News

MILAN – Secukinumab (Cosentyx) and biosimilar adalimumab-adaz (Hyrimoz) injection proved to have similar efficacy for limiting spinal radiographic progression over a 2-year period in patients with radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (r-axSpA) in the SURPASS study, a phase 3b, randomized controlled trial.

The study, presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, represents the first head-to-head trial comparing the effects of two biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in axSpA. Notably, secukinumab and adalimumab-adaz target different pathways as an interleukin-17A inhibitor and a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor, respectively.

Both TNF and IL-17A have been implicated in the pathogenesis of axSpA. Anti-TNF agents and the IL-17A inhibitor secukinumab have demonstrated effectiveness in improving symptoms, signs, and physical function in patients with axSpA and are approved therapies for the disease. However, limited data exist regarding the effect of bDMARDs in slowing radiographic progression, which is a key therapeutic goal in axSpA to prevent irreversible structural damage.

The SURPASS trial, funded by Novartis, enrolled 859 biologic-naive adult patients with moderate to severe r-axSpA. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive secukinumab 150 mg (n = 287), secukinumab 300 mg (n = 286), or adalimumab-adaz 40 mg (n = 286). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with no radiographic progression at the 2-year mark (week 104). Radiographic progression was defined as a change from baseline in modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score (mSASSS; range, 0-72) of 0.5 or less. The radiographic assessments were conducted by three independent evaluators who were blinded to treatment and the chronology of images.

Baseline characteristics indicated that the study population (78.5% male; mean age, 42.1 years) had a high risk of radiographic progression. The proportion of patients with no radiographic progression at week 104 was 66.1% in the secukinumab 150-mg arm, 66.9% in the secukinumab 300-mg arm, and 65.6% in the adalimumab-adaz arm. The mean change from baseline in mSASSS was 0.54, 0.55, and 0.72, respectively.

Notably, more than half of the patients (56.9%, 53.8%, and 53.3%, respectively) with at least one syndesmophyte at baseline did not develop new syndesmophytes over the 2-year period. The observed reductions in sacroiliac joint and spinal edema were comparable across all treatment groups. The safety profile of secukinumab and adalimumab-adaz was consistent with their well-established profiles.

No significant differences were observed between the treatment groups in terms of the primary and secondary endpoints. Study presenter and lead author Xenofon Baraliakos, MD, PhD, medical director of the Rheumatism Centre and professor of internal medicine and rheumatology at Ruhr University Bochum (Germany), stated: “Anti-TNF therapy has been considered the gold-standard treatment for axial spondyloarthritis in terms of slowing or halting radiographic progression. Our aim was to investigate whether other modes of action, such as IL-17 inhibition, achieve the same results. The primary hypothesis was that IL-17 inhibition could be even more effective than TNF blockade. However, our data indicate that secukinumab is at least as good as TNF blockers.

“Several risk factors, including high C-reactive protein [CRP] levels, male gender, high disease activity, and baseline radiographic damage (e.g., presence of syndesmophytes), are associated with structural progression,” Dr. Baraliakos explained. “We performed subgroup analyses and found no differences. This is a positive outcome as it suggests that there is no need to select patients based on either secukinumab or anti-TNF agents.”

When making treatment decisions, other factors must be taken into consideration. “Our study specifically examined radiographic progression. The clinical outcomes, indications, and contraindications for anti-TNF agents and secukinumab differ,” Dr. Baraliakos explained. “For instance, secukinumab may be preferred for patients with psoriasis, while adalimumab is more suitable for those with inflammatory bowel disease. Although these bDMARDs are not interchangeable, they have the same positive effect on radiographic progression.”
 

Not a definitive answer about structural progression

An open question remains. Alexandre Sepriano, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Hospital Egas Moniz and researcher at NOVA Medical School, both in Lisbon, commented: “The study was designed to maximize the chances of detecting a difference, if any, in spinal radiographic progression between secukinumab 150 mg and 300 mg and adalimumab. The included patients had a high risk of progression at baseline; in addition to back pain, they either had elevated CRP or at least one syndesmophyte on spine radiographs. Consequently, baseline structural damage was high [mean mSASSS, 17].”

“After 2 years, no difference was observed in the percentage of patients with no progression across the study arms. This finding does not definitively answer whether bDMARDs can modify structural progression or if secukinumab and adalimumab are equally effective in this regard,” explained Dr. Sepriano, who was not involved in the study. “However, there is good news for patients. Both secukinumab and adalimumab are potent anti-inflammatory drugs that effectively alleviate axial inflammation caused by the disease. This was demonstrated by the reduction in inflammatory scores on MRI in the SURPASS study. It aligns with robust evidence that both IL-17 inhibitors and TNF inhibitors are effective in improving symptoms in individuals with axSpA.

“Researchers continue to make significant efforts to understand how axial inflammation contributes to pathological new bone formation in axSpA,” Dr. Sepriano continued. “Understanding these mechanisms can guide future research aimed at interfering with disease progression. Furthermore, the use of new methods to quantify structural progression in axSpA, such as low-dose CT, which has shown greater sensitivity to change than traditional methods, can pave the way for new studies with fewer patients and shorter follow-up periods, thereby increasing the likelihood of detecting treatment effects.”

Dr. Baraliakos has received speaking and consulting fees and grant/research support from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Sepriano has received speaking and/or consulting fees from AbbVie, Novartis, UCB, and Lilly. The trial was sponsored by Novartis.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MILAN – Secukinumab (Cosentyx) and biosimilar adalimumab-adaz (Hyrimoz) injection proved to have similar efficacy for limiting spinal radiographic progression over a 2-year period in patients with radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (r-axSpA) in the SURPASS study, a phase 3b, randomized controlled trial.

The study, presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, represents the first head-to-head trial comparing the effects of two biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in axSpA. Notably, secukinumab and adalimumab-adaz target different pathways as an interleukin-17A inhibitor and a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor, respectively.

Both TNF and IL-17A have been implicated in the pathogenesis of axSpA. Anti-TNF agents and the IL-17A inhibitor secukinumab have demonstrated effectiveness in improving symptoms, signs, and physical function in patients with axSpA and are approved therapies for the disease. However, limited data exist regarding the effect of bDMARDs in slowing radiographic progression, which is a key therapeutic goal in axSpA to prevent irreversible structural damage.

The SURPASS trial, funded by Novartis, enrolled 859 biologic-naive adult patients with moderate to severe r-axSpA. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive secukinumab 150 mg (n = 287), secukinumab 300 mg (n = 286), or adalimumab-adaz 40 mg (n = 286). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with no radiographic progression at the 2-year mark (week 104). Radiographic progression was defined as a change from baseline in modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score (mSASSS; range, 0-72) of 0.5 or less. The radiographic assessments were conducted by three independent evaluators who were blinded to treatment and the chronology of images.

Baseline characteristics indicated that the study population (78.5% male; mean age, 42.1 years) had a high risk of radiographic progression. The proportion of patients with no radiographic progression at week 104 was 66.1% in the secukinumab 150-mg arm, 66.9% in the secukinumab 300-mg arm, and 65.6% in the adalimumab-adaz arm. The mean change from baseline in mSASSS was 0.54, 0.55, and 0.72, respectively.

Notably, more than half of the patients (56.9%, 53.8%, and 53.3%, respectively) with at least one syndesmophyte at baseline did not develop new syndesmophytes over the 2-year period. The observed reductions in sacroiliac joint and spinal edema were comparable across all treatment groups. The safety profile of secukinumab and adalimumab-adaz was consistent with their well-established profiles.

No significant differences were observed between the treatment groups in terms of the primary and secondary endpoints. Study presenter and lead author Xenofon Baraliakos, MD, PhD, medical director of the Rheumatism Centre and professor of internal medicine and rheumatology at Ruhr University Bochum (Germany), stated: “Anti-TNF therapy has been considered the gold-standard treatment for axial spondyloarthritis in terms of slowing or halting radiographic progression. Our aim was to investigate whether other modes of action, such as IL-17 inhibition, achieve the same results. The primary hypothesis was that IL-17 inhibition could be even more effective than TNF blockade. However, our data indicate that secukinumab is at least as good as TNF blockers.

“Several risk factors, including high C-reactive protein [CRP] levels, male gender, high disease activity, and baseline radiographic damage (e.g., presence of syndesmophytes), are associated with structural progression,” Dr. Baraliakos explained. “We performed subgroup analyses and found no differences. This is a positive outcome as it suggests that there is no need to select patients based on either secukinumab or anti-TNF agents.”

When making treatment decisions, other factors must be taken into consideration. “Our study specifically examined radiographic progression. The clinical outcomes, indications, and contraindications for anti-TNF agents and secukinumab differ,” Dr. Baraliakos explained. “For instance, secukinumab may be preferred for patients with psoriasis, while adalimumab is more suitable for those with inflammatory bowel disease. Although these bDMARDs are not interchangeable, they have the same positive effect on radiographic progression.”
 

Not a definitive answer about structural progression

An open question remains. Alexandre Sepriano, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Hospital Egas Moniz and researcher at NOVA Medical School, both in Lisbon, commented: “The study was designed to maximize the chances of detecting a difference, if any, in spinal radiographic progression between secukinumab 150 mg and 300 mg and adalimumab. The included patients had a high risk of progression at baseline; in addition to back pain, they either had elevated CRP or at least one syndesmophyte on spine radiographs. Consequently, baseline structural damage was high [mean mSASSS, 17].”

“After 2 years, no difference was observed in the percentage of patients with no progression across the study arms. This finding does not definitively answer whether bDMARDs can modify structural progression or if secukinumab and adalimumab are equally effective in this regard,” explained Dr. Sepriano, who was not involved in the study. “However, there is good news for patients. Both secukinumab and adalimumab are potent anti-inflammatory drugs that effectively alleviate axial inflammation caused by the disease. This was demonstrated by the reduction in inflammatory scores on MRI in the SURPASS study. It aligns with robust evidence that both IL-17 inhibitors and TNF inhibitors are effective in improving symptoms in individuals with axSpA.

“Researchers continue to make significant efforts to understand how axial inflammation contributes to pathological new bone formation in axSpA,” Dr. Sepriano continued. “Understanding these mechanisms can guide future research aimed at interfering with disease progression. Furthermore, the use of new methods to quantify structural progression in axSpA, such as low-dose CT, which has shown greater sensitivity to change than traditional methods, can pave the way for new studies with fewer patients and shorter follow-up periods, thereby increasing the likelihood of detecting treatment effects.”

Dr. Baraliakos has received speaking and consulting fees and grant/research support from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Sepriano has received speaking and/or consulting fees from AbbVie, Novartis, UCB, and Lilly. The trial was sponsored by Novartis.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MILAN – Secukinumab (Cosentyx) and biosimilar adalimumab-adaz (Hyrimoz) injection proved to have similar efficacy for limiting spinal radiographic progression over a 2-year period in patients with radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (r-axSpA) in the SURPASS study, a phase 3b, randomized controlled trial.

The study, presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, represents the first head-to-head trial comparing the effects of two biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in axSpA. Notably, secukinumab and adalimumab-adaz target different pathways as an interleukin-17A inhibitor and a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor, respectively.

Both TNF and IL-17A have been implicated in the pathogenesis of axSpA. Anti-TNF agents and the IL-17A inhibitor secukinumab have demonstrated effectiveness in improving symptoms, signs, and physical function in patients with axSpA and are approved therapies for the disease. However, limited data exist regarding the effect of bDMARDs in slowing radiographic progression, which is a key therapeutic goal in axSpA to prevent irreversible structural damage.

The SURPASS trial, funded by Novartis, enrolled 859 biologic-naive adult patients with moderate to severe r-axSpA. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive secukinumab 150 mg (n = 287), secukinumab 300 mg (n = 286), or adalimumab-adaz 40 mg (n = 286). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with no radiographic progression at the 2-year mark (week 104). Radiographic progression was defined as a change from baseline in modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score (mSASSS; range, 0-72) of 0.5 or less. The radiographic assessments were conducted by three independent evaluators who were blinded to treatment and the chronology of images.

Baseline characteristics indicated that the study population (78.5% male; mean age, 42.1 years) had a high risk of radiographic progression. The proportion of patients with no radiographic progression at week 104 was 66.1% in the secukinumab 150-mg arm, 66.9% in the secukinumab 300-mg arm, and 65.6% in the adalimumab-adaz arm. The mean change from baseline in mSASSS was 0.54, 0.55, and 0.72, respectively.

Notably, more than half of the patients (56.9%, 53.8%, and 53.3%, respectively) with at least one syndesmophyte at baseline did not develop new syndesmophytes over the 2-year period. The observed reductions in sacroiliac joint and spinal edema were comparable across all treatment groups. The safety profile of secukinumab and adalimumab-adaz was consistent with their well-established profiles.

No significant differences were observed between the treatment groups in terms of the primary and secondary endpoints. Study presenter and lead author Xenofon Baraliakos, MD, PhD, medical director of the Rheumatism Centre and professor of internal medicine and rheumatology at Ruhr University Bochum (Germany), stated: “Anti-TNF therapy has been considered the gold-standard treatment for axial spondyloarthritis in terms of slowing or halting radiographic progression. Our aim was to investigate whether other modes of action, such as IL-17 inhibition, achieve the same results. The primary hypothesis was that IL-17 inhibition could be even more effective than TNF blockade. However, our data indicate that secukinumab is at least as good as TNF blockers.

