Outcomes Research in Review

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate whether the combination of encorafenib plus cetuximab with or without the MEK inhibitor binimetinib would lead to longer overall survival (OS) than standard therapy in patients with metastatic BRAF V600E–mutated colorectal cancer.

Design. Global, multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial.

Intervention. Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 fashion to 1 of 3 groups: triplet-therapy group (encorafenib 300 mg daily, binimetinib 45 mg twice daily, and cetuximab 400 mg/m² of body surface area initially, then 250 mg/m² weekly), doublet-therapy group (encorafenib and cetuximab in same doses and schedule as the triplet-therapy group), and control group (investigators choice of cetuximab and irinotecan or cetuximab and FOLFIRI). The randomization was stratified by performance status and prior irinotecan use. Treatment was given until progression or unacceptable toxicities on a 28-day cycle. No crossover was permitted.

Setting and participants. 665 patients underwent randomization: 224 patients to triplet-therapy, 220 to doublet-therapy, and 221 to the control group. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed metastatic colorectal cancer with a BRAF V600E mutation. Patients all had disease progression after 1 or 2 previous lines of therapy.

Main outcome measures. The primary end point of the study was OS and objective response rate (ORR) in the triplet-therapy group compared with the control group. Secondary endpoints included OS in the doublet-therapy group compared with the control group, as well as progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response (DOR), and safety. Assessments were performed every 6 weeks for the first 24 weeks and then every 12 weeks thereafter.

Results. The baseline characteristics were well balanced between the treatment arms. At the time of data cutoff, the median duration of follow-up was 7.8 months for each group. The median OS was 9 months in the triplet-therapy group and 5.4 months in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] for death, 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-0.70; P < 0.001). The median OS was 8.4 months for the doublet-therapy group, resulting in a significant reduction in the risk of death compared with the control group (HR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.45-0.79; P < 0.001). The estimated 6-month survival was 71% for the triplet-therapy group, 65% for the doublet-therapy group, and 47% for the control group. The triplet-therapy group had a higher ORR compared with the control group (26% versus 2%, P < 0.001). The ORR in the doublet-therapy group was also significantly higher than that in the control group (20% versus 2%, P < 0.001). Complete responses were seen in 4% of patients in the triplet-therapy group, 5% of the doublet-therapy group, and no patients in the control group. PFS was significantly longer in both the triplet-therapy and doublet-therapy groups compared with the control group (median PFS: 4.3 months, 4.2 months, 1.5 months, respectively). This translated into a 62% and 60% reduction in the risk for disease progression or death in the triplet-therapy and doublet-therapy groups, respectively, compared to the control group.

The most common adverse event reported in the triplet-therapy group was gastrointestinal (GI) related (diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting), with grade 3 or higher GI toxicity seen in 10% of patients. Skin toxicity in the form of acneiform dermatitis was seen in almost 50% of those in the triplet-therapy arm; however, grade 3 or higher skin toxicity was uncommon (2%). Overall, adverse events grade 3 or higher were observed in 58% of those in the triplet-therapy group, 50% in the doublet-therapy group, and 61% in the control group. Adverse events leading to drug discontinuation occurred in 7% in the triplet-therapy group, 8% in the doublet-therapy group, and 11% in the control group. Three deaths were considered treatment related: 1 in the triplet-therapy group (bowel perforation) and 2 in the control group (anaphylaxis and respiratory failure).

Conclusion. The triplet-combination of encorafenib, binimetinib, and cetuximab as well as the doublet-regimen of encorafenib and cetuximab improved both PFS and OS in patients with metastatic, BRAF V600E–mutated colorectal cancer that has progressed after 1 or 2 lines of therapy.

Commentary

The current interim analysis of the BEACON CRC trial demonstrates improved response rates, PFS, and, importantly, OS with the triplet regimen of encorafenib, binimetinib, and cetuximab in patients with metastatic BRAF V600E–mutated colorectal cancer compared to standard irinotecan-based therapy. Similarly, a doublet-regimen of encorafenib and cetuximab also improved outcomes compared with irinotecan-based chemotherapy, resulting in significantly higher response rates, PFS, and OS.

BRAF mutations are seen in approximately 5% to 15% of colorectal cancers and are more commonly seen in right-sided disease. BRAF-mutated colorectal cancer has a poor prognosis, and the presence of a BRAF mutation is an independent prognostic factor for decreased survival.¹ Previous work to improve outcomes in this subset of patients has been largely disappointing. For example, Kopetz and colleagues have previously shown that single-agent BRAF inhibition with vemurafenib in metastatic BRAF-mutated colorectal cancer did not show meaningful clinical activity.² Preclinical studies have suggested that single-agent BRAF or MEK inhibition alone do not lead to sustained MAPK pathway inhibition. Mechanistically, inhibition of BRAF has been shown to lead to feedback activation of EGFR; thus, inhibition of BRAF alone does not lead to cessation of proliferation.³ In light of this, the combination of EGFR and BRAF inhibition has been an attractive therapeutic strategy. Yaeger and colleagues enrolled 15 patients in a pilot study looking at the efficacy and safety of the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib and the EGFR antibody panitumumab in patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer. In this cohort, combined BRAF and EGFR inhibition showed tumor regression in 10 of 12 patients.⁴ This finding was validated in other subsequent studies.⁵

The current study is the first phase 3 trial to validate the efficacy of BRAF, MEK, and EGFR inhibition in patients with BRAF-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer. The results of this study represent a very important step forward in treating this patient cohort that has historically had very poor clinical outcomes. The combination of encorafenib, binimetinib, and cetuximab improved OS by 48% compared with standard irinotecan-based chemotherapy. In light of this, we now have a chemotherapy-free targeted combination that improves survival and likely represents the new standard of care in patients with BRAF-mutated colorectal cancer after progression on 1 or 2 prior lines of therapy. Ongoing trials are being pursued to investigate the efficacy of these combinations in the upfront setting, and the results of these trials are eagerly awaited.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The combination of encorafenib, binimetinib, and cetuximab improved OS in patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer after progression on 1 or 2 prior lines of therapy. This combination represents a potential new standard of care in this patient population.

–Daniel Isaac, DO, MS

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate whether the combination of encorafenib plus cetuximab with or without the MEK inhibitor binimetinib would lead to longer overall survival (OS) than standard therapy in patients with metastatic BRAF V600E–mutated colorectal cancer.

Design. Global, multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial.

Intervention. Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 fashion to 1 of 3 groups: triplet-therapy group (encorafenib 300 mg daily, binimetinib 45 mg twice daily, and cetuximab 400 mg/m² of body surface area initially, then 250 mg/m² weekly), doublet-therapy group (encorafenib and cetuximab in same doses and schedule as the triplet-therapy group), and control group (investigators choice of cetuximab and irinotecan or cetuximab and FOLFIRI). The randomization was stratified by performance status and prior irinotecan use. Treatment was given until progression or unacceptable toxicities on a 28-day cycle. No crossover was permitted.

Setting and participants. 665 patients underwent randomization: 224 patients to triplet-therapy, 220 to doublet-therapy, and 221 to the control group. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed metastatic colorectal cancer with a BRAF V600E mutation. Patients all had disease progression after 1 or 2 previous lines of therapy.

Main outcome measures. The primary end point of the study was OS and objective response rate (ORR) in the triplet-therapy group compared with the control group. Secondary endpoints included OS in the doublet-therapy group compared with the control group, as well as progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response (DOR), and safety. Assessments were performed every 6 weeks for the first 24 weeks and then every 12 weeks thereafter.

Results. The baseline characteristics were well balanced between the treatment arms. At the time of data cutoff, the median duration of follow-up was 7.8 months for each group. The median OS was 9 months in the triplet-therapy group and 5.4 months in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] for death, 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-0.70; P < 0.001). The median OS was 8.4 months for the doublet-therapy group, resulting in a significant reduction in the risk of death compared with the control group (HR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.45-0.79; P < 0.001). The estimated 6-month survival was 71% for the triplet-therapy group, 65% for the doublet-therapy group, and 47% for the control group. The triplet-therapy group had a higher ORR compared with the control group (26% versus 2%, P < 0.001). The ORR in the doublet-therapy group was also significantly higher than that in the control group (20% versus 2%, P < 0.001). Complete responses were seen in 4% of patients in the triplet-therapy group, 5% of the doublet-therapy group, and no patients in the control group. PFS was significantly longer in both the triplet-therapy and doublet-therapy groups compared with the control group (median PFS: 4.3 months, 4.2 months, 1.5 months, respectively). This translated into a 62% and 60% reduction in the risk for disease progression or death in the triplet-therapy and doublet-therapy groups, respectively, compared to the control group.

