized controlled trials have evaluated the efficacy of denosumab, but only one, the Fracture Reduction Evaluation of Denosumab in Osteoporosis Every 6 Months (FREEDOM) trial, included fracture reduction as the primary outcome measure. The rest evaluated changes in bone mineral density or in markers of bone turnover, or both.

FREEDOM was a double-blind, randomized controlled trial in 7,808 postmenopausal women with T scores between –2.5 and –4.0 at the lumbar spine or hip.²⁴ Twenty-four percent of the patients had vertebral fractures at baseline. Patients were randomized to receive either denosumab 60 mg (n = 3,902) or placebo (n = 3,906) every 6 months for up to 36 months. All patients also received adequate calcium and vitamin D supplementation.

At 36 months, compared with those who were randomized to receive placebo, those who were randomized to denosumab had lower incidence rates of:

• New vertebral fracture
  (2.3% vs 7.2%, risk ratio 0.32,
  95% CI 0.26–0.41, P < .001)
• Nonvertebral fracture
  (6.5% vs 8.0%, risk ratio 0.80,
  95% CI 0.67–0.95, P = .01)
• Hip fracture
  (0.7% vs 1.2%, risk ratio 0.60,
  95% CI 0.37–0.97, P = .04).

Increases in bone mineral density at the lumbar spine and hip, and decreases in bone turnover markers were also significantly greater in the denosumab group. The number needed to treat to prevent one new fracture over 3 years was 21 for vertebral fracture, 67 for nonvertebral fracture, and 200 for hip fracture, reflecting the relatively low event rate in the study.

In an open-label extension of the FREEDOM trial, the fracture incidence rates among participants who continued to receive denosumab for an additional 5 years remained low, and still below those projected for a “virtual placebo cohort” (total duration of exposure of 8 years). The rates among participants who switched from placebo to denosumab were similar to those of the denosumab group from the parent trial.^25,26

A subgroup analysis of the FREEDOM trial suggested that denosumab reduced the risk of new vertebral fractures irrespective of age, body mass index, femoral neck bone mineral density, prevalent vertebral fractures, or prior nonvertebral fractures (risk ratio 0.32; 95% CI 0.26–0.41, P < .001), whereas the risk of nonvertebral fractures was only reduced in those women with body mass indices less than 25 kg/m², femoral neck bone mineral density T scores less than  –2.5, and in those without a prevalent vertebral fracture.²⁷

A post hoc analysis revealed that denosumab significantly reduced the risk of new vertebral and hip fractures even in subgroups of women at higher risk of fracture.²⁸ At 10% fracture probability (as estimated by the FRAX risk calculator), denosumab reduced the fracture risk by 11% (P = .629), whereas at 30% probability (moderate to high risk), the reduction was 50% (P = .001).²⁹

Other phase 2 and phase 3 trials, in postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density, demonstrated that compared with placebo, denosumab significantly increased bone mineral density at all skeletal sites, increased volumetric bone mineral density at the distal radius, improved hip structural analysis parameters, and reduced bone turnover markers.^30–33 Increases in bone mineral density and reductions in bone turnover markers with denosumab have been shown in men as well.³⁴

In a randomized controlled trial,³⁵ improvement in bone mineral density was better in those who received the combination of denosumab and teriparatide than in those who received either drug on its own.

Denosumab has also been shown to reduce the incidence of new vertebral fractures and improve bone mineral density in men receiving androgen-deprivation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer,³⁶ and to improve bone mineral density in women with metastatic breast cancer and low bone mass who were receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy.³⁷

HOW DOES DENOSUMAB COMPARE WITH OTHER OSTEOPOROSIS DRUGS?

A double-blind randomized controlled trial in postmenopausal women with low bone mass demonstrated that denosumab was superior to alendronate in improving bone mineral density at all skeletal sites (3.5% vs 2.6% for total hip bone mineral density, P < .0001).³⁸

Another double-blind trial demonstrated that in patients previously treated with alendronate, switching to denosumab resulted in significantly greater increases in bone mineral density at all skeletal sites compared with continuing with alendronate (P < .0001).³⁹

Denosumab has also been shown to be superior to alendronate in improving cortical bone mineral density, as measured by quantitative computed tomography.⁴⁰

No trial has directly compared the efficacy of denosumab with other osteoporosis drugs in reducing fracture risk, but a systematic literature review of multiple databases,⁴¹ comparing the antifracture efficacy of nine osteoporosis drugs, concluded that teriparatide, zoledronic acid, and denosumab had the highest probabilities of being most efficacious for nonvertebral and vertebral fractures, with the greatest effect sizes. Indirect comparisons of the relative risk of fracture with denosumab (based on the results of FREEDOM), alendronate, risedronate, raloxifene, and strontium (based on a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials) are presented in Table 1.⁴²

A 2-year randomized, open-label, crossover study⁴³ randomized patients to receive either denosumab followed by alendronate or alendronate followed by denosumab over successive 12-month periods. The results suggested that postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were more adherent, compliant, and persistent with denosumab therapy (a subcutaneous injection every 6 months) than with alendronate therapy in the form of oral tablets, self-administered weekly (7.5% nonadherence vs 36.5% at the end of 2 years). After receiving both treatments, women reported greater satisfaction with denosumab, with 92.4% preferring it over oral alendronate. Bone mineral density remained stable when patients were switched from denosumab to alendronate, but improved further when they were switched from alendronate to denosumab.

HOW SAFE IS DENOSUMAB?

The most frequent adverse events with denosumab reported in the long-term extension of one phase 2 study were upper respiratory tract infections (13.5%), arthralgia (11.5%), and back pain (9.0%).³⁰

Increased risk of infection, cancer, and dermatologic reactions has been a concern, as RANKL and RANK are expressed by a wide variety of cells, including T lymphocytes, B cells, and dendritic cells.⁴⁴ However, there were no significant differences in the overall incidences of adverse events between patients who received denosumab and those who received placebo or alendronate in any of the phase 2, phase 3, or extension studies.

In the FREEDOM trial,²⁴ there was no significant difference between the two groups in the overall incidence of infection (52.9% with denosumab vs 54.4% with placebo, P = .17), or serious infection (4.1% with denosumab vs 3.4% with placebo, P = .14), although the incidence of “serious” cellulitis requiring hospitalization was higher in the denosumab group (0.3% vs < 0.1%, P = .002). There were more serious infections involving the gastrointestinal system, urinary tract, and ear and cases of endocarditis in the denosumab group, but the number of events was small, and there was no relationship with the timing of administration or duration of exposure to denosumab.⁴⁵ Eczema was more common in the denosumab than in the placebo group (3.0% vs 1.7%, P < .001), but the extension data from the first 3 years did not provide any evidence for an increased risk of cellulitis or eczema with denosumab.²⁶

Although randomized controlled trials reported more cases of neoplasms in the denosumab than in the placebo groups, meta-analyses have failed to detect a statistically significant difference (risk ratio 1.11, 95% CI 0.91–1.36).⁴⁶ The overall incidence of adverse and serious adverse events reported in the 8-year extension of FREEDOM were consistent with data reported in the previous extension studies.²⁵

In the FREEDOM extension trial, four events in the long-term group (n = 2,343), and two in the crossover group (n = 2,207) were adjudicated as being consistent with osteonecrosis of the jaw.²⁶ One mid-shaft fracture in the crossover group was adjudicated as an atypical femoral fracture. There were, however, no reports of osteonecrosis of the jaw or atypical femoral fracture in the long-term phase 2 trial after 8 years of follow-up.³⁰ By September 2013, postmarketing safety surveillance data for denosumab (estimated exposure of 1.2 million patient-years) had recorded four cases of atypical femoral fracture. All four patients had previously been on bisphosphonates. There were also 32 reports of osteonecrosis of the jaw.⁴⁷

Denosumab’s manufacturer aims to communicate the risks of treatment to health care professionals and patients. Information is available online at www.proliahcp.com/risk-evaluation-mitigation-strategy/.

WHAT ARE THE PRECAUTIONS?

Several precautions need to be taken when considering treatment with denosumab.

Antiresorptives can aggravate hypocalcemia by inhibiting bone turnover. Serum calcium should therefore be checked and preexisting hypocalcemia should be corrected before starting denosumab.⁴⁸

Denosumab is contraindicated in women who are pregnant or are planning to become pregnant, as fetal loss and teratogenicity have been reported in animal experiments. (Denosumab is unlikely to be used in premenopausal women, as it is not approved for use in this group.)

There are no data on excretion of denosumab in human milk, so it should not be given to nursing mothers.

Renal impairment is not a contraindication, and no dose adjustment is necessary (even for patients on renal replacement therapy), as denosumab, being an antibody, is eliminated through the reticuloendothelial system.^49,50 However, in practice, any antiresorptive agent should be used with caution in patients with severe renal impairment because of the possible presence of adynamic bone disease. Further reduction of bone turnover would be detrimental in such patients. Also, severe hypocalcemia has been reported in patients with a creatinine clearance rate less than 30 mL/min and in those receiving dialysis.^51,52 Postmarketing surveillance data have reported eight cases of severe symptomatic hypocalcemia, of which seven were in patients with chronic kidney disease.⁴⁷

The manufacturer suggests that patients receive a dental examination with appropriate preventive dentistry before starting denosumab to reduce the incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw, despite the lack of evidence in support of this strategy. The American Dental Association recommends regular dental visits and maintenance of good oral hygiene for patients already established on antiresorptive therapy.^53,54

SHOULD PATIENTS ON DENOSUMAB BE OFFERED A DRUG HOLIDAY?

A drug holiday (temporary discontinuation of the drug after a certain duration of treatment) has been proposed for patients receiving bisphosphonates because of the risk of atypical femoral fracture and osteonecrosis of the jaw (although small) consequent to long-term continuous suppression of bone turnover.⁵⁵ The antifracture efficacy of bisphosphonates is likely to persist for an unknown length of time after discontinuation because of their long skeletal half-life, while the risks gradually diminish.

By contrast, denosumab targets RANKL in the extracellular fluid and does not become embedded within the bone tissue.⁵⁶ Pharmacokinetic studies have shown that denosumab has a rapid offset of action, with a half-life of only 26 days and biological activity lasting only 6 months.⁵⁷ The results of a phase 2 extension study suggest that bone mineral density starts to decline and bone turnover markers start to rise within 12 months of discontinuing denosumab.⁵⁸

Although fracture risk did not increase in those who were randomized to stopping the treatment and bone mineral density increased further when treatment was restarted, a drug holiday cannot presently be recommended for patients receiving denosumab because of the lack of supportive data.

HOW COST-EFFECTIVE IS DENOSUMAB?

The wholesale acquisition cost is $825 per 60-mg prefilled syringe of denosumab, although this may vary depending on where the drug is obtained. This does not include physician-related service costs associated with administration of denosumab.

Cost-effectiveness analyses conducted in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Sweden have all concluded that denosumab would offer a cost-effective alternative to other osteoporosis medications for primary prevention and secondary prevention of fractures.^59–61

The Swedish study also incorporated adherence in the cost-effectiveness model and showed that denosumab was a cost-effective alternative to oral bisphosphonates, particularly for patients who were not expected to adhere well to oral treatments.⁶¹

WHICH OSTEOPOROSIS PATIENTS ARE CANDIDATES FOR DENOSUMAB?

The FDA has approved denosumab for the treatment of postmenopausal women and men at high risk of fracture (defined as having a history of osteoporotic fracture or multiple risk factors for fracture), or in those who cannot tolerate other osteoporosis medications or for whom other medications have failed.

Denosumab is also approved for men at high risk of fracture receiving androgen deprivation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer, and for women at high risk of fracture receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy for breast cancer.

WHAT DO THE GUIDELINES RECOMMEND?

The National Osteoporosis Foundation guidelines recommend pharmacologic treatment for patients with hip or vertebral fractures (clinical or asymptomatic); T scores lower than –2.5 at the femoral neck, total hip, or lumbar spine; and those with a 10-year probability of hip fracture of more than 3% or of a major osteoporotic fracture more than 20% based on the US-adapted FRAX calculator.⁶² The American College of Endocrinology guidelines have proposed similar thresholds for pharmacologic treatment, and they recommend alendronate, risedronate, zoledronate, and denosumab as first-line agents.⁶³

The 2010 Osteoporosis Canada guidelines recommend denosumab, alendronate, risedronate, and zoledronate as first-line therapies for preventing hip, nonvertebral, and vertebral fractures in postmenopausal women (grade A recommendation).⁶⁴ The National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence in England and Wales, on the other hand, recommends denosumab only for patients who are unable to take a bisphosphonate.⁶⁵

PRACTICAL PRESCRIBING TIPS

The patient described at the beginning of this article has already sustained a vertebral compression fracture, and her DXA scan shows T scores in the osteoporotic range. She is therefore at increased risk of another fragility fracture (with a fivefold higher risk of another vertebral fracture). Pharmacologic therapy should be considered. In addition, she should be encouraged to adhere to lifestyle measures such as a healthy diet and regular weight-bearing exercise, her risk of falling should be assessed, and adequate calcium and vitamin D supplementation should be given.

Secondary causes of osteoporosis are present in about 30% of women and 55% of men who have vertebral fractures.⁶⁶ A complete blood count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, bone biochemistry, 25-hydroxyvitamin D, thyroid-stimulating hormone, and renal and liver function tests should be requested in all patients. Further tests should be considered depending on the clinical evaluation and results of initial investigations.

Because this patient cannot tolerate oral bisphosphonates, she could be offered the option of annual intravenous zoledronic acid infusions or 6-monthly subcutaneous denosumab injections. In clinical trials, gastrointestinal adverse effects were noted with intravenous bisphosphonates as well, but the adverse effects reported were no different than those with placebo. The potential advantages with denosumab include better bone mineral density gains, adherence and patient satisfaction compared with oral bisphosphonates, convenient twice-yearly administration, safety in patients with renal impairment, and absence of gastrointestinal effects.

Raloxifene, a selective estrogen receptor modulator, has estrogen-like action on the bone and antiestrogen actions on the breast and uterus. Unlike standard hormone replacement therapy, raloxifene can therefore increase bone mineral density without increasing the risk of breast and endometrial cancers. However, it has only been shown to reduce the risk of vertebral fracture, not hip fracture. Hence, it would be a more appropriate choice for younger postmenopausal women. Moreover, it may cause troublesome menopausal symptoms.

Teriparatide, the recombinant parathyroid hormone, is an anabolic agent. It is very expensive, and because of this, guidelines in several countries restrict its use to women with severe osteoporosis and multiple fractures who fail to respond to standard treatments. It cannot be used for longer than 2 years because of its association with osteosarcoma in rats.

If our patient prefers denosumab, therapy should be initiated after appropriate counseling (see precautions above). The dose is 60 mg, given subcutaneously, once every 6 months.

Monitoring

There is no consensus regarding the optimal frequency for monitoring patients on treatment, owing to the lack of prospective trial data. The National Osteoporosis Foundation recommends repeating the bone mineral density measurements about 2 years after starting therapy, and about every 2 years thereafter.⁶² Some studies suggest that changes in bone mineral density correlate with reduction in fracture risk.^67,68 A change in bone mineral density is considered significant when it is greater than the range of error of the densitometer (also known as the least significant change).⁶⁹ If the bone mineral density is stable or improving, therapy could be continued, but if it is declining and the decline is greater than the least significant change, a change in therapy should be considered if no secondary causes for bone loss are evident (but see What are the areas of uncertainty? below).

The National Osteoporosis Foundation also recommends measuring a bone turnover marker at baseline and then 3 to 6 months later, as its suppression predicts greater bone mineral density responses and fracture risk reduction.⁷⁰ If there is a decrease of more than 30% in serum carboxy-terminal collagen crosslinks (CTX) or more than 50% in urinary N-telopeptide (NTX),⁷¹ the patient can be reassured that the next bone mineral density measurement will be stable or improved. In patients on oral bisphosphonates, measurement of bone turnover markers also provides evidence of compliance.

Clinical trials suggest that a numerical increase in bone mineral density can be expected in most patients on treatment, though this depends on the measurement site and the length of time between examinations. In one phase 3 trial of denosumab in postmenopausal women, only 5% of the participants had unchanged or diminished bone mineral density at the lumbar spine, and 8% at the hip, after 36 months of treatment.⁷² However, the CTX levels fell to below the lower limit of the reference interval as early as 1 month after commencing treatment in all denosumab-treated patients.⁶⁸

Hence, bone turnover markers may be a more sensitive indicator of treatment effect than bone mineral density, but this would ultimately need to be evaluated against fracture rates in a real-world setting.

WHAT ARE THE AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY?

There are currently no guidelines for long-term management of patients on denosumab, and also no data to suggest whether patients should be switched to a weaker antiresorptive drug after a certain number of years in order to reduce the possible risk of atypical femoral fracture or osteonecrosis of the jaw.

No head-to-head trials have directly compared the antifracture efficacy of denosumab with that of other standard osteoporosis therapies. The antifracture efficacy and safety of combination therapies involving denosumab are also uncertain. For adherent patients who have a suboptimal response, there is no evidence to guide the further course of action. The International Osteoporosis Foundation guidelines suggest replacing a stronger antiresorptive with an anabolic agent, but acknowledge that this is only based on expert opinion.⁷¹

The very-long-term effects (beyond 8 years) of continuous denosumab administration on increasing the risk of atypical femoral fracture, osteonecrosis of the jaw, malignancy, or infection or the duration after which risks would start to outweigh benefits is not known. However, postmarketing safety data continue to be collected through the voluntary Post-marketing Active Safety Surveillance Program (for prespecified adverse events) in addition to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

CASE PROGRESSION

The patient described in the vignette is presented with two options—zoledronate and denosumab. She chooses denosumab. Her renal function and serum calcium are checked and are found to be satisfactory. She undergoes a dental examination, which is also satisfactory. She is counseled about the possible increased risk of infection, and then she is started on 60 mg of denosumab subcutaneously, once every 6 months.

When reviewed after 2 years, she reports no further fractures. Her bone mineral density remains stable compared with the values obtained before starting treatment. She reports no adverse effects and is happy to continue with denosumab.

In late 2013, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved sofosbuvir and simeprevir, the newest direct-acting antiviral agents for treating chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Multiple clinical trials have demonstrated dramatically improved treatment outcomes with these agents, opening the door to all-oral regimens or interferon-free regimens as the future standard of care for HCV.

See related editorial

In this article, we discuss the results of the trials that established the efficacy and safety of sofosbuvir and simeprevir and led to their FDA approval. We also summarize the importance of these agents and evaluate other direct-acting antivirals currently in the pipeline for HCV treatment.

HCV IS A RISING PROBLEM

Chronic HCV infection is a major clinical and public health problem, with the estimated number of people infected exceeding 170 million worldwide, including 3.2 million in the United States.¹ It is a leading cause of cirrhosis, and its complications include hepatocellular carcinoma and liver failure. Cirrhosis due to HCV remains the leading indication for liver transplantation in the United States, accounting for nearly 40% of liver transplants in adults.²

The clinical impact of HCV will only continue to escalate, and in parallel, so will the cost to society. Models suggest that HCV-related deaths will double between 2010 and 2019, and considering only direct medical costs, the projected financial burden of treating HCV-related disease during this interval is estimated at between $6.5 and $13.6 billion.³

AN RNA VIRUS WITH SIX GENOTYPES

HCV, first identified in 1989, is an enveloped, single-stranded RNA flavivirus of the Hepacivirus genus measuring 50 to 60 nm in diameter.⁴ There are six viral genotypes, with genotype 1 being the most common in the United States and traditionally the most difficult to treat.

Once inside the host cell, the virus releases its RNA strand, which is translated into a single polyprotein of about 3,000 amino acids. This large molecule is then cleaved by proteases into several domains: three structural proteins (C, E1, and E2), a small protein called p7, and six nonstructural proteins (NS2, NS3, NS4A, NS4B, NS5A, and NS5B) (Figure 1).⁵ These nonstructural proteins enable the virus to replicate.

GOAL OF TREATING HCV: A SUSTAINED VIROLOGIC RESPONSE

The aim of HCV treatment is to achieve a sustained virologic response, defined as having no detectable viral RNA after completion of antiviral therapy. This is associated with substantially better clinical outcomes, lower rates of liver-related morbidity and all-cause mortality, and stabilization of or even improvement in liver histology.^6,7 This end point has traditionally been assessed at 6 months after the end of therapy, but recent data suggest the rates at 12 weeks are essentially equivalent.

Table 1 summarizes the patterns of virologic response in treating HCV infection.

Interferon plus ribavirin: The standard of care for many years

HCV treatment has evolved over the past 20 years. Before 2011, the standard of care was a combination of interferon alfa-polyethylene glycol (peg-interferon), given as a weekly injection, and oral ribavirin. Neither drug has specific antiviral activity, and when they are used together they result in a sustained virologic response in fewer than 50% of patients with HCV genotype 1 and, at best, in 70% to 80% of patients with other genotypes.⁸

Nearly all patients receiving interferon experience side effects, which can be serious. Fatigue and flu-like symptoms are common, and the drug can also cause psychiatric symptoms (including depression or psychosis), weight loss, seizures, peripheral neuropathy, and bone marrow suppression. Ribavirin causes hemolysis and skin complications and is teratogenic.⁹

An important bit of information to know when using interferon is the patient’s IL28B genotype. This refers to a single-nucleotide polymorphism (C or T) on chromosome 19q13 (rs12979860) upstream of the IL28B gene encoding for interferon lambda-3. It is strongly associated with responsiveness to interferon: patients with the IL28B CC genotype have a much better chance of a sustained virologic response with interferon than do patients with CT or TT.

In May 2011, the FDA approved the NS3/4A protease inhibitors boceprevir and telaprevir for treating HCV genotype 1, marking the beginning of the era of direct-acting antiviral agents.¹⁰ When these drugs are used in combination with peg-interferon alfa and ribavirin, up to 75% of patients with HCV genotype 1 who have had no previous treatment achieve a sustained virologic response.

But despite greatly improving the response rate, these first-generation protease inhibitors have substantial limitations. Twenty-five percent of patients with HCV genotype 1 who have received no previous treatment and 71% of patients who did not respond to previous treatment will not achieve a sustained virologic response with these agents.¹¹ Further, they are effective only against HCV genotype 1, being highly specific for the amino acid target sequence of the NS3 region.

Also, they must be used in combination with interferon alfa and ribavirin because the virus needs to mutate only a little—a few amino-acid substitutions—to gain resistance to them.¹² Therefore, patients are still exposed to interferon and ribavirin, with their toxicity. In addition, dysgeusia is seen with boceprevir, rash with telaprevir, and anemia with both.^13,14

Finally, serious drug-drug interactions prompted the FDA to impose warnings for the use of these agents with other medications that interact with CYP3A4, the principal enzyme responsible for their metabolism. Thus, these significant adverse effects dampen the enthusiasm of patients contemplating a long course of treatment with these agents.