“Several risk factors, including high C-reactive protein [CRP] levels, male gender, high disease activity, and baseline radiographic damage (e.g., presence of syndesmophytes), are associated with structural progression,” Dr. Baraliakos explained. “We performed subgroup analyses and found no differences. This is a positive outcome as it suggests that there is no need to select patients based on either secukinumab or anti-TNF agents.”

When making treatment decisions, other factors must be taken into consideration. “Our study specifically examined radiographic progression. The clinical outcomes, indications, and contraindications for anti-TNF agents and secukinumab differ,” Dr. Baraliakos explained. “For instance, secukinumab may be preferred for patients with psoriasis, while adalimumab is more suitable for those with inflammatory bowel disease. Although these bDMARDs are not interchangeable, they have the same positive effect on radiographic progression.”
 

Not a definitive answer about structural progression

An open question remains. Alexandre Sepriano, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Hospital Egas Moniz and researcher at NOVA Medical School, both in Lisbon, commented: “The study was designed to maximize the chances of detecting a difference, if any, in spinal radiographic progression between secukinumab 150 mg and 300 mg and adalimumab. The included patients had a high risk of progression at baseline; in addition to back pain, they either had elevated CRP or at least one syndesmophyte on spine radiographs. Consequently, baseline structural damage was high [mean mSASSS, 17].”

“After 2 years, no difference was observed in the percentage of patients with no progression across the study arms. This finding does not definitively answer whether bDMARDs can modify structural progression or if secukinumab and adalimumab are equally effective in this regard,” explained Dr. Sepriano, who was not involved in the study. “However, there is good news for patients. Both secukinumab and adalimumab are potent anti-inflammatory drugs that effectively alleviate axial inflammation caused by the disease. This was demonstrated by the reduction in inflammatory scores on MRI in the SURPASS study. It aligns with robust evidence that both IL-17 inhibitors and TNF inhibitors are effective in improving symptoms in individuals with axSpA.

“Researchers continue to make significant efforts to understand how axial inflammation contributes to pathological new bone formation in axSpA,” Dr. Sepriano continued. “Understanding these mechanisms can guide future research aimed at interfering with disease progression. Furthermore, the use of new methods to quantify structural progression in axSpA, such as low-dose CT, which has shown greater sensitivity to change than traditional methods, can pave the way for new studies with fewer patients and shorter follow-up periods, thereby increasing the likelihood of detecting treatment effects.”

Dr. Baraliakos has received speaking and consulting fees and grant/research support from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Sepriano has received speaking and/or consulting fees from AbbVie, Novartis, UCB, and Lilly. The trial was sponsored by Novartis.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MILAN – The oral Janus kinase (JAK) 1/2 inhibitor baricitinib (Olumiant) demonstrated significantly better efficacy than cyclophosphamide infusions in the treatment of lupus nephritis in a small, independently funded, phase 3, double-blind clinical trial, Manal Hassanien, MD, reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Baricitinib, licensed by Eli Lilly, has been recognized as a potential therapeutic option in systemic lupus, and is approved in the United States to treat RA, alopecia areata, and COVID-19 in certain hospitalized adults. It is also approved to treat atopic dermatitis in Europe. However, it previously yielded disappointing results in phase 3 clinical trials SLE-BRAVE-I and SLE-BRAVE-II for systemic lupus erythematosus. The trial results presented at EULAR suggest that baricitinib could be beneficial in the treatment of lupus nephritis, further establishing the role of JAK inhibitors in autoimmune disease therapy.

“Lupus nephritis typically develops within 5 years of initial lupus symptoms,” said Dr. Hassanien, of the rheumatology research and advanced therapeutics department at Assiut (Egypt) University. “Research has shown that up to 60% of lupus patients will eventually develop lupus nephritis. The management of proliferative lupus nephritis usually involves an initial phase focused on preventing the development of irreversible damage, followed by a maintenance phase to control lupus activity. Despite significant progress, lupus nephritis still carries an increased risk of end-stage renal disease and mortality.”

The study’s primary endpoint of 24-hour proteinuria response rate (≥ 50% reduction from baseline) at week 12 was significantly greater with baricitinib 4 mg daily, compared with monthly cyclophosphamide infusions at 0.7 mg/m² (70% vs. 43%; P < .0001). At week 24, 76.6% of the baricitinib group met the primary endpoint, compared with 50% in the cyclophosphamide group. Two multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints, C3 serum level and the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K), also showed statistical significance at 12 weeks (P < .01).

The 6-month trial included 60 adult patients (age 18 years and older) with a clinical diagnosis of lupus nephritis fulfilling classification criteria for LN grade III and IV. Patients needed to demonstrate objective signs of active nephritis consistent with persistent proteinuria greater than 0.5 g/day and/or cellular casts at screening to be included. Additional inclusion criteria were SLEDAI-2K greater than 4 and assessment of anti–double-stranded DNA and C3 serum levels at study entry. The patients were randomly assigned to two equal-sized groups, with one group receiving baricitinib 4 mg daily and a monthly placebo saline infusion, and the other group receiving monthly cyclophosphamide infusions and oral placebo tablets.

The incidence of adverse events was comparable between the two treatment groups, with 48% of patients in the baricitinib group and 46% in the cyclophosphamide group experiencing adverse events. Only three serious adverse events, specifically serious infection or herpes zoster, were recorded, leading to treatment discontinuation.

Two patients (6.6%) in the baricitinib group and one patient (3.3%) in the cyclophosphamide group were affected. The researchers recorded no major adverse cardiovascular or venous thromboembolic events, which are known to occur at higher rates among some users of baricitinib and other JAK inhibitors. The safety profile of baricitinib was consistent with observations made in other inflammatory musculoskeletal diseases, and no new risks were identified.

However, there were some concerns expressed by audience members during the presentation.

“The primary endpoint is limited at proteinuria, while biopsy is considered the gold standard for measuring efficacy,” said Eric F. Morand, MD, head of the Monash Health rheumatology unit, Melbourne. This was not the only critical comment regarding the study that emerged during the discussion. The use of a 4-mg dosage regimen throughout the entire study duration (despite official recommendations suggesting a 2-mg dosage in the long run) and the positive outcomes observed in the control group treated with cyclophosphamide were also mentioned.

Dr. Hassanien acknowledged that this is a small and relatively short study and disclosed plans to extend the follow-up period to 1 year and conduct a renal biopsy.

Dr. Hassanien reported no relevant financial relationships. Assiut University funded the trial.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MILAN – The oral Janus kinase (JAK) 1/2 inhibitor baricitinib (Olumiant) demonstrated significantly better efficacy than cyclophosphamide infusions in the treatment of lupus nephritis in a small, independently funded, phase 3, double-blind clinical trial, Manal Hassanien, MD, reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Baricitinib, licensed by Eli Lilly, has been recognized as a potential therapeutic option in systemic lupus, and is approved in the United States to treat RA, alopecia areata, and COVID-19 in certain hospitalized adults. It is also approved to treat atopic dermatitis in Europe. However, it previously yielded disappointing results in phase 3 clinical trials SLE-BRAVE-I and SLE-BRAVE-II for systemic lupus erythematosus. The trial results presented at EULAR suggest that baricitinib could be beneficial in the treatment of lupus nephritis, further establishing the role of JAK inhibitors in autoimmune disease therapy.

“Lupus nephritis typically develops within 5 years of initial lupus symptoms,” said Dr. Hassanien, of the rheumatology research and advanced therapeutics department at Assiut (Egypt) University. “Research has shown that up to 60% of lupus patients will eventually develop lupus nephritis. The management of proliferative lupus nephritis usually involves an initial phase focused on preventing the development of irreversible damage, followed by a maintenance phase to control lupus activity. Despite significant progress, lupus nephritis still carries an increased risk of end-stage renal disease and mortality.”

The study’s primary endpoint of 24-hour proteinuria response rate (≥ 50% reduction from baseline) at week 12 was significantly greater with baricitinib 4 mg daily, compared with monthly cyclophosphamide infusions at 0.7 mg/m² (70% vs. 43%; P < .0001). At week 24, 76.6% of the baricitinib group met the primary endpoint, compared with 50% in the cyclophosphamide group. Two multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints, C3 serum level and the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K), also showed statistical significance at 12 weeks (P < .01).

The 6-month trial included 60 adult patients (age 18 years and older) with a clinical diagnosis of lupus nephritis fulfilling classification criteria for LN grade III and IV. Patients needed to demonstrate objective signs of active nephritis consistent with persistent proteinuria greater than 0.5 g/day and/or cellular casts at screening to be included. Additional inclusion criteria were SLEDAI-2K greater than 4 and assessment of anti–double-stranded DNA and C3 serum levels at study entry. The patients were randomly assigned to two equal-sized groups, with one group receiving baricitinib 4 mg daily and a monthly placebo saline infusion, and the other group receiving monthly cyclophosphamide infusions and oral placebo tablets.

The incidence of adverse events was comparable between the two treatment groups, with 48% of patients in the baricitinib group and 46% in the cyclophosphamide group experiencing adverse events. Only three serious adverse events, specifically serious infection or herpes zoster, were recorded, leading to treatment discontinuation.

Two patients (6.6%) in the baricitinib group and one patient (3.3%) in the cyclophosphamide group were affected. The researchers recorded no major adverse cardiovascular or venous thromboembolic events, which are known to occur at higher rates among some users of baricitinib and other JAK inhibitors. The safety profile of baricitinib was consistent with observations made in other inflammatory musculoskeletal diseases, and no new risks were identified.

However, there were some concerns expressed by audience members during the presentation.

“The primary endpoint is limited at proteinuria, while biopsy is considered the gold standard for measuring efficacy,” said Eric F. Morand, MD, head of the Monash Health rheumatology unit, Melbourne. This was not the only critical comment regarding the study that emerged during the discussion. The use of a 4-mg dosage regimen throughout the entire study duration (despite official recommendations suggesting a 2-mg dosage in the long run) and the positive outcomes observed in the control group treated with cyclophosphamide were also mentioned.

Dr. Hassanien acknowledged that this is a small and relatively short study and disclosed plans to extend the follow-up period to 1 year and conduct a renal biopsy.

Dr. Hassanien reported no relevant financial relationships. Assiut University funded the trial.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MILAN – The oral Janus kinase (JAK) 1/2 inhibitor baricitinib (Olumiant) demonstrated significantly better efficacy than cyclophosphamide infusions in the treatment of lupus nephritis in a small, independently funded, phase 3, double-blind clinical trial, Manal Hassanien, MD, reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Baricitinib, licensed by Eli Lilly, has been recognized as a potential therapeutic option in systemic lupus, and is approved in the United States to treat RA, alopecia areata, and COVID-19 in certain hospitalized adults. It is also approved to treat atopic dermatitis in Europe. However, it previously yielded disappointing results in phase 3 clinical trials SLE-BRAVE-I and SLE-BRAVE-II for systemic lupus erythematosus. The trial results presented at EULAR suggest that baricitinib could be beneficial in the treatment of lupus nephritis, further establishing the role of JAK inhibitors in autoimmune disease therapy.

“Lupus nephritis typically develops within 5 years of initial lupus symptoms,” said Dr. Hassanien, of the rheumatology research and advanced therapeutics department at Assiut (Egypt) University. “Research has shown that up to 60% of lupus patients will eventually develop lupus nephritis. The management of proliferative lupus nephritis usually involves an initial phase focused on preventing the development of irreversible damage, followed by a maintenance phase to control lupus activity. Despite significant progress, lupus nephritis still carries an increased risk of end-stage renal disease and mortality.”

The study’s primary endpoint of 24-hour proteinuria response rate (≥ 50% reduction from baseline) at week 12 was significantly greater with baricitinib 4 mg daily, compared with monthly cyclophosphamide infusions at 0.7 mg/m² (70% vs. 43%; P < .0001). At week 24, 76.6% of the baricitinib group met the primary endpoint, compared with 50% in the cyclophosphamide group. Two multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints, C3 serum level and the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K), also showed statistical significance at 12 weeks (P < .01).

The 6-month trial included 60 adult patients (age 18 years and older) with a clinical diagnosis of lupus nephritis fulfilling classification criteria for LN grade III and IV. Patients needed to demonstrate objective signs of active nephritis consistent with persistent proteinuria greater than 0.5 g/day and/or cellular casts at screening to be included. Additional inclusion criteria were SLEDAI-2K greater than 4 and assessment of anti–double-stranded DNA and C3 serum levels at study entry. The patients were randomly assigned to two equal-sized groups, with one group receiving baricitinib 4 mg daily and a monthly placebo saline infusion, and the other group receiving monthly cyclophosphamide infusions and oral placebo tablets.

The incidence of adverse events was comparable between the two treatment groups, with 48% of patients in the baricitinib group and 46% in the cyclophosphamide group experiencing adverse events. Only three serious adverse events, specifically serious infection or herpes zoster, were recorded, leading to treatment discontinuation.