The most common adverse event reported in the triplet-therapy group was gastrointestinal (GI) related (diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting), with grade 3 or higher GI toxicity seen in 10% of patients. Skin toxicity in the form of acneiform dermatitis was seen in almost 50% of those in the triplet-therapy arm; however, grade 3 or higher skin toxicity was uncommon (2%). Overall, adverse events grade 3 or higher were observed in 58% of those in the triplet-therapy group, 50% in the doublet-therapy group, and 61% in the control group. Adverse events leading to drug discontinuation occurred in 7% in the triplet-therapy group, 8% in the doublet-therapy group, and 11% in the control group. Three deaths were considered treatment related: 1 in the triplet-therapy group (bowel perforation) and 2 in the control group (anaphylaxis and respiratory failure).

Conclusion. The triplet-combination of encorafenib, binimetinib, and cetuximab as well as the doublet-regimen of encorafenib and cetuximab improved both PFS and OS in patients with metastatic, BRAF V600E–mutated colorectal cancer that has progressed after 1 or 2 lines of therapy.

Commentary

The current interim analysis of the BEACON CRC trial demonstrates improved response rates, PFS, and, importantly, OS with the triplet regimen of encorafenib, binimetinib, and cetuximab in patients with metastatic BRAF V600E–mutated colorectal cancer compared to standard irinotecan-based therapy. Similarly, a doublet-regimen of encorafenib and cetuximab also improved outcomes compared with irinotecan-based chemotherapy, resulting in significantly higher response rates, PFS, and OS.

BRAF mutations are seen in approximately 5% to 15% of colorectal cancers and are more commonly seen in right-sided disease. BRAF-mutated colorectal cancer has a poor prognosis, and the presence of a BRAF mutation is an independent prognostic factor for decreased survival.¹ Previous work to improve outcomes in this subset of patients has been largely disappointing. For example, Kopetz and colleagues have previously shown that single-agent BRAF inhibition with vemurafenib in metastatic BRAF-mutated colorectal cancer did not show meaningful clinical activity.² Preclinical studies have suggested that single-agent BRAF or MEK inhibition alone do not lead to sustained MAPK pathway inhibition. Mechanistically, inhibition of BRAF has been shown to lead to feedback activation of EGFR; thus, inhibition of BRAF alone does not lead to cessation of proliferation.³ In light of this, the combination of EGFR and BRAF inhibition has been an attractive therapeutic strategy. Yaeger and colleagues enrolled 15 patients in a pilot study looking at the efficacy and safety of the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib and the EGFR antibody panitumumab in patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer. In this cohort, combined BRAF and EGFR inhibition showed tumor regression in 10 of 12 patients.⁴ This finding was validated in other subsequent studies.⁵

The current study is the first phase 3 trial to validate the efficacy of BRAF, MEK, and EGFR inhibition in patients with BRAF-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer. The results of this study represent a very important step forward in treating this patient cohort that has historically had very poor clinical outcomes. The combination of encorafenib, binimetinib, and cetuximab improved OS by 48% compared with standard irinotecan-based chemotherapy. In light of this, we now have a chemotherapy-free targeted combination that improves survival and likely represents the new standard of care in patients with BRAF-mutated colorectal cancer after progression on 1 or 2 prior lines of therapy. Ongoing trials are being pursued to investigate the efficacy of these combinations in the upfront setting, and the results of these trials are eagerly awaited.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The combination of encorafenib, binimetinib, and cetuximab improved OS in patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer after progression on 1 or 2 prior lines of therapy. This combination represents a potential new standard of care in this patient population.

–Daniel Isaac, DO, MS

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate whether the combination of encorafenib plus cetuximab with or without the MEK inhibitor binimetinib would lead to longer overall survival (OS) than standard therapy in patients with metastatic BRAF V600E–mutated colorectal cancer.

Design. Global, multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial.

Intervention. Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 fashion to 1 of 3 groups: triplet-therapy group (encorafenib 300 mg daily, binimetinib 45 mg twice daily, and cetuximab 400 mg/m² of body surface area initially, then 250 mg/m² weekly), doublet-therapy group (encorafenib and cetuximab in same doses and schedule as the triplet-therapy group), and control group (investigators choice of cetuximab and irinotecan or cetuximab and FOLFIRI). The randomization was stratified by performance status and prior irinotecan use. Treatment was given until progression or unacceptable toxicities on a 28-day cycle. No crossover was permitted.

Setting and participants. 665 patients underwent randomization: 224 patients to triplet-therapy, 220 to doublet-therapy, and 221 to the control group. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed metastatic colorectal cancer with a BRAF V600E mutation. Patients all had disease progression after 1 or 2 previous lines of therapy.

Main outcome measures. The primary end point of the study was OS and objective response rate (ORR) in the triplet-therapy group compared with the control group. Secondary endpoints included OS in the doublet-therapy group compared with the control group, as well as progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response (DOR), and safety. Assessments were performed every 6 weeks for the first 24 weeks and then every 12 weeks thereafter.

Results. The baseline characteristics were well balanced between the treatment arms. At the time of data cutoff, the median duration of follow-up was 7.8 months for each group. The median OS was 9 months in the triplet-therapy group and 5.4 months in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] for death, 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-0.70; P < 0.001). The median OS was 8.4 months for the doublet-therapy group, resulting in a significant reduction in the risk of death compared with the control group (HR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.45-0.79; P < 0.001). The estimated 6-month survival was 71% for the triplet-therapy group, 65% for the doublet-therapy group, and 47% for the control group. The triplet-therapy group had a higher ORR compared with the control group (26% versus 2%, P < 0.001). The ORR in the doublet-therapy group was also significantly higher than that in the control group (20% versus 2%, P < 0.001). Complete responses were seen in 4% of patients in the triplet-therapy group, 5% of the doublet-therapy group, and no patients in the control group. PFS was significantly longer in both the triplet-therapy and doublet-therapy groups compared with the control group (median PFS: 4.3 months, 4.2 months, 1.5 months, respectively). This translated into a 62% and 60% reduction in the risk for disease progression or death in the triplet-therapy and doublet-therapy groups, respectively, compared to the control group.

The most common adverse event reported in the triplet-therapy group was gastrointestinal (GI) related (diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting), with grade 3 or higher GI toxicity seen in 10% of patients. Skin toxicity in the form of acneiform dermatitis was seen in almost 50% of those in the triplet-therapy arm; however, grade 3 or higher skin toxicity was uncommon (2%). Overall, adverse events grade 3 or higher were observed in 58% of those in the triplet-therapy group, 50% in the doublet-therapy group, and 61% in the control group. Adverse events leading to drug discontinuation occurred in 7% in the triplet-therapy group, 8% in the doublet-therapy group, and 11% in the control group. Three deaths were considered treatment related: 1 in the triplet-therapy group (bowel perforation) and 2 in the control group (anaphylaxis and respiratory failure).

Conclusion. The triplet-combination of encorafenib, binimetinib, and cetuximab as well as the doublet-regimen of encorafenib and cetuximab improved both PFS and OS in patients with metastatic, BRAF V600E–mutated colorectal cancer that has progressed after 1 or 2 lines of therapy.

Commentary

The current interim analysis of the BEACON CRC trial demonstrates improved response rates, PFS, and, importantly, OS with the triplet regimen of encorafenib, binimetinib, and cetuximab in patients with metastatic BRAF V600E–mutated colorectal cancer compared to standard irinotecan-based therapy. Similarly, a doublet-regimen of encorafenib and cetuximab also improved outcomes compared with irinotecan-based chemotherapy, resulting in significantly higher response rates, PFS, and OS.

BRAF mutations are seen in approximately 5% to 15% of colorectal cancers and are more commonly seen in right-sided disease. BRAF-mutated colorectal cancer has a poor prognosis, and the presence of a BRAF mutation is an independent prognostic factor for decreased survival.¹ Previous work to improve outcomes in this subset of patients has been largely disappointing. For example, Kopetz and colleagues have previously shown that single-agent BRAF inhibition with vemurafenib in metastatic BRAF-mutated colorectal cancer did not show meaningful clinical activity.² Preclinical studies have suggested that single-agent BRAF or MEK inhibition alone do not lead to sustained MAPK pathway inhibition. Mechanistically, inhibition of BRAF has been shown to lead to feedback activation of EGFR; thus, inhibition of BRAF alone does not lead to cessation of proliferation.³ In light of this, the combination of EGFR and BRAF inhibition has been an attractive therapeutic strategy. Yaeger and colleagues enrolled 15 patients in a pilot study looking at the efficacy and safety of the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib and the EGFR antibody panitumumab in patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer. In this cohort, combined BRAF and EGFR inhibition showed tumor regression in 10 of 12 patients.⁴ This finding was validated in other subsequent studies.⁵

The current study is the first phase 3 trial to validate the efficacy of BRAF, MEK, and EGFR inhibition in patients with BRAF-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer. The results of this study represent a very important step forward in treating this patient cohort that has historically had very poor clinical outcomes. The combination of encorafenib, binimetinib, and cetuximab improved OS by 48% compared with standard irinotecan-based chemotherapy. In light of this, we now have a chemotherapy-free targeted combination that improves survival and likely represents the new standard of care in patients with BRAF-mutated colorectal cancer after progression on 1 or 2 prior lines of therapy. Ongoing trials are being pursued to investigate the efficacy of these combinations in the upfront setting, and the results of these trials are eagerly awaited.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The combination of encorafenib, binimetinib, and cetuximab improved OS in patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer after progression on 1 or 2 prior lines of therapy. This combination represents a potential new standard of care in this patient population.