The need to improve the rate of sustained virologic response, shorten the duration of treatment, avoid serious side effects, improve efficacy in treating patients infected with genotypes other than 1, and, importantly, eliminate the need for interferon alfa and its serious adverse effects have driven the development of new direct-acting antiviral agents, including the two newly FDA-approved drugs, sofosbuvir and simeprevir.

SOFOSBUVIR: A POLYMERASE INHIBITOR

Sofosbuvir is a uridine nucleotide analogue that selectively inhibits the HCV NS5B RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (Figure 1). It targets the highly conserved nucleotide-binding pocket of this enzyme and functions as a chain terminator.¹⁵ While the protease inhibitors are genotype-dependent, inhibition of the highly conserved viral polymerase has an impact that spans genotypes.

Early clinical trials of sofosbuvir

Sofosbuvir has been tested in combination with interferon alfa and ribavirin, as well as in interferon-free regimens (Table 2).^16–20

Rodriguez-Torres et al,¹⁵

• 56% with sofosbuvir 100 mg, peg-interferon, and ribavirin
• 83% with sofosbuvir 200 mg, peg-interferon, and ribavirin
• 80% with sofosbuvir 400 mg, peg-interferon, and ribavirin
• 43% with peg-interferon and ribavirin alone.

The ATOMIC trial¹⁶ tested the efficacy and safety of sofosbuvir in combination with peg-interferon and ribavirin in patients with HCV genotype 1, 4, or 6, without cirrhosis, who had not received any previous treatment. Patients with HCV genotype 1 were randomized to three treatments:

• Sofosbuvir 400 mg orally once daily plus peg-interferon and ribavirin for 12 weeks
• The same regimen, but for 24 weeks
• Sofosbuvir plus peg-interferon and ribavirin for 12 weeks, followed by 12 weeks of either sofosbuvir monotherapy or sofosbuvir plus ribavirin.

The rates of sustained virologic response were very high and were not significantly different among the three groups: 89%, 89%, and 87%, respectively. Patients who were able to complete a full course of therapy achieved even higher rates of sustained virologic response, ranging from 96% to 98%. The likelihood of response was not adversely affected by the usual markers of a poorer prognosis, such as a high viral load (≥ 800,000 IU/mL) or a non-CC IL28B genotype. Although patients with cirrhosis (another predictor of no response) were excluded from this study, the presence of bridging fibrosis did not seem to affect the rate of sustained virologic response. The results in patients with genotypes other than 1 were very encouraging, but the small number of patients enrolled precluded drawing firm conclusions in this group.

Important implications of the ATOMIC trial include the following:

There is no benefit in prolonging treatment with sofosbuvir beyond 12 weeks, since adverse events increased without any improvement in the rate of sustained virologic response.

There is a very low likelihood of developing viral resistance or mutation when using sofosbuvir.

There is no role for response-guided therapy, a concept used with protease inhibitor-based regimens in which patients who have complete clearance of the virus within the first 4 weeks of treatment (a rapid virologic response) and remain clear through 12 weeks of treatment (an extended rapid viral response) can be treated for a shorter duration without decreasing the likelihood of a sustained virologic response.

Lawitz et al¹⁷ conducted a randomized double-blind phase 2 trial to evaluate the effect of sofosbuvir dosing on response in noncirrhotic, previously untreated patients with HCV genotype 1, 2, or 3. Patients with HCV genotype 1 were randomized to one of three treatment groups in a 2:2:1 ratio: sofosbuvir 200 mg orally once daily, sofosbuvir 400 mg orally once daily, or placebo, all for 12 weeks in combination with peg-interferon (180 μg weekly) and ribavirin in a dosage based on weight. Depending on the viral response, patients continued peg-interferon and ribavirin for an additional 12 weeks if they achieved an extended rapid viral response, or 36 weeks if they did not achieve an extended rapid virologic response, and in all patients who received placebo. Patients with HCV genotype 2 or 3 were given sofosbuvir 400 mg once daily in combination with interferon and ribavirin for 12 weeks.

As in the ATOMIC trial, all patients treated with sofosbuvir had a very rapid reduction in viral load: 98% of patients with genotype 1 developed a rapid virologic response, and therefore almost all were eligible for the shorter treatment course of 24 weeks.¹⁷ The latter finding again suggested that response-guided treatment is not relevant with sofosbuvir-based regimens.

Very high rates of sustained virologic response were seen: 90% in patients with genotype 1 treated with sofosbuvir 200 mg, 91% in those with genotype 1 treated with 400 mg, and 92% in those with genotype 2 or 3. Although 6% of patients in the 200-mg group had virologic breakthrough after completing sofosbuvir treatment, no virologic breakthrough was observed in the 400-mg group, suggesting that the 400-mg dose might suppress the virus more effectively.¹⁷

The ELECTRON trial¹⁸ was a phase 2 study designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sofosbuvir and ribavirin in interferon-sparing and interferon-free regimens in patients with HCV genotype 1, 2, or 3 infection. Sofosbuvir was tested with peg-interferon and ribavirin, with ribavirin alone, and as monotherapy in previously untreated patients with genotype 2 or 3. A small number of patients with genotype 1 who were previously untreated and who were previously nonresponders were also treated with sofosbuvir and ribavirin.

All patients had a rapid virologic response, and viral suppression was sustained through the end of treatment. All patients with genotype 2 or 3 treated with double therapy (sofosbuvir and ribavirin) or triple therapy (sofosbuvir, peg-interferon, and ribavirin) achieved a sustained virologic response, compared with only 60% of patients treated with sofosbuvir monotherapy. The monotherapy group had an equal number of relapsers among those with genotype 2 or 3. Of the genotype 1 patients treated with sofosbuvir and ribavirin, 84% of those previously untreated developed a sustained virologic response, whereas only 10% of the previous nonresponders did.

The NEUTRINO trial¹⁹ studied the efficacy and safety of sofosbuvir in previously untreated patients with HCV genotype 1, 4, 5, or 6. In this phase 3 open-label study, all patients received sofosbuvir plus peg-interferon and weight-based ribavirin therapy for 12 weeks. Of the patients enrolled, 89% had genotype 1, while 9% had genotype 4 and 2% had genotype 5 or 6. Overall, 17% of the patients had cirrhosis.

The viral load rapidly decreased in all patients treated with sofosbuvir irrespective of the HCV genotype, IL28B status, race, or the presence or absence of cirrhosis. Ninety-nine percent of patients with genotype 1, 4, 5, or 6 achieved a rapid virologic response, and 90% achieved a sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after completion of treatment with sofosbuvir and ribavirin. Patients with cirrhosis had a slightly lower rate of sustained virologic response (80%, compared with 92% in patients without cirrhosis). Also, patients with non-CC IL28B genotypes had a lower rate of sustained virologic response (87% in non-CC allele vs 98% in patients with the favorable CC allele).

The FISSION trial¹⁹ recruited previously untreated patients with genotype 2 or 3 and randomized them to therapy with either sofosbuvir plus ribavirin in a weight-based dose for 12 weeks, or 24 weeks of interferon and ribavirin. In this study, 20% of patients in each treatment group had cirrhosis.

As in the NEUTRINO trial, the viral load rapidly decreased in all patients treated with sofosbuvir irrespective of HCV genotype, IL28B status, race, or the presence or absence of cirrhosis. Here, 100% of patients with genotype 2 or 3 who were treated with sofosbuvir and ribavirin achieved a rapid virologic response. Differences in outcome emerged based on genotype: 97% of those with genotype 2 and 56% of those with genotype 3 achieved a sustained virologic response. The overall rate was 67%, which was not different from patients treated with peg-interferon and ribavirin. In the subgroup of patients with cirrhosis, 47% of those treated with sofosbuvir and ribavirin achieved a sustained virologic response, vs 38% of those who received peg-interferon plus ribavirin.

In both the NEUTRINO and FISSION trials, few patients discontinued treatment, with higher rates of most adverse events occurring in patients treated with peg-interferon and ribavirin.

POSITRON,²⁰ a phase 3 clinical trial, tested sofosbuvir in patients with HCV genotype 2 or 3 who were ineligible for peg-interferon, unwilling to take peg-interferon, or unable to tolerate peg-interferon (mainly because of clinically significant psychiatric disorders). Patients were randomized to two treatment groups for 12 weeks: sofosbuvir plus ribavirin, or placebo. About 50% of patients had HCV genotype 3, and 16% had cirrhosis.

The overall rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment was 78% in the sofosbuvir-and-ribavirin group (93% in genotype 2 patients and 61% in genotype 3 patients). Again, cirrhosis was associated with a lower rate of sustained virologic response (61% of patients with cirrhosis achieved a sustained virologic response vs 81% of patients without cirrhosis). None of the sofosbuvir-treated patients had virologic failure while on treatment.

FUSION,²⁰ another phase 3 trial, evaluated sofosbuvir in patients infected with HCV genotype 2 or 3 for whom interferon-based treatment had failed. They were randomized to either 12 weeks or 16 weeks of sofosbuvir and weight-based ribavirin treatment. About 60% of patients had HCV genotype 3, and 34% had cirrhosis.

The overall sustained virologic response rate was 50% in the patients treated for 12 weeks and 73% in those treated for 16 weeks: specifically, 86% of patients with genotype 2 achieved a sustained virologic response at 12 weeks and 94% at 16 weeks, whereas in those with genotype 3 the rates were 30% at 12 weeks and 62% at 16 weeks.

Cirrhosis was again a predictor of lack of response to sofosbuvir. In the group treated for 12 weeks, 31% of those with cirrhosis achieved a sustained virologic response compared with 61% in those without cirrhosis. In the group treated for 16 weeks, 61% of those with cirrhosis achieved a sustained virologic response compared with 76% in those without cirrhosis.

In both the POSITRON and FUSION trials, relapse accounted for all treatment failures, and no virologic resistance was detected in patients who did not have a sustained virologic response. The investigators concluded that 12 weeks of treatment with sofosbuvir and ribavirin can be effective for HCV genotype 2 infection, but extending the treatment to 16 weeks may be beneficial for genotype 3. This may be especially important in patients with cirrhosis or those who did not have a response to peg-interferon-based treatment.

VALENCE,²¹ an ongoing phase 3 trial in Europe, is assessing the safety and efficacy of sofosbuvir 400 mg once daily and weight-based ribavirin in patients with HCV genotype 2 or 3. Eighty-five percent of the trial participants have received previous treatment, and 21% have cirrhosis. Patients were originally randomized in a 4:1 ratio to receive sofosbuvir plus ribavirin for 12 weeks or matching placebo, but as a result of emerging data suggesting that patients with genotype 3 would benefit from more than 12 weeks of treatment, the study was subsequently amended to extend treatment to 24 weeks for patients with genotype 3.

Overall rates of sustained virologic response were 93% in patients with genotype 2 and 85% in patients with genotype 3. In previously treated patients with genotype 2 who were treated for 12 weeks, the rates of sustained virologic response were 91% in those without cirrhosis vs 88% in those with cirrhosis. In previously treated patients with genotype 3, the rates in those treated for 24 weeks were 87% in patients without cirrhosis vs 60% with cirrhosis. The safety profile was consistent with that of ribavirin.

Side effects of sofosbuvir

In clinical trials, side effects occurred most often when sofosbuvir was combined with interferon and ribavirin and were consistent with the known side effects of the latter two agents. The most frequently reported side effects included fatigue, insomnia, nausea, rash, anemia, headache, and arthralgia, with most of these adverse events rated by treating clinicians as being mild in severity.^15,20

In the ATOMIC trial, the most common events leading to drug discontinuation were anemia and neutropenia, both associated with interferon and ribavirin. Patients receiving sofosbuvir monotherapy after 12 weeks of triple therapy showed rapid improvement in hemoglobin levels and neutrophil counts, indicating that hematologic abnormalities attributed solely to sofosbuvir are minimal. In the FISSION trial, the incidence of adverse events was consistently lower in those receiving sofosbuvir-ribavirin than in patients receiving interferon-ribavirin without sofosbuvir.¹⁹

In the POSITRON trial, discontinuation of sofosbuvir because of adverse events was uncommon, and there were no differences in the incidence of adverse events and laboratory abnormalities between patients with and without cirrhosis when they received sofosbuvir and ribavirin.²⁰

Sofosbuvir dosage and indications

Sofosbuvir is approved in an oral dose of 400 mg once daily in combination with ribavirin for patients infected with HCV genotype 2 or 3 and in combination with ribavirin and interferon alfa in patients infected with HCV genotype 1 or 4 (Table 3). It could be considered for HCV genotype 1 in combination with ribavirin alone for 24 weeks in patients who are ineligible for interferon.

Sofosbuvir is also recommended in combination with ribavirin in HCV-infected patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who are awaiting liver transplantation, for up to 48 weeks or until they receive a transplant, to prevent posttransplant reinfection with HCV.

A course of therapy is expected to cost about $84,000, which is significantly more than the cost of previous triple therapy (peg-interferon, ribavirin, and either boceprevir or telaprevir).²² This high cost will undoubtedly lead to less widespread use in developing countries, and potentially even in the United States. As newer direct-acting antiviral agents become available, the price will likely come down, enhancing access to these drugs.

SIMEPREVIR: A SECOND-GENERATION PROTEASE INHIBITOR

Telaprevir and boceprevir are NS3/A4 protease inhibitors that belong to the alfa-ketoamid derivative class. Simeprevir belongs to the macrocyclic class and has a different way of binding to the target enzyme.²³ Like sofosbuvir, simeprevir was recently approved by the FDA for the treatment of HCV genotype 1.

The therapeutic efficacy of simeprevir has been tested in several clinical trials (Table 4), including QUEST-1²⁴ and QUEST-2²⁵ (in previously untreated patients), PROMISE²⁶ (in prior relapsers), and ASPIRE²⁷ (in prior partial and null responders). Results from these trials showed high overall rates of sustained virologic response with triple therapy (ie, simeprevir combined with peg-interferon and ribavirin). It was generally well tolerated, and most adverse events reported during 12 weeks of treatment were of mild to moderate severity.

In QUEST-1 and QUEST-2, both double-blind phase 3 clinical trials, previously untreated patients infected with HCV genotype 1 were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either simeprevir 150 mg daily or placebo for 12 weeks; both groups also received peg-interferon and ribavirin. Patients then received peg-interferon and ribavirin alone for 12 or 36 weeks in the simeprevir group (based on response) and for 36 weeks in the placebo group.

The overall rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks was 80% in the simeprevir group (75% in those with genotype 1a and 85% in those with genotype 1b) vs 50% in the placebo group (receiving peg-interferon and ribavirin alone).^24,25

PROMISE,²⁶ another double-blind randomized phase 3 clinical trial, evaluated simeprevir in patients with HCV genotype 1 who relapsed after previous interferon-based therapy. It had a similar design to QUEST-1 and QUEST-2, and 15% of all patients had cirrhosis.

The overall sustained virologic response rate at 12 weeks after treatment was 79% in the simeprevir group (70% in patients with genotype 1a and 86% in those with genotype 1b) vs 37% in the placebo group. Rates were similar in patients with absent to moderate fibrosis (82%), advanced fibrosis (73%), or cirrhosis (74%).

ASPIRE.²⁷ Simeprevir efficacy in patients with HCV genotype 1 for whom previous therapy with peg-interferon and ribavirin had failed was tested in ASPIRE, a double-blind randomized phase 2 clinical trial. Patients were randomized to receive simeprevir (either 100 mg or 150 mg daily) for 12, 24, or 48 weeks in combination with 48 weeks of peg-interferon and ribavirin, or placebo plus peg-interferon and ribavirin for 48 weeks.

The primary end point was the rate of sustained virologic response at 24 weeks. Overall, rates were 61% to 80% for the simeprevir treatment groups compared with 23% with placebo, regardless of prior response to peg-interferon and ribavirin. By subgroup, rates were:

• 77% to 89% with simeprevir vs 37% with placebo in prior relapsers
• 48% to 86% with simeprevir vs 9% with placebo in prior partial responders
• 38% to 59% with placebo vs 19% for prior nonresponders.

The best rates of sustained viral response at 24 weeks were in the groups that received simeprevir 150 mg daily: 85% in prior relapsers, 75% in prior partial responders, and 51% in prior nonresponders.

Simeprevir vs other direct-acting antiviral drugs

Advantages of simeprevir over the earlier protease inhibitors include once-daily dosing, a lower rate of adverse events (the most common being fatigue, headache, rash, photosensitivity, and pruritus), a lower likelihood of discontinuation because of adverse events, and fewer drug-drug interactions (since it is a weak inhibitor of the CYP3A4 enzyme).

Unlike sofosbuvir, simeprevir was FDA-approved only for HCV genotype 1 and in combination with interferon alfa and ribavirin. Compared with sofosbuvir, the treatment duration with simeprevir regimens is longer overall (interferon alfa and ribavirin are given for 12 weeks in sofosbuvir-based regimens vs 24 to 48 weeks with simeprevir). As with sofosbuvir, the estimated cost of simeprevir is high, about $66,000 for a 12-week course.

Simeprevir dosage and indications

Simeprevir was approved at an oral dose of 150 mg once daily in combination with ribavirin and interferon alfa in patients with HCV genotype 1 (Table 5).

The approved regimens for simeprevir are fixed in total duration based on the patient’s treatment history. Specifically, all patients receive the drug in combination with peg-interferon and ribavirin for 12 weeks. Then, previously untreated patients and prior relapsers continue to receive peg-interferon and ribavirin alone for another 12 weeks, and those with a partial or null response continue with these drugs for another 36 weeks.

Patients infected with HCV genotype 1a should be screened for the NS3 Q80K polymorphism at baseline, as it has been associated with substantially reduced response to simeprevir.

Sofosbuvir and simeprevir in combination

The COSMOS trial.²⁸ Given their differences in mechanism of action, sofosbuvir and simeprevir are being tested in combination. The COSMOS trial is an ongoing phase 2 randomized open-label study investigating the efficacy and safety of simeprevir and sofosbuvir in combination with and without ribavirin in patients with HCV genotype 1, including nonresponders and those with cirrhosis. Early results are promising, with very high rates of sustained virologic response with the sofosbuvir-simeprevir combination (93% to 100%) and indicate that the addition of ribavirin might not be needed to achieve sustained virologic response in this patient population.

THE FUTURE

The emergence of all-oral regimens for HCV treatment with increasingly sophisticated agents such as sofosbuvir and simeprevir will dramatically alter the management of HCV patients. In view of the improvement in sustained virologic response rates with these treatments, and since most HCV-infected persons have no symptoms, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention²⁹ recently recommended one-time testing of the cohort in which the prevalence of HCV infection is highest: all persons born between 1945 and 1965. This undoubtedly will increase the detection of this infection—and the number of new patients expecting treatment.

Future drugs promise further improvements (Table 6).^30–35 Advances in knowledge of the HCV molecular structure have led to the development of numerous direct-acting antiviral agents with very specific viral targets. A second wave of protease inhibitors and of nucleoside and nonnucleoside polymerase inhibitors will soon be available. Inhibitors of NS5A (a protein important in the assembly of the viral replication complex) such as daclatasvir and ledipasvir, are currently in phase 3 clinical trials. Other viral proteins involved in assembly of the virus, including the core protein and p7, are being explored as drug targets. In addition, inhibiting host targets such as cyclophilin A and miR122 has gained traction recently, with specific agents currently in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials.

Factors that previously were major determinants of response to treatment, such as IL28B genotype, viral load, race, age, extent of fibrosis, and genotype 1 subtypes, will become much less important with the introduction of highly potent direct-acting antiviral agents.

Many all-oral combinations are being evaluated in clinical trials. For example, the open-label, phase 2 LONESTAR trial tested the utility of combining sofosbuvir and ledipasvir (an NS5A inhibitor) with and without ribavirin for 8 or 12 weeks in previously untreated patients with HCV genotype 1, and for 12 weeks in patients with HCV genotype 1 who did not achieve a sustained virologic response after receiving a protease inhibitor-based regimen (half of whom had compensated cirrhosis).³⁶ Sustained virologic response rates were very high (95% to 100%) in both previously treated and previously untreated patients, including those with cirrhosis. Similar rates were achieved by the 8-week and 12-week groups in noncirrhotic patients who had not been previously treated for HCV. The typical hematologic abnormalities associated with interferon were not observed except for mild anemia in patients who received ribavirin. These results suggest that the combination of sofosbuvir and ledipasvir could offer a very effective, short, all-oral treatment for patients with HCV genotype 1, including those with cirrhosis, who up to now have been difficult to treat.

Challenges remaining

The success of sofosbuvir and simeprevir paves the way for interferon-free regimens.³⁷ For a long time, the treatment of HCV infection required close monitoring of patients while managing the side effects of interferon, but the current and emerging direct-acting antiviral agents will soon change this practice. Given the synergistic effects of combination therapy—targeting the virus at multiple locations, decreasing the likelihood of drug resistance, and improving efficacy—combination regimens seem to be the optimal solution to the HCV epidemic. Lower risk of side effects and shorter treatment duration will definitely improve the acceptance of any new regimen. New agents that act against conserved viral targets, thereby yielding activity across multiple genotypes, will be advantageous as well. Table 7 compares the rates of sustained virologic response of the different currently approved HCV treatment regimens.

Clinical challenges remain, including the management of special patient populations for whom data are still limited. These include patients with cirrhosis, chronic kidney disease, renal failure, and concurrent infection with human immunodeficiency virus, and patients who have undergone solid organ transplantation. Clinical trials are under way to evaluate the treatment options for these patients, who will likely need to wait for the emergence of additional agents before dramatic improvement in sustained virologic response rates may be expected.38

As the treatment of HCV becomes simpler, safer, and more effective, primary care physicians will increasingly be expected to manage it. Difficult-to-treat patients, including the special populations above, will require specialist management and individualized treatment regimens, at least until better therapies are available. The high projected cost of the new agents may limit access, at least initially. However, the dramatic improvement in sustained virologic response rates and all that that implies in terms of decreased risk of advanced liver disease and its complications will undoubtedly make these therapies cost-effective.³⁹

In late 2013, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved sofosbuvir and simeprevir, the newest direct-acting antiviral agents for treating chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Multiple clinical trials have demonstrated dramatically improved treatment outcomes with these agents, opening the door to all-oral regimens or interferon-free regimens as the future standard of care for HCV.

See related editorial

In this article, we discuss the results of the trials that established the efficacy and safety of sofosbuvir and simeprevir and led to their FDA approval. We also summarize the importance of these agents and evaluate other direct-acting antivirals currently in the pipeline for HCV treatment.