Two patients (6.6%) in the baricitinib group and one patient (3.3%) in the cyclophosphamide group were affected. The researchers recorded no major adverse cardiovascular or venous thromboembolic events, which are known to occur at higher rates among some users of baricitinib and other JAK inhibitors. The safety profile of baricitinib was consistent with observations made in other inflammatory musculoskeletal diseases, and no new risks were identified.

However, there were some concerns expressed by audience members during the presentation.

“The primary endpoint is limited at proteinuria, while biopsy is considered the gold standard for measuring efficacy,” said Eric F. Morand, MD, head of the Monash Health rheumatology unit, Melbourne. This was not the only critical comment regarding the study that emerged during the discussion. The use of a 4-mg dosage regimen throughout the entire study duration (despite official recommendations suggesting a 2-mg dosage in the long run) and the positive outcomes observed in the control group treated with cyclophosphamide were also mentioned.

Dr. Hassanien acknowledged that this is a small and relatively short study and disclosed plans to extend the follow-up period to 1 year and conduct a renal biopsy.

Dr. Hassanien reported no relevant financial relationships. Assiut University funded the trial.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN FRANCISCO – As the opioid epidemic continues to grow and evolve, the federal government is trying to make it easier for clinicians to treat abusers with the drug buprenorphine, psychiatrists told colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. And an injectable version of the drug is making a big difference.

While overall overdose numbers are grim, “the work we’re doing to get people on buprenorphine is working, and our efforts to get people in treatment are paying off,” John A. Renner Jr., MD, of Boston University, said in a presentation at the APA meeting.

As Dr. Renner explained, the United States is now in the fourth wave of nearly a quarter-century of opioid overdose-related deaths. The outbreak began in 1999 as prescription opioids spurred deaths, and heroin overdoses began to rise in 2010. The third wave brought rises in deaths from synthetic opioids such as fentanyl in 2013. In 2015, the fourth wave – driven by deaths from combinations of synthetic opioids and psychostimulants like methamphetamines – started in 2015.

COVID-19 seems to have played a role too: In 2020, opioid overdose deaths spiked during the early months of the pandemic. In 2021, drug-related overdose deaths overall hit a high of 106,889, including 80,411 linked to opioids. In contrast, fewer than 20,000 drug-related overdose deaths were reported in 1999.

On the other hand, deaths from prescription drug overdoses are falling, Dr. Renner said, suggesting “improvement in terms of how clinicians are handling medications and our prescribing practices. But that’s being masked by what’s happened with fentanyl and methamphetamine.”

Buprenorphine (Subutex), used to treat opioid use withdrawal, is itself an opioid and can cause addiction and death in some cases. However, Dr. Renner highlighted a 2023 study that determined that efforts to increase its use from 2019 to 2021 didn’t appear to boost buprenorphine-related overdose deaths in the United States.

New federal regulations aim to make it easier to prescribe buprenorphine. Thanks to Congressional legislation, the Drug Enforcement Administration in January 2023 eliminated regulations requiring clinicians to undergo special training to get an “X-waiver” to be able to prescribe buprenorphine. But they’re not off the hook entirely: As of June 27, 2023, providers must have undergone training in order to apply for – or renew – a DEA license to prescribe certain controlled substances like buprenorphine.

“I’m afraid that people will be able to meet that requirement easily, and they’re not going to get good coordinated teaching,” Dr. Renner said. “I’m not sure that’s really going to improve the quality of care that we’re delivering.”

In regard to treatment, psychiatrist Dong Chan Park, MD, of Boston University, touted a long-acting injectable form of buprenorphine known by the brand name Sublocade. The FDA approved Sublocade in 2017 for patients who’ve been taking sublingual buprenorphine for at least 7 days, although Dr. Park said research suggests the 7-day period may not be necessary.

“We’ve utilized this about 2.5-plus years in my hospital, and it’s really been a game changer for some of our sickest, most challenging patients,” he said at the APA presentation. As he explained, one benefit is that patients can’t repeatedly avoid doses depending on how they feel, as they may do with the sublingual version. “On the first day of injection, you can actually stop the sublingual buprenorphine.”

Dr. Renner emphasized the importance of getting users on buprenorphine as fast as possible. If the treatment begins in the ED, he said, “they need to have a system that is going to be able to pick them up and continue the care.”

Otherwise, the risk is high. “We’re in a very dangerous era,” he said, “where the patient walks out the door, and then they die.”

Dr. Park had no disclosures, and Dr. Renner disclosed royalties from the APA.

SAN FRANCISCO – As the opioid epidemic continues to grow and evolve, the federal government is trying to make it easier for clinicians to treat abusers with the drug buprenorphine, psychiatrists told colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. And an injectable version of the drug is making a big difference.

While overall overdose numbers are grim, “the work we’re doing to get people on buprenorphine is working, and our efforts to get people in treatment are paying off,” John A. Renner Jr., MD, of Boston University, said in a presentation at the APA meeting.

As Dr. Renner explained, the United States is now in the fourth wave of nearly a quarter-century of opioid overdose-related deaths. The outbreak began in 1999 as prescription opioids spurred deaths, and heroin overdoses began to rise in 2010. The third wave brought rises in deaths from synthetic opioids such as fentanyl in 2013. In 2015, the fourth wave – driven by deaths from combinations of synthetic opioids and psychostimulants like methamphetamines – started in 2015.

COVID-19 seems to have played a role too: In 2020, opioid overdose deaths spiked during the early months of the pandemic. In 2021, drug-related overdose deaths overall hit a high of 106,889, including 80,411 linked to opioids. In contrast, fewer than 20,000 drug-related overdose deaths were reported in 1999.

On the other hand, deaths from prescription drug overdoses are falling, Dr. Renner said, suggesting “improvement in terms of how clinicians are handling medications and our prescribing practices. But that’s being masked by what’s happened with fentanyl and methamphetamine.”

Buprenorphine (Subutex), used to treat opioid use withdrawal, is itself an opioid and can cause addiction and death in some cases. However, Dr. Renner highlighted a 2023 study that determined that efforts to increase its use from 2019 to 2021 didn’t appear to boost buprenorphine-related overdose deaths in the United States.

New federal regulations aim to make it easier to prescribe buprenorphine. Thanks to Congressional legislation, the Drug Enforcement Administration in January 2023 eliminated regulations requiring clinicians to undergo special training to get an “X-waiver” to be able to prescribe buprenorphine. But they’re not off the hook entirely: As of June 27, 2023, providers must have undergone training in order to apply for – or renew – a DEA license to prescribe certain controlled substances like buprenorphine.

“I’m afraid that people will be able to meet that requirement easily, and they’re not going to get good coordinated teaching,” Dr. Renner said. “I’m not sure that’s really going to improve the quality of care that we’re delivering.”

In regard to treatment, psychiatrist Dong Chan Park, MD, of Boston University, touted a long-acting injectable form of buprenorphine known by the brand name Sublocade. The FDA approved Sublocade in 2017 for patients who’ve been taking sublingual buprenorphine for at least 7 days, although Dr. Park said research suggests the 7-day period may not be necessary.

“We’ve utilized this about 2.5-plus years in my hospital, and it’s really been a game changer for some of our sickest, most challenging patients,” he said at the APA presentation. As he explained, one benefit is that patients can’t repeatedly avoid doses depending on how they feel, as they may do with the sublingual version. “On the first day of injection, you can actually stop the sublingual buprenorphine.”

Dr. Renner emphasized the importance of getting users on buprenorphine as fast as possible. If the treatment begins in the ED, he said, “they need to have a system that is going to be able to pick them up and continue the care.”

Otherwise, the risk is high. “We’re in a very dangerous era,” he said, “where the patient walks out the door, and then they die.”

Dr. Park had no disclosures, and Dr. Renner disclosed royalties from the APA.

SAN FRANCISCO – As the opioid epidemic continues to grow and evolve, the federal government is trying to make it easier for clinicians to treat abusers with the drug buprenorphine, psychiatrists told colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. And an injectable version of the drug is making a big difference.

While overall overdose numbers are grim, “the work we’re doing to get people on buprenorphine is working, and our efforts to get people in treatment are paying off,” John A. Renner Jr., MD, of Boston University, said in a presentation at the APA meeting.

As Dr. Renner explained, the United States is now in the fourth wave of nearly a quarter-century of opioid overdose-related deaths. The outbreak began in 1999 as prescription opioids spurred deaths, and heroin overdoses began to rise in 2010. The third wave brought rises in deaths from synthetic opioids such as fentanyl in 2013. In 2015, the fourth wave – driven by deaths from combinations of synthetic opioids and psychostimulants like methamphetamines – started in 2015.

COVID-19 seems to have played a role too: In 2020, opioid overdose deaths spiked during the early months of the pandemic. In 2021, drug-related overdose deaths overall hit a high of 106,889, including 80,411 linked to opioids. In contrast, fewer than 20,000 drug-related overdose deaths were reported in 1999.

On the other hand, deaths from prescription drug overdoses are falling, Dr. Renner said, suggesting “improvement in terms of how clinicians are handling medications and our prescribing practices. But that’s being masked by what’s happened with fentanyl and methamphetamine.”

Buprenorphine (Subutex), used to treat opioid use withdrawal, is itself an opioid and can cause addiction and death in some cases. However, Dr. Renner highlighted a 2023 study that determined that efforts to increase its use from 2019 to 2021 didn’t appear to boost buprenorphine-related overdose deaths in the United States.

New federal regulations aim to make it easier to prescribe buprenorphine. Thanks to Congressional legislation, the Drug Enforcement Administration in January 2023 eliminated regulations requiring clinicians to undergo special training to get an “X-waiver” to be able to prescribe buprenorphine. But they’re not off the hook entirely: As of June 27, 2023, providers must have undergone training in order to apply for – or renew – a DEA license to prescribe certain controlled substances like buprenorphine.

“I’m afraid that people will be able to meet that requirement easily, and they’re not going to get good coordinated teaching,” Dr. Renner said. “I’m not sure that’s really going to improve the quality of care that we’re delivering.”

In regard to treatment, psychiatrist Dong Chan Park, MD, of Boston University, touted a long-acting injectable form of buprenorphine known by the brand name Sublocade. The FDA approved Sublocade in 2017 for patients who’ve been taking sublingual buprenorphine for at least 7 days, although Dr. Park said research suggests the 7-day period may not be necessary.

“We’ve utilized this about 2.5-plus years in my hospital, and it’s really been a game changer for some of our sickest, most challenging patients,” he said at the APA presentation. As he explained, one benefit is that patients can’t repeatedly avoid doses depending on how they feel, as they may do with the sublingual version. “On the first day of injection, you can actually stop the sublingual buprenorphine.”

Dr. Renner emphasized the importance of getting users on buprenorphine as fast as possible. If the treatment begins in the ED, he said, “they need to have a system that is going to be able to pick them up and continue the care.”

Otherwise, the risk is high. “We’re in a very dangerous era,” he said, “where the patient walks out the door, and then they die.”

Dr. Park had no disclosures, and Dr. Renner disclosed royalties from the APA.

MILAN – Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who are using biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) have fivefold higher risk for interstitial lung disease (ILD) than does the general population, according to the first study to explore risk of ILD in this particular patient group.

The study also found 10-fold higher risk of ILD in patients with RA who were starting a b/tsDMARD, compared with the general population, while the addition of methotrexate did not appear to be associated with increased risk for ILD in either RA nor PsA.

Becky McCall/MDedge News

Sella Aarrestad Provan, MD, of the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases at Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, presented the results at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Explaining the motivation for the study, Dr. Aarrestad Provan said that, in RA, methotrexate’s role in ILD development remained unclear, while some small studies linked b/tsDMARDs with risk for ILD. “In PsA, very few studies have explored the risk of ILD, and no systematic studies have looked at ILD risk factors in this disease.”

The researchers analyzed patient data from hospital and death registries across five Nordic countries (Denmark, Norway, Finland, Iceland, and Sweden) and compared them with general population controls. They calculated risk ratios for people who developed ILD within 5 years of starting a b/tsDMARD (with or without methotrexate).

A total of 37,010 patients with RA, 12,341 with PsA, and 569,451 members of the general population were included in the analysis, with respective disease durations of 10 and 8.9 years. Methotrexate was used along with b/tsDMARDs in 49% of patients with RA and 41% with PsA, and most patients were already on methotrexate when b/tsDMARDs were started. The tumor necrosis factor inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) was the most commonly used b/tsDMARD in both RA and PsA, followed by infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars) and adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars).

The incidence of ILD within 5 years of starting a b/tsDMARD was 0.8% in patients with RA, 0.2% with PsA, and 0.1% in the general population, and these findings generated hazard ratios of 10.1 (95% confidence interval, 8.6-11.9) for RA and 5.0 (95% CI, 3.4-7.4) for PsA, compared with the general population as reference.

When the risk for ILD was explored according to methotrexate use in RA patients, “there was no signal of increased risk across patients using methotrexate,” Dr. Aarrestad Provan reported. When risk of ILD was explored according to b/tsDMARD use in RA patients, a signal of increased risk was observed with rituximab, she noted, “but upon adjusting for age, sex, and comorbidities, this association was no longer significant, but was still numerically increased.”

Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, vice principal, professor of rheumatology, and head of the College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences at the University of Glasgow, remarked that he “loves results that are unexpected” and thanked the researcher for such an “important study.”