–Daniel Isaac, DO, MS

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate the association of number of steps taken per day and stepping intensity with all-cause mortality in older women.

Design. This was a prospective cohort study of US women participating in the Women’s Health Study (WHS). Participants wore an accelerometer device (ActiGraph GT3X+, ActiGraph Corp, Pensacola, FL) on the hip during waking hours for 7 consecutive days between 2011 and 2015. The accelerator data were collected at 30 Hz and aggregated into 60-second, time-stamped epochs. Data from participants who were adherent with wearing devices (defined as ≥ 10 hours/day of wear on ≥ 4 days) were used in an analysis that was conducted between 2018 and 2019. The exposure variables were defined as steps taken per day and measures of stepping intensity (ie, peak 1-minute cadence; peak 30-minute cadence; maximum 5-minute cadence; and time spent at a stepping rate of ≥ 40 steps/minute, reflecting purposeful steps).

Setting and participants. In total, 18,289 women participated in this study. Of these, 17,708 wore and returned their accelerometer devices, and data were downloaded successfully from 17,466 devices. Compliant wearers of the device (≥ 10 hours/day of wear on ≥4 days) included 16,741 participants (96% compliance rate of all downloaded device data).

Main outcome measure. All-cause mortality as ascertained through the National Death Index or confirmed by medical records and death certificates.

Main results. In this cohort of 16,741 women, average age at baseline was 72.0 ± 5.7 years (range, 62 to 101 years) and the mean step count was 5499 per day (median, 5094 steps/day) during the 7-day data capture period between 2011 and 2015. Not taking steps (0 steps/minute) accounted for 51.4% of the recorded time, incidental steps (1 to 39 steps/minute) accounted for 45.5%, and purposeful steps (≥ 40 steps/minute) accounted for 3.1%. The mean follow-up period was 4.3 years; during this time, 504 participants died. The median steps per day across quartiles were 2718 (lowest), 4363, 5905, and 8442 (highest). The corresponding quartile hazard ratios (HRs) associated with mortality adjusted for confounders were 1.00 (reference; lowest quartile), 0.59 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47-0.75), 0.54 (95% CI, 0.41-0.72), and 0.42 (95% CI, 0.30-0.60; highest quartile), respectively (P < 0.01). A higher mean step count per day, up to approximately 7500 steps/day, corresponded with progressive and steady decline in mortality HRs using spline analyses. Similar results were observed using sensitivity analyses that minimized reverse causation bias. While the adjusted analysis of measures of stepping intensity showed an inverse association with mortality rates, these associations were no longer significant after accounting for steps per day. Specifically, adjusted HRs comparing highest to lowest quartile were 0.87 (95% CI, 0.68-1.11) for peak 1-minute cadence; 0.86 (95% CI, 0.65-1.13) for peak 30-minute cadence; 0.80 (95% CI, 0.62-1.05) for maximum 5-minute cadence; and 1.27 (95% CI, 0.96-1.68) for time spent at a stepping rate of ≥ 40 steps/minute.

Conclusion. Older women who took approximately 4400 steps per day had lower all-cause mortality rates during a follow-up period of 4.3 years compared to those who took approximately 2700 steps each day. Progressive reduction in mortality rates was associated with increased steps per day before leveling at about 7500 steps/day. Stepping intensity, when accounting for number of steps taken per day, was not associated with reduction in mortality rates in older women.

Commentary

The health and mortality benefits of exercise are well recognized. The 2018 Department of Health and Human Services Physical Activity Guidelines (DHHS-PAG) recommend that adults should do at least 150 to 300 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic physical activity per week, or 75 to 150 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity per week, in addition to doing muscle-strengthening activities on 2 or more days a week.¹ Importantly, the guidelines emphasize that moving more and sitting less benefit nearly everyone, and note that measures of steps as a metric of ambulation can further promote translation of research into public health recommendations for exercise interventions. Despite this recognition, there is limited information centering on the number of daily steps (step volume) and the intensity of stepping that are needed to achieve optimal health outcomes in older adults. The study reported by Lee and colleagues adds new knowledge regarding the relationship between step volume and intensity and mortality in older women.

To date, only a handful of studies conducted outside of the United States have investigated the association between mortality and objectively measured step volume as determined by pedometer or accelerometer.^2-4 While these studies observed that higher step counts are associated with lower mortality rates during follow-up periods of 5 to 10 years, their sample sizes were smaller and the study populations were different from those included in the study reported by Lee and colleagues. For example, the cohort from the United Kingdom included only men,² and the participants in the Australian study were considerably younger, with a mean age of 59 years.⁴ In the current study, the largest of its kind thus far, it was observed that older women in the United States who take about 4400 steps a day have a lower mortality rate compared to those who take about 2700 steps a day. Moreover, the benefit of increased step volume on mortality progressively increases until plateauing at about 7500 steps per day. On the other hand, stepping intensity does not appear to lower mortality when step volume is accounted for. These results are important in that they add novel evidence that in older women, a patient population that tends to be sedentary, increased step volume (steps per day) but not stepping intensity (how quickly steps are taken) is associated with a reduction in mortality. Thus, these findings help to better characterize steps as a metric of ambulation in sedentary older adults per DHHS-PAG and add to the evidence necessary to translate this line of research into public health recommendations and programs.

While the health benefit of regular physical activity is well known and has been brought to the foreground with DDHA-PAG, only a small percentage of older adults engage in the recommended amounts and types of exercises. In other words, finding motivation to exercise is hard. Thus, identifying practical methods to facilitate behavioral change that increase and sustain physical activity in sedentary older adults would be essential to promoting health in this population. The use of wearable technologies such as fitness trackers and smartphone apps, devices that are now widely used, has shown promise for measuring and encouraging physical activity. The study by Lee and colleagues adds to this notion and further highlights the potential significance of step volume and mortality benefits in older women. Thus, future research in fitness technology should aim to integrate behavior change techniques (such as goal setting, feedback rewards, and action planning) and physical activity levels in order to improve health outcomes in older adults.⁵

In this study, the large sample size (> 16,000 participants), high compliance rate of accelerometer use (96% compliance rate), and reliable and continuous data capture (a built-in device feature) provide a large and complete dataset. This dataset, a major strength of the study, allowed the investigators to adequately control for potential confounders of physical activity, such as history of smoking, alcohol use, diet, and self-rated health, and therefore statistically minimize biases that are common in observational studies. However, some limitations inherent to the observational design are noted in this study. For instance, the observed association between step volume and mortality is correlational rather than causal, and a one-time assessment of steps taken over 7 consecutive days (ie, exposure) may not accurately reflect step volume and intensity of study participants over the span of 4.3 years of follow-up. Also, participants of WHS are predominately white, have higher socioeconomic status, and are more physically active than a national sample in the United States; therefore, caution should be exercised when making inferences to the general population.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Increased steps taken each day, up to about 7500 steps per day, is associated with lower mortality in older women. This finding can help inform the discussion when clinicians offer physical activity recommendations to older sedentary patients.

—Fred Ko, MD

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate the association of number of steps taken per day and stepping intensity with all-cause mortality in older women.

Design. This was a prospective cohort study of US women participating in the Women’s Health Study (WHS). Participants wore an accelerometer device (ActiGraph GT3X+, ActiGraph Corp, Pensacola, FL) on the hip during waking hours for 7 consecutive days between 2011 and 2015. The accelerator data were collected at 30 Hz and aggregated into 60-second, time-stamped epochs. Data from participants who were adherent with wearing devices (defined as ≥ 10 hours/day of wear on ≥ 4 days) were used in an analysis that was conducted between 2018 and 2019. The exposure variables were defined as steps taken per day and measures of stepping intensity (ie, peak 1-minute cadence; peak 30-minute cadence; maximum 5-minute cadence; and time spent at a stepping rate of ≥ 40 steps/minute, reflecting purposeful steps).

Setting and participants. In total, 18,289 women participated in this study. Of these, 17,708 wore and returned their accelerometer devices, and data were downloaded successfully from 17,466 devices. Compliant wearers of the device (≥ 10 hours/day of wear on ≥4 days) included 16,741 participants (96% compliance rate of all downloaded device data).