HCV IS A RISING PROBLEM

Chronic HCV infection is a major clinical and public health problem, with the estimated number of people infected exceeding 170 million worldwide, including 3.2 million in the United States.¹ It is a leading cause of cirrhosis, and its complications include hepatocellular carcinoma and liver failure. Cirrhosis due to HCV remains the leading indication for liver transplantation in the United States, accounting for nearly 40% of liver transplants in adults.²

The clinical impact of HCV will only continue to escalate, and in parallel, so will the cost to society. Models suggest that HCV-related deaths will double between 2010 and 2019, and considering only direct medical costs, the projected financial burden of treating HCV-related disease during this interval is estimated at between $6.5 and $13.6 billion.³

AN RNA VIRUS WITH SIX GENOTYPES

HCV, first identified in 1989, is an enveloped, single-stranded RNA flavivirus of the Hepacivirus genus measuring 50 to 60 nm in diameter.⁴ There are six viral genotypes, with genotype 1 being the most common in the United States and traditionally the most difficult to treat.

Once inside the host cell, the virus releases its RNA strand, which is translated into a single polyprotein of about 3,000 amino acids. This large molecule is then cleaved by proteases into several domains: three structural proteins (C, E1, and E2), a small protein called p7, and six nonstructural proteins (NS2, NS3, NS4A, NS4B, NS5A, and NS5B) (Figure 1).⁵ These nonstructural proteins enable the virus to replicate.

GOAL OF TREATING HCV: A SUSTAINED VIROLOGIC RESPONSE

The aim of HCV treatment is to achieve a sustained virologic response, defined as having no detectable viral RNA after completion of antiviral therapy. This is associated with substantially better clinical outcomes, lower rates of liver-related morbidity and all-cause mortality, and stabilization of or even improvement in liver histology.^6,7 This end point has traditionally been assessed at 6 months after the end of therapy, but recent data suggest the rates at 12 weeks are essentially equivalent.

Table 1 summarizes the patterns of virologic response in treating HCV infection.

Interferon plus ribavirin: The standard of care for many years

HCV treatment has evolved over the past 20 years. Before 2011, the standard of care was a combination of interferon alfa-polyethylene glycol (peg-interferon), given as a weekly injection, and oral ribavirin. Neither drug has specific antiviral activity, and when they are used together they result in a sustained virologic response in fewer than 50% of patients with HCV genotype 1 and, at best, in 70% to 80% of patients with other genotypes.⁸

Nearly all patients receiving interferon experience side effects, which can be serious. Fatigue and flu-like symptoms are common, and the drug can also cause psychiatric symptoms (including depression or psychosis), weight loss, seizures, peripheral neuropathy, and bone marrow suppression. Ribavirin causes hemolysis and skin complications and is teratogenic.⁹

An important bit of information to know when using interferon is the patient’s IL28B genotype. This refers to a single-nucleotide polymorphism (C or T) on chromosome 19q13 (rs12979860) upstream of the IL28B gene encoding for interferon lambda-3. It is strongly associated with responsiveness to interferon: patients with the IL28B CC genotype have a much better chance of a sustained virologic response with interferon than do patients with CT or TT.

In May 2011, the FDA approved the NS3/4A protease inhibitors boceprevir and telaprevir for treating HCV genotype 1, marking the beginning of the era of direct-acting antiviral agents.¹⁰ When these drugs are used in combination with peg-interferon alfa and ribavirin, up to 75% of patients with HCV genotype 1 who have had no previous treatment achieve a sustained virologic response.

But despite greatly improving the response rate, these first-generation protease inhibitors have substantial limitations. Twenty-five percent of patients with HCV genotype 1 who have received no previous treatment and 71% of patients who did not respond to previous treatment will not achieve a sustained virologic response with these agents.¹¹ Further, they are effective only against HCV genotype 1, being highly specific for the amino acid target sequence of the NS3 region.

Also, they must be used in combination with interferon alfa and ribavirin because the virus needs to mutate only a little—a few amino-acid substitutions—to gain resistance to them.¹² Therefore, patients are still exposed to interferon and ribavirin, with their toxicity. In addition, dysgeusia is seen with boceprevir, rash with telaprevir, and anemia with both.^13,14

Finally, serious drug-drug interactions prompted the FDA to impose warnings for the use of these agents with other medications that interact with CYP3A4, the principal enzyme responsible for their metabolism. Thus, these significant adverse effects dampen the enthusiasm of patients contemplating a long course of treatment with these agents.

The need to improve the rate of sustained virologic response, shorten the duration of treatment, avoid serious side effects, improve efficacy in treating patients infected with genotypes other than 1, and, importantly, eliminate the need for interferon alfa and its serious adverse effects have driven the development of new direct-acting antiviral agents, including the two newly FDA-approved drugs, sofosbuvir and simeprevir.

SOFOSBUVIR: A POLYMERASE INHIBITOR

Sofosbuvir is a uridine nucleotide analogue that selectively inhibits the HCV NS5B RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (Figure 1). It targets the highly conserved nucleotide-binding pocket of this enzyme and functions as a chain terminator.¹⁵ While the protease inhibitors are genotype-dependent, inhibition of the highly conserved viral polymerase has an impact that spans genotypes.

Early clinical trials of sofosbuvir

Sofosbuvir has been tested in combination with interferon alfa and ribavirin, as well as in interferon-free regimens (Table 2).^16–20

Rodriguez-Torres et al,¹⁵

• 56% with sofosbuvir 100 mg, peg-interferon, and ribavirin
• 83% with sofosbuvir 200 mg, peg-interferon, and ribavirin
• 80% with sofosbuvir 400 mg, peg-interferon, and ribavirin
• 43% with peg-interferon and ribavirin alone.

The ATOMIC trial¹⁶ tested the efficacy and safety of sofosbuvir in combination with peg-interferon and ribavirin in patients with HCV genotype 1, 4, or 6, without cirrhosis, who had not received any previous treatment. Patients with HCV genotype 1 were randomized to three treatments:

• Sofosbuvir 400 mg orally once daily plus peg-interferon and ribavirin for 12 weeks
• The same regimen, but for 24 weeks
• Sofosbuvir plus peg-interferon and ribavirin for 12 weeks, followed by 12 weeks of either sofosbuvir monotherapy or sofosbuvir plus ribavirin.

The rates of sustained virologic response were very high and were not significantly different among the three groups: 89%, 89%, and 87%, respectively. Patients who were able to complete a full course of therapy achieved even higher rates of sustained virologic response, ranging from 96% to 98%. The likelihood of response was not adversely affected by the usual markers of a poorer prognosis, such as a high viral load (≥ 800,000 IU/mL) or a non-CC IL28B genotype. Although patients with cirrhosis (another predictor of no response) were excluded from this study, the presence of bridging fibrosis did not seem to affect the rate of sustained virologic response. The results in patients with genotypes other than 1 were very encouraging, but the small number of patients enrolled precluded drawing firm conclusions in this group.

Important implications of the ATOMIC trial include the following:

There is no benefit in prolonging treatment with sofosbuvir beyond 12 weeks, since adverse events increased without any improvement in the rate of sustained virologic response.

There is a very low likelihood of developing viral resistance or mutation when using sofosbuvir.

There is no role for response-guided therapy, a concept used with protease inhibitor-based regimens in which patients who have complete clearance of the virus within the first 4 weeks of treatment (a rapid virologic response) and remain clear through 12 weeks of treatment (an extended rapid viral response) can be treated for a shorter duration without decreasing the likelihood of a sustained virologic response.

Lawitz et al¹⁷ conducted a randomized double-blind phase 2 trial to evaluate the effect of sofosbuvir dosing on response in noncirrhotic, previously untreated patients with HCV genotype 1, 2, or 3. Patients with HCV genotype 1 were randomized to one of three treatment groups in a 2:2:1 ratio: sofosbuvir 200 mg orally once daily, sofosbuvir 400 mg orally once daily, or placebo, all for 12 weeks in combination with peg-interferon (180 μg weekly) and ribavirin in a dosage based on weight. Depending on the viral response, patients continued peg-interferon and ribavirin for an additional 12 weeks if they achieved an extended rapid viral response, or 36 weeks if they did not achieve an extended rapid virologic response, and in all patients who received placebo. Patients with HCV genotype 2 or 3 were given sofosbuvir 400 mg once daily in combination with interferon and ribavirin for 12 weeks.

As in the ATOMIC trial, all patients treated with sofosbuvir had a very rapid reduction in viral load: 98% of patients with genotype 1 developed a rapid virologic response, and therefore almost all were eligible for the shorter treatment course of 24 weeks.¹⁷ The latter finding again suggested that response-guided treatment is not relevant with sofosbuvir-based regimens.

Very high rates of sustained virologic response were seen: 90% in patients with genotype 1 treated with sofosbuvir 200 mg, 91% in those with genotype 1 treated with 400 mg, and 92% in those with genotype 2 or 3. Although 6% of patients in the 200-mg group had virologic breakthrough after completing sofosbuvir treatment, no virologic breakthrough was observed in the 400-mg group, suggesting that the 400-mg dose might suppress the virus more effectively.¹⁷

The ELECTRON trial¹⁸ was a phase 2 study designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sofosbuvir and ribavirin in interferon-sparing and interferon-free regimens in patients with HCV genotype 1, 2, or 3 infection. Sofosbuvir was tested with peg-interferon and ribavirin, with ribavirin alone, and as monotherapy in previously untreated patients with genotype 2 or 3. A small number of patients with genotype 1 who were previously untreated and who were previously nonresponders were also treated with sofosbuvir and ribavirin.

All patients had a rapid virologic response, and viral suppression was sustained through the end of treatment. All patients with genotype 2 or 3 treated with double therapy (sofosbuvir and ribavirin) or triple therapy (sofosbuvir, peg-interferon, and ribavirin) achieved a sustained virologic response, compared with only 60% of patients treated with sofosbuvir monotherapy. The monotherapy group had an equal number of relapsers among those with genotype 2 or 3. Of the genotype 1 patients treated with sofosbuvir and ribavirin, 84% of those previously untreated developed a sustained virologic response, whereas only 10% of the previous nonresponders did.

The NEUTRINO trial¹⁹ studied the efficacy and safety of sofosbuvir in previously untreated patients with HCV genotype 1, 4, 5, or 6. In this phase 3 open-label study, all patients received sofosbuvir plus peg-interferon and weight-based ribavirin therapy for 12 weeks. Of the patients enrolled, 89% had genotype 1, while 9% had genotype 4 and 2% had genotype 5 or 6. Overall, 17% of the patients had cirrhosis.

The viral load rapidly decreased in all patients treated with sofosbuvir irrespective of the HCV genotype, IL28B status, race, or the presence or absence of cirrhosis. Ninety-nine percent of patients with genotype 1, 4, 5, or 6 achieved a rapid virologic response, and 90% achieved a sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after completion of treatment with sofosbuvir and ribavirin. Patients with cirrhosis had a slightly lower rate of sustained virologic response (80%, compared with 92% in patients without cirrhosis). Also, patients with non-CC IL28B genotypes had a lower rate of sustained virologic response (87% in non-CC allele vs 98% in patients with the favorable CC allele).

The FISSION trial¹⁹ recruited previously untreated patients with genotype 2 or 3 and randomized them to therapy with either sofosbuvir plus ribavirin in a weight-based dose for 12 weeks, or 24 weeks of interferon and ribavirin. In this study, 20% of patients in each treatment group had cirrhosis.

As in the NEUTRINO trial, the viral load rapidly decreased in all patients treated with sofosbuvir irrespective of HCV genotype, IL28B status, race, or the presence or absence of cirrhosis. Here, 100% of patients with genotype 2 or 3 who were treated with sofosbuvir and ribavirin achieved a rapid virologic response. Differences in outcome emerged based on genotype: 97% of those with genotype 2 and 56% of those with genotype 3 achieved a sustained virologic response. The overall rate was 67%, which was not different from patients treated with peg-interferon and ribavirin. In the subgroup of patients with cirrhosis, 47% of those treated with sofosbuvir and ribavirin achieved a sustained virologic response, vs 38% of those who received peg-interferon plus ribavirin.

In both the NEUTRINO and FISSION trials, few patients discontinued treatment, with higher rates of most adverse events occurring in patients treated with peg-interferon and ribavirin.

POSITRON,²⁰ a phase 3 clinical trial, tested sofosbuvir in patients with HCV genotype 2 or 3 who were ineligible for peg-interferon, unwilling to take peg-interferon, or unable to tolerate peg-interferon (mainly because of clinically significant psychiatric disorders). Patients were randomized to two treatment groups for 12 weeks: sofosbuvir plus ribavirin, or placebo. About 50% of patients had HCV genotype 3, and 16% had cirrhosis.

The overall rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment was 78% in the sofosbuvir-and-ribavirin group (93% in genotype 2 patients and 61% in genotype 3 patients). Again, cirrhosis was associated with a lower rate of sustained virologic response (61% of patients with cirrhosis achieved a sustained virologic response vs 81% of patients without cirrhosis). None of the sofosbuvir-treated patients had virologic failure while on treatment.

FUSION,²⁰ another phase 3 trial, evaluated sofosbuvir in patients infected with HCV genotype 2 or 3 for whom interferon-based treatment had failed. They were randomized to either 12 weeks or 16 weeks of sofosbuvir and weight-based ribavirin treatment. About 60% of patients had HCV genotype 3, and 34% had cirrhosis.

The overall sustained virologic response rate was 50% in the patients treated for 12 weeks and 73% in those treated for 16 weeks: specifically, 86% of patients with genotype 2 achieved a sustained virologic response at 12 weeks and 94% at 16 weeks, whereas in those with genotype 3 the rates were 30% at 12 weeks and 62% at 16 weeks.

Cirrhosis was again a predictor of lack of response to sofosbuvir. In the group treated for 12 weeks, 31% of those with cirrhosis achieved a sustained virologic response compared with 61% in those without cirrhosis. In the group treated for 16 weeks, 61% of those with cirrhosis achieved a sustained virologic response compared with 76% in those without cirrhosis.

In both the POSITRON and FUSION trials, relapse accounted for all treatment failures, and no virologic resistance was detected in patients who did not have a sustained virologic response. The investigators concluded that 12 weeks of treatment with sofosbuvir and ribavirin can be effective for HCV genotype 2 infection, but extending the treatment to 16 weeks may be beneficial for genotype 3. This may be especially important in patients with cirrhosis or those who did not have a response to peg-interferon-based treatment.

VALENCE,²¹ an ongoing phase 3 trial in Europe, is assessing the safety and efficacy of sofosbuvir 400 mg once daily and weight-based ribavirin in patients with HCV genotype 2 or 3. Eighty-five percent of the trial participants have received previous treatment, and 21% have cirrhosis. Patients were originally randomized in a 4:1 ratio to receive sofosbuvir plus ribavirin for 12 weeks or matching placebo, but as a result of emerging data suggesting that patients with genotype 3 would benefit from more than 12 weeks of treatment, the study was subsequently amended to extend treatment to 24 weeks for patients with genotype 3.

Overall rates of sustained virologic response were 93% in patients with genotype 2 and 85% in patients with genotype 3. In previously treated patients with genotype 2 who were treated for 12 weeks, the rates of sustained virologic response were 91% in those without cirrhosis vs 88% in those with cirrhosis. In previously treated patients with genotype 3, the rates in those treated for 24 weeks were 87% in patients without cirrhosis vs 60% with cirrhosis. The safety profile was consistent with that of ribavirin.

Side effects of sofosbuvir

In clinical trials, side effects occurred most often when sofosbuvir was combined with interferon and ribavirin and were consistent with the known side effects of the latter two agents. The most frequently reported side effects included fatigue, insomnia, nausea, rash, anemia, headache, and arthralgia, with most of these adverse events rated by treating clinicians as being mild in severity.^15,20

In the ATOMIC trial, the most common events leading to drug discontinuation were anemia and neutropenia, both associated with interferon and ribavirin. Patients receiving sofosbuvir monotherapy after 12 weeks of triple therapy showed rapid improvement in hemoglobin levels and neutrophil counts, indicating that hematologic abnormalities attributed solely to sofosbuvir are minimal. In the FISSION trial, the incidence of adverse events was consistently lower in those receiving sofosbuvir-ribavirin than in patients receiving interferon-ribavirin without sofosbuvir.¹⁹

In the POSITRON trial, discontinuation of sofosbuvir because of adverse events was uncommon, and there were no differences in the incidence of adverse events and laboratory abnormalities between patients with and without cirrhosis when they received sofosbuvir and ribavirin.²⁰

Sofosbuvir dosage and indications

Sofosbuvir is approved in an oral dose of 400 mg once daily in combination with ribavirin for patients infected with HCV genotype 2 or 3 and in combination with ribavirin and interferon alfa in patients infected with HCV genotype 1 or 4 (Table 3). It could be considered for HCV genotype 1 in combination with ribavirin alone for 24 weeks in patients who are ineligible for interferon.

Sofosbuvir is also recommended in combination with ribavirin in HCV-infected patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who are awaiting liver transplantation, for up to 48 weeks or until they receive a transplant, to prevent posttransplant reinfection with HCV.

A course of therapy is expected to cost about $84,000, which is significantly more than the cost of previous triple therapy (peg-interferon, ribavirin, and either boceprevir or telaprevir).²² This high cost will undoubtedly lead to less widespread use in developing countries, and potentially even in the United States. As newer direct-acting antiviral agents become available, the price will likely come down, enhancing access to these drugs.

SIMEPREVIR: A SECOND-GENERATION PROTEASE INHIBITOR

Telaprevir and boceprevir are NS3/A4 protease inhibitors that belong to the alfa-ketoamid derivative class. Simeprevir belongs to the macrocyclic class and has a different way of binding to the target enzyme.²³ Like sofosbuvir, simeprevir was recently approved by the FDA for the treatment of HCV genotype 1.

The therapeutic efficacy of simeprevir has been tested in several clinical trials (Table 4), including QUEST-1²⁴ and QUEST-2²⁵ (in previously untreated patients), PROMISE²⁶ (in prior relapsers), and ASPIRE²⁷ (in prior partial and null responders). Results from these trials showed high overall rates of sustained virologic response with triple therapy (ie, simeprevir combined with peg-interferon and ribavirin). It was generally well tolerated, and most adverse events reported during 12 weeks of treatment were of mild to moderate severity.

In QUEST-1 and QUEST-2, both double-blind phase 3 clinical trials, previously untreated patients infected with HCV genotype 1 were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either simeprevir 150 mg daily or placebo for 12 weeks; both groups also received peg-interferon and ribavirin. Patients then received peg-interferon and ribavirin alone for 12 or 36 weeks in the simeprevir group (based on response) and for 36 weeks in the placebo group.

The overall rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks was 80% in the simeprevir group (75% in those with genotype 1a and 85% in those with genotype 1b) vs 50% in the placebo group (receiving peg-interferon and ribavirin alone).^24,25

PROMISE,²⁶ another double-blind randomized phase 3 clinical trial, evaluated simeprevir in patients with HCV genotype 1 who relapsed after previous interferon-based therapy. It had a similar design to QUEST-1 and QUEST-2, and 15% of all patients had cirrhosis.

The overall sustained virologic response rate at 12 weeks after treatment was 79% in the simeprevir group (70% in patients with genotype 1a and 86% in those with genotype 1b) vs 37% in the placebo group. Rates were similar in patients with absent to moderate fibrosis (82%), advanced fibrosis (73%), or cirrhosis (74%).

ASPIRE.²⁷ Simeprevir efficacy in patients with HCV genotype 1 for whom previous therapy with peg-interferon and ribavirin had failed was tested in ASPIRE, a double-blind randomized phase 2 clinical trial. Patients were randomized to receive simeprevir (either 100 mg or 150 mg daily) for 12, 24, or 48 weeks in combination with 48 weeks of peg-interferon and ribavirin, or placebo plus peg-interferon and ribavirin for 48 weeks.

The primary end point was the rate of sustained virologic response at 24 weeks. Overall, rates were 61% to 80% for the simeprevir treatment groups compared with 23% with placebo, regardless of prior response to peg-interferon and ribavirin. By subgroup, rates were:

• 77% to 89% with simeprevir vs 37% with placebo in prior relapsers
• 48% to 86% with simeprevir vs 9% with placebo in prior partial responders
• 38% to 59% with placebo vs 19% for prior nonresponders.

The best rates of sustained viral response at 24 weeks were in the groups that received simeprevir 150 mg daily: 85% in prior relapsers, 75% in prior partial responders, and 51% in prior nonresponders.

Simeprevir vs other direct-acting antiviral drugs

Advantages of simeprevir over the earlier protease inhibitors include once-daily dosing, a lower rate of adverse events (the most common being fatigue, headache, rash, photosensitivity, and pruritus), a lower likelihood of discontinuation because of adverse events, and fewer drug-drug interactions (since it is a weak inhibitor of the CYP3A4 enzyme).

Unlike sofosbuvir, simeprevir was FDA-approved only for HCV genotype 1 and in combination with interferon alfa and ribavirin. Compared with sofosbuvir, the treatment duration with simeprevir regimens is longer overall (interferon alfa and ribavirin are given for 12 weeks in sofosbuvir-based regimens vs 24 to 48 weeks with simeprevir). As with sofosbuvir, the estimated cost of simeprevir is high, about $66,000 for a 12-week course.

Simeprevir dosage and indications

Simeprevir was approved at an oral dose of 150 mg once daily in combination with ribavirin and interferon alfa in patients with HCV genotype 1 (Table 5).

The approved regimens for simeprevir are fixed in total duration based on the patient’s treatment history. Specifically, all patients receive the drug in combination with peg-interferon and ribavirin for 12 weeks. Then, previously untreated patients and prior relapsers continue to receive peg-interferon and ribavirin alone for another 12 weeks, and those with a partial or null response continue with these drugs for another 36 weeks.

Patients infected with HCV genotype 1a should be screened for the NS3 Q80K polymorphism at baseline, as it has been associated with substantially reduced response to simeprevir.

Sofosbuvir and simeprevir in combination

The COSMOS trial.²⁸ Given their differences in mechanism of action, sofosbuvir and simeprevir are being tested in combination. The COSMOS trial is an ongoing phase 2 randomized open-label study investigating the efficacy and safety of simeprevir and sofosbuvir in combination with and without ribavirin in patients with HCV genotype 1, including nonresponders and those with cirrhosis. Early results are promising, with very high rates of sustained virologic response with the sofosbuvir-simeprevir combination (93% to 100%) and indicate that the addition of ribavirin might not be needed to achieve sustained virologic response in this patient population.

THE FUTURE

The emergence of all-oral regimens for HCV treatment with increasingly sophisticated agents such as sofosbuvir and simeprevir will dramatically alter the management of HCV patients. In view of the improvement in sustained virologic response rates with these treatments, and since most HCV-infected persons have no symptoms, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention²⁹ recently recommended one-time testing of the cohort in which the prevalence of HCV infection is highest: all persons born between 1945 and 1965. This undoubtedly will increase the detection of this infection—and the number of new patients expecting treatment.