“For years, we’ve been interested in the potential for DMARDs to impact interstitial lung disease, with potential that drugs could make it worse, or better,” he said. “This study is wonderful and novel because first of all, there hasn’t, until now, been a direct comparison between RA and PsA in quite this way, and secondly, we haven’t really assessed whether there is a drug-related risk in PsA. Note that drug related does not necessarily imply causality.”

Regarding mechanisms, Dr. McInnes added that “epidemiologic studies suggest that PsA often coexists with the presence of cardiometabolic syndrome and obesity, which has a higher prevalence in PsA than in RA. Obesity is also related to ILD. As such, it begs the question of whether cardiometabolic, diabetes, or obesity-related features may give us a clue as to what is going on in these PsA patients.”

The research was supported by NordForsk and FOREUM. Dr. Aarrestad Provan reported serving as a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim and Novartis and receiving grant/research support from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. McInnes declared no disclosures relevant to this study.

MILAN – Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who are using biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) have fivefold higher risk for interstitial lung disease (ILD) than does the general population, according to the first study to explore risk of ILD in this particular patient group.

The study also found 10-fold higher risk of ILD in patients with RA who were starting a b/tsDMARD, compared with the general population, while the addition of methotrexate did not appear to be associated with increased risk for ILD in either RA nor PsA.

Becky McCall/MDedge News

Sella Aarrestad Provan, MD, of the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases at Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, presented the results at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Explaining the motivation for the study, Dr. Aarrestad Provan said that, in RA, methotrexate’s role in ILD development remained unclear, while some small studies linked b/tsDMARDs with risk for ILD. “In PsA, very few studies have explored the risk of ILD, and no systematic studies have looked at ILD risk factors in this disease.”

The researchers analyzed patient data from hospital and death registries across five Nordic countries (Denmark, Norway, Finland, Iceland, and Sweden) and compared them with general population controls. They calculated risk ratios for people who developed ILD within 5 years of starting a b/tsDMARD (with or without methotrexate).

A total of 37,010 patients with RA, 12,341 with PsA, and 569,451 members of the general population were included in the analysis, with respective disease durations of 10 and 8.9 years. Methotrexate was used along with b/tsDMARDs in 49% of patients with RA and 41% with PsA, and most patients were already on methotrexate when b/tsDMARDs were started. The tumor necrosis factor inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) was the most commonly used b/tsDMARD in both RA and PsA, followed by infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars) and adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars).

The incidence of ILD within 5 years of starting a b/tsDMARD was 0.8% in patients with RA, 0.2% with PsA, and 0.1% in the general population, and these findings generated hazard ratios of 10.1 (95% confidence interval, 8.6-11.9) for RA and 5.0 (95% CI, 3.4-7.4) for PsA, compared with the general population as reference.

When the risk for ILD was explored according to methotrexate use in RA patients, “there was no signal of increased risk across patients using methotrexate,” Dr. Aarrestad Provan reported. When risk of ILD was explored according to b/tsDMARD use in RA patients, a signal of increased risk was observed with rituximab, she noted, “but upon adjusting for age, sex, and comorbidities, this association was no longer significant, but was still numerically increased.”

Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, vice principal, professor of rheumatology, and head of the College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences at the University of Glasgow, remarked that he “loves results that are unexpected” and thanked the researcher for such an “important study.”

“For years, we’ve been interested in the potential for DMARDs to impact interstitial lung disease, with potential that drugs could make it worse, or better,” he said. “This study is wonderful and novel because first of all, there hasn’t, until now, been a direct comparison between RA and PsA in quite this way, and secondly, we haven’t really assessed whether there is a drug-related risk in PsA. Note that drug related does not necessarily imply causality.”

Regarding mechanisms, Dr. McInnes added that “epidemiologic studies suggest that PsA often coexists with the presence of cardiometabolic syndrome and obesity, which has a higher prevalence in PsA than in RA. Obesity is also related to ILD. As such, it begs the question of whether cardiometabolic, diabetes, or obesity-related features may give us a clue as to what is going on in these PsA patients.”

The research was supported by NordForsk and FOREUM. Dr. Aarrestad Provan reported serving as a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim and Novartis and receiving grant/research support from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. McInnes declared no disclosures relevant to this study.

MILAN – Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who are using biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) have fivefold higher risk for interstitial lung disease (ILD) than does the general population, according to the first study to explore risk of ILD in this particular patient group.

The study also found 10-fold higher risk of ILD in patients with RA who were starting a b/tsDMARD, compared with the general population, while the addition of methotrexate did not appear to be associated with increased risk for ILD in either RA nor PsA.

Becky McCall/MDedge News

Sella Aarrestad Provan, MD, of the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases at Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, presented the results at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Explaining the motivation for the study, Dr. Aarrestad Provan said that, in RA, methotrexate’s role in ILD development remained unclear, while some small studies linked b/tsDMARDs with risk for ILD. “In PsA, very few studies have explored the risk of ILD, and no systematic studies have looked at ILD risk factors in this disease.”

The researchers analyzed patient data from hospital and death registries across five Nordic countries (Denmark, Norway, Finland, Iceland, and Sweden) and compared them with general population controls. They calculated risk ratios for people who developed ILD within 5 years of starting a b/tsDMARD (with or without methotrexate).

A total of 37,010 patients with RA, 12,341 with PsA, and 569,451 members of the general population were included in the analysis, with respective disease durations of 10 and 8.9 years. Methotrexate was used along with b/tsDMARDs in 49% of patients with RA and 41% with PsA, and most patients were already on methotrexate when b/tsDMARDs were started. The tumor necrosis factor inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) was the most commonly used b/tsDMARD in both RA and PsA, followed by infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars) and adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars).

The incidence of ILD within 5 years of starting a b/tsDMARD was 0.8% in patients with RA, 0.2% with PsA, and 0.1% in the general population, and these findings generated hazard ratios of 10.1 (95% confidence interval, 8.6-11.9) for RA and 5.0 (95% CI, 3.4-7.4) for PsA, compared with the general population as reference.

When the risk for ILD was explored according to methotrexate use in RA patients, “there was no signal of increased risk across patients using methotrexate,” Dr. Aarrestad Provan reported. When risk of ILD was explored according to b/tsDMARD use in RA patients, a signal of increased risk was observed with rituximab, she noted, “but upon adjusting for age, sex, and comorbidities, this association was no longer significant, but was still numerically increased.”

Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, vice principal, professor of rheumatology, and head of the College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences at the University of Glasgow, remarked that he “loves results that are unexpected” and thanked the researcher for such an “important study.”

“For years, we’ve been interested in the potential for DMARDs to impact interstitial lung disease, with potential that drugs could make it worse, or better,” he said. “This study is wonderful and novel because first of all, there hasn’t, until now, been a direct comparison between RA and PsA in quite this way, and secondly, we haven’t really assessed whether there is a drug-related risk in PsA. Note that drug related does not necessarily imply causality.”

Regarding mechanisms, Dr. McInnes added that “epidemiologic studies suggest that PsA often coexists with the presence of cardiometabolic syndrome and obesity, which has a higher prevalence in PsA than in RA. Obesity is also related to ILD. As such, it begs the question of whether cardiometabolic, diabetes, or obesity-related features may give us a clue as to what is going on in these PsA patients.”

The research was supported by NordForsk and FOREUM. Dr. Aarrestad Provan reported serving as a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim and Novartis and receiving grant/research support from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. McInnes declared no disclosures relevant to this study.

Patients with resectable, early-stage pancreatic cancer can safely undergo minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) as an alternative to traditional open surgery, suggest results from the international DIPLOMA study.

In the trial, around 260 patients were randomly assigned to undergo either open surgery or minimally invasive laparoscopic or robot-assisted surgery. Rates of complete tumor removal were comparable between the groups.

In addition, the disease-free and overall survival rates at 3 years were nearly identical.

“For pancreatic cancer, we have proven for the first time that minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is as good as open surgery,” commented principal investigator Mohammad Abu Hilal, MD, PhD, surgical director at the Instituto Ospedaliero Fondazione Poliambulanza in Brescia, Italy.

“Our research provides reassurance for surgeons and can help patients by giving them the information they need to have a conversation with their doctor about how they want to be treated,” he added.

Dr. Hilal was speaking at a press briefing ahead of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the study will be presented (abstract 4163) on June 5.

The study was not able to show that there was a benefit in terms of shorter hospital stays or greater functional recovery with the minimally invasive approach, Dr. Hilal noted, but he suggested that this could be because of differences in postoperative procedures between the participating centers.

He said in an interview that minimally invasive surgery is becoming “very common all over the world,” particularly in the United States, and that randomized controlled trials are “always the last step” in convincing people to use the technique.

He also emphasized that the “best results are obtained in high-volume centers where surgeons do more than at least 50 pancreatic resections a year,” because the minimally invasive approach is “quite complex and difficult,” more so than open surgery.

“This confirmatory study proves that minimally invasive surgical techniques are a safe and effective option for resectable pancreatic cancer,” commented ASCO expert Jennifer F. Tseng, MD, chair of surgery at Boston University and surgeon-in-chief at the Boston Medical Center. It may also “provide benefits like faster recovery time and less infection risk, without increasing cancer risk.”

The results from this trial “will help both surgeons and patients feel comfortable that minimally invasive surgery, in expert hands, is not inferior to open surgery,” she commented in a statement.
 

Minimally invasive surgery

Only around 12% of patients with pancreatic cancer are diagnosed when the disease is at an early enough stage for surgical resection to be a possibility, Dr. Hilal noted. Minimally invasive pancreatectomy, particularly the distal procedure, was introduced around 25 years ago, but it was initially used only for benign tumors or borderline malignancies.

It took another 10 years before it was considered in cases of confirmed malignancies, “and the main reason for this delay was concerns about the oncological efficiency” of MIDP in terms of its ability to achieve radical resection and an adequate lymph node yield. At the same time, some concerns about minimally invasive surgery for cancer were raised because of results from randomized trials in other cancer types, such as hysterectomy for cervical cancer. Some studies showed worse survival after minimally invasive surgery than after open surgery.

In recent years, use of minimally invasive techniques for pancreatic cancer has become an increasingly “hot topic in many surgical forums,” Dr. Hilal said.

So his team set out to investigate the approach in a phase 3 noninferiority trial. The investigators focused on patients who had an indication for elective distal pancreatectomy plus splenectomy because of proven or highly suspected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in the pancreatic body or tail.

Patients from 35 centers in 12 countries were recruited between May 2018 and May 2021 and were randomly assigned to undergo either MIDP or open distal pancreatectomy.

Patients, nurses, and pathologists were blinded to the surgical procedure by covering of the abdominal wall.

None of the patients underwent adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Following the procedure, the patients were followed up at 2 weeks and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, and a CT scan was performed at 12 months. A range of assessments was performed at each visit, including quality of life measures.

From 1,146 patients initially screened, 261 patients were included.

A few patients withdrew; 131 patients underwent MIDP, and 127 underwent open surgery and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Of those, 129 and 125, respectively, were included in the follow-up analysis.

The results confirmed the noninferiority of MIDP, compared with open surgery, with a rate of R0 radical resection (defined as ≥ 1 mm distance between the tumor and the surgical margin) of 73% vs. 69% (P = .039).

In addition, the lymph node yield was comparable between the two approaches, at an average of 22 nodes for MIDP vs. 23 for open surgery (P = .89), and the time to functional recovery was identical, at 5 days for both (P = .22).

The rate of intraperitoneal recurrence was found to be 41% with MIDP, compared with 38% for patients who underwent open surgery.

Dr. Hilal also showed that the rate of serious adverse events, such as bleeding or organ damage, was similar between the two procedures, at 18% with minimally invasive surgery vs. 22% for the open procedure.

Turning to the survival curves, he noted that it is “very clear” that the two procedures achieved near-identical results, at a hazard ratio of 0.99 (P = .94) for overall survival and 0.97 (P = .88) for disease-free survival when comparing MIDP with open surgery.

The researchers will continue to follow up the patients for 3-5 years and will analyze the lymph nodes retrieved to determine whether removal of the spleen is necessary.

The study was funded by Medtronic and Ethicon. Dr. Hilal has relationships with Ethicon and Medtronic. Dr. Tseng has relationships with Aegerion, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cubist, Curadel Surgical Innovations, Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Intarcia Therapeutics, Merck, MyoKardia, PanTher Therapeutics, Pfizer, Quest Diagnostics, Sanofi, Vertex, and Zeus.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with resectable, early-stage pancreatic cancer can safely undergo minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) as an alternative to traditional open surgery, suggest results from the international DIPLOMA study.

In the trial, around 260 patients were randomly assigned to undergo either open surgery or minimally invasive laparoscopic or robot-assisted surgery. Rates of complete tumor removal were comparable between the groups.

In addition, the disease-free and overall survival rates at 3 years were nearly identical.

“For pancreatic cancer, we have proven for the first time that minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is as good as open surgery,” commented principal investigator Mohammad Abu Hilal, MD, PhD, surgical director at the Instituto Ospedaliero Fondazione Poliambulanza in Brescia, Italy.