Main outcome measure. All-cause mortality as ascertained through the National Death Index or confirmed by medical records and death certificates.

Main results. In this cohort of 16,741 women, average age at baseline was 72.0 ± 5.7 years (range, 62 to 101 years) and the mean step count was 5499 per day (median, 5094 steps/day) during the 7-day data capture period between 2011 and 2015. Not taking steps (0 steps/minute) accounted for 51.4% of the recorded time, incidental steps (1 to 39 steps/minute) accounted for 45.5%, and purposeful steps (≥ 40 steps/minute) accounted for 3.1%. The mean follow-up period was 4.3 years; during this time, 504 participants died. The median steps per day across quartiles were 2718 (lowest), 4363, 5905, and 8442 (highest). The corresponding quartile hazard ratios (HRs) associated with mortality adjusted for confounders were 1.00 (reference; lowest quartile), 0.59 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47-0.75), 0.54 (95% CI, 0.41-0.72), and 0.42 (95% CI, 0.30-0.60; highest quartile), respectively (P < 0.01). A higher mean step count per day, up to approximately 7500 steps/day, corresponded with progressive and steady decline in mortality HRs using spline analyses. Similar results were observed using sensitivity analyses that minimized reverse causation bias. While the adjusted analysis of measures of stepping intensity showed an inverse association with mortality rates, these associations were no longer significant after accounting for steps per day. Specifically, adjusted HRs comparing highest to lowest quartile were 0.87 (95% CI, 0.68-1.11) for peak 1-minute cadence; 0.86 (95% CI, 0.65-1.13) for peak 30-minute cadence; 0.80 (95% CI, 0.62-1.05) for maximum 5-minute cadence; and 1.27 (95% CI, 0.96-1.68) for time spent at a stepping rate of ≥ 40 steps/minute.

Conclusion. Older women who took approximately 4400 steps per day had lower all-cause mortality rates during a follow-up period of 4.3 years compared to those who took approximately 2700 steps each day. Progressive reduction in mortality rates was associated with increased steps per day before leveling at about 7500 steps/day. Stepping intensity, when accounting for number of steps taken per day, was not associated with reduction in mortality rates in older women.

Commentary

The health and mortality benefits of exercise are well recognized. The 2018 Department of Health and Human Services Physical Activity Guidelines (DHHS-PAG) recommend that adults should do at least 150 to 300 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic physical activity per week, or 75 to 150 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity per week, in addition to doing muscle-strengthening activities on 2 or more days a week.¹ Importantly, the guidelines emphasize that moving more and sitting less benefit nearly everyone, and note that measures of steps as a metric of ambulation can further promote translation of research into public health recommendations for exercise interventions. Despite this recognition, there is limited information centering on the number of daily steps (step volume) and the intensity of stepping that are needed to achieve optimal health outcomes in older adults. The study reported by Lee and colleagues adds new knowledge regarding the relationship between step volume and intensity and mortality in older women.

To date, only a handful of studies conducted outside of the United States have investigated the association between mortality and objectively measured step volume as determined by pedometer or accelerometer.^2-4 While these studies observed that higher step counts are associated with lower mortality rates during follow-up periods of 5 to 10 years, their sample sizes were smaller and the study populations were different from those included in the study reported by Lee and colleagues. For example, the cohort from the United Kingdom included only men,² and the participants in the Australian study were considerably younger, with a mean age of 59 years.⁴ In the current study, the largest of its kind thus far, it was observed that older women in the United States who take about 4400 steps a day have a lower mortality rate compared to those who take about 2700 steps a day. Moreover, the benefit of increased step volume on mortality progressively increases until plateauing at about 7500 steps per day. On the other hand, stepping intensity does not appear to lower mortality when step volume is accounted for. These results are important in that they add novel evidence that in older women, a patient population that tends to be sedentary, increased step volume (steps per day) but not stepping intensity (how quickly steps are taken) is associated with a reduction in mortality. Thus, these findings help to better characterize steps as a metric of ambulation in sedentary older adults per DHHS-PAG and add to the evidence necessary to translate this line of research into public health recommendations and programs.

While the health benefit of regular physical activity is well known and has been brought to the foreground with DDHA-PAG, only a small percentage of older adults engage in the recommended amounts and types of exercises. In other words, finding motivation to exercise is hard. Thus, identifying practical methods to facilitate behavioral change that increase and sustain physical activity in sedentary older adults would be essential to promoting health in this population. The use of wearable technologies such as fitness trackers and smartphone apps, devices that are now widely used, has shown promise for measuring and encouraging physical activity. The study by Lee and colleagues adds to this notion and further highlights the potential significance of step volume and mortality benefits in older women. Thus, future research in fitness technology should aim to integrate behavior change techniques (such as goal setting, feedback rewards, and action planning) and physical activity levels in order to improve health outcomes in older adults.⁵

In this study, the large sample size (> 16,000 participants), high compliance rate of accelerometer use (96% compliance rate), and reliable and continuous data capture (a built-in device feature) provide a large and complete dataset. This dataset, a major strength of the study, allowed the investigators to adequately control for potential confounders of physical activity, such as history of smoking, alcohol use, diet, and self-rated health, and therefore statistically minimize biases that are common in observational studies. However, some limitations inherent to the observational design are noted in this study. For instance, the observed association between step volume and mortality is correlational rather than causal, and a one-time assessment of steps taken over 7 consecutive days (ie, exposure) may not accurately reflect step volume and intensity of study participants over the span of 4.3 years of follow-up. Also, participants of WHS are predominately white, have higher socioeconomic status, and are more physically active than a national sample in the United States; therefore, caution should be exercised when making inferences to the general population.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Increased steps taken each day, up to about 7500 steps per day, is associated with lower mortality in older women. This finding can help inform the discussion when clinicians offer physical activity recommendations to older sedentary patients.

—Fred Ko, MD

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate the association of number of steps taken per day and stepping intensity with all-cause mortality in older women.

Design. This was a prospective cohort study of US women participating in the Women’s Health Study (WHS). Participants wore an accelerometer device (ActiGraph GT3X+, ActiGraph Corp, Pensacola, FL) on the hip during waking hours for 7 consecutive days between 2011 and 2015. The accelerator data were collected at 30 Hz and aggregated into 60-second, time-stamped epochs. Data from participants who were adherent with wearing devices (defined as ≥ 10 hours/day of wear on ≥ 4 days) were used in an analysis that was conducted between 2018 and 2019. The exposure variables were defined as steps taken per day and measures of stepping intensity (ie, peak 1-minute cadence; peak 30-minute cadence; maximum 5-minute cadence; and time spent at a stepping rate of ≥ 40 steps/minute, reflecting purposeful steps).

Setting and participants. In total, 18,289 women participated in this study. Of these, 17,708 wore and returned their accelerometer devices, and data were downloaded successfully from 17,466 devices. Compliant wearers of the device (≥ 10 hours/day of wear on ≥4 days) included 16,741 participants (96% compliance rate of all downloaded device data).

Main outcome measure. All-cause mortality as ascertained through the National Death Index or confirmed by medical records and death certificates.

Main results. In this cohort of 16,741 women, average age at baseline was 72.0 ± 5.7 years (range, 62 to 101 years) and the mean step count was 5499 per day (median, 5094 steps/day) during the 7-day data capture period between 2011 and 2015. Not taking steps (0 steps/minute) accounted for 51.4% of the recorded time, incidental steps (1 to 39 steps/minute) accounted for 45.5%, and purposeful steps (≥ 40 steps/minute) accounted for 3.1%. The mean follow-up period was 4.3 years; during this time, 504 participants died. The median steps per day across quartiles were 2718 (lowest), 4363, 5905, and 8442 (highest). The corresponding quartile hazard ratios (HRs) associated with mortality adjusted for confounders were 1.00 (reference; lowest quartile), 0.59 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47-0.75), 0.54 (95% CI, 0.41-0.72), and 0.42 (95% CI, 0.30-0.60; highest quartile), respectively (P < 0.01). A higher mean step count per day, up to approximately 7500 steps/day, corresponded with progressive and steady decline in mortality HRs using spline analyses. Similar results were observed using sensitivity analyses that minimized reverse causation bias. While the adjusted analysis of measures of stepping intensity showed an inverse association with mortality rates, these associations were no longer significant after accounting for steps per day. Specifically, adjusted HRs comparing highest to lowest quartile were 0.87 (95% CI, 0.68-1.11) for peak 1-minute cadence; 0.86 (95% CI, 0.65-1.13) for peak 30-minute cadence; 0.80 (95% CI, 0.62-1.05) for maximum 5-minute cadence; and 1.27 (95% CI, 0.96-1.68) for time spent at a stepping rate of ≥ 40 steps/minute.