Future drugs promise further improvements (Table 6).^30–35 Advances in knowledge of the HCV molecular structure have led to the development of numerous direct-acting antiviral agents with very specific viral targets. A second wave of protease inhibitors and of nucleoside and nonnucleoside polymerase inhibitors will soon be available. Inhibitors of NS5A (a protein important in the assembly of the viral replication complex) such as daclatasvir and ledipasvir, are currently in phase 3 clinical trials. Other viral proteins involved in assembly of the virus, including the core protein and p7, are being explored as drug targets. In addition, inhibiting host targets such as cyclophilin A and miR122 has gained traction recently, with specific agents currently in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials.

Factors that previously were major determinants of response to treatment, such as IL28B genotype, viral load, race, age, extent of fibrosis, and genotype 1 subtypes, will become much less important with the introduction of highly potent direct-acting antiviral agents.

Many all-oral combinations are being evaluated in clinical trials. For example, the open-label, phase 2 LONESTAR trial tested the utility of combining sofosbuvir and ledipasvir (an NS5A inhibitor) with and without ribavirin for 8 or 12 weeks in previously untreated patients with HCV genotype 1, and for 12 weeks in patients with HCV genotype 1 who did not achieve a sustained virologic response after receiving a protease inhibitor-based regimen (half of whom had compensated cirrhosis).³⁶ Sustained virologic response rates were very high (95% to 100%) in both previously treated and previously untreated patients, including those with cirrhosis. Similar rates were achieved by the 8-week and 12-week groups in noncirrhotic patients who had not been previously treated for HCV. The typical hematologic abnormalities associated with interferon were not observed except for mild anemia in patients who received ribavirin. These results suggest that the combination of sofosbuvir and ledipasvir could offer a very effective, short, all-oral treatment for patients with HCV genotype 1, including those with cirrhosis, who up to now have been difficult to treat.

Challenges remaining

The success of sofosbuvir and simeprevir paves the way for interferon-free regimens.³⁷ For a long time, the treatment of HCV infection required close monitoring of patients while managing the side effects of interferon, but the current and emerging direct-acting antiviral agents will soon change this practice. Given the synergistic effects of combination therapy—targeting the virus at multiple locations, decreasing the likelihood of drug resistance, and improving efficacy—combination regimens seem to be the optimal solution to the HCV epidemic. Lower risk of side effects and shorter treatment duration will definitely improve the acceptance of any new regimen. New agents that act against conserved viral targets, thereby yielding activity across multiple genotypes, will be advantageous as well. Table 7 compares the rates of sustained virologic response of the different currently approved HCV treatment regimens.

Clinical challenges remain, including the management of special patient populations for whom data are still limited. These include patients with cirrhosis, chronic kidney disease, renal failure, and concurrent infection with human immunodeficiency virus, and patients who have undergone solid organ transplantation. Clinical trials are under way to evaluate the treatment options for these patients, who will likely need to wait for the emergence of additional agents before dramatic improvement in sustained virologic response rates may be expected.38

As the treatment of HCV becomes simpler, safer, and more effective, primary care physicians will increasingly be expected to manage it. Difficult-to-treat patients, including the special populations above, will require specialist management and individualized treatment regimens, at least until better therapies are available. The high projected cost of the new agents may limit access, at least initially. However, the dramatic improvement in sustained virologic response rates and all that that implies in terms of decreased risk of advanced liver disease and its complications will undoubtedly make these therapies cost-effective.³⁹

In late 2013, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved sofosbuvir and simeprevir, the newest direct-acting antiviral agents for treating chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Multiple clinical trials have demonstrated dramatically improved treatment outcomes with these agents, opening the door to all-oral regimens or interferon-free regimens as the future standard of care for HCV.

See related editorial

In this article, we discuss the results of the trials that established the efficacy and safety of sofosbuvir and simeprevir and led to their FDA approval. We also summarize the importance of these agents and evaluate other direct-acting antivirals currently in the pipeline for HCV treatment.

HCV IS A RISING PROBLEM

Chronic HCV infection is a major clinical and public health problem, with the estimated number of people infected exceeding 170 million worldwide, including 3.2 million in the United States.¹ It is a leading cause of cirrhosis, and its complications include hepatocellular carcinoma and liver failure. Cirrhosis due to HCV remains the leading indication for liver transplantation in the United States, accounting for nearly 40% of liver transplants in adults.²

The clinical impact of HCV will only continue to escalate, and in parallel, so will the cost to society. Models suggest that HCV-related deaths will double between 2010 and 2019, and considering only direct medical costs, the projected financial burden of treating HCV-related disease during this interval is estimated at between $6.5 and $13.6 billion.³

AN RNA VIRUS WITH SIX GENOTYPES

HCV, first identified in 1989, is an enveloped, single-stranded RNA flavivirus of the Hepacivirus genus measuring 50 to 60 nm in diameter.⁴ There are six viral genotypes, with genotype 1 being the most common in the United States and traditionally the most difficult to treat.

Once inside the host cell, the virus releases its RNA strand, which is translated into a single polyprotein of about 3,000 amino acids. This large molecule is then cleaved by proteases into several domains: three structural proteins (C, E1, and E2), a small protein called p7, and six nonstructural proteins (NS2, NS3, NS4A, NS4B, NS5A, and NS5B) (Figure 1).⁵ These nonstructural proteins enable the virus to replicate.

GOAL OF TREATING HCV: A SUSTAINED VIROLOGIC RESPONSE

The aim of HCV treatment is to achieve a sustained virologic response, defined as having no detectable viral RNA after completion of antiviral therapy. This is associated with substantially better clinical outcomes, lower rates of liver-related morbidity and all-cause mortality, and stabilization of or even improvement in liver histology.^6,7 This end point has traditionally been assessed at 6 months after the end of therapy, but recent data suggest the rates at 12 weeks are essentially equivalent.

Table 1 summarizes the patterns of virologic response in treating HCV infection.

Interferon plus ribavirin: The standard of care for many years

HCV treatment has evolved over the past 20 years. Before 2011, the standard of care was a combination of interferon alfa-polyethylene glycol (peg-interferon), given as a weekly injection, and oral ribavirin. Neither drug has specific antiviral activity, and when they are used together they result in a sustained virologic response in fewer than 50% of patients with HCV genotype 1 and, at best, in 70% to 80% of patients with other genotypes.⁸

Nearly all patients receiving interferon experience side effects, which can be serious. Fatigue and flu-like symptoms are common, and the drug can also cause psychiatric symptoms (including depression or psychosis), weight loss, seizures, peripheral neuropathy, and bone marrow suppression. Ribavirin causes hemolysis and skin complications and is teratogenic.⁹

An important bit of information to know when using interferon is the patient’s IL28B genotype. This refers to a single-nucleotide polymorphism (C or T) on chromosome 19q13 (rs12979860) upstream of the IL28B gene encoding for interferon lambda-3. It is strongly associated with responsiveness to interferon: patients with the IL28B CC genotype have a much better chance of a sustained virologic response with interferon than do patients with CT or TT.

In May 2011, the FDA approved the NS3/4A protease inhibitors boceprevir and telaprevir for treating HCV genotype 1, marking the beginning of the era of direct-acting antiviral agents.¹⁰ When these drugs are used in combination with peg-interferon alfa and ribavirin, up to 75% of patients with HCV genotype 1 who have had no previous treatment achieve a sustained virologic response.

But despite greatly improving the response rate, these first-generation protease inhibitors have substantial limitations. Twenty-five percent of patients with HCV genotype 1 who have received no previous treatment and 71% of patients who did not respond to previous treatment will not achieve a sustained virologic response with these agents.¹¹ Further, they are effective only against HCV genotype 1, being highly specific for the amino acid target sequence of the NS3 region.

Also, they must be used in combination with interferon alfa and ribavirin because the virus needs to mutate only a little—a few amino-acid substitutions—to gain resistance to them.¹² Therefore, patients are still exposed to interferon and ribavirin, with their toxicity. In addition, dysgeusia is seen with boceprevir, rash with telaprevir, and anemia with both.^13,14

Finally, serious drug-drug interactions prompted the FDA to impose warnings for the use of these agents with other medications that interact with CYP3A4, the principal enzyme responsible for their metabolism. Thus, these significant adverse effects dampen the enthusiasm of patients contemplating a long course of treatment with these agents.

The need to improve the rate of sustained virologic response, shorten the duration of treatment, avoid serious side effects, improve efficacy in treating patients infected with genotypes other than 1, and, importantly, eliminate the need for interferon alfa and its serious adverse effects have driven the development of new direct-acting antiviral agents, including the two newly FDA-approved drugs, sofosbuvir and simeprevir.

SOFOSBUVIR: A POLYMERASE INHIBITOR

Sofosbuvir is a uridine nucleotide analogue that selectively inhibits the HCV NS5B RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (Figure 1). It targets the highly conserved nucleotide-binding pocket of this enzyme and functions as a chain terminator.¹⁵ While the protease inhibitors are genotype-dependent, inhibition of the highly conserved viral polymerase has an impact that spans genotypes.

Early clinical trials of sofosbuvir

Sofosbuvir has been tested in combination with interferon alfa and ribavirin, as well as in interferon-free regimens (Table 2).^16–20

Rodriguez-Torres et al,¹⁵

• 56% with sofosbuvir 100 mg, peg-interferon, and ribavirin
• 83% with sofosbuvir 200 mg, peg-interferon, and ribavirin
• 80% with sofosbuvir 400 mg, peg-interferon, and ribavirin
• 43% with peg-interferon and ribavirin alone.

The ATOMIC trial¹⁶ tested the efficacy and safety of sofosbuvir in combination with peg-interferon and ribavirin in patients with HCV genotype 1, 4, or 6, without cirrhosis, who had not received any previous treatment. Patients with HCV genotype 1 were randomized to three treatments:

• Sofosbuvir 400 mg orally once daily plus peg-interferon and ribavirin for 12 weeks
• The same regimen, but for 24 weeks
• Sofosbuvir plus peg-interferon and ribavirin for 12 weeks, followed by 12 weeks of either sofosbuvir monotherapy or sofosbuvir plus ribavirin.

The rates of sustained virologic response were very high and were not significantly different among the three groups: 89%, 89%, and 87%, respectively. Patients who were able to complete a full course of therapy achieved even higher rates of sustained virologic response, ranging from 96% to 98%. The likelihood of response was not adversely affected by the usual markers of a poorer prognosis, such as a high viral load (≥ 800,000 IU/mL) or a non-CC IL28B genotype. Although patients with cirrhosis (another predictor of no response) were excluded from this study, the presence of bridging fibrosis did not seem to affect the rate of sustained virologic response. The results in patients with genotypes other than 1 were very encouraging, but the small number of patients enrolled precluded drawing firm conclusions in this group.

Important implications of the ATOMIC trial include the following:

There is no benefit in prolonging treatment with sofosbuvir beyond 12 weeks, since adverse events increased without any improvement in the rate of sustained virologic response.

There is a very low likelihood of developing viral resistance or mutation when using sofosbuvir.

There is no role for response-guided therapy, a concept used with protease inhibitor-based regimens in which patients who have complete clearance of the virus within the first 4 weeks of treatment (a rapid virologic response) and remain clear through 12 weeks of treatment (an extended rapid viral response) can be treated for a shorter duration without decreasing the likelihood of a sustained virologic response.

Lawitz et al¹⁷ conducted a randomized double-blind phase 2 trial to evaluate the effect of sofosbuvir dosing on response in noncirrhotic, previously untreated patients with HCV genotype 1, 2, or 3. Patients with HCV genotype 1 were randomized to one of three treatment groups in a 2:2:1 ratio: sofosbuvir 200 mg orally once daily, sofosbuvir 400 mg orally once daily, or placebo, all for 12 weeks in combination with peg-interferon (180 μg weekly) and ribavirin in a dosage based on weight. Depending on the viral response, patients continued peg-interferon and ribavirin for an additional 12 weeks if they achieved an extended rapid viral response, or 36 weeks if they did not achieve an extended rapid virologic response, and in all patients who received placebo. Patients with HCV genotype 2 or 3 were given sofosbuvir 400 mg once daily in combination with interferon and ribavirin for 12 weeks.

As in the ATOMIC trial, all patients treated with sofosbuvir had a very rapid reduction in viral load: 98% of patients with genotype 1 developed a rapid virologic response, and therefore almost all were eligible for the shorter treatment course of 24 weeks.¹⁷ The latter finding again suggested that response-guided treatment is not relevant with sofosbuvir-based regimens.

Very high rates of sustained virologic response were seen: 90% in patients with genotype 1 treated with sofosbuvir 200 mg, 91% in those with genotype 1 treated with 400 mg, and 92% in those with genotype 2 or 3. Although 6% of patients in the 200-mg group had virologic breakthrough after completing sofosbuvir treatment, no virologic breakthrough was observed in the 400-mg group, suggesting that the 400-mg dose might suppress the virus more effectively.¹⁷

The ELECTRON trial¹⁸ was a phase 2 study designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sofosbuvir and ribavirin in interferon-sparing and interferon-free regimens in patients with HCV genotype 1, 2, or 3 infection. Sofosbuvir was tested with peg-interferon and ribavirin, with ribavirin alone, and as monotherapy in previously untreated patients with genotype 2 or 3. A small number of patients with genotype 1 who were previously untreated and who were previously nonresponders were also treated with sofosbuvir and ribavirin.

All patients had a rapid virologic response, and viral suppression was sustained through the end of treatment. All patients with genotype 2 or 3 treated with double therapy (sofosbuvir and ribavirin) or triple therapy (sofosbuvir, peg-interferon, and ribavirin) achieved a sustained virologic response, compared with only 60% of patients treated with sofosbuvir monotherapy. The monotherapy group had an equal number of relapsers among those with genotype 2 or 3. Of the genotype 1 patients treated with sofosbuvir and ribavirin, 84% of those previously untreated developed a sustained virologic response, whereas only 10% of the previous nonresponders did.

The NEUTRINO trial¹⁹ studied the efficacy and safety of sofosbuvir in previously untreated patients with HCV genotype 1, 4, 5, or 6. In this phase 3 open-label study, all patients received sofosbuvir plus peg-interferon and weight-based ribavirin therapy for 12 weeks. Of the patients enrolled, 89% had genotype 1, while 9% had genotype 4 and 2% had genotype 5 or 6. Overall, 17% of the patients had cirrhosis.

The viral load rapidly decreased in all patients treated with sofosbuvir irrespective of the HCV genotype, IL28B status, race, or the presence or absence of cirrhosis. Ninety-nine percent of patients with genotype 1, 4, 5, or 6 achieved a rapid virologic response, and 90% achieved a sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after completion of treatment with sofosbuvir and ribavirin. Patients with cirrhosis had a slightly lower rate of sustained virologic response (80%, compared with 92% in patients without cirrhosis). Also, patients with non-CC IL28B genotypes had a lower rate of sustained virologic response (87% in non-CC allele vs 98% in patients with the favorable CC allele).

The FISSION trial¹⁹ recruited previously untreated patients with genotype 2 or 3 and randomized them to therapy with either sofosbuvir plus ribavirin in a weight-based dose for 12 weeks, or 24 weeks of interferon and ribavirin. In this study, 20% of patients in each treatment group had cirrhosis.

As in the NEUTRINO trial, the viral load rapidly decreased in all patients treated with sofosbuvir irrespective of HCV genotype, IL28B status, race, or the presence or absence of cirrhosis. Here, 100% of patients with genotype 2 or 3 who were treated with sofosbuvir and ribavirin achieved a rapid virologic response. Differences in outcome emerged based on genotype: 97% of those with genotype 2 and 56% of those with genotype 3 achieved a sustained virologic response. The overall rate was 67%, which was not different from patients treated with peg-interferon and ribavirin. In the subgroup of patients with cirrhosis, 47% of those treated with sofosbuvir and ribavirin achieved a sustained virologic response, vs 38% of those who received peg-interferon plus ribavirin.

In both the NEUTRINO and FISSION trials, few patients discontinued treatment, with higher rates of most adverse events occurring in patients treated with peg-interferon and ribavirin.

POSITRON,²⁰ a phase 3 clinical trial, tested sofosbuvir in patients with HCV genotype 2 or 3 who were ineligible for peg-interferon, unwilling to take peg-interferon, or unable to tolerate peg-interferon (mainly because of clinically significant psychiatric disorders). Patients were randomized to two treatment groups for 12 weeks: sofosbuvir plus ribavirin, or placebo. About 50% of patients had HCV genotype 3, and 16% had cirrhosis.

The overall rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment was 78% in the sofosbuvir-and-ribavirin group (93% in genotype 2 patients and 61% in genotype 3 patients). Again, cirrhosis was associated with a lower rate of sustained virologic response (61% of patients with cirrhosis achieved a sustained virologic response vs 81% of patients without cirrhosis). None of the sofosbuvir-treated patients had virologic failure while on treatment.

FUSION,²⁰ another phase 3 trial, evaluated sofosbuvir in patients infected with HCV genotype 2 or 3 for whom interferon-based treatment had failed. They were randomized to either 12 weeks or 16 weeks of sofosbuvir and weight-based ribavirin treatment. About 60% of patients had HCV genotype 3, and 34% had cirrhosis.

The overall sustained virologic response rate was 50% in the patients treated for 12 weeks and 73% in those treated for 16 weeks: specifically, 86% of patients with genotype 2 achieved a sustained virologic response at 12 weeks and 94% at 16 weeks, whereas in those with genotype 3 the rates were 30% at 12 weeks and 62% at 16 weeks.

Cirrhosis was again a predictor of lack of response to sofosbuvir. In the group treated for 12 weeks, 31% of those with cirrhosis achieved a sustained virologic response compared with 61% in those without cirrhosis. In the group treated for 16 weeks, 61% of those with cirrhosis achieved a sustained virologic response compared with 76% in those without cirrhosis.

In both the POSITRON and FUSION trials, relapse accounted for all treatment failures, and no virologic resistance was detected in patients who did not have a sustained virologic response. The investigators concluded that 12 weeks of treatment with sofosbuvir and ribavirin can be effective for HCV genotype 2 infection, but extending the treatment to 16 weeks may be beneficial for genotype 3. This may be especially important in patients with cirrhosis or those who did not have a response to peg-interferon-based treatment.

VALENCE,²¹ an ongoing phase 3 trial in Europe, is assessing the safety and efficacy of sofosbuvir 400 mg once daily and weight-based ribavirin in patients with HCV genotype 2 or 3. Eighty-five percent of the trial participants have received previous treatment, and 21% have cirrhosis. Patients were originally randomized in a 4:1 ratio to receive sofosbuvir plus ribavirin for 12 weeks or matching placebo, but as a result of emerging data suggesting that patients with genotype 3 would benefit from more than 12 weeks of treatment, the study was subsequently amended to extend treatment to 24 weeks for patients with genotype 3.

Overall rates of sustained virologic response were 93% in patients with genotype 2 and 85% in patients with genotype 3. In previously treated patients with genotype 2 who were treated for 12 weeks, the rates of sustained virologic response were 91% in those without cirrhosis vs 88% in those with cirrhosis. In previously treated patients with genotype 3, the rates in those treated for 24 weeks were 87% in patients without cirrhosis vs 60% with cirrhosis. The safety profile was consistent with that of ribavirin.

Side effects of sofosbuvir

In clinical trials, side effects occurred most often when sofosbuvir was combined with interferon and ribavirin and were consistent with the known side effects of the latter two agents. The most frequently reported side effects included fatigue, insomnia, nausea, rash, anemia, headache, and arthralgia, with most of these adverse events rated by treating clinicians as being mild in severity.^15,20

In the ATOMIC trial, the most common events leading to drug discontinuation were anemia and neutropenia, both associated with interferon and ribavirin. Patients receiving sofosbuvir monotherapy after 12 weeks of triple therapy showed rapid improvement in hemoglobin levels and neutrophil counts, indicating that hematologic abnormalities attributed solely to sofosbuvir are minimal. In the FISSION trial, the incidence of adverse events was consistently lower in those receiving sofosbuvir-ribavirin than in patients receiving interferon-ribavirin without sofosbuvir.¹⁹

In the POSITRON trial, discontinuation of sofosbuvir because of adverse events was uncommon, and there were no differences in the incidence of adverse events and laboratory abnormalities between patients with and without cirrhosis when they received sofosbuvir and ribavirin.²⁰

Sofosbuvir dosage and indications

Sofosbuvir is approved in an oral dose of 400 mg once daily in combination with ribavirin for patients infected with HCV genotype 2 or 3 and in combination with ribavirin and interferon alfa in patients infected with HCV genotype 1 or 4 (Table 3). It could be considered for HCV genotype 1 in combination with ribavirin alone for 24 weeks in patients who are ineligible for interferon.

Sofosbuvir is also recommended in combination with ribavirin in HCV-infected patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who are awaiting liver transplantation, for up to 48 weeks or until they receive a transplant, to prevent posttransplant reinfection with HCV.

A course of therapy is expected to cost about $84,000, which is significantly more than the cost of previous triple therapy (peg-interferon, ribavirin, and either boceprevir or telaprevir).²² This high cost will undoubtedly lead to less widespread use in developing countries, and potentially even in the United States. As newer direct-acting antiviral agents become available, the price will likely come down, enhancing access to these drugs.

SIMEPREVIR: A SECOND-GENERATION PROTEASE INHIBITOR

Telaprevir and boceprevir are NS3/A4 protease inhibitors that belong to the alfa-ketoamid derivative class. Simeprevir belongs to the macrocyclic class and has a different way of binding to the target enzyme.²³ Like sofosbuvir, simeprevir was recently approved by the FDA for the treatment of HCV genotype 1.

The therapeutic efficacy of simeprevir has been tested in several clinical trials (Table 4), including QUEST-1²⁴ and QUEST-2²⁵ (in previously untreated patients), PROMISE²⁶ (in prior relapsers), and ASPIRE²⁷ (in prior partial and null responders). Results from these trials showed high overall rates of sustained virologic response with triple therapy (ie, simeprevir combined with peg-interferon and ribavirin). It was generally well tolerated, and most adverse events reported during 12 weeks of treatment were of mild to moderate severity.

In QUEST-1 and QUEST-2, both double-blind phase 3 clinical trials, previously untreated patients infected with HCV genotype 1 were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either simeprevir 150 mg daily or placebo for 12 weeks; both groups also received peg-interferon and ribavirin. Patients then received peg-interferon and ribavirin alone for 12 or 36 weeks in the simeprevir group (based on response) and for 36 weeks in the placebo group.

The overall rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks was 80% in the simeprevir group (75% in those with genotype 1a and 85% in those with genotype 1b) vs 50% in the placebo group (receiving peg-interferon and ribavirin alone).^24,25

PROMISE,²⁶ another double-blind randomized phase 3 clinical trial, evaluated simeprevir in patients with HCV genotype 1 who relapsed after previous interferon-based therapy. It had a similar design to QUEST-1 and QUEST-2, and 15% of all patients had cirrhosis.