“Our research provides reassurance for surgeons and can help patients by giving them the information they need to have a conversation with their doctor about how they want to be treated,” he added.

Dr. Hilal was speaking at a press briefing ahead of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the study will be presented (abstract 4163) on June 5.

The study was not able to show that there was a benefit in terms of shorter hospital stays or greater functional recovery with the minimally invasive approach, Dr. Hilal noted, but he suggested that this could be because of differences in postoperative procedures between the participating centers.

He said in an interview that minimally invasive surgery is becoming “very common all over the world,” particularly in the United States, and that randomized controlled trials are “always the last step” in convincing people to use the technique.

He also emphasized that the “best results are obtained in high-volume centers where surgeons do more than at least 50 pancreatic resections a year,” because the minimally invasive approach is “quite complex and difficult,” more so than open surgery.

“This confirmatory study proves that minimally invasive surgical techniques are a safe and effective option for resectable pancreatic cancer,” commented ASCO expert Jennifer F. Tseng, MD, chair of surgery at Boston University and surgeon-in-chief at the Boston Medical Center. It may also “provide benefits like faster recovery time and less infection risk, without increasing cancer risk.”

The results from this trial “will help both surgeons and patients feel comfortable that minimally invasive surgery, in expert hands, is not inferior to open surgery,” she commented in a statement.
 

Minimally invasive surgery

Only around 12% of patients with pancreatic cancer are diagnosed when the disease is at an early enough stage for surgical resection to be a possibility, Dr. Hilal noted. Minimally invasive pancreatectomy, particularly the distal procedure, was introduced around 25 years ago, but it was initially used only for benign tumors or borderline malignancies.

It took another 10 years before it was considered in cases of confirmed malignancies, “and the main reason for this delay was concerns about the oncological efficiency” of MIDP in terms of its ability to achieve radical resection and an adequate lymph node yield. At the same time, some concerns about minimally invasive surgery for cancer were raised because of results from randomized trials in other cancer types, such as hysterectomy for cervical cancer. Some studies showed worse survival after minimally invasive surgery than after open surgery.

In recent years, use of minimally invasive techniques for pancreatic cancer has become an increasingly “hot topic in many surgical forums,” Dr. Hilal said.

So his team set out to investigate the approach in a phase 3 noninferiority trial. The investigators focused on patients who had an indication for elective distal pancreatectomy plus splenectomy because of proven or highly suspected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in the pancreatic body or tail.

Patients from 35 centers in 12 countries were recruited between May 2018 and May 2021 and were randomly assigned to undergo either MIDP or open distal pancreatectomy.

Patients, nurses, and pathologists were blinded to the surgical procedure by covering of the abdominal wall.

None of the patients underwent adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Following the procedure, the patients were followed up at 2 weeks and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, and a CT scan was performed at 12 months. A range of assessments was performed at each visit, including quality of life measures.

From 1,146 patients initially screened, 261 patients were included.

A few patients withdrew; 131 patients underwent MIDP, and 127 underwent open surgery and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Of those, 129 and 125, respectively, were included in the follow-up analysis.

The results confirmed the noninferiority of MIDP, compared with open surgery, with a rate of R0 radical resection (defined as ≥ 1 mm distance between the tumor and the surgical margin) of 73% vs. 69% (P = .039).

In addition, the lymph node yield was comparable between the two approaches, at an average of 22 nodes for MIDP vs. 23 for open surgery (P = .89), and the time to functional recovery was identical, at 5 days for both (P = .22).

The rate of intraperitoneal recurrence was found to be 41% with MIDP, compared with 38% for patients who underwent open surgery.

Dr. Hilal also showed that the rate of serious adverse events, such as bleeding or organ damage, was similar between the two procedures, at 18% with minimally invasive surgery vs. 22% for the open procedure.

Turning to the survival curves, he noted that it is “very clear” that the two procedures achieved near-identical results, at a hazard ratio of 0.99 (P = .94) for overall survival and 0.97 (P = .88) for disease-free survival when comparing MIDP with open surgery.

The researchers will continue to follow up the patients for 3-5 years and will analyze the lymph nodes retrieved to determine whether removal of the spleen is necessary.

The study was funded by Medtronic and Ethicon. Dr. Hilal has relationships with Ethicon and Medtronic. Dr. Tseng has relationships with Aegerion, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cubist, Curadel Surgical Innovations, Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Intarcia Therapeutics, Merck, MyoKardia, PanTher Therapeutics, Pfizer, Quest Diagnostics, Sanofi, Vertex, and Zeus.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with resectable, early-stage pancreatic cancer can safely undergo minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) as an alternative to traditional open surgery, suggest results from the international DIPLOMA study.

In the trial, around 260 patients were randomly assigned to undergo either open surgery or minimally invasive laparoscopic or robot-assisted surgery. Rates of complete tumor removal were comparable between the groups.

In addition, the disease-free and overall survival rates at 3 years were nearly identical.

“For pancreatic cancer, we have proven for the first time that minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is as good as open surgery,” commented principal investigator Mohammad Abu Hilal, MD, PhD, surgical director at the Instituto Ospedaliero Fondazione Poliambulanza in Brescia, Italy.

“Our research provides reassurance for surgeons and can help patients by giving them the information they need to have a conversation with their doctor about how they want to be treated,” he added.

Dr. Hilal was speaking at a press briefing ahead of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the study will be presented (abstract 4163) on June 5.

The study was not able to show that there was a benefit in terms of shorter hospital stays or greater functional recovery with the minimally invasive approach, Dr. Hilal noted, but he suggested that this could be because of differences in postoperative procedures between the participating centers.

He said in an interview that minimally invasive surgery is becoming “very common all over the world,” particularly in the United States, and that randomized controlled trials are “always the last step” in convincing people to use the technique.

He also emphasized that the “best results are obtained in high-volume centers where surgeons do more than at least 50 pancreatic resections a year,” because the minimally invasive approach is “quite complex and difficult,” more so than open surgery.

“This confirmatory study proves that minimally invasive surgical techniques are a safe and effective option for resectable pancreatic cancer,” commented ASCO expert Jennifer F. Tseng, MD, chair of surgery at Boston University and surgeon-in-chief at the Boston Medical Center. It may also “provide benefits like faster recovery time and less infection risk, without increasing cancer risk.”

The results from this trial “will help both surgeons and patients feel comfortable that minimally invasive surgery, in expert hands, is not inferior to open surgery,” she commented in a statement.
 

Minimally invasive surgery

Only around 12% of patients with pancreatic cancer are diagnosed when the disease is at an early enough stage for surgical resection to be a possibility, Dr. Hilal noted. Minimally invasive pancreatectomy, particularly the distal procedure, was introduced around 25 years ago, but it was initially used only for benign tumors or borderline malignancies.

It took another 10 years before it was considered in cases of confirmed malignancies, “and the main reason for this delay was concerns about the oncological efficiency” of MIDP in terms of its ability to achieve radical resection and an adequate lymph node yield. At the same time, some concerns about minimally invasive surgery for cancer were raised because of results from randomized trials in other cancer types, such as hysterectomy for cervical cancer. Some studies showed worse survival after minimally invasive surgery than after open surgery.

In recent years, use of minimally invasive techniques for pancreatic cancer has become an increasingly “hot topic in many surgical forums,” Dr. Hilal said.

So his team set out to investigate the approach in a phase 3 noninferiority trial. The investigators focused on patients who had an indication for elective distal pancreatectomy plus splenectomy because of proven or highly suspected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in the pancreatic body or tail.

Patients from 35 centers in 12 countries were recruited between May 2018 and May 2021 and were randomly assigned to undergo either MIDP or open distal pancreatectomy.

Patients, nurses, and pathologists were blinded to the surgical procedure by covering of the abdominal wall.

None of the patients underwent adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Following the procedure, the patients were followed up at 2 weeks and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, and a CT scan was performed at 12 months. A range of assessments was performed at each visit, including quality of life measures.

From 1,146 patients initially screened, 261 patients were included.

A few patients withdrew; 131 patients underwent MIDP, and 127 underwent open surgery and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Of those, 129 and 125, respectively, were included in the follow-up analysis.

The results confirmed the noninferiority of MIDP, compared with open surgery, with a rate of R0 radical resection (defined as ≥ 1 mm distance between the tumor and the surgical margin) of 73% vs. 69% (P = .039).

In addition, the lymph node yield was comparable between the two approaches, at an average of 22 nodes for MIDP vs. 23 for open surgery (P = .89), and the time to functional recovery was identical, at 5 days for both (P = .22).

The rate of intraperitoneal recurrence was found to be 41% with MIDP, compared with 38% for patients who underwent open surgery.

Dr. Hilal also showed that the rate of serious adverse events, such as bleeding or organ damage, was similar between the two procedures, at 18% with minimally invasive surgery vs. 22% for the open procedure.

Turning to the survival curves, he noted that it is “very clear” that the two procedures achieved near-identical results, at a hazard ratio of 0.99 (P = .94) for overall survival and 0.97 (P = .88) for disease-free survival when comparing MIDP with open surgery.

The researchers will continue to follow up the patients for 3-5 years and will analyze the lymph nodes retrieved to determine whether removal of the spleen is necessary.

The study was funded by Medtronic and Ethicon. Dr. Hilal has relationships with Ethicon and Medtronic. Dr. Tseng has relationships with Aegerion, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cubist, Curadel Surgical Innovations, Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Intarcia Therapeutics, Merck, MyoKardia, PanTher Therapeutics, Pfizer, Quest Diagnostics, Sanofi, Vertex, and Zeus.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

French investigators are warning clinicians who treat patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) not to initiate treatment with sotorasib within 30 days of an immunotherapy infusion with an anti-programmed cell death–ligand-1 (anti–PD-L1) inhibitor because of the risk of increased toxicity.

Sotorasib is indicated for adults with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC who carry a KRASG12C mutation, which occurs in about 13% of cases.

Since its approval in 2021, sotorasib has emerged as “a new standard of care” for such patients after chemotherapy and anti–PD-L1 failure, the investigators say.

The new warning comes after the team compared 48 patients who received an anti–PD-L1 – most often pembrolizumab alone or in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy – before sotorasib with a control group of 54 patients who either didn’t receive an anti–PD-L1 before sotorasib or had at least one other treatment in between.

The team found that sequential anti–PD-L1 and sotorasib therapy significantly increased the risk of severe sotorasib-related hepatotoxicity and also the risk of non-liver adverse events, typically in patients who received sotorasib within 30 days of an anti–PD-L1.

“We suggest avoiding starting sotorasib within 30 days from the last anti–PD-(L)1 infusion,” say senior author Michaël Duruisseaux, MD, PhD, Louis Pradel Hospital, Bron, France, and collegues.

The findings should also “prompt a close monitoring for the development of hepatotoxicity and non-liver AEs [in] patients who receive sotorasib after anti–PD-(L)1,” they add.

The study was published in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology.
 

Actionable findings

“I consider the results to be highly credible and informative to my own practice,” said Jack West, MD, a thoracic medical oncologist at the City of Hope outside of Los Angeles, said in an interview.

The findings “may lead me to favor a trial of docetaxel as an intervening therapy for patients who have very recently discontinued immunotherapy, deferring sotorasib at least a few weeks and ideally several months,” Dr. West commented. “I think this is a particularly reasonable approach when we remember that sotorasib conferred no improvement in overall survival at all over docetaxel in the CodeBreaK 200 trial in KRASG12C-mutated NSCLC.”

Overall, the study “corroborates what we’ve seen in the limited first-line experience of sotorasib combined with immunotherapy and also echoes our experience of other targeted therapies, such as osimertinib administered in the weeks just after patients received immunotherapy, which is known to be associated with life-threatening pneumonitis,” he said.

Jared Weiss, MD, a thoracic medical oncologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, said that given the long half-life of immune checkpoint inhibitors, “it is quite understandable that the toxicity challenges we previously saw with concurrent administration of immunotherapy and certain targeted therapies would be recapitulated in patients who had a relatively short interval between prior checkpoint inhibitor therapy and sotorasib.”

Even so, because of the aggressiveness of NSCLC, long treatment delays between immunotherapy and sotorasib therapy are “not a favored option.”

Like Dr. West, Dr. Weiss said docetaxel (with or without ramucirumab) is a sound intervening alternative.

Another option is to use adagrasib in the second line instead of sotorasib, Dr. Weiss suggested. It’s also a KRASG12C inhibitor but hasn’t so far been associated with severe hepatotoxicity, he said.

Hossein Borghaei, DO, a thoracic medical oncologist at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, agrees with his colleagues and thinks that what the French team found “is real.”

As the investigators suggest, “it might be that sotorasib leads to an inflammatory microenvironment that causes hepatotoxicity in the presence of a checkpoint inhibitor. In that case,” a lower dose of sotorasib might help reduce toxicity while remaining effective, Dr. Broghaei suggested.
 

Study details

The French team was prompted to investigate the issue by a report of life-threatening hepatitis in a patient with NSCLC for whom sotorasib therapy was initiated 14 weeks after treatment with pembrolizumab, as well as by “the long story of adverse events ... observed with sequential use of [immune checkpoint inhibitors] and targeted therapy.”

Like Dr. Weiss, they note that severe hepatotoxicity after anti–PD-L1 therapy has not, to date, been reported for other KRASG12C inhibitors.