Conclusion. Older women who took approximately 4400 steps per day had lower all-cause mortality rates during a follow-up period of 4.3 years compared to those who took approximately 2700 steps each day. Progressive reduction in mortality rates was associated with increased steps per day before leveling at about 7500 steps/day. Stepping intensity, when accounting for number of steps taken per day, was not associated with reduction in mortality rates in older women.

Commentary

The health and mortality benefits of exercise are well recognized. The 2018 Department of Health and Human Services Physical Activity Guidelines (DHHS-PAG) recommend that adults should do at least 150 to 300 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic physical activity per week, or 75 to 150 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity per week, in addition to doing muscle-strengthening activities on 2 or more days a week.¹ Importantly, the guidelines emphasize that moving more and sitting less benefit nearly everyone, and note that measures of steps as a metric of ambulation can further promote translation of research into public health recommendations for exercise interventions. Despite this recognition, there is limited information centering on the number of daily steps (step volume) and the intensity of stepping that are needed to achieve optimal health outcomes in older adults. The study reported by Lee and colleagues adds new knowledge regarding the relationship between step volume and intensity and mortality in older women.

To date, only a handful of studies conducted outside of the United States have investigated the association between mortality and objectively measured step volume as determined by pedometer or accelerometer.^2-4 While these studies observed that higher step counts are associated with lower mortality rates during follow-up periods of 5 to 10 years, their sample sizes were smaller and the study populations were different from those included in the study reported by Lee and colleagues. For example, the cohort from the United Kingdom included only men,² and the participants in the Australian study were considerably younger, with a mean age of 59 years.⁴ In the current study, the largest of its kind thus far, it was observed that older women in the United States who take about 4400 steps a day have a lower mortality rate compared to those who take about 2700 steps a day. Moreover, the benefit of increased step volume on mortality progressively increases until plateauing at about 7500 steps per day. On the other hand, stepping intensity does not appear to lower mortality when step volume is accounted for. These results are important in that they add novel evidence that in older women, a patient population that tends to be sedentary, increased step volume (steps per day) but not stepping intensity (how quickly steps are taken) is associated with a reduction in mortality. Thus, these findings help to better characterize steps as a metric of ambulation in sedentary older adults per DHHS-PAG and add to the evidence necessary to translate this line of research into public health recommendations and programs.

While the health benefit of regular physical activity is well known and has been brought to the foreground with DDHA-PAG, only a small percentage of older adults engage in the recommended amounts and types of exercises. In other words, finding motivation to exercise is hard. Thus, identifying practical methods to facilitate behavioral change that increase and sustain physical activity in sedentary older adults would be essential to promoting health in this population. The use of wearable technologies such as fitness trackers and smartphone apps, devices that are now widely used, has shown promise for measuring and encouraging physical activity. The study by Lee and colleagues adds to this notion and further highlights the potential significance of step volume and mortality benefits in older women. Thus, future research in fitness technology should aim to integrate behavior change techniques (such as goal setting, feedback rewards, and action planning) and physical activity levels in order to improve health outcomes in older adults.⁵

In this study, the large sample size (> 16,000 participants), high compliance rate of accelerometer use (96% compliance rate), and reliable and continuous data capture (a built-in device feature) provide a large and complete dataset. This dataset, a major strength of the study, allowed the investigators to adequately control for potential confounders of physical activity, such as history of smoking, alcohol use, diet, and self-rated health, and therefore statistically minimize biases that are common in observational studies. However, some limitations inherent to the observational design are noted in this study. For instance, the observed association between step volume and mortality is correlational rather than causal, and a one-time assessment of steps taken over 7 consecutive days (ie, exposure) may not accurately reflect step volume and intensity of study participants over the span of 4.3 years of follow-up. Also, participants of WHS are predominately white, have higher socioeconomic status, and are more physically active than a national sample in the United States; therefore, caution should be exercised when making inferences to the general population.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Increased steps taken each day, up to about 7500 steps per day, is associated with lower mortality in older women. This finding can help inform the discussion when clinicians offer physical activity recommendations to older sedentary patients.

—Fred Ko, MD

Study Overview

Objective. To compare the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide in combination with rituximab (known as the R² regimen) to rituximab plus placebo in patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma or marginal zone lymphoma (MZL).

Design. Phase 3, multicenter, international, placebo controlled randomized trial.

Setting and participants. 358 patients with rituximab-sensitive relapsed or refractory grade 1-3a follicular lymphoma or MZL.

Intervention. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive lenalidomide or placebo for 12 cycles plus rituximab once per week for 4 weeks in cycle 1 and day 1 of cycles 2 through 5.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) as determined by independent radiology reviewers using intent-to-treat analysis. Secondary end points included overall response rate, complete response rate, duration of response, overall survival, event-free survival, and time to next anti-lymphoma therapy. Time to next chemotherapy treatment and histologic transformation were exploratory endpoints. Responses were assessed by participating investigators and independent reviewers. Computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging was used to obtain tumor measurements. Positron emission tomography was not used. Complete remissions were confirmed by bone marrow biopsy, as bone marrow involvement is exceedingly common in these lymphomas. Gastrointestinal endoscopy was performed to obtain disease status if there was involvement by lymphoma initially.

Improvement in primary and secondary endpoints as well as extrapolatory endpoints were reported in the R² group. Primary efficacy analyses were conducted in the intention-to-treat population primary endpoint of PFS at 1-sided α = 0.025 level.

Main results. PFS was significantly improved for patients treated with the R² regimen compared to those who recieved placebo plus rituximab, with a hazard ratio of 0.46 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34-0.62; P < 0.001). Median duration of PFS in the R² group was 39.4 months (95% CI, 22.9 months to not reached) versus 14.1 months (95% CI, 11.4 to 16.7 months) in the rituximab/placebo group. Overall response in the R² group was 78% (95% CI, 71%-83%) versus 53% (95% CI, 46%-61%; P < 0.0001) in the rituximab/placebo group, with 34% (95% CI, 27%-41%) versus 18% (95% CI, 13%-25%) of patients achieving complete remission (P = 0.001). There were 15 deaths in the R² group versus 26 deaths in the rituximab/placebo group. Overall survival data is not mature yet.

Conclusion. The R² regimen was superior to rituximab and placebo in relapsed or recurrent follicular lymphomas. The regimen’s safety profile was acceptable, with higher events of usual and expected but manageable toxicities in the R² regimen compared to rituximab/placebo.

Commentary

Nearly half of non-Hodgkins lymphomas (NHLs) diagnosed in the United States are classified as indolent B-cell lymphomas.¹ Follicular lymphomas constitute about 50% of all indolent NHLs, while MZLs comprise less than 15%.¹ These slowly progressive B-cell lymphomas are currently considered treatable but have very low cure rates. Cure is primarily limited to early stage I/II disease and may be possible in less than half of patients by applying involved-field radiation therapy with curative intent.

More than two thirds of indolent lymphomas present in advanced stages (III-IV). Despite an advanced stage at presentation, initial chemoimmunotherapy can induce complete remission in nearly 60% of patients. Unfortunately, nearly all patients relapse over the next 10 years.² The wait-and-watch approach is a common strategy, and most patients are administered initial therapy or subsequent lines of therapy if they are symptomatic.² As such, for the majority of these patients, the goal of therapy is to minimize toxicities, preserve quality of life, treat symptoms, and achieve a long PFS without an attempt to cure. Following each line of therapy, patients often revert to watchful surveillance, sometimes for more than a decade. With additional subsequent lines of therapy, lymphoma tends to get more refractory to treatment.

A median survival of nearly 2 decades has been achieved in advanced follicular lymphomas^2,3 and MZL.⁴ However, wide variation in overall response, duration of response, and survival is reported based on the individual risk profile.

The drug of interest in the present study by Leonard and colleagues, lenalidomide, has immunomodulatory properties and antiproliferative effects, possibly related to its binding of the E3 ligase protein cereblon and subsequent ubiquitination of the transcription factors Aiolos and Ikaros.⁵ The benefits of combination lenalidomide/rituximab against follicular lymphoma in preclinical settings have been attributed to mechanisms mediated by tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, natural killer cells, monocytes, and antibody-dependent cell-mediated toxicity.⁵ The combination has now been studied in first-line and subsequent lines of therapy for follicular lymphoma and MZL.⁶

RELEVANCE, a phase 3 trial, compared the R² regimen in the upfront setting in advanced follicular lymphoma with rituximab and chemotherapy combination (including CHOP [cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone], CVP [cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone], and bendamustine).⁷ Efficacy outcomes were similar between the comparators and R² was noninferior. MAGNIFY, a phase 3b trial involving rituximab-sensitive and rituximab-refractory patients with previously treated follicular lymphoma and MZL, demonstrated an overall response rate of 73%, complete response rate of 45%, and median PFS of 36 months in patients who received the R² regimen and who entered a plan to receive maintenance with rituximab.⁸

The AUGMENT trial was conducted at 97 centers in the United States and 14 Asian and European countries; it enrolled 358 patients, 82% of whom had a follicular lymphoma, between February 13, 2014 and January 26, 2017. The study was well conducted. The R² regimen was compared to the often used second-line therapy of rituximab alone, and 1:1 randomization was done with stratification factors of prior rituximab use, marginal versus follicular histology, and time lapse of less than or greater than 2 years since last therapy. A limitation of this study is that it selected individuals with a better prognosis, as the study patients were not rituximab refractory and 57% had received only a single prior therapy.