The overall sustained virologic response rate at 12 weeks after treatment was 79% in the simeprevir group (70% in patients with genotype 1a and 86% in those with genotype 1b) vs 37% in the placebo group. Rates were similar in patients with absent to moderate fibrosis (82%), advanced fibrosis (73%), or cirrhosis (74%).

ASPIRE.²⁷ Simeprevir efficacy in patients with HCV genotype 1 for whom previous therapy with peg-interferon and ribavirin had failed was tested in ASPIRE, a double-blind randomized phase 2 clinical trial. Patients were randomized to receive simeprevir (either 100 mg or 150 mg daily) for 12, 24, or 48 weeks in combination with 48 weeks of peg-interferon and ribavirin, or placebo plus peg-interferon and ribavirin for 48 weeks.

The primary end point was the rate of sustained virologic response at 24 weeks. Overall, rates were 61% to 80% for the simeprevir treatment groups compared with 23% with placebo, regardless of prior response to peg-interferon and ribavirin. By subgroup, rates were:

• 77% to 89% with simeprevir vs 37% with placebo in prior relapsers
• 48% to 86% with simeprevir vs 9% with placebo in prior partial responders
• 38% to 59% with placebo vs 19% for prior nonresponders.

The best rates of sustained viral response at 24 weeks were in the groups that received simeprevir 150 mg daily: 85% in prior relapsers, 75% in prior partial responders, and 51% in prior nonresponders.

Simeprevir vs other direct-acting antiviral drugs

Advantages of simeprevir over the earlier protease inhibitors include once-daily dosing, a lower rate of adverse events (the most common being fatigue, headache, rash, photosensitivity, and pruritus), a lower likelihood of discontinuation because of adverse events, and fewer drug-drug interactions (since it is a weak inhibitor of the CYP3A4 enzyme).

Unlike sofosbuvir, simeprevir was FDA-approved only for HCV genotype 1 and in combination with interferon alfa and ribavirin. Compared with sofosbuvir, the treatment duration with simeprevir regimens is longer overall (interferon alfa and ribavirin are given for 12 weeks in sofosbuvir-based regimens vs 24 to 48 weeks with simeprevir). As with sofosbuvir, the estimated cost of simeprevir is high, about $66,000 for a 12-week course.

Simeprevir dosage and indications

Simeprevir was approved at an oral dose of 150 mg once daily in combination with ribavirin and interferon alfa in patients with HCV genotype 1 (Table 5).

The approved regimens for simeprevir are fixed in total duration based on the patient’s treatment history. Specifically, all patients receive the drug in combination with peg-interferon and ribavirin for 12 weeks. Then, previously untreated patients and prior relapsers continue to receive peg-interferon and ribavirin alone for another 12 weeks, and those with a partial or null response continue with these drugs for another 36 weeks.

Patients infected with HCV genotype 1a should be screened for the NS3 Q80K polymorphism at baseline, as it has been associated with substantially reduced response to simeprevir.

Sofosbuvir and simeprevir in combination

The COSMOS trial.²⁸ Given their differences in mechanism of action, sofosbuvir and simeprevir are being tested in combination. The COSMOS trial is an ongoing phase 2 randomized open-label study investigating the efficacy and safety of simeprevir and sofosbuvir in combination with and without ribavirin in patients with HCV genotype 1, including nonresponders and those with cirrhosis. Early results are promising, with very high rates of sustained virologic response with the sofosbuvir-simeprevir combination (93% to 100%) and indicate that the addition of ribavirin might not be needed to achieve sustained virologic response in this patient population.

THE FUTURE

The emergence of all-oral regimens for HCV treatment with increasingly sophisticated agents such as sofosbuvir and simeprevir will dramatically alter the management of HCV patients. In view of the improvement in sustained virologic response rates with these treatments, and since most HCV-infected persons have no symptoms, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention²⁹ recently recommended one-time testing of the cohort in which the prevalence of HCV infection is highest: all persons born between 1945 and 1965. This undoubtedly will increase the detection of this infection—and the number of new patients expecting treatment.

Future drugs promise further improvements (Table 6).^30–35 Advances in knowledge of the HCV molecular structure have led to the development of numerous direct-acting antiviral agents with very specific viral targets. A second wave of protease inhibitors and of nucleoside and nonnucleoside polymerase inhibitors will soon be available. Inhibitors of NS5A (a protein important in the assembly of the viral replication complex) such as daclatasvir and ledipasvir, are currently in phase 3 clinical trials. Other viral proteins involved in assembly of the virus, including the core protein and p7, are being explored as drug targets. In addition, inhibiting host targets such as cyclophilin A and miR122 has gained traction recently, with specific agents currently in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials.

Factors that previously were major determinants of response to treatment, such as IL28B genotype, viral load, race, age, extent of fibrosis, and genotype 1 subtypes, will become much less important with the introduction of highly potent direct-acting antiviral agents.

Many all-oral combinations are being evaluated in clinical trials. For example, the open-label, phase 2 LONESTAR trial tested the utility of combining sofosbuvir and ledipasvir (an NS5A inhibitor) with and without ribavirin for 8 or 12 weeks in previously untreated patients with HCV genotype 1, and for 12 weeks in patients with HCV genotype 1 who did not achieve a sustained virologic response after receiving a protease inhibitor-based regimen (half of whom had compensated cirrhosis).³⁶ Sustained virologic response rates were very high (95% to 100%) in both previously treated and previously untreated patients, including those with cirrhosis. Similar rates were achieved by the 8-week and 12-week groups in noncirrhotic patients who had not been previously treated for HCV. The typical hematologic abnormalities associated with interferon were not observed except for mild anemia in patients who received ribavirin. These results suggest that the combination of sofosbuvir and ledipasvir could offer a very effective, short, all-oral treatment for patients with HCV genotype 1, including those with cirrhosis, who up to now have been difficult to treat.

Challenges remaining

The success of sofosbuvir and simeprevir paves the way for interferon-free regimens.³⁷ For a long time, the treatment of HCV infection required close monitoring of patients while managing the side effects of interferon, but the current and emerging direct-acting antiviral agents will soon change this practice. Given the synergistic effects of combination therapy—targeting the virus at multiple locations, decreasing the likelihood of drug resistance, and improving efficacy—combination regimens seem to be the optimal solution to the HCV epidemic. Lower risk of side effects and shorter treatment duration will definitely improve the acceptance of any new regimen. New agents that act against conserved viral targets, thereby yielding activity across multiple genotypes, will be advantageous as well. Table 7 compares the rates of sustained virologic response of the different currently approved HCV treatment regimens.

Clinical challenges remain, including the management of special patient populations for whom data are still limited. These include patients with cirrhosis, chronic kidney disease, renal failure, and concurrent infection with human immunodeficiency virus, and patients who have undergone solid organ transplantation. Clinical trials are under way to evaluate the treatment options for these patients, who will likely need to wait for the emergence of additional agents before dramatic improvement in sustained virologic response rates may be expected.38

As the treatment of HCV becomes simpler, safer, and more effective, primary care physicians will increasingly be expected to manage it. Difficult-to-treat patients, including the special populations above, will require specialist management and individualized treatment regimens, at least until better therapies are available. The high projected cost of the new agents may limit access, at least initially. However, the dramatic improvement in sustained virologic response rates and all that that implies in terms of decreased risk of advanced liver disease and its complications will undoubtedly make these therapies cost-effective.³⁹

Glycosuria used to be a sign of uncontrolled diabetes and was something to be corrected, not a therapeutic mechanism. But now we have a new class of drugs that lower plasma glucose levels by increasing the renal excretion of glucose.

Here, we will review canagliflozin, the first in a new class of drugs for type 2 diabetes: how it works, who is a candidate for it, and what to watch out for.

THE NEED FOR NEW DIABETES DRUGS

Diabetes mellitus affects more than 25.8 million people in the United States—8.3% of the population—and this staggering number is rising.¹ Among US residents age 65 and older, more than 10.9 million (26.9%) have diabetes.¹ People with uncontrolled diabetes are at risk of microvascular complications such as retinopathy, nephropathy, and neuropathy, as well as cardiovascular disease. Diabetes is the leading cause of blindness, chronic kidney disease, and nontraumatic lower-limb amputation in the United States.¹

Type 2 diabetes accounts for more than 90% of cases of diabetes in the United States, Europe, and Canada.² It is characterized by insulin resistance, decreased beta-cell function, and progressive beta-cell decline.³

Current American Diabetes Association guidelines for the treatment of diabetes recommend a hemoglobin A_1c target of less than 7.0%.⁴ Initial management includes lifestyle modifications such as changes in diet and an increase in exercise, as well as consideration of metformin treatment at the same time. If glucose levels remain uncontrolled despite these efforts, other drugs should be added.

A number of oral and injectable antihyperglycemic drugs are available to help achieve this goal, though none is without risk of adverse effects. Those available up to now include metformin, sulfonylureas, meglitinides, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, thiazolidinediones, gliptins, glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists, amylin analogues, colesevelam, dopamine agonists, and insulin.⁵ Most of the available antihyperglycemics target the liver, pancreas, gut, and muscle to improve insulin sensitivity, reduce insulin resistance, or stimulate insulin secretion.

Despite the abundance of agents, type 2 diabetes remains uncontrolled in many patients. Only 57.1% of participants with previously diagnosed diabetes in the 2003–2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey were at the hemoglobin A_1c goal of less than 7.0%.⁶ Possible reasons for failure include adverse effects such as hypoglycemia, weight gain, and gastrointestinal symptoms resulting in discontinued use, nonadherence to the prescribed regimen, and failure to increase the dosage or to add additional agents, including insulin, to optimize glycemic control as beta-cell function declines over time.

HOW THE KIDNEYS HANDLE GLUCOSE

In the kidney, glucose is filtered in the glomerulus and then is reabsorbed in the proximal tubule. Normally, the filtered glucose is all reabsorbed unless the glucose load exceeds the kidney’s absorptive capacity. Membrane proteins called sodium-glucose cotransporters reabsorb glucose at the proximal tubule and return it into the peripheral circulation. Glucose enters the tubular epithelial cell with sodium by passive cotransport via the sodiumglucose cotransporters, and then exits on the other side via the glucose transporter GLUT in the basolateral membrane.

Two sodium-glucose transporters that act in the proximal tubule of the kidney have been identified: SGLT1 and SGLT2. SGLT2 reabsorbs most of the glucose in the early segment of the proximal tubule, while SLGT1 reabsorbs the remaining glucose at the distal end.⁷ SGLT2 is responsible for more than 90% of renal tubular reabsorption of glucose and is found only in the proximal tubule, whereas SGLT1 is found mainly in the gastrointestinal tract.⁸

Patients with type 2 diabetes have a higher capacity for glucose reabsorption in the proximal tubule as a result of the up-regulation of SGLT2.⁹

SGLT2 INHIBITORS AND TYPE 2 DIABETES

Drugs that inhibit SGLT2 block reabsorption of glucose in the proximal tubule, lowering the renal threshold for glucose and thereby increasing urinary glucose excretion and lowering the serum glucose level in patients with hyperglycemia. This mechanism of action is insulin-independent.

On March 29, 2013, canagliflozin became the first SGLT2 inhibitor to be approved in the United States for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.¹⁰ However, it is not the first of its class to be introduced.

Dapagliflozin was the first SGLT2 inhibitor approved in Europe and has been available there since November 2012. However, the US Food and Drug Administration withheld its approval in the United States in January 2012 because of concerns of a possible association with cancer, specifically breast and bladder cancers, as well as possible liver injury.¹⁰ Canagliflozin does not appear to share this risk.

Several other SGLT2 inhibitors may soon be available. Empagliflozin is in phase III trials, and the manufacturer has filed for approval in the United States. Ipragliflozin is awaiting approval in Japan.

CANAGLIFLOZIN: PHARMACOKINETICS AND THERAPEUTIC EFFICACY

Canagliflozin reaches its peak plasma concentration within 1 to 2 hours of oral administration.¹¹ Its half-life is 10.6 hours with a 100-mg dose and 13.1 hours with a 300-mg dose. A steady state is typically achieved in 4 to 5 days.¹¹

Canagliflozin lowers fasting plasma glucose and hemoglobin A_1c levels in a dose-dependent manner.^10,11 These effects are independent of age, sex, body mass index, and race.¹² Postprandial glucose levels are also lowered.

Other potential benefits of canagliflozin include lowering of the systolic blood pressure and, especially important in obese people with type 2 diabetes, weight loss.¹² Aside from metformin, which occasionally results in modest weight loss, other oral drugs used in treating type 2 diabetes are weight-neutral or can cause weight gain.

Trials of canagliflozin

Nine phase III trials of canagliflozin have enrolled 10,285 patients, in one of the largest clinical trial programs in type 2 diabetes to date.¹⁰ Several of these trials evaluated canagliflozin as monotherapy, whereas others assessed its effect as an add-on therapy in combination with another antihyperglycemic agent such as a sulfonylurea, metformin, pioglitazone, or insulin. There has not yet been a trial directly comparing canagliflozin with metformin.

Four of the placebo-controlled trials evaluated canagliflozin as monotherapy, canagliflozin added to metformin alone, canagliflozin added to metformin plus glimepiride, and canagliflozin added to metformin plus pioglitazone.

When canagliflozin was used as monotherapy, hemoglobin A_1c levels at 26 weeks were an absolute 0.91% lower in the canagliflozin 100 mg/day group than in the placebo group, and an absolute 1.16% lower in the canagliflozin 300 mg/day group than in the placebo group (P < .001 for both).¹² Patients lost 2.8% of their body weight with canagliflozin 100 mg and 3.3% with canagliflozin 300 mg, compared with 0.6% with placebo. Systolic blood pressure fell by a mean of 3.7 mm Hg with the 100-mg dose and by a mean of 5.4 mm Hg with the 300-mg dose compared with placebo (P < .001 for both dose groups).¹²

When canagliflozin was added to metformin, with glimepiride as the comparator drug, there was a 5.2% weight reduction with the 100-mg dose, a 5.7% reduction with 300 mg, and a 1% gain with glimepiride. Hemoglobin A_1c fell about equally in the three groups.¹¹

When canagliflozin was added to metformin and a sulfonylurea, with sitagliptin as the comparator third drug, the 300-mg canagliflozin dosage group had a 2.8% weight reduction.¹¹

WHAT ARE THE ADVERSE EFFECTS?

Overall, canagliflozin seems to be well tolerated. The most common adverse effects reported in the clinical trials were genital yeast infections, urinary tract infections, and increased urination.

Genital yeast infections were more common in women than in men, occurring in 10.4% of women who received canagliflozin 100 mg and in 11.4% of women who received 300 mg, compared with only 3.2% in the placebo group.¹¹

Urinary tract infections occurred in 5.9% of the 100-mg group and in 4.3% of the 300-mg group, compared with 4.0% of the placebo group.¹¹

Postural hypotension. Lowering of blood pressure and symptoms of postural hypotension were also reported, and these may be attributed to the drug’s mild osmotic diuretic effect. The risk of adverse effects of volume depletion was dose-dependent; in patients over age 75, they occurred in 4.9% of those taking 100 mg and in 8.7% of those taking 300 mg, compared with 2.6% of those in the placebo or active-comparator groups.¹¹ Therefore, one should exercise particular caution when starting this drug in the elderly or in patients taking diuretics or multiple antihypertensive drugs.

Hypoglycemia. When canagliflozin was used as monotherapy, the incidence of hypoglycemia over 26 weeks was similar to that with placebo, occurring in 3.6% of the 100-mg group, 3.0% of the 300-mg group, and 2.6% of the placebo group.¹² Canagliflozin was associated with fewer episodes of hypoglycemia than were sulfonylureas, and the number of episodes was similar to that in patients taking gliptins. There was a higher overall incidence of hypoglycemia when canagliflozin was used in combination with a sulfonylurea or with insulin than when it was used as monotherapy.¹¹

Hyperkalemia. Patients with moderate renal impairment or who are on potassiumsparing drugs or drugs that interfere with the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system may be at higher risk of hyperkalemia, so close monitoring of potassium is recommended. There was also a dose-dependent increase in serum phosphate and magnesium levels, more notably in patients with moderate renal impairment within the first 3 weeks of starting the drug.¹¹

Patients on canagliflozin who are also taking digoxin, ritonavir, phenytoin, phenobarbital, or rifampin should be closely monitored because of the risk of drug-drug interactions.¹¹ Specifically, there was an increase in mean peak digoxin concentrations when used with canagliflozin 300 mg, and the use of phenytoin, phenobarbital, and ritonavir decreased the efficacy of canagliflozin.

WHAT ARE THE CARDIOVASCULAR RISKS OR LONG-TERM CONCERNS?

Dose-dependent increases in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) may be seen with canagliflozin. Mean changes from baseline compared with placebo were 4.4 mg/dL (4.5%) with canagliflozin 100 mg and 8.3 mg/dL (8%) with canagliflozin 300 mg.¹¹

There was also an increase in non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C).¹² Compared with placebo, mean non-HDL-C levels rose by 2.1 mg/dL (1.5%) with canagliflozin 100 mg and 5.1 mg/dL (3.6%) with 300 mg.¹¹

In the 26-week canagliflozin monotherapy trial, archived blood samples in a small subgroup of patients (n = 349) were measured for apolipoprotein-B, which was found to increase by 1.2% with canagliflozin 100 mg and 3.5% with canagliflozin 300 mg, compared with 0.9% in the placebo group.¹²

Although small, the increase in LDL-C seen with this drug could be a concern, as diabetic patients are already at higher risk of cardiovascular events. The mechanism of this increase is not yet known, though it may be related to metabolic changes from urinary glucose excretion.¹²

The Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment Study (CANVAS) is a randomized placebo-controlled trial in more than 4,000 patients with type 2 diabetes who have a history of or are at high risk of cardiovascular events. Currently under way, it is evaluating the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (the primary end point) in patients randomized to receive canagliflozin 100 mg, canagliflozin 300 mg, or placebo once daily for up to 4 years. Secondary end points will be the drug’s effects on fasting plasma insulin and glucose, progression of albuminuria, body weight, blood pressure, HDL-C, LDL-C, bone mineral density, markers of bone turnover, and body composition.¹⁰ This trial will run for 9 years, to be completed in 2018.¹³

The CANVAS investigators have already reported that within the first month of treatment, 13 patients taking canagliflozin suffered a major cardiovascular event, including stroke (one of which was fatal) compared with just one patient taking placebo. These events were not seen after the first month. The hazard ratio for major adverse cardiovascular events within the first 30 days was 6.49, but this dropped to 0.89 after the first 30 days.¹⁰

Additional issues that should be addressed in long-term postmarketing studies include possible relationships with cancers and pancreatitis and the safety of the drug in pregnancy and in children with diabetes.¹⁰

WHO IS A CANDIDATE FOR THIS DRUG?

Canagliflozin is approved for use as monotherapy in addition to lifestyle modifications. It is also approved for use with other antihyperglycemic drugs, including metformin.

Obese patients with type 2 diabetes and normal kidney function may have the greatest benefit. Because of canagliflozin’s insulinin-dependent mechanism of action, patients with both early and late type 2 diabetes may benefit from its ability to lower hemoglobin A_1c and blood glucose.¹⁴

Although it can be used in patients with moderate (but not severe) kidney disease, canagliflozin does not appear to be as effective in these patients, who had higher rates of adverse effects.¹¹ It is not indicated for patients with type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes with ketonuria, or end-stage renal disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate < 45 mL/min or receiving dialysis).¹¹ It also is not yet recommended for use in pregnant women or patients under age 18.

The recommended starting dose of canagliflozin is 100 mg once daily, taken with breakfast. This can be increased to 300 mg once daily if tolerated. However, patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 45 to 60 mL/min should not exceed the 100- mg dose. No dose adjustment is required in patients with mild to moderate hepatic impairment. It is not recommended, however, in patients with severe hepatic impairment.¹¹

Comment. Although canagliflozin is approved as monotherapy, metformin remains my choice for first-line oral therapy. Because canagliflozin is more expensive and its long-term affects are still relatively unknown, I prefer to use it as an adjunct, and believe it will be a useful addition, especially in obese patients who are seeking to lose weight.

WHAT IS THE COST OF THIS DRUG?

The suggested price is $10.53 per tablet (AmerisourceBergen), which is comparable to that of other newer drugs for type 2 diabetes.

THE BOTTOM LINE

The availability of canagliflozin as an additional oral antihyperglycemic option may prove helpful in managing patients with type 2 diabetes who experience adverse effects with other antihyperglycemic drugs.

As with any new drug, questions remain about the long-term risks of canagliflozin. However, it seems to be well tolerated, especially in patients with normal kidney function, and poses a low risk of hypoglycemia. The slight increase in LDL-C may prompt more aggressive lipid management. Whether blood pressure-lowering and weight loss will offset this increase in LDL-C is yet to be determined. Ongoing studies will help to further elucidate whether there is an increased risk of cardiovascular events.

Finally, canagliflozin distinguishes itself from other oral diabetes drugs by its added benefit of weight loss, an appealing side effect, especially in the growing population of obese individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Glycosuria used to be a sign of uncontrolled diabetes and was something to be corrected, not a therapeutic mechanism. But now we have a new class of drugs that lower plasma glucose levels by increasing the renal excretion of glucose.

Here, we will review canagliflozin, the first in a new class of drugs for type 2 diabetes: how it works, who is a candidate for it, and what to watch out for.

THE NEED FOR NEW DIABETES DRUGS

Diabetes mellitus affects more than 25.8 million people in the United States—8.3% of the population—and this staggering number is rising.¹ Among US residents age 65 and older, more than 10.9 million (26.9%) have diabetes.¹ People with uncontrolled diabetes are at risk of microvascular complications such as retinopathy, nephropathy, and neuropathy, as well as cardiovascular disease. Diabetes is the leading cause of blindness, chronic kidney disease, and nontraumatic lower-limb amputation in the United States.¹

Type 2 diabetes accounts for more than 90% of cases of diabetes in the United States, Europe, and Canada.² It is characterized by insulin resistance, decreased beta-cell function, and progressive beta-cell decline.³

Current American Diabetes Association guidelines for the treatment of diabetes recommend a hemoglobin A_1c target of less than 7.0%.⁴ Initial management includes lifestyle modifications such as changes in diet and an increase in exercise, as well as consideration of metformin treatment at the same time. If glucose levels remain uncontrolled despite these efforts, other drugs should be added.

A number of oral and injectable antihyperglycemic drugs are available to help achieve this goal, though none is without risk of adverse effects. Those available up to now include metformin, sulfonylureas, meglitinides, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, thiazolidinediones, gliptins, glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists, amylin analogues, colesevelam, dopamine agonists, and insulin.⁵ Most of the available antihyperglycemics target the liver, pancreas, gut, and muscle to improve insulin sensitivity, reduce insulin resistance, or stimulate insulin secretion.