Patients in the study were treated outside of clinical trials at 16 medical centers in France.

Half of the patients (24/48) who were treated immediately with an anti–PD-L1 after sotorasib therapy developed grade 3 or higher sotorasib-related adverse events, including 16 (33%) with severe sotorasib-related hepatotoxicity. Severe diarrhea and fatigue were also more frequent with sequential therapy.

Severe events typically occurred within 30 days of the last anti–PD-L1 infusion and to a lesser extent within 31-60 days.

In the control arm, the rate of severe sotorasib-related adverse events was 13% (7/54). Six patients (11%) experienced severe hepatotoxicity. There was one sotorasib-related death in the sequential therapy arm, which was due to toxic epidermal necrosis. No deaths occurred in the control group.

The two groups were balanced with respect to history of daily alcohol consumption and the presence of liver metastasis. More patients in the control arm had a history of hepatobiliary disease.

The study received no outside funding. Many of the authors report ties with pharmaceutical companies, including to Amgen, the maker of sotorasib, and Mirati Therapeutics, the maker of adagrasib. Dr. Weiss was an adagrasib investigator for Mirati. Dr. West is a regular contribiutor to Medscape and is an adviser for Amgen and Mirati as well as a speaker for Amgen. Dr. Borghaei reported extensive company ties. He has received research support, travel funding, and consulting fees from Amgen as well as consulting fees from Mirati.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

French investigators are warning clinicians who treat patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) not to initiate treatment with sotorasib within 30 days of an immunotherapy infusion with an anti-programmed cell death–ligand-1 (anti–PD-L1) inhibitor because of the risk of increased toxicity.

Sotorasib is indicated for adults with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC who carry a KRASG12C mutation, which occurs in about 13% of cases.

Since its approval in 2021, sotorasib has emerged as “a new standard of care” for such patients after chemotherapy and anti–PD-L1 failure, the investigators say.

The new warning comes after the team compared 48 patients who received an anti–PD-L1 – most often pembrolizumab alone or in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy – before sotorasib with a control group of 54 patients who either didn’t receive an anti–PD-L1 before sotorasib or had at least one other treatment in between.

The team found that sequential anti–PD-L1 and sotorasib therapy significantly increased the risk of severe sotorasib-related hepatotoxicity and also the risk of non-liver adverse events, typically in patients who received sotorasib within 30 days of an anti–PD-L1.

“We suggest avoiding starting sotorasib within 30 days from the last anti–PD-(L)1 infusion,” say senior author Michaël Duruisseaux, MD, PhD, Louis Pradel Hospital, Bron, France, and collegues.

The findings should also “prompt a close monitoring for the development of hepatotoxicity and non-liver AEs [in] patients who receive sotorasib after anti–PD-(L)1,” they add.

The study was published in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology.
 

Actionable findings

“I consider the results to be highly credible and informative to my own practice,” said Jack West, MD, a thoracic medical oncologist at the City of Hope outside of Los Angeles, said in an interview.

The findings “may lead me to favor a trial of docetaxel as an intervening therapy for patients who have very recently discontinued immunotherapy, deferring sotorasib at least a few weeks and ideally several months,” Dr. West commented. “I think this is a particularly reasonable approach when we remember that sotorasib conferred no improvement in overall survival at all over docetaxel in the CodeBreaK 200 trial in KRASG12C-mutated NSCLC.”

Overall, the study “corroborates what we’ve seen in the limited first-line experience of sotorasib combined with immunotherapy and also echoes our experience of other targeted therapies, such as osimertinib administered in the weeks just after patients received immunotherapy, which is known to be associated with life-threatening pneumonitis,” he said.

Jared Weiss, MD, a thoracic medical oncologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, said that given the long half-life of immune checkpoint inhibitors, “it is quite understandable that the toxicity challenges we previously saw with concurrent administration of immunotherapy and certain targeted therapies would be recapitulated in patients who had a relatively short interval between prior checkpoint inhibitor therapy and sotorasib.”

Even so, because of the aggressiveness of NSCLC, long treatment delays between immunotherapy and sotorasib therapy are “not a favored option.”

Like Dr. West, Dr. Weiss said docetaxel (with or without ramucirumab) is a sound intervening alternative.

Another option is to use adagrasib in the second line instead of sotorasib, Dr. Weiss suggested. It’s also a KRASG12C inhibitor but hasn’t so far been associated with severe hepatotoxicity, he said.

Hossein Borghaei, DO, a thoracic medical oncologist at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, agrees with his colleagues and thinks that what the French team found “is real.”

As the investigators suggest, “it might be that sotorasib leads to an inflammatory microenvironment that causes hepatotoxicity in the presence of a checkpoint inhibitor. In that case,” a lower dose of sotorasib might help reduce toxicity while remaining effective, Dr. Broghaei suggested.
 

Study details

The French team was prompted to investigate the issue by a report of life-threatening hepatitis in a patient with NSCLC for whom sotorasib therapy was initiated 14 weeks after treatment with pembrolizumab, as well as by “the long story of adverse events ... observed with sequential use of [immune checkpoint inhibitors] and targeted therapy.”

Like Dr. Weiss, they note that severe hepatotoxicity after anti–PD-L1 therapy has not, to date, been reported for other KRASG12C inhibitors.

Patients in the study were treated outside of clinical trials at 16 medical centers in France.

Half of the patients (24/48) who were treated immediately with an anti–PD-L1 after sotorasib therapy developed grade 3 or higher sotorasib-related adverse events, including 16 (33%) with severe sotorasib-related hepatotoxicity. Severe diarrhea and fatigue were also more frequent with sequential therapy.

Severe events typically occurred within 30 days of the last anti–PD-L1 infusion and to a lesser extent within 31-60 days.

In the control arm, the rate of severe sotorasib-related adverse events was 13% (7/54). Six patients (11%) experienced severe hepatotoxicity. There was one sotorasib-related death in the sequential therapy arm, which was due to toxic epidermal necrosis. No deaths occurred in the control group.

The two groups were balanced with respect to history of daily alcohol consumption and the presence of liver metastasis. More patients in the control arm had a history of hepatobiliary disease.

The study received no outside funding. Many of the authors report ties with pharmaceutical companies, including to Amgen, the maker of sotorasib, and Mirati Therapeutics, the maker of adagrasib. Dr. Weiss was an adagrasib investigator for Mirati. Dr. West is a regular contribiutor to Medscape and is an adviser for Amgen and Mirati as well as a speaker for Amgen. Dr. Borghaei reported extensive company ties. He has received research support, travel funding, and consulting fees from Amgen as well as consulting fees from Mirati.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

French investigators are warning clinicians who treat patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) not to initiate treatment with sotorasib within 30 days of an immunotherapy infusion with an anti-programmed cell death–ligand-1 (anti–PD-L1) inhibitor because of the risk of increased toxicity.

Sotorasib is indicated for adults with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC who carry a KRASG12C mutation, which occurs in about 13% of cases.

Since its approval in 2021, sotorasib has emerged as “a new standard of care” for such patients after chemotherapy and anti–PD-L1 failure, the investigators say.

The new warning comes after the team compared 48 patients who received an anti–PD-L1 – most often pembrolizumab alone or in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy – before sotorasib with a control group of 54 patients who either didn’t receive an anti–PD-L1 before sotorasib or had at least one other treatment in between.

The team found that sequential anti–PD-L1 and sotorasib therapy significantly increased the risk of severe sotorasib-related hepatotoxicity and also the risk of non-liver adverse events, typically in patients who received sotorasib within 30 days of an anti–PD-L1.

“We suggest avoiding starting sotorasib within 30 days from the last anti–PD-(L)1 infusion,” say senior author Michaël Duruisseaux, MD, PhD, Louis Pradel Hospital, Bron, France, and collegues.

The findings should also “prompt a close monitoring for the development of hepatotoxicity and non-liver AEs [in] patients who receive sotorasib after anti–PD-(L)1,” they add.

The study was published in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology.
 

Actionable findings

“I consider the results to be highly credible and informative to my own practice,” said Jack West, MD, a thoracic medical oncologist at the City of Hope outside of Los Angeles, said in an interview.

The findings “may lead me to favor a trial of docetaxel as an intervening therapy for patients who have very recently discontinued immunotherapy, deferring sotorasib at least a few weeks and ideally several months,” Dr. West commented. “I think this is a particularly reasonable approach when we remember that sotorasib conferred no improvement in overall survival at all over docetaxel in the CodeBreaK 200 trial in KRASG12C-mutated NSCLC.”

Overall, the study “corroborates what we’ve seen in the limited first-line experience of sotorasib combined with immunotherapy and also echoes our experience of other targeted therapies, such as osimertinib administered in the weeks just after patients received immunotherapy, which is known to be associated with life-threatening pneumonitis,” he said.

Jared Weiss, MD, a thoracic medical oncologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, said that given the long half-life of immune checkpoint inhibitors, “it is quite understandable that the toxicity challenges we previously saw with concurrent administration of immunotherapy and certain targeted therapies would be recapitulated in patients who had a relatively short interval between prior checkpoint inhibitor therapy and sotorasib.”

Even so, because of the aggressiveness of NSCLC, long treatment delays between immunotherapy and sotorasib therapy are “not a favored option.”

Like Dr. West, Dr. Weiss said docetaxel (with or without ramucirumab) is a sound intervening alternative.

Another option is to use adagrasib in the second line instead of sotorasib, Dr. Weiss suggested. It’s also a KRASG12C inhibitor but hasn’t so far been associated with severe hepatotoxicity, he said.

Hossein Borghaei, DO, a thoracic medical oncologist at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, agrees with his colleagues and thinks that what the French team found “is real.”

As the investigators suggest, “it might be that sotorasib leads to an inflammatory microenvironment that causes hepatotoxicity in the presence of a checkpoint inhibitor. In that case,” a lower dose of sotorasib might help reduce toxicity while remaining effective, Dr. Broghaei suggested.
 

Study details

The French team was prompted to investigate the issue by a report of life-threatening hepatitis in a patient with NSCLC for whom sotorasib therapy was initiated 14 weeks after treatment with pembrolizumab, as well as by “the long story of adverse events ... observed with sequential use of [immune checkpoint inhibitors] and targeted therapy.”

Like Dr. Weiss, they note that severe hepatotoxicity after anti–PD-L1 therapy has not, to date, been reported for other KRASG12C inhibitors.

Patients in the study were treated outside of clinical trials at 16 medical centers in France.

Half of the patients (24/48) who were treated immediately with an anti–PD-L1 after sotorasib therapy developed grade 3 or higher sotorasib-related adverse events, including 16 (33%) with severe sotorasib-related hepatotoxicity. Severe diarrhea and fatigue were also more frequent with sequential therapy.

Severe events typically occurred within 30 days of the last anti–PD-L1 infusion and to a lesser extent within 31-60 days.

In the control arm, the rate of severe sotorasib-related adverse events was 13% (7/54). Six patients (11%) experienced severe hepatotoxicity. There was one sotorasib-related death in the sequential therapy arm, which was due to toxic epidermal necrosis. No deaths occurred in the control group.

The two groups were balanced with respect to history of daily alcohol consumption and the presence of liver metastasis. More patients in the control arm had a history of hepatobiliary disease.

The study received no outside funding. Many of the authors report ties with pharmaceutical companies, including to Amgen, the maker of sotorasib, and Mirati Therapeutics, the maker of adagrasib. Dr. Weiss was an adagrasib investigator for Mirati. Dr. West is a regular contribiutor to Medscape and is an adviser for Amgen and Mirati as well as a speaker for Amgen. Dr. Borghaei reported extensive company ties. He has received research support, travel funding, and consulting fees from Amgen as well as consulting fees from Mirati.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved flotufolastat fluorine-18 (Posluma), a radiopharmaceutical for use with PET in prostate cancer.

The product is approved for use in men with suspected metastasis who are candidates for definitive therapy and for men with suspected recurrence, as evidenced by elevations in serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, according to a press release from marketer Blue Earth Diagnostics.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Posluma binds prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA), which is usually overexpressed on prostate cancer cells, and tags the cells with fluorine-18 (F18), a positron emitter. Because of the radiolabeling, PET imaging can be used to gauge the extent of disease.

Posluma will be available in the United States in June 2023 from Blue Earth’s U.S. manufacturer and distributor, PETNET Solutions.

Blue Earth says that its new agent, which was known as 18F-rhPSMA-7.3 PET during trials, “is the first and only FDA-approved, PSMA-targeted imaging agent developed with proprietary radiohybrid technology.”

However, a similar product is currently on the U.S. market – the PSMA PET imaging radiopharmaceutical gallium-68 gozetotide (Illuccix, Locometz), which has the same two indications. Gozetotide is also indicated for metastatic prostate cancer amenable to lutetium Lu 177 vipivotide tetraxetan PSMA-directed therapy.
 

Approval based on two single-arm trials

Posluma’s approval was based on two single-arm trials from Blue Earth.

In the LIGHTHOUSE trial, 296 men underwent Posluma PET imaging before radical prostatectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection. About a quarter turned out to have positive nodes on pathology.

Posluma’s sensitivity for predicting positive nodes was low, ranging from 23% to 30% among three readers who were blinded to clinical information, but its specificity was high, ranging from 93% to 97%, according to the product labeling.