As observed in other R² regimen trials in follicular or marginal zone lymphomas, the most common adverse reactions (occurring in at least 20% of patients) were neutropenia, fatigue, and constipation. These were manageable with dose adjustments and interruptions, and, in the opinion of authors, did not take away from the overall benefits seen.

The authors acknowledge that a limitation of this study was a lower assessment of median PFS in both arms by investigators than by independent reviewers. The independent review committee assessed PFS for R² at 39.4 months, whereas investigators assessed it at 25.4 months. The median PFS benefit remained at 14.1 months by both methods of assessment. This may highlight the differences of radiographic measurements in a central setting versus at individual centers.

Histologic transformation to a higher-grade aggressive lymphoma occurred in 2 patients in the R² arm and 10 patients in the placebo/rituximab arm. After transformation, 1 patient in the R² arm and 6 in the placebo plus rituximab arm died. A plausible mechanism for this variation has not been provided. If confirmed across a wider population, this may be one of the most significant benefits of the R² regimen.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Therapy for relapsed and refractory indolent B-cell lymphomas continues to evolve. While chemotherapy remains an effective option, immunomodulation using non-chemotherapeutic intervention has emerged as an attractive strategy. The AUGMENT trial further solidifies adoption of the non-chemotherapy doublet option of rituximab/lenalidomide based on the premise of immunomodulation. Both the agents have been commercially available for more than a decade and are being used for other indications beyond the study population for this trial.

Based on the AUGMENT and MAGNIFY trials, lenalidomide combined with rituximab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in relapsed and refractory follicular or marginal zone lymphomas soon after the AUGMENT study results were published. The recommended lenalidomide dose for both lymphomas is 20 mg once daily orally on days 1 to 21 of repeated 28-day cycles for up to 12 cycles.

The evidence from this trial has yielded what is likely to be a practice changing regimen, with R² replacing single-agent rituximab for treating follicular lymphoma in the second line or beyond. The response rates and PFS periods were slightly lower in MZL. R² offers advantages associated with a chemotherapy-free regimen and improved PFS. Also, in the AUGEMENT trial the secondary and exploratory endpoints of time to next therapy, overall response rates, and overall survival rates were improved in patients treated with R².

Practitioners may choose lenalidomide plus rituximab over rituximab alone based on the AUGMENT study. When considering this regimen, several points should be kept in mind. A very careful selection of patients would be prudent, considering that the study’s follow-up of less than 4 years is short for a disease with long overall survival rates. The study was not powered to compare overall survival benefit. Also, practitioners are reminded to limit the use of lenalidomide to a maximum of 12 months, with planned interruptions and 8 doses of rituximab, replicating the trial schema. Additionally, as per the clinical trial design, the regimen is not intended for rituximab-refractory patients. Patients with MZL constituted only 18% of the study, and conclusions of superiority in this subgroup were not statistically significant. Lenalidomide is not approved for other indolent B cell lymphoproliferative malignancies, such as small lymphocytic lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. The conclusion of the published study abstract suggests acceptable use in recurrent indolent lymphomas, but no such conclusion can be made due to lack of inclusion of all indolent lymphoma subtypes in this study.

Longer-term use of lenalidomide has been associated with a marginally increased risk of secondary hematologic malignancies in patients with multiple myeloma who were prescribed lenalidomide maintenance therapy for up to 2 years following high-dose chemotherapy and autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant.⁹ Interestingly, in the AUGMENT study and other trials using lenalidomide/rituximab, no significant increase in secondary hematologic malignancies has been reported. The absence of prior myeloablative chemotherapy and a shorter duration of use (1 year) in this group of patients may be factors in why no additional risk of secondary hematologic malignancies was observed. Longer-term follow-up may be needed to evaluate this risk.

In the R² arm of this study, 55% patients experienced grades 3 and 4 neutropenia. With a median age of presentation for both follicular lymphoma and MZL of over 60 years, oncologists should remain aware of this potentially fatal complication, especially in the frail, the elderly, and previously treated individuals who may have a high risk of myelosuppression. Clinicians should be prepared to rapidly adopt strategies of dose interruption, dose reduction, and growth factor use, as implemented in the trial. Of note, despite the high rates of severe neutropenia, only 3% of the participants experienced febrile neutropenia, and 71% patients in R² group and 61% in rituximab group completed planned protocol therapy. Growth factor use was high at 36% in the R² group, which may have been responsible for a lower incidence of febrile neutropenia.

Increased toxicities of tumor flare, rash, and constipation were observed in the R² arm. Patients with greater than grade 1 neuropathy were excluded. For those at risk of thromboembolism, prophylactic anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy was recommended in the trial. Lenalidomide dose was reduced to 10 mg for those with creatinine clearance of 30 to 59 mL/min.

The cost-effectiveness of lenalidomide/rituximab combination has not been fully studied against a sequential approach of using rituximab and lenalidomide for a limited number of cycles. The cost of a Revlimid 10-mg pill may be over $700.¹⁰ Costs associated with supportive care due to additional toxicities have not been quantified. For those with cost concerns or lack of insurance coverage, the R² regimen may be cost prohibitive without financial assistance from charities.

Indolent NHL remains mostly incurable. The R² approach is still not a curative one, and resources should be directed to investigate a cure for this population. Whenever feasible, participation in a clinical trial should be encouraged. Parameters have not been reported based on prognostic groups, and the study did not identify any biomarkers that may correlate with improved outcome. Perhaps a biomarker-based trial design may be most suitable in explaining the heterogeneity in follicular and marginal zone lymphomas.

—Rakesh Gaur, MD, MPH, FACP, Cancer and Blood Center at Kansas Institute of Medicine, Lenexa, KS

Study Overview

Objective. To compare the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide in combination with rituximab (known as the R² regimen) to rituximab plus placebo in patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma or marginal zone lymphoma (MZL).

Design. Phase 3, multicenter, international, placebo controlled randomized trial.

Setting and participants. 358 patients with rituximab-sensitive relapsed or refractory grade 1-3a follicular lymphoma or MZL.

Intervention. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive lenalidomide or placebo for 12 cycles plus rituximab once per week for 4 weeks in cycle 1 and day 1 of cycles 2 through 5.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) as determined by independent radiology reviewers using intent-to-treat analysis. Secondary end points included overall response rate, complete response rate, duration of response, overall survival, event-free survival, and time to next anti-lymphoma therapy. Time to next chemotherapy treatment and histologic transformation were exploratory endpoints. Responses were assessed by participating investigators and independent reviewers. Computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging was used to obtain tumor measurements. Positron emission tomography was not used. Complete remissions were confirmed by bone marrow biopsy, as bone marrow involvement is exceedingly common in these lymphomas. Gastrointestinal endoscopy was performed to obtain disease status if there was involvement by lymphoma initially.

Improvement in primary and secondary endpoints as well as extrapolatory endpoints were reported in the R² group. Primary efficacy analyses were conducted in the intention-to-treat population primary endpoint of PFS at 1-sided α = 0.025 level.

Main results. PFS was significantly improved for patients treated with the R² regimen compared to those who recieved placebo plus rituximab, with a hazard ratio of 0.46 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34-0.62; P < 0.001). Median duration of PFS in the R² group was 39.4 months (95% CI, 22.9 months to not reached) versus 14.1 months (95% CI, 11.4 to 16.7 months) in the rituximab/placebo group. Overall response in the R² group was 78% (95% CI, 71%-83%) versus 53% (95% CI, 46%-61%; P < 0.0001) in the rituximab/placebo group, with 34% (95% CI, 27%-41%) versus 18% (95% CI, 13%-25%) of patients achieving complete remission (P = 0.001). There were 15 deaths in the R² group versus 26 deaths in the rituximab/placebo group. Overall survival data is not mature yet.

Conclusion. The R² regimen was superior to rituximab and placebo in relapsed or recurrent follicular lymphomas. The regimen’s safety profile was acceptable, with higher events of usual and expected but manageable toxicities in the R² regimen compared to rituximab/placebo.

Commentary

Nearly half of non-Hodgkins lymphomas (NHLs) diagnosed in the United States are classified as indolent B-cell lymphomas.¹ Follicular lymphomas constitute about 50% of all indolent NHLs, while MZLs comprise less than 15%.¹ These slowly progressive B-cell lymphomas are currently considered treatable but have very low cure rates. Cure is primarily limited to early stage I/II disease and may be possible in less than half of patients by applying involved-field radiation therapy with curative intent.