Despite the abundance of agents, type 2 diabetes remains uncontrolled in many patients. Only 57.1% of participants with previously diagnosed diabetes in the 2003–2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey were at the hemoglobin A_1c goal of less than 7.0%.⁶ Possible reasons for failure include adverse effects such as hypoglycemia, weight gain, and gastrointestinal symptoms resulting in discontinued use, nonadherence to the prescribed regimen, and failure to increase the dosage or to add additional agents, including insulin, to optimize glycemic control as beta-cell function declines over time.

HOW THE KIDNEYS HANDLE GLUCOSE

In the kidney, glucose is filtered in the glomerulus and then is reabsorbed in the proximal tubule. Normally, the filtered glucose is all reabsorbed unless the glucose load exceeds the kidney’s absorptive capacity. Membrane proteins called sodium-glucose cotransporters reabsorb glucose at the proximal tubule and return it into the peripheral circulation. Glucose enters the tubular epithelial cell with sodium by passive cotransport via the sodiumglucose cotransporters, and then exits on the other side via the glucose transporter GLUT in the basolateral membrane.

Two sodium-glucose transporters that act in the proximal tubule of the kidney have been identified: SGLT1 and SGLT2. SGLT2 reabsorbs most of the glucose in the early segment of the proximal tubule, while SLGT1 reabsorbs the remaining glucose at the distal end.⁷ SGLT2 is responsible for more than 90% of renal tubular reabsorption of glucose and is found only in the proximal tubule, whereas SGLT1 is found mainly in the gastrointestinal tract.⁸

Patients with type 2 diabetes have a higher capacity for glucose reabsorption in the proximal tubule as a result of the up-regulation of SGLT2.⁹

SGLT2 INHIBITORS AND TYPE 2 DIABETES

Drugs that inhibit SGLT2 block reabsorption of glucose in the proximal tubule, lowering the renal threshold for glucose and thereby increasing urinary glucose excretion and lowering the serum glucose level in patients with hyperglycemia. This mechanism of action is insulin-independent.

On March 29, 2013, canagliflozin became the first SGLT2 inhibitor to be approved in the United States for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.¹⁰ However, it is not the first of its class to be introduced.

Dapagliflozin was the first SGLT2 inhibitor approved in Europe and has been available there since November 2012. However, the US Food and Drug Administration withheld its approval in the United States in January 2012 because of concerns of a possible association with cancer, specifically breast and bladder cancers, as well as possible liver injury.¹⁰ Canagliflozin does not appear to share this risk.

Several other SGLT2 inhibitors may soon be available. Empagliflozin is in phase III trials, and the manufacturer has filed for approval in the United States. Ipragliflozin is awaiting approval in Japan.

CANAGLIFLOZIN: PHARMACOKINETICS AND THERAPEUTIC EFFICACY

Canagliflozin reaches its peak plasma concentration within 1 to 2 hours of oral administration.¹¹ Its half-life is 10.6 hours with a 100-mg dose and 13.1 hours with a 300-mg dose. A steady state is typically achieved in 4 to 5 days.¹¹

Canagliflozin lowers fasting plasma glucose and hemoglobin A_1c levels in a dose-dependent manner.^10,11 These effects are independent of age, sex, body mass index, and race.¹² Postprandial glucose levels are also lowered.

Other potential benefits of canagliflozin include lowering of the systolic blood pressure and, especially important in obese people with type 2 diabetes, weight loss.¹² Aside from metformin, which occasionally results in modest weight loss, other oral drugs used in treating type 2 diabetes are weight-neutral or can cause weight gain.

Trials of canagliflozin

Nine phase III trials of canagliflozin have enrolled 10,285 patients, in one of the largest clinical trial programs in type 2 diabetes to date.¹⁰ Several of these trials evaluated canagliflozin as monotherapy, whereas others assessed its effect as an add-on therapy in combination with another antihyperglycemic agent such as a sulfonylurea, metformin, pioglitazone, or insulin. There has not yet been a trial directly comparing canagliflozin with metformin.

Four of the placebo-controlled trials evaluated canagliflozin as monotherapy, canagliflozin added to metformin alone, canagliflozin added to metformin plus glimepiride, and canagliflozin added to metformin plus pioglitazone.

When canagliflozin was used as monotherapy, hemoglobin A_1c levels at 26 weeks were an absolute 0.91% lower in the canagliflozin 100 mg/day group than in the placebo group, and an absolute 1.16% lower in the canagliflozin 300 mg/day group than in the placebo group (P < .001 for both).¹² Patients lost 2.8% of their body weight with canagliflozin 100 mg and 3.3% with canagliflozin 300 mg, compared with 0.6% with placebo. Systolic blood pressure fell by a mean of 3.7 mm Hg with the 100-mg dose and by a mean of 5.4 mm Hg with the 300-mg dose compared with placebo (P < .001 for both dose groups).¹²

When canagliflozin was added to metformin, with glimepiride as the comparator drug, there was a 5.2% weight reduction with the 100-mg dose, a 5.7% reduction with 300 mg, and a 1% gain with glimepiride. Hemoglobin A_1c fell about equally in the three groups.¹¹

When canagliflozin was added to metformin and a sulfonylurea, with sitagliptin as the comparator third drug, the 300-mg canagliflozin dosage group had a 2.8% weight reduction.¹¹

WHAT ARE THE ADVERSE EFFECTS?

Overall, canagliflozin seems to be well tolerated. The most common adverse effects reported in the clinical trials were genital yeast infections, urinary tract infections, and increased urination.

Genital yeast infections were more common in women than in men, occurring in 10.4% of women who received canagliflozin 100 mg and in 11.4% of women who received 300 mg, compared with only 3.2% in the placebo group.¹¹

Urinary tract infections occurred in 5.9% of the 100-mg group and in 4.3% of the 300-mg group, compared with 4.0% of the placebo group.¹¹

Postural hypotension. Lowering of blood pressure and symptoms of postural hypotension were also reported, and these may be attributed to the drug’s mild osmotic diuretic effect. The risk of adverse effects of volume depletion was dose-dependent; in patients over age 75, they occurred in 4.9% of those taking 100 mg and in 8.7% of those taking 300 mg, compared with 2.6% of those in the placebo or active-comparator groups.¹¹ Therefore, one should exercise particular caution when starting this drug in the elderly or in patients taking diuretics or multiple antihypertensive drugs.

Hypoglycemia. When canagliflozin was used as monotherapy, the incidence of hypoglycemia over 26 weeks was similar to that with placebo, occurring in 3.6% of the 100-mg group, 3.0% of the 300-mg group, and 2.6% of the placebo group.¹² Canagliflozin was associated with fewer episodes of hypoglycemia than were sulfonylureas, and the number of episodes was similar to that in patients taking gliptins. There was a higher overall incidence of hypoglycemia when canagliflozin was used in combination with a sulfonylurea or with insulin than when it was used as monotherapy.¹¹

Hyperkalemia. Patients with moderate renal impairment or who are on potassiumsparing drugs or drugs that interfere with the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system may be at higher risk of hyperkalemia, so close monitoring of potassium is recommended. There was also a dose-dependent increase in serum phosphate and magnesium levels, more notably in patients with moderate renal impairment within the first 3 weeks of starting the drug.¹¹

Patients on canagliflozin who are also taking digoxin, ritonavir, phenytoin, phenobarbital, or rifampin should be closely monitored because of the risk of drug-drug interactions.¹¹ Specifically, there was an increase in mean peak digoxin concentrations when used with canagliflozin 300 mg, and the use of phenytoin, phenobarbital, and ritonavir decreased the efficacy of canagliflozin.

WHAT ARE THE CARDIOVASCULAR RISKS OR LONG-TERM CONCERNS?

Dose-dependent increases in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) may be seen with canagliflozin. Mean changes from baseline compared with placebo were 4.4 mg/dL (4.5%) with canagliflozin 100 mg and 8.3 mg/dL (8%) with canagliflozin 300 mg.¹¹

There was also an increase in non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C).¹² Compared with placebo, mean non-HDL-C levels rose by 2.1 mg/dL (1.5%) with canagliflozin 100 mg and 5.1 mg/dL (3.6%) with 300 mg.¹¹

In the 26-week canagliflozin monotherapy trial, archived blood samples in a small subgroup of patients (n = 349) were measured for apolipoprotein-B, which was found to increase by 1.2% with canagliflozin 100 mg and 3.5% with canagliflozin 300 mg, compared with 0.9% in the placebo group.¹²

Although small, the increase in LDL-C seen with this drug could be a concern, as diabetic patients are already at higher risk of cardiovascular events. The mechanism of this increase is not yet known, though it may be related to metabolic changes from urinary glucose excretion.¹²

The Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment Study (CANVAS) is a randomized placebo-controlled trial in more than 4,000 patients with type 2 diabetes who have a history of or are at high risk of cardiovascular events. Currently under way, it is evaluating the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (the primary end point) in patients randomized to receive canagliflozin 100 mg, canagliflozin 300 mg, or placebo once daily for up to 4 years. Secondary end points will be the drug’s effects on fasting plasma insulin and glucose, progression of albuminuria, body weight, blood pressure, HDL-C, LDL-C, bone mineral density, markers of bone turnover, and body composition.¹⁰ This trial will run for 9 years, to be completed in 2018.¹³

The CANVAS investigators have already reported that within the first month of treatment, 13 patients taking canagliflozin suffered a major cardiovascular event, including stroke (one of which was fatal) compared with just one patient taking placebo. These events were not seen after the first month. The hazard ratio for major adverse cardiovascular events within the first 30 days was 6.49, but this dropped to 0.89 after the first 30 days.¹⁰

Additional issues that should be addressed in long-term postmarketing studies include possible relationships with cancers and pancreatitis and the safety of the drug in pregnancy and in children with diabetes.¹⁰

WHO IS A CANDIDATE FOR THIS DRUG?

Canagliflozin is approved for use as monotherapy in addition to lifestyle modifications. It is also approved for use with other antihyperglycemic drugs, including metformin.

Obese patients with type 2 diabetes and normal kidney function may have the greatest benefit. Because of canagliflozin’s insulinin-dependent mechanism of action, patients with both early and late type 2 diabetes may benefit from its ability to lower hemoglobin A_1c and blood glucose.¹⁴

Although it can be used in patients with moderate (but not severe) kidney disease, canagliflozin does not appear to be as effective in these patients, who had higher rates of adverse effects.¹¹ It is not indicated for patients with type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes with ketonuria, or end-stage renal disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate < 45 mL/min or receiving dialysis).¹¹ It also is not yet recommended for use in pregnant women or patients under age 18.

The recommended starting dose of canagliflozin is 100 mg once daily, taken with breakfast. This can be increased to 300 mg once daily if tolerated. However, patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 45 to 60 mL/min should not exceed the 100- mg dose. No dose adjustment is required in patients with mild to moderate hepatic impairment. It is not recommended, however, in patients with severe hepatic impairment.¹¹

Comment. Although canagliflozin is approved as monotherapy, metformin remains my choice for first-line oral therapy. Because canagliflozin is more expensive and its long-term affects are still relatively unknown, I prefer to use it as an adjunct, and believe it will be a useful addition, especially in obese patients who are seeking to lose weight.

WHAT IS THE COST OF THIS DRUG?

The suggested price is $10.53 per tablet (AmerisourceBergen), which is comparable to that of other newer drugs for type 2 diabetes.

THE BOTTOM LINE

The availability of canagliflozin as an additional oral antihyperglycemic option may prove helpful in managing patients with type 2 diabetes who experience adverse effects with other antihyperglycemic drugs.

As with any new drug, questions remain about the long-term risks of canagliflozin. However, it seems to be well tolerated, especially in patients with normal kidney function, and poses a low risk of hypoglycemia. The slight increase in LDL-C may prompt more aggressive lipid management. Whether blood pressure-lowering and weight loss will offset this increase in LDL-C is yet to be determined. Ongoing studies will help to further elucidate whether there is an increased risk of cardiovascular events.

Finally, canagliflozin distinguishes itself from other oral diabetes drugs by its added benefit of weight loss, an appealing side effect, especially in the growing population of obese individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Glycosuria used to be a sign of uncontrolled diabetes and was something to be corrected, not a therapeutic mechanism. But now we have a new class of drugs that lower plasma glucose levels by increasing the renal excretion of glucose.

Here, we will review canagliflozin, the first in a new class of drugs for type 2 diabetes: how it works, who is a candidate for it, and what to watch out for.

THE NEED FOR NEW DIABETES DRUGS

Diabetes mellitus affects more than 25.8 million people in the United States—8.3% of the population—and this staggering number is rising.¹ Among US residents age 65 and older, more than 10.9 million (26.9%) have diabetes.¹ People with uncontrolled diabetes are at risk of microvascular complications such as retinopathy, nephropathy, and neuropathy, as well as cardiovascular disease. Diabetes is the leading cause of blindness, chronic kidney disease, and nontraumatic lower-limb amputation in the United States.¹

Type 2 diabetes accounts for more than 90% of cases of diabetes in the United States, Europe, and Canada.² It is characterized by insulin resistance, decreased beta-cell function, and progressive beta-cell decline.³

Current American Diabetes Association guidelines for the treatment of diabetes recommend a hemoglobin A_1c target of less than 7.0%.⁴ Initial management includes lifestyle modifications such as changes in diet and an increase in exercise, as well as consideration of metformin treatment at the same time. If glucose levels remain uncontrolled despite these efforts, other drugs should be added.

A number of oral and injectable antihyperglycemic drugs are available to help achieve this goal, though none is without risk of adverse effects. Those available up to now include metformin, sulfonylureas, meglitinides, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, thiazolidinediones, gliptins, glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists, amylin analogues, colesevelam, dopamine agonists, and insulin.⁵ Most of the available antihyperglycemics target the liver, pancreas, gut, and muscle to improve insulin sensitivity, reduce insulin resistance, or stimulate insulin secretion.

Despite the abundance of agents, type 2 diabetes remains uncontrolled in many patients. Only 57.1% of participants with previously diagnosed diabetes in the 2003–2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey were at the hemoglobin A_1c goal of less than 7.0%.⁶ Possible reasons for failure include adverse effects such as hypoglycemia, weight gain, and gastrointestinal symptoms resulting in discontinued use, nonadherence to the prescribed regimen, and failure to increase the dosage or to add additional agents, including insulin, to optimize glycemic control as beta-cell function declines over time.

HOW THE KIDNEYS HANDLE GLUCOSE

In the kidney, glucose is filtered in the glomerulus and then is reabsorbed in the proximal tubule. Normally, the filtered glucose is all reabsorbed unless the glucose load exceeds the kidney’s absorptive capacity. Membrane proteins called sodium-glucose cotransporters reabsorb glucose at the proximal tubule and return it into the peripheral circulation. Glucose enters the tubular epithelial cell with sodium by passive cotransport via the sodiumglucose cotransporters, and then exits on the other side via the glucose transporter GLUT in the basolateral membrane.

Two sodium-glucose transporters that act in the proximal tubule of the kidney have been identified: SGLT1 and SGLT2. SGLT2 reabsorbs most of the glucose in the early segment of the proximal tubule, while SLGT1 reabsorbs the remaining glucose at the distal end.⁷ SGLT2 is responsible for more than 90% of renal tubular reabsorption of glucose and is found only in the proximal tubule, whereas SGLT1 is found mainly in the gastrointestinal tract.⁸

Patients with type 2 diabetes have a higher capacity for glucose reabsorption in the proximal tubule as a result of the up-regulation of SGLT2.⁹

SGLT2 INHIBITORS AND TYPE 2 DIABETES

Drugs that inhibit SGLT2 block reabsorption of glucose in the proximal tubule, lowering the renal threshold for glucose and thereby increasing urinary glucose excretion and lowering the serum glucose level in patients with hyperglycemia. This mechanism of action is insulin-independent.

On March 29, 2013, canagliflozin became the first SGLT2 inhibitor to be approved in the United States for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.¹⁰ However, it is not the first of its class to be introduced.

Dapagliflozin was the first SGLT2 inhibitor approved in Europe and has been available there since November 2012. However, the US Food and Drug Administration withheld its approval in the United States in January 2012 because of concerns of a possible association with cancer, specifically breast and bladder cancers, as well as possible liver injury.¹⁰ Canagliflozin does not appear to share this risk.

Several other SGLT2 inhibitors may soon be available. Empagliflozin is in phase III trials, and the manufacturer has filed for approval in the United States. Ipragliflozin is awaiting approval in Japan.

CANAGLIFLOZIN: PHARMACOKINETICS AND THERAPEUTIC EFFICACY

Canagliflozin reaches its peak plasma concentration within 1 to 2 hours of oral administration.¹¹ Its half-life is 10.6 hours with a 100-mg dose and 13.1 hours with a 300-mg dose. A steady state is typically achieved in 4 to 5 days.¹¹

Canagliflozin lowers fasting plasma glucose and hemoglobin A_1c levels in a dose-dependent manner.^10,11 These effects are independent of age, sex, body mass index, and race.¹² Postprandial glucose levels are also lowered.

Other potential benefits of canagliflozin include lowering of the systolic blood pressure and, especially important in obese people with type 2 diabetes, weight loss.¹² Aside from metformin, which occasionally results in modest weight loss, other oral drugs used in treating type 2 diabetes are weight-neutral or can cause weight gain.

Trials of canagliflozin

Nine phase III trials of canagliflozin have enrolled 10,285 patients, in one of the largest clinical trial programs in type 2 diabetes to date.¹⁰ Several of these trials evaluated canagliflozin as monotherapy, whereas others assessed its effect as an add-on therapy in combination with another antihyperglycemic agent such as a sulfonylurea, metformin, pioglitazone, or insulin. There has not yet been a trial directly comparing canagliflozin with metformin.

Four of the placebo-controlled trials evaluated canagliflozin as monotherapy, canagliflozin added to metformin alone, canagliflozin added to metformin plus glimepiride, and canagliflozin added to metformin plus pioglitazone.

When canagliflozin was used as monotherapy, hemoglobin A_1c levels at 26 weeks were an absolute 0.91% lower in the canagliflozin 100 mg/day group than in the placebo group, and an absolute 1.16% lower in the canagliflozin 300 mg/day group than in the placebo group (P < .001 for both).¹² Patients lost 2.8% of their body weight with canagliflozin 100 mg and 3.3% with canagliflozin 300 mg, compared with 0.6% with placebo. Systolic blood pressure fell by a mean of 3.7 mm Hg with the 100-mg dose and by a mean of 5.4 mm Hg with the 300-mg dose compared with placebo (P < .001 for both dose groups).¹²

When canagliflozin was added to metformin, with glimepiride as the comparator drug, there was a 5.2% weight reduction with the 100-mg dose, a 5.7% reduction with 300 mg, and a 1% gain with glimepiride. Hemoglobin A_1c fell about equally in the three groups.¹¹

When canagliflozin was added to metformin and a sulfonylurea, with sitagliptin as the comparator third drug, the 300-mg canagliflozin dosage group had a 2.8% weight reduction.¹¹

WHAT ARE THE ADVERSE EFFECTS?

Overall, canagliflozin seems to be well tolerated. The most common adverse effects reported in the clinical trials were genital yeast infections, urinary tract infections, and increased urination.

Genital yeast infections were more common in women than in men, occurring in 10.4% of women who received canagliflozin 100 mg and in 11.4% of women who received 300 mg, compared with only 3.2% in the placebo group.¹¹

Urinary tract infections occurred in 5.9% of the 100-mg group and in 4.3% of the 300-mg group, compared with 4.0% of the placebo group.¹¹

Postural hypotension. Lowering of blood pressure and symptoms of postural hypotension were also reported, and these may be attributed to the drug’s mild osmotic diuretic effect. The risk of adverse effects of volume depletion was dose-dependent; in patients over age 75, they occurred in 4.9% of those taking 100 mg and in 8.7% of those taking 300 mg, compared with 2.6% of those in the placebo or active-comparator groups.¹¹ Therefore, one should exercise particular caution when starting this drug in the elderly or in patients taking diuretics or multiple antihypertensive drugs.

Hypoglycemia. When canagliflozin was used as monotherapy, the incidence of hypoglycemia over 26 weeks was similar to that with placebo, occurring in 3.6% of the 100-mg group, 3.0% of the 300-mg group, and 2.6% of the placebo group.¹² Canagliflozin was associated with fewer episodes of hypoglycemia than were sulfonylureas, and the number of episodes was similar to that in patients taking gliptins. There was a higher overall incidence of hypoglycemia when canagliflozin was used in combination with a sulfonylurea or with insulin than when it was used as monotherapy.¹¹

Hyperkalemia. Patients with moderate renal impairment or who are on potassiumsparing drugs or drugs that interfere with the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system may be at higher risk of hyperkalemia, so close monitoring of potassium is recommended. There was also a dose-dependent increase in serum phosphate and magnesium levels, more notably in patients with moderate renal impairment within the first 3 weeks of starting the drug.¹¹

Patients on canagliflozin who are also taking digoxin, ritonavir, phenytoin, phenobarbital, or rifampin should be closely monitored because of the risk of drug-drug interactions.¹¹ Specifically, there was an increase in mean peak digoxin concentrations when used with canagliflozin 300 mg, and the use of phenytoin, phenobarbital, and ritonavir decreased the efficacy of canagliflozin.

WHAT ARE THE CARDIOVASCULAR RISKS OR LONG-TERM CONCERNS?

Dose-dependent increases in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) may be seen with canagliflozin. Mean changes from baseline compared with placebo were 4.4 mg/dL (4.5%) with canagliflozin 100 mg and 8.3 mg/dL (8%) with canagliflozin 300 mg.¹¹

There was also an increase in non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C).¹² Compared with placebo, mean non-HDL-C levels rose by 2.1 mg/dL (1.5%) with canagliflozin 100 mg and 5.1 mg/dL (3.6%) with 300 mg.¹¹

In the 26-week canagliflozin monotherapy trial, archived blood samples in a small subgroup of patients (n = 349) were measured for apolipoprotein-B, which was found to increase by 1.2% with canagliflozin 100 mg and 3.5% with canagliflozin 300 mg, compared with 0.9% in the placebo group.¹²

Although small, the increase in LDL-C seen with this drug could be a concern, as diabetic patients are already at higher risk of cardiovascular events. The mechanism of this increase is not yet known, though it may be related to metabolic changes from urinary glucose excretion.¹²

The Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment Study (CANVAS) is a randomized placebo-controlled trial in more than 4,000 patients with type 2 diabetes who have a history of or are at high risk of cardiovascular events. Currently under way, it is evaluating the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (the primary end point) in patients randomized to receive canagliflozin 100 mg, canagliflozin 300 mg, or placebo once daily for up to 4 years. Secondary end points will be the drug’s effects on fasting plasma insulin and glucose, progression of albuminuria, body weight, blood pressure, HDL-C, LDL-C, bone mineral density, markers of bone turnover, and body composition.¹⁰ This trial will run for 9 years, to be completed in 2018.¹³

The CANVAS investigators have already reported that within the first month of treatment, 13 patients taking canagliflozin suffered a major cardiovascular event, including stroke (one of which was fatal) compared with just one patient taking placebo. These events were not seen after the first month. The hazard ratio for major adverse cardiovascular events within the first 30 days was 6.49, but this dropped to 0.89 after the first 30 days.¹⁰

Additional issues that should be addressed in long-term postmarketing studies include possible relationships with cancers and pancreatitis and the safety of the drug in pregnancy and in children with diabetes.¹⁰

WHO IS A CANDIDATE FOR THIS DRUG?