“The study showed that Posluma PET provided clinically valuable information prior to surgery that would likely result in management changes for these patients,” said investigator Brian Chapin, MD, a urologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, in the company press release.

The second trial, SPOTLIGHT, included 389 men suspected of experiencing recurrence on the basis of elevations in PSA.

Posluma PET’s ability to detect true recurrence was compared with use of histology or other imaging techniques, including CT, MRI, technetium-99m bone scan, and fluciclovine F18 PET. In regions deemed positive for recurrence on Posluma PET by three readers, 46%-60% were positive by the other techniques, the labeling says.

Overall, the “results demonstrated high detection rates ... even at low PSA levels,” Blue Earth said.

Adverse events were minimal in the trials. The most frequent were diarrhea (0.7%), increases in blood pressure (0.5%), and injection-site pain (0.4%).

The product labeling warns that Posluma PET contributes to patients’ overall long-term cumulative radiation exposure and that interpretation with respect to recurrence may differ among readers.

The labeling also cautions that “a negative image does not rule out the presence of prostate cancer and a positive image does not confirm the presence of prostate cancer. ... Uptake is not specific for prostate cancer and may occur in other types of cancer, in nonmalignant processes, and in normal tissues.”

In addition, it notes that androgen deprivation therapy “and other therapies targeting the androgen pathway, such as androgen receptor antagonists, may result in changes in uptake of flotufolastat F18 in prostate cancer.”

The labeling for gozetotide carries the same warnings and precautions.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved flotufolastat fluorine-18 (Posluma), a radiopharmaceutical for use with PET in prostate cancer.

The product is approved for use in men with suspected metastasis who are candidates for definitive therapy and for men with suspected recurrence, as evidenced by elevations in serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, according to a press release from marketer Blue Earth Diagnostics.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Posluma binds prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA), which is usually overexpressed on prostate cancer cells, and tags the cells with fluorine-18 (F18), a positron emitter. Because of the radiolabeling, PET imaging can be used to gauge the extent of disease.

Posluma will be available in the United States in June 2023 from Blue Earth’s U.S. manufacturer and distributor, PETNET Solutions.

Blue Earth says that its new agent, which was known as 18F-rhPSMA-7.3 PET during trials, “is the first and only FDA-approved, PSMA-targeted imaging agent developed with proprietary radiohybrid technology.”

However, a similar product is currently on the U.S. market – the PSMA PET imaging radiopharmaceutical gallium-68 gozetotide (Illuccix, Locometz), which has the same two indications. Gozetotide is also indicated for metastatic prostate cancer amenable to lutetium Lu 177 vipivotide tetraxetan PSMA-directed therapy.
 

Approval based on two single-arm trials

Posluma’s approval was based on two single-arm trials from Blue Earth.

In the LIGHTHOUSE trial, 296 men underwent Posluma PET imaging before radical prostatectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection. About a quarter turned out to have positive nodes on pathology.

Posluma’s sensitivity for predicting positive nodes was low, ranging from 23% to 30% among three readers who were blinded to clinical information, but its specificity was high, ranging from 93% to 97%, according to the product labeling.

“The study showed that Posluma PET provided clinically valuable information prior to surgery that would likely result in management changes for these patients,” said investigator Brian Chapin, MD, a urologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, in the company press release.

The second trial, SPOTLIGHT, included 389 men suspected of experiencing recurrence on the basis of elevations in PSA.

Posluma PET’s ability to detect true recurrence was compared with use of histology or other imaging techniques, including CT, MRI, technetium-99m bone scan, and fluciclovine F18 PET. In regions deemed positive for recurrence on Posluma PET by three readers, 46%-60% were positive by the other techniques, the labeling says.

Overall, the “results demonstrated high detection rates ... even at low PSA levels,” Blue Earth said.

Adverse events were minimal in the trials. The most frequent were diarrhea (0.7%), increases in blood pressure (0.5%), and injection-site pain (0.4%).

The product labeling warns that Posluma PET contributes to patients’ overall long-term cumulative radiation exposure and that interpretation with respect to recurrence may differ among readers.

The labeling also cautions that “a negative image does not rule out the presence of prostate cancer and a positive image does not confirm the presence of prostate cancer. ... Uptake is not specific for prostate cancer and may occur in other types of cancer, in nonmalignant processes, and in normal tissues.”

In addition, it notes that androgen deprivation therapy “and other therapies targeting the androgen pathway, such as androgen receptor antagonists, may result in changes in uptake of flotufolastat F18 in prostate cancer.”

The labeling for gozetotide carries the same warnings and precautions.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved flotufolastat fluorine-18 (Posluma), a radiopharmaceutical for use with PET in prostate cancer.

The product is approved for use in men with suspected metastasis who are candidates for definitive therapy and for men with suspected recurrence, as evidenced by elevations in serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, according to a press release from marketer Blue Earth Diagnostics.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Posluma binds prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA), which is usually overexpressed on prostate cancer cells, and tags the cells with fluorine-18 (F18), a positron emitter. Because of the radiolabeling, PET imaging can be used to gauge the extent of disease.

Posluma will be available in the United States in June 2023 from Blue Earth’s U.S. manufacturer and distributor, PETNET Solutions.

Blue Earth says that its new agent, which was known as 18F-rhPSMA-7.3 PET during trials, “is the first and only FDA-approved, PSMA-targeted imaging agent developed with proprietary radiohybrid technology.”

However, a similar product is currently on the U.S. market – the PSMA PET imaging radiopharmaceutical gallium-68 gozetotide (Illuccix, Locometz), which has the same two indications. Gozetotide is also indicated for metastatic prostate cancer amenable to lutetium Lu 177 vipivotide tetraxetan PSMA-directed therapy.
 

Approval based on two single-arm trials

Posluma’s approval was based on two single-arm trials from Blue Earth.

In the LIGHTHOUSE trial, 296 men underwent Posluma PET imaging before radical prostatectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection. About a quarter turned out to have positive nodes on pathology.

Posluma’s sensitivity for predicting positive nodes was low, ranging from 23% to 30% among three readers who were blinded to clinical information, but its specificity was high, ranging from 93% to 97%, according to the product labeling.

“The study showed that Posluma PET provided clinically valuable information prior to surgery that would likely result in management changes for these patients,” said investigator Brian Chapin, MD, a urologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, in the company press release.

The second trial, SPOTLIGHT, included 389 men suspected of experiencing recurrence on the basis of elevations in PSA.

Posluma PET’s ability to detect true recurrence was compared with use of histology or other imaging techniques, including CT, MRI, technetium-99m bone scan, and fluciclovine F18 PET. In regions deemed positive for recurrence on Posluma PET by three readers, 46%-60% were positive by the other techniques, the labeling says.

Overall, the “results demonstrated high detection rates ... even at low PSA levels,” Blue Earth said.

Adverse events were minimal in the trials. The most frequent were diarrhea (0.7%), increases in blood pressure (0.5%), and injection-site pain (0.4%).

The product labeling warns that Posluma PET contributes to patients’ overall long-term cumulative radiation exposure and that interpretation with respect to recurrence may differ among readers.

The labeling also cautions that “a negative image does not rule out the presence of prostate cancer and a positive image does not confirm the presence of prostate cancer. ... Uptake is not specific for prostate cancer and may occur in other types of cancer, in nonmalignant processes, and in normal tissues.”

In addition, it notes that androgen deprivation therapy “and other therapies targeting the androgen pathway, such as androgen receptor antagonists, may result in changes in uptake of flotufolastat F18 in prostate cancer.”

The labeling for gozetotide carries the same warnings and precautions.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Regular exercise may boost pain tolerance – a new finding that may have implications for those experiencing chronic pain, new research suggests.

In a large observational study of more than 10,000 adults, researchers found those who consistently engage in moderate to vigorous physical activity over the 7- to 8-year study period reported the highest pain tolerance. However, the results also showed that even light exercise was associated with greater pain tolerance.

“There were indications that both total amount of physical activity over time, as well as the direction of change in activity level over time matters to how high your pain tolerance is,” lead investigator Anders Pedersen Årnes, PT, MPH, research fellow and adviser at the University Hospital of North Norway, affiliated with the University of Tromsø, said in an interview. “As an observational study, this points toward the possibility that increased physical activity might increase pain tolerance.”

The findings were published online in PLOS One.
 

Anything is better than nothing

The researchers drew from the prospective, population-based Tromsø health study, a health survey that draws on surveys conducted periodically since 1974 among residents in northern Norway.

The study included 10,732 participants who completed surveys in 2007-2008 and again in 2015-2016.

Data on physical activity, experimental pain tolerance, sex, sociodemographic covariates, and chronic pain was collected through questionnaires, biological samples and clinical examination.

Pain tolerance was measured using the cold-pressor test (CPT), in which participants submerge their hand in icy water for as long as possible.

CPT tolerance was 7%, 14%, and 16% higher respectively for light, moderate, and vigorous consistent exercise across the two surveys versus the sedentary group.

“Engaging in habitual physical activity in leisure time is associated with higher pain tolerance,” Mr. Årnes said. “Any kind of activity over time is better than being sedentary.”

The researchers also found that people who were sedentary at baseline who reported greater physical activity at follow-up also had higher pain tolerance than those who remained sedentary, although this finding was not statistically significant.

This highest pain tolerance was noted in people who engaged in moderate to vigorous exercise over time, with a 20.4-second longer performance in the CPT than those who were consistently sedentary (P < .001; 95% confidence interval, 13.7-27.1).

There was no significant difference in pain tolerance between men and women and all participants experienced a decline in tolerance over time.

“Results indicate that a positive change in physical activity level over time was associated with higher pain tolerance,” Mr. Årnes said. “Your total activity level might decide how much, as more seems to be better.”
 

More work needed

The long follow-up and large number of patients are two strengths of the study, Steven Cohen, MD, chief of pain medicine and professor of anesthesiology, neurology, physical medicine & rehabilitation and psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

“This study explored the relationship between general physical activity levels and one form of acute pain, but data from other studies show a benefit for other forms of pain,” said Dr. Cohen, who was not part of the research. “Taken together, this suggests that exercise is beneficial for individuals living with pain.”

The findings demonstrate an association between exercise and pain tolerance and other research has shown evidence of a cause-and-effect relationship, Dr. Cohen said. However, “more work is needed to determine what mediates these effects.”

Questions also remain about how exercise might impact tolerance or risk for chronic pain, he added.

Investigators are now working on a follow-up study of how the effect of exercise on pain tolerance might influence chronic pain risk, Mr. Årnes said.

The study received no specific funding. Mr. Årnes and Dr. Cohen reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Regular exercise may boost pain tolerance – a new finding that may have implications for those experiencing chronic pain, new research suggests.

In a large observational study of more than 10,000 adults, researchers found those who consistently engage in moderate to vigorous physical activity over the 7- to 8-year study period reported the highest pain tolerance. However, the results also showed that even light exercise was associated with greater pain tolerance.

“There were indications that both total amount of physical activity over time, as well as the direction of change in activity level over time matters to how high your pain tolerance is,” lead investigator Anders Pedersen Årnes, PT, MPH, research fellow and adviser at the University Hospital of North Norway, affiliated with the University of Tromsø, said in an interview. “As an observational study, this points toward the possibility that increased physical activity might increase pain tolerance.”

The findings were published online in PLOS One.
 

Anything is better than nothing

The researchers drew from the prospective, population-based Tromsø health study, a health survey that draws on surveys conducted periodically since 1974 among residents in northern Norway.

The study included 10,732 participants who completed surveys in 2007-2008 and again in 2015-2016.

Data on physical activity, experimental pain tolerance, sex, sociodemographic covariates, and chronic pain was collected through questionnaires, biological samples and clinical examination.

Pain tolerance was measured using the cold-pressor test (CPT), in which participants submerge their hand in icy water for as long as possible.

CPT tolerance was 7%, 14%, and 16% higher respectively for light, moderate, and vigorous consistent exercise across the two surveys versus the sedentary group.

“Engaging in habitual physical activity in leisure time is associated with higher pain tolerance,” Mr. Årnes said. “Any kind of activity over time is better than being sedentary.”

The researchers also found that people who were sedentary at baseline who reported greater physical activity at follow-up also had higher pain tolerance than those who remained sedentary, although this finding was not statistically significant.

This highest pain tolerance was noted in people who engaged in moderate to vigorous exercise over time, with a 20.4-second longer performance in the CPT than those who were consistently sedentary (P < .001; 95% confidence interval, 13.7-27.1).

There was no significant difference in pain tolerance between men and women and all participants experienced a decline in tolerance over time.

“Results indicate that a positive change in physical activity level over time was associated with higher pain tolerance,” Mr. Årnes said. “Your total activity level might decide how much, as more seems to be better.”
 

More work needed

The long follow-up and large number of patients are two strengths of the study, Steven Cohen, MD, chief of pain medicine and professor of anesthesiology, neurology, physical medicine & rehabilitation and psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

“This study explored the relationship between general physical activity levels and one form of acute pain, but data from other studies show a benefit for other forms of pain,” said Dr. Cohen, who was not part of the research. “Taken together, this suggests that exercise is beneficial for individuals living with pain.”