More than two thirds of indolent lymphomas present in advanced stages (III-IV). Despite an advanced stage at presentation, initial chemoimmunotherapy can induce complete remission in nearly 60% of patients. Unfortunately, nearly all patients relapse over the next 10 years.² The wait-and-watch approach is a common strategy, and most patients are administered initial therapy or subsequent lines of therapy if they are symptomatic.² As such, for the majority of these patients, the goal of therapy is to minimize toxicities, preserve quality of life, treat symptoms, and achieve a long PFS without an attempt to cure. Following each line of therapy, patients often revert to watchful surveillance, sometimes for more than a decade. With additional subsequent lines of therapy, lymphoma tends to get more refractory to treatment.

A median survival of nearly 2 decades has been achieved in advanced follicular lymphomas^2,3 and MZL.⁴ However, wide variation in overall response, duration of response, and survival is reported based on the individual risk profile.

The drug of interest in the present study by Leonard and colleagues, lenalidomide, has immunomodulatory properties and antiproliferative effects, possibly related to its binding of the E3 ligase protein cereblon and subsequent ubiquitination of the transcription factors Aiolos and Ikaros.⁵ The benefits of combination lenalidomide/rituximab against follicular lymphoma in preclinical settings have been attributed to mechanisms mediated by tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, natural killer cells, monocytes, and antibody-dependent cell-mediated toxicity.⁵ The combination has now been studied in first-line and subsequent lines of therapy for follicular lymphoma and MZL.⁶

RELEVANCE, a phase 3 trial, compared the R² regimen in the upfront setting in advanced follicular lymphoma with rituximab and chemotherapy combination (including CHOP [cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone], CVP [cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone], and bendamustine).⁷ Efficacy outcomes were similar between the comparators and R² was noninferior. MAGNIFY, a phase 3b trial involving rituximab-sensitive and rituximab-refractory patients with previously treated follicular lymphoma and MZL, demonstrated an overall response rate of 73%, complete response rate of 45%, and median PFS of 36 months in patients who received the R² regimen and who entered a plan to receive maintenance with rituximab.⁸

The AUGMENT trial was conducted at 97 centers in the United States and 14 Asian and European countries; it enrolled 358 patients, 82% of whom had a follicular lymphoma, between February 13, 2014 and January 26, 2017. The study was well conducted. The R² regimen was compared to the often used second-line therapy of rituximab alone, and 1:1 randomization was done with stratification factors of prior rituximab use, marginal versus follicular histology, and time lapse of less than or greater than 2 years since last therapy. A limitation of this study is that it selected individuals with a better prognosis, as the study patients were not rituximab refractory and 57% had received only a single prior therapy.

As observed in other R² regimen trials in follicular or marginal zone lymphomas, the most common adverse reactions (occurring in at least 20% of patients) were neutropenia, fatigue, and constipation. These were manageable with dose adjustments and interruptions, and, in the opinion of authors, did not take away from the overall benefits seen.

The authors acknowledge that a limitation of this study was a lower assessment of median PFS in both arms by investigators than by independent reviewers. The independent review committee assessed PFS for R² at 39.4 months, whereas investigators assessed it at 25.4 months. The median PFS benefit remained at 14.1 months by both methods of assessment. This may highlight the differences of radiographic measurements in a central setting versus at individual centers.

Histologic transformation to a higher-grade aggressive lymphoma occurred in 2 patients in the R² arm and 10 patients in the placebo/rituximab arm. After transformation, 1 patient in the R² arm and 6 in the placebo plus rituximab arm died. A plausible mechanism for this variation has not been provided. If confirmed across a wider population, this may be one of the most significant benefits of the R² regimen.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Therapy for relapsed and refractory indolent B-cell lymphomas continues to evolve. While chemotherapy remains an effective option, immunomodulation using non-chemotherapeutic intervention has emerged as an attractive strategy. The AUGMENT trial further solidifies adoption of the non-chemotherapy doublet option of rituximab/lenalidomide based on the premise of immunomodulation. Both the agents have been commercially available for more than a decade and are being used for other indications beyond the study population for this trial.

Based on the AUGMENT and MAGNIFY trials, lenalidomide combined with rituximab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in relapsed and refractory follicular or marginal zone lymphomas soon after the AUGMENT study results were published. The recommended lenalidomide dose for both lymphomas is 20 mg once daily orally on days 1 to 21 of repeated 28-day cycles for up to 12 cycles.

The evidence from this trial has yielded what is likely to be a practice changing regimen, with R² replacing single-agent rituximab for treating follicular lymphoma in the second line or beyond. The response rates and PFS periods were slightly lower in MZL. R² offers advantages associated with a chemotherapy-free regimen and improved PFS. Also, in the AUGEMENT trial the secondary and exploratory endpoints of time to next therapy, overall response rates, and overall survival rates were improved in patients treated with R².

Practitioners may choose lenalidomide plus rituximab over rituximab alone based on the AUGMENT study. When considering this regimen, several points should be kept in mind. A very careful selection of patients would be prudent, considering that the study’s follow-up of less than 4 years is short for a disease with long overall survival rates. The study was not powered to compare overall survival benefit. Also, practitioners are reminded to limit the use of lenalidomide to a maximum of 12 months, with planned interruptions and 8 doses of rituximab, replicating the trial schema. Additionally, as per the clinical trial design, the regimen is not intended for rituximab-refractory patients. Patients with MZL constituted only 18% of the study, and conclusions of superiority in this subgroup were not statistically significant. Lenalidomide is not approved for other indolent B cell lymphoproliferative malignancies, such as small lymphocytic lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. The conclusion of the published study abstract suggests acceptable use in recurrent indolent lymphomas, but no such conclusion can be made due to lack of inclusion of all indolent lymphoma subtypes in this study.

Longer-term use of lenalidomide has been associated with a marginally increased risk of secondary hematologic malignancies in patients with multiple myeloma who were prescribed lenalidomide maintenance therapy for up to 2 years following high-dose chemotherapy and autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant.⁹ Interestingly, in the AUGMENT study and other trials using lenalidomide/rituximab, no significant increase in secondary hematologic malignancies has been reported. The absence of prior myeloablative chemotherapy and a shorter duration of use (1 year) in this group of patients may be factors in why no additional risk of secondary hematologic malignancies was observed. Longer-term follow-up may be needed to evaluate this risk.

In the R² arm of this study, 55% patients experienced grades 3 and 4 neutropenia. With a median age of presentation for both follicular lymphoma and MZL of over 60 years, oncologists should remain aware of this potentially fatal complication, especially in the frail, the elderly, and previously treated individuals who may have a high risk of myelosuppression. Clinicians should be prepared to rapidly adopt strategies of dose interruption, dose reduction, and growth factor use, as implemented in the trial. Of note, despite the high rates of severe neutropenia, only 3% of the participants experienced febrile neutropenia, and 71% patients in R² group and 61% in rituximab group completed planned protocol therapy. Growth factor use was high at 36% in the R² group, which may have been responsible for a lower incidence of febrile neutropenia.

Increased toxicities of tumor flare, rash, and constipation were observed in the R² arm. Patients with greater than grade 1 neuropathy were excluded. For those at risk of thromboembolism, prophylactic anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy was recommended in the trial. Lenalidomide dose was reduced to 10 mg for those with creatinine clearance of 30 to 59 mL/min.

The cost-effectiveness of lenalidomide/rituximab combination has not been fully studied against a sequential approach of using rituximab and lenalidomide for a limited number of cycles. The cost of a Revlimid 10-mg pill may be over $700.¹⁰ Costs associated with supportive care due to additional toxicities have not been quantified. For those with cost concerns or lack of insurance coverage, the R² regimen may be cost prohibitive without financial assistance from charities.

Indolent NHL remains mostly incurable. The R² approach is still not a curative one, and resources should be directed to investigate a cure for this population. Whenever feasible, participation in a clinical trial should be encouraged. Parameters have not been reported based on prognostic groups, and the study did not identify any biomarkers that may correlate with improved outcome. Perhaps a biomarker-based trial design may be most suitable in explaining the heterogeneity in follicular and marginal zone lymphomas.

—Rakesh Gaur, MD, MPH, FACP, Cancer and Blood Center at Kansas Institute of Medicine, Lenexa, KS

Study Overview

Objective. To compare the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide in combination with rituximab (known as the R² regimen) to rituximab plus placebo in patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma or marginal zone lymphoma (MZL).

Design. Phase 3, multicenter, international, placebo controlled randomized trial.

Setting and participants. 358 patients with rituximab-sensitive relapsed or refractory grade 1-3a follicular lymphoma or MZL.