Canagliflozin is approved for use as monotherapy in addition to lifestyle modifications. It is also approved for use with other antihyperglycemic drugs, including metformin.

Obese patients with type 2 diabetes and normal kidney function may have the greatest benefit. Because of canagliflozin’s insulinin-dependent mechanism of action, patients with both early and late type 2 diabetes may benefit from its ability to lower hemoglobin A_1c and blood glucose.¹⁴

Although it can be used in patients with moderate (but not severe) kidney disease, canagliflozin does not appear to be as effective in these patients, who had higher rates of adverse effects.¹¹ It is not indicated for patients with type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes with ketonuria, or end-stage renal disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate < 45 mL/min or receiving dialysis).¹¹ It also is not yet recommended for use in pregnant women or patients under age 18.

The recommended starting dose of canagliflozin is 100 mg once daily, taken with breakfast. This can be increased to 300 mg once daily if tolerated. However, patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 45 to 60 mL/min should not exceed the 100- mg dose. No dose adjustment is required in patients with mild to moderate hepatic impairment. It is not recommended, however, in patients with severe hepatic impairment.¹¹

Comment. Although canagliflozin is approved as monotherapy, metformin remains my choice for first-line oral therapy. Because canagliflozin is more expensive and its long-term affects are still relatively unknown, I prefer to use it as an adjunct, and believe it will be a useful addition, especially in obese patients who are seeking to lose weight.

WHAT IS THE COST OF THIS DRUG?

The suggested price is $10.53 per tablet (AmerisourceBergen), which is comparable to that of other newer drugs for type 2 diabetes.

THE BOTTOM LINE

The availability of canagliflozin as an additional oral antihyperglycemic option may prove helpful in managing patients with type 2 diabetes who experience adverse effects with other antihyperglycemic drugs.

As with any new drug, questions remain about the long-term risks of canagliflozin. However, it seems to be well tolerated, especially in patients with normal kidney function, and poses a low risk of hypoglycemia. The slight increase in LDL-C may prompt more aggressive lipid management. Whether blood pressure-lowering and weight loss will offset this increase in LDL-C is yet to be determined. Ongoing studies will help to further elucidate whether there is an increased risk of cardiovascular events.

Finally, canagliflozin distinguishes itself from other oral diabetes drugs by its added benefit of weight loss, an appealing side effect, especially in the growing population of obese individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

With the variety of drugs available for treating depression, choosing one can be daunting. Different agents have characteristics that may make them a better choice for different types of patients, but even so, treating any kind of mental illness often requires an element of trial and error.

Primary care providers are on the frontline of treating mental illness, often evaluating patients before they are seen by a psychiatrist. The purpose of this article is to provide insight into the art of prescribing antidepressants in the primary care setting. We will discuss common patient presentations, including depressed patients without other medical comorbidities as well as those with common comorbidities, with our recommendations for first-line treatment.

We hope our recommendations will help you to navigate the uncertainty more confidently, resulting in more efficient and tailored treatment for your patients.

BASELINE TESTING

When starting a patient on antidepressant drug therapy, we recommend obtaining a set of baseline laboratory tests to rule out underlying medical conditions that may be contributing to the patient’s depression or that may preclude the use of a given drug. (For example, elevation of liver enzymes may preclude the use of duloxetine.) Tests should include:

• A complete blood cell count
• A complete metabolic panel
• A thyroid-stimulating hormone level.

Electrocardiography may also be useful, as some antidepressants can prolong the QT interval or elevate the blood levels of other drugs with this effect.

GENERAL TREATMENT CONSIDERATIONS

There are several classes of antidepressants, and each class has a number of agents. Research has found little difference in efficacy among agents. So to simplify choosing which one to use, we recommend becoming comfortable with an agent from each class, ie:

• A selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI)
• A selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI)
• A tricyclic antidepressant (TCA)
• A monoamine oxidase (MAO) inhibitor.

Each class includes generic agents, many of which are on the discount lists of retail pharmacies. Table 1 shows representative drugs from each class, with their relative costs.

Start low and go slow. In general, when starting an antidepressant, consider starting at half the normal dose, titrating upward as tolerated about every 14 days. This approach can minimize side effects. For example, if prescribing fluoxetine, start with 10 mg and titrate every 2 weeks based on tolerance and patient response. That said, each patient may respond differently, requiring perhaps a lower starting dose or a longer titration schedule.

Anticipate side effects. Most of the side effects of an antidepressant drug can be explained by its mechanism of action. Although side effects should certainly be considered when choosing an agent, patients can be reassured that most are transient and benign. A detailed discussion of side effects of antidepressant drugs is beyond the scope of this article, but a review by Khawam et al¹ was published earlier in this journal.

Reassess. If after 4 to 6 weeks the patient has had little or no response, it is reasonable to switch agents. For a patient who was on an SSRI, the change can be to another SSRI or to an SNRI. However, if two SSRIs have already failed, then choose an SNRI. Agents are commonly cross-tapered during the switch to avoid abrupt cessation of one drug or the increased risk of adverse events such as cytochrome P450 interactions, serotonin syndrome, or hypertensive crisis (when switching to an MAO inhibitor).

Beware of interactions. All SSRIs and SNRIs are metabolized through the P450 system in the liver and therefore have the potential for drug-drug interactions. Care must be taken when giving these agents together with drugs whose metabolism can be altered by P450 inhibition. For TCAs, blood levels can be checked if there is concern about toxicity; however, dosing is not strictly based on this level. Great care should be taken if a TCA is given together with an SNRI or an SSRI, as the TCA blood level can become significantly elevated. This may result in QT interval prolongation, as mentioned earlier.

Refer. Referral to a psychiatrist is appropriate for patients for whom multiple classes have failed, for patients who have another psychiatric comorbidity (such as psychosis, hypomania, or mania), or for patients who may need hospitalization. Referral is also appropriate if the physician is concerned about suicide risk.

PATIENTS WITH MAJOR DEPRESSION ONLY

For a patient presenting with depression but no other significant medical comorbidity, the first-line therapy is often an SSRI. Several generic SSRIs are available, and some are on the discount lists at retail pharmacies.

Symptoms should start to improve in about 2 weeks, and the optimal response should be achieved in 4 to 6 weeks of treatment. If this does not occur, consider either adding an augmenting agent or switching to a different antidepressant.

PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC PAIN

Chronic pain and depression often go hand in hand and can potentiate each other. When considering an antidepressant in a patient who has both conditions, the SNRIs and TCAs are typically preferred. Some SNRIs, namely duloxetine and milnacipran, are approved for certain chronic pain conditions, such as fibromyalgia. SNRIs are frequently used off-label for other chronic pain conditions such as headache and neuropathic pain.²

TCAs such as amitriptyline, nortriptyline, and doxepin are also often used in patients with chronic pain. These agents, like the SNRIs, inhibit the reuptake of serotonin and norepinephrine and are used off-label for neuropathic pain,^3,4 migraine, interstitial cystitis,⁵ and other pain conditions.^6–9

For TCAs and SNRIs, the effective dose range for chronic pain overlaps that for depression. However, TCAs are often given at lower doses to patients without depression. We recommend starting at a low dose and slowly titrating upward to an effective dose. SNRIs are often preferred over TCAs because they do not have anticholinergic side effects and because an overdose is much less likely to be lethal.

PATIENTS WITH SEXUAL DYSFUNCTION

One of the more commonly reported side effects of antidepressants is sexual dysfunction, generally in the form of delayed orgasm or decreased libido.¹⁰ Typically, these complaints are attributed to SSRIs and SNRIs; however, TCAs and MAO inhibitors have also been associated wth sexual dysfunction.

Both erectile dysfunction and priapism have been linked to certain antidepressants. In particular, trazodone is a known cause of priapism. Even if using low doses for sleep, male patients should be made aware of this adverse effect.

Switching from one agent to another in the same class is not likely to improve sexual side effects. In particular, all the SSRIs are similar in their likelihood of causing sexual dysfunction. In a patient taking an SSRI who experiences this side effect, switching to bupropion¹¹ or mirtazapine¹² can be quite useful. Bupropion acts primarily on dopamine and norepinephrine, whereas mirtazapine acts on serotonin and norepinephrine but in a different manner from SSRIs and SNRIs.

Adjunctive treatment such as a cholinergic agonist, yohimbine (contraindicated with MAO inhibitors), a serotonergic agent (eg, buspirone), or a drug that acts on nitric oxide (eg, sildenafil, tadalafil) may have some utility but is often ineffective. Dose reduction, if possible, can be of value.

PATIENTS WITH ANXIETY

Many antidepressants are also approved for anxiety disorders, and still more are used off-label for this purpose. Anxiety and depression often occur together, so being able to treat both conditions with one drug can be quite useful.¹³ In general, the antidepressant effects are seen at lower doses of SSRIs and SNRIs, whereas more of the anxiolytic effects are seen at higher doses, particularly for obsessive-compulsive disorder.¹⁴

First-line treatment would be an SSRI or SNRI. Most anxiety disorders respond to either class, but there are some more-specific recommendations. SSRIs are best studied in panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Fluoxetine, citalopram, escitalopram, and sertraline¹⁵ can all be effective in both major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder. Panic disorder also tends to respond well to SSRIs. SNRIs have been evaluated primarily in generalized anxiety disorder but may also be useful in many of the other conditions.

Additionally, mirtazapine (used off-label)¹² and the TCAs^16–18 can help treat anxiety. Clomipramine is used to treat obsessive-compulsive disorder.¹⁹ These drugs are especially useful for nighttime anxiety, as they can aid sleep. Of note, the anxiolytic effect of mirtazapine may be greater at higher doses.

MAO inhibitors often go unused because of the dietary and medication restrictions involved. However, very refractory cases of certain anxiety disorders may respond preferentially to these agents.

Bupropion tends to be more activating than other antidepressants, so is often avoided in anxious patients. However, some research suggests this is not always necessary.²⁰ If the anxiety is secondary to depression, it will often improve significantly with this agent.

When starting or increasing the dose of an antidepressant, patients may experience increased anxiety or feel “jittery.” This feeling usually passes within the first week of treatment, and it is important to inform patients about this effect. “Start low and go slow” in patients with significant comorbid anxiety. Temporarily using a benzodiazepine such as clonazepam may make the transition more tolerable.

PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC FATIGUE SYNDROME OR FIBROMYALGIA

Increasing recognition of both chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia has led to more proactive treatment for these disorders. Depression can go hand in hand with these disorders, and certain antidepressants, namely the SNRIs, can be useful in this population.

More data exist for the treatment of fibromyalgia. Both duloxetine and milnacipran are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of fibromyalgia.²¹ Venlafaxine is also used off-label for this purpose. SSRIs such as fluoxetine and citalopram have had mixed results.^21–23 TCAs have been used with some success; however, their side effects and lethal potential are often limiting.^21,24,25 A recent study in Spain also suggested there may be benefit from using MAO inhibitors for fibromyalgia, but data are quite limited.²⁶

The data for treating chronic fatigue syndrome with SSRIs, SNRIs, or MAO inhibitors are conflicting.^27–29 However, managing the co-existing depression may provide some relief in and of itself.

PATIENTS WITH FREQUENT INSOMNIA

Insomnia can be a symptom of depression, but it can also be a side effect of certain antidepressants. The SSRIs and SNRIs can disrupt sleep patterns in some patients by shortening the rapid-eye-movement (REM) stage.^30,31

In patients with severe insomnia, it may be best to first recommend taking the antidepressant in the morning if they notice worsening sleep after initiating treatment. Patients can be told with any antidepressant, “If it makes you tired, take it at night, and if it wakes you up, take it in the morning.” Of note, a recent South African study suggested that escitalopram may be able to improve sleep.³²

If that does not solve the problem, there are other options. For instance, mirtazapine, particularly in doses of 15 mg or 30 mg, aids depression and insomnia. At higher doses (45 mg), the sleep-aiding effect may be reduced. Low doses of TCAs, particularly doxepin, maprotiline (technically speaking, a tetracyclic antidepressant), amitriptyline, and nortriptyline can be effective sleep aids. These agents may be used as an adjunct to another antidepressant to enhance sleep and mood. However, the TCAs also shorten the REM stage of sleep.³³

The previously mentioned drug interactions with SSRIs and SNRIs also need to be considered. Caution should be used when discontinuing these medications, as patients may experience rebound symptoms in the form of much more vivid dreams. MAO inhibitors may worsen insomnia because they suppress REM sleep.³⁴

Trazodone is another agent that at lower doses (25–150 mg) can be an effective, nonaddicting sleep aid. When used as an antidepressant, it is generally prescribed at higher doses (300–400 mg), but its sedating effects can be quite limiting at these levels. It is important to remember the possibility of priapism in male patients.

GERIATRIC PATIENTS

Old age brings its own set of concerns when treating depression. Elderly patients are more susceptible to potential bradycardia caused by SSRIs. The TCAs have the more worrisome cardiac side effect of QTc prolongation. TCAs can slow cognitive function, whereas the SSRIs, bupropion, and the SNRIs tend not to affect cognition. Escitalopram and duloxetine have been suggested to be particularly effective in the elderly.^35,36 A study from the Netherlands linked SSRIs with increased risk of falling in geriatric patients with dementia.³⁷ Constipation, which could lead to ileus, is increased with TCAs and certain other agents (ie, paroxetine) in the geriatric population.

Mirtazapine is often very useful in elderly patients for many reasons: it treats both anxiety and depression, stimulates appetite and weight gain, can help with nausea, and is an effective sleep aid. Concerns about weight, appetite, and sleep are particularly common in the elderly, whereas younger patients can be less tolerant of drugs that make them gain weight and sleep more. Normal age-related changes to the sleep cycle contribute to decreased satisfaction with sleep as we age. In addition, depression often further impairs sleep. So, in the elderly, optimizing sleep is key. Research has also shown mirtazapine to be effective in patients with both Alzheimer dementia and depression.³⁸

DIABETIC PATIENTS

One of the more worrisome side effects of psychiatric medications in diabetic patients is weight gain. Certain antidepressants have a greater propensity for weight gain and should likely be avoided as first-line treatments in this population.¹² Typically, these agents include those that have more antihistamine action such as paroxetine and the TCAs. These agents also may lead to constipation, which could potentially worsen gastroparesis. Mirtazapine and the MAO inhibitors are also known to cause weight gain.

Bupropion and nefazodone are the most weight-neutral of all antidepressants. Nefazodone has fallen out of favor because of its potential to cause fulminant liver failure in rare cases. However, it remains a reasonable option for patients with comorbid anxiety and depression who have significant weight gain with other agents.

SSRIs and MAO inhibitors may improve or be neutral toward glucose metabolism, and some data suggest that SNRIs may impair this process.³⁹

PATIENTS WITH CARDIAC CONDITIONS

Major depression often coexists with cardiac conditions. In particular, many patients develop depression after suffering a myocardial infarction, and increasingly they are being treated for it.⁴⁰ Treatment in this situation is appropriate, since depression, if untreated, can increase the risk of recurrence of myocardial infarction.⁴¹

However, there are many concerns that accompany treating depression in cardiac patients. Therefore, a baseline electrocardiogram should be obtained before starting an antidepressant.

TCAs and tetracyclic agents have a tendency to prolong the QTc interval and potentiate ventricular arrhythmias,⁴² so it may be prudent to avoid these in patients at risk. These agents can also significantly increase the pulse rate. This tachycardia increases the risk of angina or myocardial infarction from the anticholinergic effects of these drugs.

In February 2013, the FDA issued a warning about possible arrhythmias with citalopram at doses greater than 40 mg in adult patients⁴³; however, research has suggested citalopram is effective in treating depression in cardiac patients.⁴⁴ Research has not shown an increase in efficacy at doses greater than 40 mg daily, so we recommend following the black-box warning.

TCAs and MAO inhibitors can also cause orthostatic hypotension. On the other hand, consuming large amounts of tyramine, in foods such as aged cheese, can precipitate a hypertensive crisis in patients taking MAO inhibitors.

Which antidepressants tend to be safer in cardiac patients? Sertraline has been shown to be safe in congestive heart failure and coronary artery disease,^45–47 but the SSRIs are typically safe. Fluoxetine has shown efficacy in patients who have had a myocardial infarction.⁴⁸ Mirtazapine has also been shown to be efficacious in cardiac patients.⁴⁹ Nefazodone, mirtazapine, bupropion, SSRIs, and SNRIs have little or no tendency toward orthostatic hypotension.

With the variety of drugs available for treating depression, choosing one can be daunting. Different agents have characteristics that may make them a better choice for different types of patients, but even so, treating any kind of mental illness often requires an element of trial and error.

Primary care providers are on the frontline of treating mental illness, often evaluating patients before they are seen by a psychiatrist. The purpose of this article is to provide insight into the art of prescribing antidepressants in the primary care setting. We will discuss common patient presentations, including depressed patients without other medical comorbidities as well as those with common comorbidities, with our recommendations for first-line treatment.

We hope our recommendations will help you to navigate the uncertainty more confidently, resulting in more efficient and tailored treatment for your patients.

BASELINE TESTING

When starting a patient on antidepressant drug therapy, we recommend obtaining a set of baseline laboratory tests to rule out underlying medical conditions that may be contributing to the patient’s depression or that may preclude the use of a given drug. (For example, elevation of liver enzymes may preclude the use of duloxetine.) Tests should include:

• A complete blood cell count
• A complete metabolic panel
• A thyroid-stimulating hormone level.

Electrocardiography may also be useful, as some antidepressants can prolong the QT interval or elevate the blood levels of other drugs with this effect.

GENERAL TREATMENT CONSIDERATIONS

There are several classes of antidepressants, and each class has a number of agents. Research has found little difference in efficacy among agents. So to simplify choosing which one to use, we recommend becoming comfortable with an agent from each class, ie:

• A selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI)
• A selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI)
• A tricyclic antidepressant (TCA)
• A monoamine oxidase (MAO) inhibitor.

Each class includes generic agents, many of which are on the discount lists of retail pharmacies. Table 1 shows representative drugs from each class, with their relative costs.

Start low and go slow. In general, when starting an antidepressant, consider starting at half the normal dose, titrating upward as tolerated about every 14 days. This approach can minimize side effects. For example, if prescribing fluoxetine, start with 10 mg and titrate every 2 weeks based on tolerance and patient response. That said, each patient may respond differently, requiring perhaps a lower starting dose or a longer titration schedule.

Anticipate side effects. Most of the side effects of an antidepressant drug can be explained by its mechanism of action. Although side effects should certainly be considered when choosing an agent, patients can be reassured that most are transient and benign. A detailed discussion of side effects of antidepressant drugs is beyond the scope of this article, but a review by Khawam et al¹ was published earlier in this journal.

Reassess. If after 4 to 6 weeks the patient has had little or no response, it is reasonable to switch agents. For a patient who was on an SSRI, the change can be to another SSRI or to an SNRI. However, if two SSRIs have already failed, then choose an SNRI. Agents are commonly cross-tapered during the switch to avoid abrupt cessation of one drug or the increased risk of adverse events such as cytochrome P450 interactions, serotonin syndrome, or hypertensive crisis (when switching to an MAO inhibitor).

Beware of interactions. All SSRIs and SNRIs are metabolized through the P450 system in the liver and therefore have the potential for drug-drug interactions. Care must be taken when giving these agents together with drugs whose metabolism can be altered by P450 inhibition. For TCAs, blood levels can be checked if there is concern about toxicity; however, dosing is not strictly based on this level. Great care should be taken if a TCA is given together with an SNRI or an SSRI, as the TCA blood level can become significantly elevated. This may result in QT interval prolongation, as mentioned earlier.

Refer. Referral to a psychiatrist is appropriate for patients for whom multiple classes have failed, for patients who have another psychiatric comorbidity (such as psychosis, hypomania, or mania), or for patients who may need hospitalization. Referral is also appropriate if the physician is concerned about suicide risk.

PATIENTS WITH MAJOR DEPRESSION ONLY

For a patient presenting with depression but no other significant medical comorbidity, the first-line therapy is often an SSRI. Several generic SSRIs are available, and some are on the discount lists at retail pharmacies.

Symptoms should start to improve in about 2 weeks, and the optimal response should be achieved in 4 to 6 weeks of treatment. If this does not occur, consider either adding an augmenting agent or switching to a different antidepressant.

PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC PAIN

Chronic pain and depression often go hand in hand and can potentiate each other. When considering an antidepressant in a patient who has both conditions, the SNRIs and TCAs are typically preferred. Some SNRIs, namely duloxetine and milnacipran, are approved for certain chronic pain conditions, such as fibromyalgia. SNRIs are frequently used off-label for other chronic pain conditions such as headache and neuropathic pain.²

TCAs such as amitriptyline, nortriptyline, and doxepin are also often used in patients with chronic pain. These agents, like the SNRIs, inhibit the reuptake of serotonin and norepinephrine and are used off-label for neuropathic pain,^3,4 migraine, interstitial cystitis,⁵ and other pain conditions.^6–9

For TCAs and SNRIs, the effective dose range for chronic pain overlaps that for depression. However, TCAs are often given at lower doses to patients without depression. We recommend starting at a low dose and slowly titrating upward to an effective dose. SNRIs are often preferred over TCAs because they do not have anticholinergic side effects and because an overdose is much less likely to be lethal.

PATIENTS WITH SEXUAL DYSFUNCTION

One of the more commonly reported side effects of antidepressants is sexual dysfunction, generally in the form of delayed orgasm or decreased libido.¹⁰ Typically, these complaints are attributed to SSRIs and SNRIs; however, TCAs and MAO inhibitors have also been associated wth sexual dysfunction.

Both erectile dysfunction and priapism have been linked to certain antidepressants. In particular, trazodone is a known cause of priapism. Even if using low doses for sleep, male patients should be made aware of this adverse effect.

Switching from one agent to another in the same class is not likely to improve sexual side effects. In particular, all the SSRIs are similar in their likelihood of causing sexual dysfunction. In a patient taking an SSRI who experiences this side effect, switching to bupropion¹¹ or mirtazapine¹² can be quite useful. Bupropion acts primarily on dopamine and norepinephrine, whereas mirtazapine acts on serotonin and norepinephrine but in a different manner from SSRIs and SNRIs.