The findings demonstrate an association between exercise and pain tolerance and other research has shown evidence of a cause-and-effect relationship, Dr. Cohen said. However, “more work is needed to determine what mediates these effects.”

Questions also remain about how exercise might impact tolerance or risk for chronic pain, he added.

Investigators are now working on a follow-up study of how the effect of exercise on pain tolerance might influence chronic pain risk, Mr. Årnes said.

The study received no specific funding. Mr. Årnes and Dr. Cohen reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Regular exercise may boost pain tolerance – a new finding that may have implications for those experiencing chronic pain, new research suggests.

In a large observational study of more than 10,000 adults, researchers found those who consistently engage in moderate to vigorous physical activity over the 7- to 8-year study period reported the highest pain tolerance. However, the results also showed that even light exercise was associated with greater pain tolerance.

“There were indications that both total amount of physical activity over time, as well as the direction of change in activity level over time matters to how high your pain tolerance is,” lead investigator Anders Pedersen Årnes, PT, MPH, research fellow and adviser at the University Hospital of North Norway, affiliated with the University of Tromsø, said in an interview. “As an observational study, this points toward the possibility that increased physical activity might increase pain tolerance.”

The findings were published online in PLOS One.
 

Anything is better than nothing

The researchers drew from the prospective, population-based Tromsø health study, a health survey that draws on surveys conducted periodically since 1974 among residents in northern Norway.

The study included 10,732 participants who completed surveys in 2007-2008 and again in 2015-2016.

Data on physical activity, experimental pain tolerance, sex, sociodemographic covariates, and chronic pain was collected through questionnaires, biological samples and clinical examination.

Pain tolerance was measured using the cold-pressor test (CPT), in which participants submerge their hand in icy water for as long as possible.

CPT tolerance was 7%, 14%, and 16% higher respectively for light, moderate, and vigorous consistent exercise across the two surveys versus the sedentary group.

“Engaging in habitual physical activity in leisure time is associated with higher pain tolerance,” Mr. Årnes said. “Any kind of activity over time is better than being sedentary.”

The researchers also found that people who were sedentary at baseline who reported greater physical activity at follow-up also had higher pain tolerance than those who remained sedentary, although this finding was not statistically significant.

This highest pain tolerance was noted in people who engaged in moderate to vigorous exercise over time, with a 20.4-second longer performance in the CPT than those who were consistently sedentary (P < .001; 95% confidence interval, 13.7-27.1).

There was no significant difference in pain tolerance between men and women and all participants experienced a decline in tolerance over time.

“Results indicate that a positive change in physical activity level over time was associated with higher pain tolerance,” Mr. Årnes said. “Your total activity level might decide how much, as more seems to be better.”
 

More work needed

The long follow-up and large number of patients are two strengths of the study, Steven Cohen, MD, chief of pain medicine and professor of anesthesiology, neurology, physical medicine & rehabilitation and psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

“This study explored the relationship between general physical activity levels and one form of acute pain, but data from other studies show a benefit for other forms of pain,” said Dr. Cohen, who was not part of the research. “Taken together, this suggests that exercise is beneficial for individuals living with pain.”

The findings demonstrate an association between exercise and pain tolerance and other research has shown evidence of a cause-and-effect relationship, Dr. Cohen said. However, “more work is needed to determine what mediates these effects.”

Questions also remain about how exercise might impact tolerance or risk for chronic pain, he added.

Investigators are now working on a follow-up study of how the effect of exercise on pain tolerance might influence chronic pain risk, Mr. Årnes said.

The study received no specific funding. Mr. Årnes and Dr. Cohen reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

More children are getting surgical procedures to lose weight, according to a report published in JAMA Pediatrics.

Metabolic and bariatric surgeries have been on the rise among youths aged 10 to 19 since 2016, the report says. From 2020 to 2021, the number shot up by 19%.

The procedures change parts of the digestive system, helping the person feel more full and less hungry – thereby contributing to weight loss.

Among American children, obesity affects 20%, or 15 million people between 2 and 19. In addition, more are becoming afflicted with severe obesity, with a body mass index 20% higher than the marker for obesity.

“Behavioral lifestyle interventions alone do not result in long-term, clinically important weight loss among youth with severe obesity,” the study’s authors wrote. “Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is a safe and effective treatment.”

The American Academy of Pediatrics updated its guidelines for the treatment of obesity this year for the first time in 15 years, CNN reported. “The new guidelines urge prompt use of behavior therapy and lifestyle changes and, for the first time, recommend surgery and medications for some young people,” CNN wrote.

Black and Hispanic children have higher rates of childhood obesity, the CDC says. Use of surgeries rose 42% among Black youths and 53% among Hispanic youths between 2020 and 2021.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

More children are getting surgical procedures to lose weight, according to a report published in JAMA Pediatrics.

Metabolic and bariatric surgeries have been on the rise among youths aged 10 to 19 since 2016, the report says. From 2020 to 2021, the number shot up by 19%.

The procedures change parts of the digestive system, helping the person feel more full and less hungry – thereby contributing to weight loss.

Among American children, obesity affects 20%, or 15 million people between 2 and 19. In addition, more are becoming afflicted with severe obesity, with a body mass index 20% higher than the marker for obesity.

“Behavioral lifestyle interventions alone do not result in long-term, clinically important weight loss among youth with severe obesity,” the study’s authors wrote. “Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is a safe and effective treatment.”

The American Academy of Pediatrics updated its guidelines for the treatment of obesity this year for the first time in 15 years, CNN reported. “The new guidelines urge prompt use of behavior therapy and lifestyle changes and, for the first time, recommend surgery and medications for some young people,” CNN wrote.

Black and Hispanic children have higher rates of childhood obesity, the CDC says. Use of surgeries rose 42% among Black youths and 53% among Hispanic youths between 2020 and 2021.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

More children are getting surgical procedures to lose weight, according to a report published in JAMA Pediatrics.

Metabolic and bariatric surgeries have been on the rise among youths aged 10 to 19 since 2016, the report says. From 2020 to 2021, the number shot up by 19%.

The procedures change parts of the digestive system, helping the person feel more full and less hungry – thereby contributing to weight loss.

Among American children, obesity affects 20%, or 15 million people between 2 and 19. In addition, more are becoming afflicted with severe obesity, with a body mass index 20% higher than the marker for obesity.

“Behavioral lifestyle interventions alone do not result in long-term, clinically important weight loss among youth with severe obesity,” the study’s authors wrote. “Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is a safe and effective treatment.”

The American Academy of Pediatrics updated its guidelines for the treatment of obesity this year for the first time in 15 years, CNN reported. “The new guidelines urge prompt use of behavior therapy and lifestyle changes and, for the first time, recommend surgery and medications for some young people,” CNN wrote.

Black and Hispanic children have higher rates of childhood obesity, the CDC says. Use of surgeries rose 42% among Black youths and 53% among Hispanic youths between 2020 and 2021.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

An experimental, proprietary cannabinoid-based drug in development for diabetic neuropathy outperformed pregabalin (Lyrica) in a clinical trial, achieving significant reduction in pain severity, new top-line results released by Zelira Therapeutics suggest.

“The implications of these results for patients are incredibly promising,” principal investigator Bryan Doner, DO, medical director of HealthyWays Integrated Wellness Solutions, Gibsonia, Pa., said in a news release.

“Through this rigorously designed study, we have demonstrated that ZLT-L-007 is a safe, effective, and well-tolerated alternative for patients who would typically seek a Lyrica-level of pain relief,” he added.

The observational, nonblinded trial tested the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of ZLT-L-007 against pregabalin in 60 adults with diabetic nerve pain.

The study had three groups with 20 patients each (pregabalin alone, pregabalin plus ZLT-L-007, and ZLT-L-007 alone).

Top-line results show the study met its primary endpoint for change in daily pain severity as measured by the percent change from baseline at 30, 60, and 90 days on the Numerical Rating Scale.

For the pregabalin-only group, there was a reduction in symptom severity at all follow-up points, ranging from 20% to 35% (median percent change from baseline), the company said.

For the ZLT-L-007 only group, there was about a 33% reduction in symptom severity at 30 days, and 71% and 78% reduction, respectively, at 60 and 90 days, suggesting a larger improvement in symptom severity than with pregabalin alone, the company said.

For the pregabalin plus ZLT-L-007 group, there was a moderate 20% reduction in symptom severity at 30 days, but a larger reduction at 60 and 90 days (50% and 72%, respectively), which indicates substantially greater improvement in symptom severity than with pregabalin alone, the company said.

The study also met secondary endpoints, including significant decreases in daily pain severity as measured by the Visual Analog Scale and measurable changes in the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire and Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory.

Dr. Doner noted that the top-line data showed “no serious adverse events, and participants’ blood pressure and other safety vitals remained unaffected throughout. This confirms that ZLT-L-007 is a well-tolerated product that delivers statistically significant pain relief, surpassing the levels achieved by Lyrica.”

The company plans to report additional insights from the full study, as they become available, during fiscal year 2023-2024.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An experimental, proprietary cannabinoid-based drug in development for diabetic neuropathy outperformed pregabalin (Lyrica) in a clinical trial, achieving significant reduction in pain severity, new top-line results released by Zelira Therapeutics suggest.

“The implications of these results for patients are incredibly promising,” principal investigator Bryan Doner, DO, medical director of HealthyWays Integrated Wellness Solutions, Gibsonia, Pa., said in a news release.

“Through this rigorously designed study, we have demonstrated that ZLT-L-007 is a safe, effective, and well-tolerated alternative for patients who would typically seek a Lyrica-level of pain relief,” he added.

The observational, nonblinded trial tested the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of ZLT-L-007 against pregabalin in 60 adults with diabetic nerve pain.

The study had three groups with 20 patients each (pregabalin alone, pregabalin plus ZLT-L-007, and ZLT-L-007 alone).

Top-line results show the study met its primary endpoint for change in daily pain severity as measured by the percent change from baseline at 30, 60, and 90 days on the Numerical Rating Scale.

For the pregabalin-only group, there was a reduction in symptom severity at all follow-up points, ranging from 20% to 35% (median percent change from baseline), the company said.

For the ZLT-L-007 only group, there was about a 33% reduction in symptom severity at 30 days, and 71% and 78% reduction, respectively, at 60 and 90 days, suggesting a larger improvement in symptom severity than with pregabalin alone, the company said.

For the pregabalin plus ZLT-L-007 group, there was a moderate 20% reduction in symptom severity at 30 days, but a larger reduction at 60 and 90 days (50% and 72%, respectively), which indicates substantially greater improvement in symptom severity than with pregabalin alone, the company said.

The study also met secondary endpoints, including significant decreases in daily pain severity as measured by the Visual Analog Scale and measurable changes in the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire and Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory.

Dr. Doner noted that the top-line data showed “no serious adverse events, and participants’ blood pressure and other safety vitals remained unaffected throughout. This confirms that ZLT-L-007 is a well-tolerated product that delivers statistically significant pain relief, surpassing the levels achieved by Lyrica.”

The company plans to report additional insights from the full study, as they become available, during fiscal year 2023-2024.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An experimental, proprietary cannabinoid-based drug in development for diabetic neuropathy outperformed pregabalin (Lyrica) in a clinical trial, achieving significant reduction in pain severity, new top-line results released by Zelira Therapeutics suggest.

“The implications of these results for patients are incredibly promising,” principal investigator Bryan Doner, DO, medical director of HealthyWays Integrated Wellness Solutions, Gibsonia, Pa., said in a news release.

“Through this rigorously designed study, we have demonstrated that ZLT-L-007 is a safe, effective, and well-tolerated alternative for patients who would typically seek a Lyrica-level of pain relief,” he added.

The observational, nonblinded trial tested the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of ZLT-L-007 against pregabalin in 60 adults with diabetic nerve pain.

The study had three groups with 20 patients each (pregabalin alone, pregabalin plus ZLT-L-007, and ZLT-L-007 alone).

Top-line results show the study met its primary endpoint for change in daily pain severity as measured by the percent change from baseline at 30, 60, and 90 days on the Numerical Rating Scale.

For the pregabalin-only group, there was a reduction in symptom severity at all follow-up points, ranging from 20% to 35% (median percent change from baseline), the company said.

For the ZLT-L-007 only group, there was about a 33% reduction in symptom severity at 30 days, and 71% and 78% reduction, respectively, at 60 and 90 days, suggesting a larger improvement in symptom severity than with pregabalin alone, the company said.

For the pregabalin plus ZLT-L-007 group, there was a moderate 20% reduction in symptom severity at 30 days, but a larger reduction at 60 and 90 days (50% and 72%, respectively), which indicates substantially greater improvement in symptom severity than with pregabalin alone, the company said.

The study also met secondary endpoints, including significant decreases in daily pain severity as measured by the Visual Analog Scale and measurable changes in the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire and Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory.

Dr. Doner noted that the top-line data showed “no serious adverse events, and participants’ blood pressure and other safety vitals remained unaffected throughout. This confirms that ZLT-L-007 is a well-tolerated product that delivers statistically significant pain relief, surpassing the levels achieved by Lyrica.”

The company plans to report additional insights from the full study, as they become available, during fiscal year 2023-2024.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.