Adjunctive treatment such as a cholinergic agonist, yohimbine (contraindicated with MAO inhibitors), a serotonergic agent (eg, buspirone), or a drug that acts on nitric oxide (eg, sildenafil, tadalafil) may have some utility but is often ineffective. Dose reduction, if possible, can be of value.

PATIENTS WITH ANXIETY

Many antidepressants are also approved for anxiety disorders, and still more are used off-label for this purpose. Anxiety and depression often occur together, so being able to treat both conditions with one drug can be quite useful.¹³ In general, the antidepressant effects are seen at lower doses of SSRIs and SNRIs, whereas more of the anxiolytic effects are seen at higher doses, particularly for obsessive-compulsive disorder.¹⁴

First-line treatment would be an SSRI or SNRI. Most anxiety disorders respond to either class, but there are some more-specific recommendations. SSRIs are best studied in panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Fluoxetine, citalopram, escitalopram, and sertraline¹⁵ can all be effective in both major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder. Panic disorder also tends to respond well to SSRIs. SNRIs have been evaluated primarily in generalized anxiety disorder but may also be useful in many of the other conditions.

Additionally, mirtazapine (used off-label)¹² and the TCAs^16–18 can help treat anxiety. Clomipramine is used to treat obsessive-compulsive disorder.¹⁹ These drugs are especially useful for nighttime anxiety, as they can aid sleep. Of note, the anxiolytic effect of mirtazapine may be greater at higher doses.

MAO inhibitors often go unused because of the dietary and medication restrictions involved. However, very refractory cases of certain anxiety disorders may respond preferentially to these agents.

Bupropion tends to be more activating than other antidepressants, so is often avoided in anxious patients. However, some research suggests this is not always necessary.²⁰ If the anxiety is secondary to depression, it will often improve significantly with this agent.

When starting or increasing the dose of an antidepressant, patients may experience increased anxiety or feel “jittery.” This feeling usually passes within the first week of treatment, and it is important to inform patients about this effect. “Start low and go slow” in patients with significant comorbid anxiety. Temporarily using a benzodiazepine such as clonazepam may make the transition more tolerable.

PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC FATIGUE SYNDROME OR FIBROMYALGIA

Increasing recognition of both chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia has led to more proactive treatment for these disorders. Depression can go hand in hand with these disorders, and certain antidepressants, namely the SNRIs, can be useful in this population.

More data exist for the treatment of fibromyalgia. Both duloxetine and milnacipran are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of fibromyalgia.²¹ Venlafaxine is also used off-label for this purpose. SSRIs such as fluoxetine and citalopram have had mixed results.^21–23 TCAs have been used with some success; however, their side effects and lethal potential are often limiting.^21,24,25 A recent study in Spain also suggested there may be benefit from using MAO inhibitors for fibromyalgia, but data are quite limited.²⁶

The data for treating chronic fatigue syndrome with SSRIs, SNRIs, or MAO inhibitors are conflicting.^27–29 However, managing the co-existing depression may provide some relief in and of itself.

PATIENTS WITH FREQUENT INSOMNIA

Insomnia can be a symptom of depression, but it can also be a side effect of certain antidepressants. The SSRIs and SNRIs can disrupt sleep patterns in some patients by shortening the rapid-eye-movement (REM) stage.^30,31

In patients with severe insomnia, it may be best to first recommend taking the antidepressant in the morning if they notice worsening sleep after initiating treatment. Patients can be told with any antidepressant, “If it makes you tired, take it at night, and if it wakes you up, take it in the morning.” Of note, a recent South African study suggested that escitalopram may be able to improve sleep.³²

If that does not solve the problem, there are other options. For instance, mirtazapine, particularly in doses of 15 mg or 30 mg, aids depression and insomnia. At higher doses (45 mg), the sleep-aiding effect may be reduced. Low doses of TCAs, particularly doxepin, maprotiline (technically speaking, a tetracyclic antidepressant), amitriptyline, and nortriptyline can be effective sleep aids. These agents may be used as an adjunct to another antidepressant to enhance sleep and mood. However, the TCAs also shorten the REM stage of sleep.³³

The previously mentioned drug interactions with SSRIs and SNRIs also need to be considered. Caution should be used when discontinuing these medications, as patients may experience rebound symptoms in the form of much more vivid dreams. MAO inhibitors may worsen insomnia because they suppress REM sleep.³⁴

Trazodone is another agent that at lower doses (25–150 mg) can be an effective, nonaddicting sleep aid. When used as an antidepressant, it is generally prescribed at higher doses (300–400 mg), but its sedating effects can be quite limiting at these levels. It is important to remember the possibility of priapism in male patients.

GERIATRIC PATIENTS

Old age brings its own set of concerns when treating depression. Elderly patients are more susceptible to potential bradycardia caused by SSRIs. The TCAs have the more worrisome cardiac side effect of QTc prolongation. TCAs can slow cognitive function, whereas the SSRIs, bupropion, and the SNRIs tend not to affect cognition. Escitalopram and duloxetine have been suggested to be particularly effective in the elderly.^35,36 A study from the Netherlands linked SSRIs with increased risk of falling in geriatric patients with dementia.³⁷ Constipation, which could lead to ileus, is increased with TCAs and certain other agents (ie, paroxetine) in the geriatric population.

Mirtazapine is often very useful in elderly patients for many reasons: it treats both anxiety and depression, stimulates appetite and weight gain, can help with nausea, and is an effective sleep aid. Concerns about weight, appetite, and sleep are particularly common in the elderly, whereas younger patients can be less tolerant of drugs that make them gain weight and sleep more. Normal age-related changes to the sleep cycle contribute to decreased satisfaction with sleep as we age. In addition, depression often further impairs sleep. So, in the elderly, optimizing sleep is key. Research has also shown mirtazapine to be effective in patients with both Alzheimer dementia and depression.³⁸

DIABETIC PATIENTS

One of the more worrisome side effects of psychiatric medications in diabetic patients is weight gain. Certain antidepressants have a greater propensity for weight gain and should likely be avoided as first-line treatments in this population.¹² Typically, these agents include those that have more antihistamine action such as paroxetine and the TCAs. These agents also may lead to constipation, which could potentially worsen gastroparesis. Mirtazapine and the MAO inhibitors are also known to cause weight gain.

Bupropion and nefazodone are the most weight-neutral of all antidepressants. Nefazodone has fallen out of favor because of its potential to cause fulminant liver failure in rare cases. However, it remains a reasonable option for patients with comorbid anxiety and depression who have significant weight gain with other agents.

SSRIs and MAO inhibitors may improve or be neutral toward glucose metabolism, and some data suggest that SNRIs may impair this process.³⁹

PATIENTS WITH CARDIAC CONDITIONS

Major depression often coexists with cardiac conditions. In particular, many patients develop depression after suffering a myocardial infarction, and increasingly they are being treated for it.⁴⁰ Treatment in this situation is appropriate, since depression, if untreated, can increase the risk of recurrence of myocardial infarction.⁴¹

However, there are many concerns that accompany treating depression in cardiac patients. Therefore, a baseline electrocardiogram should be obtained before starting an antidepressant.

TCAs and tetracyclic agents have a tendency to prolong the QTc interval and potentiate ventricular arrhythmias,⁴² so it may be prudent to avoid these in patients at risk. These agents can also significantly increase the pulse rate. This tachycardia increases the risk of angina or myocardial infarction from the anticholinergic effects of these drugs.

In February 2013, the FDA issued a warning about possible arrhythmias with citalopram at doses greater than 40 mg in adult patients⁴³; however, research has suggested citalopram is effective in treating depression in cardiac patients.⁴⁴ Research has not shown an increase in efficacy at doses greater than 40 mg daily, so we recommend following the black-box warning.

TCAs and MAO inhibitors can also cause orthostatic hypotension. On the other hand, consuming large amounts of tyramine, in foods such as aged cheese, can precipitate a hypertensive crisis in patients taking MAO inhibitors.

Which antidepressants tend to be safer in cardiac patients? Sertraline has been shown to be safe in congestive heart failure and coronary artery disease,^45–47 but the SSRIs are typically safe. Fluoxetine has shown efficacy in patients who have had a myocardial infarction.⁴⁸ Mirtazapine has also been shown to be efficacious in cardiac patients.⁴⁹ Nefazodone, mirtazapine, bupropion, SSRIs, and SNRIs have little or no tendency toward orthostatic hypotension.

With the variety of drugs available for treating depression, choosing one can be daunting. Different agents have characteristics that may make them a better choice for different types of patients, but even so, treating any kind of mental illness often requires an element of trial and error.

Primary care providers are on the frontline of treating mental illness, often evaluating patients before they are seen by a psychiatrist. The purpose of this article is to provide insight into the art of prescribing antidepressants in the primary care setting. We will discuss common patient presentations, including depressed patients without other medical comorbidities as well as those with common comorbidities, with our recommendations for first-line treatment.

We hope our recommendations will help you to navigate the uncertainty more confidently, resulting in more efficient and tailored treatment for your patients.

BASELINE TESTING

When starting a patient on antidepressant drug therapy, we recommend obtaining a set of baseline laboratory tests to rule out underlying medical conditions that may be contributing to the patient’s depression or that may preclude the use of a given drug. (For example, elevation of liver enzymes may preclude the use of duloxetine.) Tests should include:

• A complete blood cell count
• A complete metabolic panel
• A thyroid-stimulating hormone level.

Electrocardiography may also be useful, as some antidepressants can prolong the QT interval or elevate the blood levels of other drugs with this effect.

GENERAL TREATMENT CONSIDERATIONS

There are several classes of antidepressants, and each class has a number of agents. Research has found little difference in efficacy among agents. So to simplify choosing which one to use, we recommend becoming comfortable with an agent from each class, ie:

• A selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI)
• A selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI)
• A tricyclic antidepressant (TCA)
• A monoamine oxidase (MAO) inhibitor.

Each class includes generic agents, many of which are on the discount lists of retail pharmacies. Table 1 shows representative drugs from each class, with their relative costs.

Start low and go slow. In general, when starting an antidepressant, consider starting at half the normal dose, titrating upward as tolerated about every 14 days. This approach can minimize side effects. For example, if prescribing fluoxetine, start with 10 mg and titrate every 2 weeks based on tolerance and patient response. That said, each patient may respond differently, requiring perhaps a lower starting dose or a longer titration schedule.

Anticipate side effects. Most of the side effects of an antidepressant drug can be explained by its mechanism of action. Although side effects should certainly be considered when choosing an agent, patients can be reassured that most are transient and benign. A detailed discussion of side effects of antidepressant drugs is beyond the scope of this article, but a review by Khawam et al¹ was published earlier in this journal.

Reassess. If after 4 to 6 weeks the patient has had little or no response, it is reasonable to switch agents. For a patient who was on an SSRI, the change can be to another SSRI or to an SNRI. However, if two SSRIs have already failed, then choose an SNRI. Agents are commonly cross-tapered during the switch to avoid abrupt cessation of one drug or the increased risk of adverse events such as cytochrome P450 interactions, serotonin syndrome, or hypertensive crisis (when switching to an MAO inhibitor).

Beware of interactions. All SSRIs and SNRIs are metabolized through the P450 system in the liver and therefore have the potential for drug-drug interactions. Care must be taken when giving these agents together with drugs whose metabolism can be altered by P450 inhibition. For TCAs, blood levels can be checked if there is concern about toxicity; however, dosing is not strictly based on this level. Great care should be taken if a TCA is given together with an SNRI or an SSRI, as the TCA blood level can become significantly elevated. This may result in QT interval prolongation, as mentioned earlier.

Refer. Referral to a psychiatrist is appropriate for patients for whom multiple classes have failed, for patients who have another psychiatric comorbidity (such as psychosis, hypomania, or mania), or for patients who may need hospitalization. Referral is also appropriate if the physician is concerned about suicide risk.

PATIENTS WITH MAJOR DEPRESSION ONLY

For a patient presenting with depression but no other significant medical comorbidity, the first-line therapy is often an SSRI. Several generic SSRIs are available, and some are on the discount lists at retail pharmacies.

Symptoms should start to improve in about 2 weeks, and the optimal response should be achieved in 4 to 6 weeks of treatment. If this does not occur, consider either adding an augmenting agent or switching to a different antidepressant.

PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC PAIN

Chronic pain and depression often go hand in hand and can potentiate each other. When considering an antidepressant in a patient who has both conditions, the SNRIs and TCAs are typically preferred. Some SNRIs, namely duloxetine and milnacipran, are approved for certain chronic pain conditions, such as fibromyalgia. SNRIs are frequently used off-label for other chronic pain conditions such as headache and neuropathic pain.²

TCAs such as amitriptyline, nortriptyline, and doxepin are also often used in patients with chronic pain. These agents, like the SNRIs, inhibit the reuptake of serotonin and norepinephrine and are used off-label for neuropathic pain,^3,4 migraine, interstitial cystitis,⁵ and other pain conditions.^6–9

For TCAs and SNRIs, the effective dose range for chronic pain overlaps that for depression. However, TCAs are often given at lower doses to patients without depression. We recommend starting at a low dose and slowly titrating upward to an effective dose. SNRIs are often preferred over TCAs because they do not have anticholinergic side effects and because an overdose is much less likely to be lethal.

PATIENTS WITH SEXUAL DYSFUNCTION

One of the more commonly reported side effects of antidepressants is sexual dysfunction, generally in the form of delayed orgasm or decreased libido.¹⁰ Typically, these complaints are attributed to SSRIs and SNRIs; however, TCAs and MAO inhibitors have also been associated wth sexual dysfunction.

Both erectile dysfunction and priapism have been linked to certain antidepressants. In particular, trazodone is a known cause of priapism. Even if using low doses for sleep, male patients should be made aware of this adverse effect.

Switching from one agent to another in the same class is not likely to improve sexual side effects. In particular, all the SSRIs are similar in their likelihood of causing sexual dysfunction. In a patient taking an SSRI who experiences this side effect, switching to bupropion¹¹ or mirtazapine¹² can be quite useful. Bupropion acts primarily on dopamine and norepinephrine, whereas mirtazapine acts on serotonin and norepinephrine but in a different manner from SSRIs and SNRIs.

Adjunctive treatment such as a cholinergic agonist, yohimbine (contraindicated with MAO inhibitors), a serotonergic agent (eg, buspirone), or a drug that acts on nitric oxide (eg, sildenafil, tadalafil) may have some utility but is often ineffective. Dose reduction, if possible, can be of value.

PATIENTS WITH ANXIETY

Many antidepressants are also approved for anxiety disorders, and still more are used off-label for this purpose. Anxiety and depression often occur together, so being able to treat both conditions with one drug can be quite useful.¹³ In general, the antidepressant effects are seen at lower doses of SSRIs and SNRIs, whereas more of the anxiolytic effects are seen at higher doses, particularly for obsessive-compulsive disorder.¹⁴

First-line treatment would be an SSRI or SNRI. Most anxiety disorders respond to either class, but there are some more-specific recommendations. SSRIs are best studied in panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Fluoxetine, citalopram, escitalopram, and sertraline¹⁵ can all be effective in both major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder. Panic disorder also tends to respond well to SSRIs. SNRIs have been evaluated primarily in generalized anxiety disorder but may also be useful in many of the other conditions.

Additionally, mirtazapine (used off-label)¹² and the TCAs^16–18 can help treat anxiety. Clomipramine is used to treat obsessive-compulsive disorder.¹⁹ These drugs are especially useful for nighttime anxiety, as they can aid sleep. Of note, the anxiolytic effect of mirtazapine may be greater at higher doses.

MAO inhibitors often go unused because of the dietary and medication restrictions involved. However, very refractory cases of certain anxiety disorders may respond preferentially to these agents.

Bupropion tends to be more activating than other antidepressants, so is often avoided in anxious patients. However, some research suggests this is not always necessary.²⁰ If the anxiety is secondary to depression, it will often improve significantly with this agent.

When starting or increasing the dose of an antidepressant, patients may experience increased anxiety or feel “jittery.” This feeling usually passes within the first week of treatment, and it is important to inform patients about this effect. “Start low and go slow” in patients with significant comorbid anxiety. Temporarily using a benzodiazepine such as clonazepam may make the transition more tolerable.

PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC FATIGUE SYNDROME OR FIBROMYALGIA

Increasing recognition of both chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia has led to more proactive treatment for these disorders. Depression can go hand in hand with these disorders, and certain antidepressants, namely the SNRIs, can be useful in this population.

More data exist for the treatment of fibromyalgia. Both duloxetine and milnacipran are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of fibromyalgia.²¹ Venlafaxine is also used off-label for this purpose. SSRIs such as fluoxetine and citalopram have had mixed results.^21–23 TCAs have been used with some success; however, their side effects and lethal potential are often limiting.^21,24,25 A recent study in Spain also suggested there may be benefit from using MAO inhibitors for fibromyalgia, but data are quite limited.²⁶

The data for treating chronic fatigue syndrome with SSRIs, SNRIs, or MAO inhibitors are conflicting.^27–29 However, managing the co-existing depression may provide some relief in and of itself.

PATIENTS WITH FREQUENT INSOMNIA

Insomnia can be a symptom of depression, but it can also be a side effect of certain antidepressants. The SSRIs and SNRIs can disrupt sleep patterns in some patients by shortening the rapid-eye-movement (REM) stage.^30,31

In patients with severe insomnia, it may be best to first recommend taking the antidepressant in the morning if they notice worsening sleep after initiating treatment. Patients can be told with any antidepressant, “If it makes you tired, take it at night, and if it wakes you up, take it in the morning.” Of note, a recent South African study suggested that escitalopram may be able to improve sleep.³²

If that does not solve the problem, there are other options. For instance, mirtazapine, particularly in doses of 15 mg or 30 mg, aids depression and insomnia. At higher doses (45 mg), the sleep-aiding effect may be reduced. Low doses of TCAs, particularly doxepin, maprotiline (technically speaking, a tetracyclic antidepressant), amitriptyline, and nortriptyline can be effective sleep aids. These agents may be used as an adjunct to another antidepressant to enhance sleep and mood. However, the TCAs also shorten the REM stage of sleep.³³

The previously mentioned drug interactions with SSRIs and SNRIs also need to be considered. Caution should be used when discontinuing these medications, as patients may experience rebound symptoms in the form of much more vivid dreams. MAO inhibitors may worsen insomnia because they suppress REM sleep.³⁴

Trazodone is another agent that at lower doses (25–150 mg) can be an effective, nonaddicting sleep aid. When used as an antidepressant, it is generally prescribed at higher doses (300–400 mg), but its sedating effects can be quite limiting at these levels. It is important to remember the possibility of priapism in male patients.

GERIATRIC PATIENTS

Old age brings its own set of concerns when treating depression. Elderly patients are more susceptible to potential bradycardia caused by SSRIs. The TCAs have the more worrisome cardiac side effect of QTc prolongation. TCAs can slow cognitive function, whereas the SSRIs, bupropion, and the SNRIs tend not to affect cognition. Escitalopram and duloxetine have been suggested to be particularly effective in the elderly.^35,36 A study from the Netherlands linked SSRIs with increased risk of falling in geriatric patients with dementia.³⁷ Constipation, which could lead to ileus, is increased with TCAs and certain other agents (ie, paroxetine) in the geriatric population.

Mirtazapine is often very useful in elderly patients for many reasons: it treats both anxiety and depression, stimulates appetite and weight gain, can help with nausea, and is an effective sleep aid. Concerns about weight, appetite, and sleep are particularly common in the elderly, whereas younger patients can be less tolerant of drugs that make them gain weight and sleep more. Normal age-related changes to the sleep cycle contribute to decreased satisfaction with sleep as we age. In addition, depression often further impairs sleep. So, in the elderly, optimizing sleep is key. Research has also shown mirtazapine to be effective in patients with both Alzheimer dementia and depression.³⁸

DIABETIC PATIENTS

One of the more worrisome side effects of psychiatric medications in diabetic patients is weight gain. Certain antidepressants have a greater propensity for weight gain and should likely be avoided as first-line treatments in this population.¹² Typically, these agents include those that have more antihistamine action such as paroxetine and the TCAs. These agents also may lead to constipation, which could potentially worsen gastroparesis. Mirtazapine and the MAO inhibitors are also known to cause weight gain.

Bupropion and nefazodone are the most weight-neutral of all antidepressants. Nefazodone has fallen out of favor because of its potential to cause fulminant liver failure in rare cases. However, it remains a reasonable option for patients with comorbid anxiety and depression who have significant weight gain with other agents.

SSRIs and MAO inhibitors may improve or be neutral toward glucose metabolism, and some data suggest that SNRIs may impair this process.³⁹

PATIENTS WITH CARDIAC CONDITIONS

Major depression often coexists with cardiac conditions. In particular, many patients develop depression after suffering a myocardial infarction, and increasingly they are being treated for it.⁴⁰ Treatment in this situation is appropriate, since depression, if untreated, can increase the risk of recurrence of myocardial infarction.⁴¹

However, there are many concerns that accompany treating depression in cardiac patients. Therefore, a baseline electrocardiogram should be obtained before starting an antidepressant.

TCAs and tetracyclic agents have a tendency to prolong the QTc interval and potentiate ventricular arrhythmias,⁴² so it may be prudent to avoid these in patients at risk. These agents can also significantly increase the pulse rate. This tachycardia increases the risk of angina or myocardial infarction from the anticholinergic effects of these drugs.

In February 2013, the FDA issued a warning about possible arrhythmias with citalopram at doses greater than 40 mg in adult patients⁴³; however, research has suggested citalopram is effective in treating depression in cardiac patients.⁴⁴ Research has not shown an increase in efficacy at doses greater than 40 mg daily, so we recommend following the black-box warning.

TCAs and MAO inhibitors can also cause orthostatic hypotension. On the other hand, consuming large amounts of tyramine, in foods such as aged cheese, can precipitate a hypertensive crisis in patients taking MAO inhibitors.

Which antidepressants tend to be safer in cardiac patients? Sertraline has been shown to be safe in congestive heart failure and coronary artery disease,^45–47 but the SSRIs are typically safe. Fluoxetine has shown efficacy in patients who have had a myocardial infarction.⁴⁸ Mirtazapine has also been shown to be efficacious in cardiac patients.⁴⁹ Nefazodone, mirtazapine, bupropion, SSRIs, and SNRIs have little or no tendency toward orthostatic hypotension.

The treatment of hepatitis c virus (HCV) infection is on the brink of major changes with the recent approval of the first direct-acting antiviral agents, the protease inhibitors boceprevir (Victrelis) and telaprevir (Incivek).

Both drugs were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Advisory Panel for Chronic Hepatitis C in May 2011 and are believed to significantly improve treatment outcomes for patients with HCV genotype 1 infection.