Intervention. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive lenalidomide or placebo for 12 cycles plus rituximab once per week for 4 weeks in cycle 1 and day 1 of cycles 2 through 5.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) as determined by independent radiology reviewers using intent-to-treat analysis. Secondary end points included overall response rate, complete response rate, duration of response, overall survival, event-free survival, and time to next anti-lymphoma therapy. Time to next chemotherapy treatment and histologic transformation were exploratory endpoints. Responses were assessed by participating investigators and independent reviewers. Computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging was used to obtain tumor measurements. Positron emission tomography was not used. Complete remissions were confirmed by bone marrow biopsy, as bone marrow involvement is exceedingly common in these lymphomas. Gastrointestinal endoscopy was performed to obtain disease status if there was involvement by lymphoma initially.

Improvement in primary and secondary endpoints as well as extrapolatory endpoints were reported in the R² group. Primary efficacy analyses were conducted in the intention-to-treat population primary endpoint of PFS at 1-sided α = 0.025 level.

Main results. PFS was significantly improved for patients treated with the R² regimen compared to those who recieved placebo plus rituximab, with a hazard ratio of 0.46 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34-0.62; P < 0.001). Median duration of PFS in the R² group was 39.4 months (95% CI, 22.9 months to not reached) versus 14.1 months (95% CI, 11.4 to 16.7 months) in the rituximab/placebo group. Overall response in the R² group was 78% (95% CI, 71%-83%) versus 53% (95% CI, 46%-61%; P < 0.0001) in the rituximab/placebo group, with 34% (95% CI, 27%-41%) versus 18% (95% CI, 13%-25%) of patients achieving complete remission (P = 0.001). There were 15 deaths in the R² group versus 26 deaths in the rituximab/placebo group. Overall survival data is not mature yet.

Conclusion. The R² regimen was superior to rituximab and placebo in relapsed or recurrent follicular lymphomas. The regimen’s safety profile was acceptable, with higher events of usual and expected but manageable toxicities in the R² regimen compared to rituximab/placebo.

Commentary

Nearly half of non-Hodgkins lymphomas (NHLs) diagnosed in the United States are classified as indolent B-cell lymphomas.¹ Follicular lymphomas constitute about 50% of all indolent NHLs, while MZLs comprise less than 15%.¹ These slowly progressive B-cell lymphomas are currently considered treatable but have very low cure rates. Cure is primarily limited to early stage I/II disease and may be possible in less than half of patients by applying involved-field radiation therapy with curative intent.

More than two thirds of indolent lymphomas present in advanced stages (III-IV). Despite an advanced stage at presentation, initial chemoimmunotherapy can induce complete remission in nearly 60% of patients. Unfortunately, nearly all patients relapse over the next 10 years.² The wait-and-watch approach is a common strategy, and most patients are administered initial therapy or subsequent lines of therapy if they are symptomatic.² As such, for the majority of these patients, the goal of therapy is to minimize toxicities, preserve quality of life, treat symptoms, and achieve a long PFS without an attempt to cure. Following each line of therapy, patients often revert to watchful surveillance, sometimes for more than a decade. With additional subsequent lines of therapy, lymphoma tends to get more refractory to treatment.

A median survival of nearly 2 decades has been achieved in advanced follicular lymphomas^2,3 and MZL.⁴ However, wide variation in overall response, duration of response, and survival is reported based on the individual risk profile.

The drug of interest in the present study by Leonard and colleagues, lenalidomide, has immunomodulatory properties and antiproliferative effects, possibly related to its binding of the E3 ligase protein cereblon and subsequent ubiquitination of the transcription factors Aiolos and Ikaros.⁵ The benefits of combination lenalidomide/rituximab against follicular lymphoma in preclinical settings have been attributed to mechanisms mediated by tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, natural killer cells, monocytes, and antibody-dependent cell-mediated toxicity.⁵ The combination has now been studied in first-line and subsequent lines of therapy for follicular lymphoma and MZL.⁶

RELEVANCE, a phase 3 trial, compared the R² regimen in the upfront setting in advanced follicular lymphoma with rituximab and chemotherapy combination (including CHOP [cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone], CVP [cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone], and bendamustine).⁷ Efficacy outcomes were similar between the comparators and R² was noninferior. MAGNIFY, a phase 3b trial involving rituximab-sensitive and rituximab-refractory patients with previously treated follicular lymphoma and MZL, demonstrated an overall response rate of 73%, complete response rate of 45%, and median PFS of 36 months in patients who received the R² regimen and who entered a plan to receive maintenance with rituximab.⁸

The AUGMENT trial was conducted at 97 centers in the United States and 14 Asian and European countries; it enrolled 358 patients, 82% of whom had a follicular lymphoma, between February 13, 2014 and January 26, 2017. The study was well conducted. The R² regimen was compared to the often used second-line therapy of rituximab alone, and 1:1 randomization was done with stratification factors of prior rituximab use, marginal versus follicular histology, and time lapse of less than or greater than 2 years since last therapy. A limitation of this study is that it selected individuals with a better prognosis, as the study patients were not rituximab refractory and 57% had received only a single prior therapy.

As observed in other R² regimen trials in follicular or marginal zone lymphomas, the most common adverse reactions (occurring in at least 20% of patients) were neutropenia, fatigue, and constipation. These were manageable with dose adjustments and interruptions, and, in the opinion of authors, did not take away from the overall benefits seen.

The authors acknowledge that a limitation of this study was a lower assessment of median PFS in both arms by investigators than by independent reviewers. The independent review committee assessed PFS for R² at 39.4 months, whereas investigators assessed it at 25.4 months. The median PFS benefit remained at 14.1 months by both methods of assessment. This may highlight the differences of radiographic measurements in a central setting versus at individual centers.

Histologic transformation to a higher-grade aggressive lymphoma occurred in 2 patients in the R² arm and 10 patients in the placebo/rituximab arm. After transformation, 1 patient in the R² arm and 6 in the placebo plus rituximab arm died. A plausible mechanism for this variation has not been provided. If confirmed across a wider population, this may be one of the most significant benefits of the R² regimen.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Therapy for relapsed and refractory indolent B-cell lymphomas continues to evolve. While chemotherapy remains an effective option, immunomodulation using non-chemotherapeutic intervention has emerged as an attractive strategy. The AUGMENT trial further solidifies adoption of the non-chemotherapy doublet option of rituximab/lenalidomide based on the premise of immunomodulation. Both the agents have been commercially available for more than a decade and are being used for other indications beyond the study population for this trial.

Based on the AUGMENT and MAGNIFY trials, lenalidomide combined with rituximab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in relapsed and refractory follicular or marginal zone lymphomas soon after the AUGMENT study results were published. The recommended lenalidomide dose for both lymphomas is 20 mg once daily orally on days 1 to 21 of repeated 28-day cycles for up to 12 cycles.

The evidence from this trial has yielded what is likely to be a practice changing regimen, with R² replacing single-agent rituximab for treating follicular lymphoma in the second line or beyond. The response rates and PFS periods were slightly lower in MZL. R² offers advantages associated with a chemotherapy-free regimen and improved PFS. Also, in the AUGEMENT trial the secondary and exploratory endpoints of time to next therapy, overall response rates, and overall survival rates were improved in patients treated with R².

Practitioners may choose lenalidomide plus rituximab over rituximab alone based on the AUGMENT study. When considering this regimen, several points should be kept in mind. A very careful selection of patients would be prudent, considering that the study’s follow-up of less than 4 years is short for a disease with long overall survival rates. The study was not powered to compare overall survival benefit. Also, practitioners are reminded to limit the use of lenalidomide to a maximum of 12 months, with planned interruptions and 8 doses of rituximab, replicating the trial schema. Additionally, as per the clinical trial design, the regimen is not intended for rituximab-refractory patients. Patients with MZL constituted only 18% of the study, and conclusions of superiority in this subgroup were not statistically significant. Lenalidomide is not approved for other indolent B cell lymphoproliferative malignancies, such as small lymphocytic lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. The conclusion of the published study abstract suggests acceptable use in recurrent indolent lymphomas, but no such conclusion can be made due to lack of inclusion of all indolent lymphoma subtypes in this study.

Longer-term use of lenalidomide has been associated with a marginally increased risk of secondary hematologic malignancies in patients with multiple myeloma who were prescribed lenalidomide maintenance therapy for up to 2 years following high-dose chemotherapy and autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant.⁹ Interestingly, in the AUGMENT study and other trials using lenalidomide/rituximab, no significant increase in secondary hematologic malignancies has been reported. The absence of prior myeloablative chemotherapy and a shorter duration of use (1 year) in this group of patients may be factors in why no additional risk of secondary hematologic malignancies was observed. Longer-term follow-up may be needed to evaluate this risk.

In the R² arm of this study, 55% patients experienced grades 3 and 4 neutropenia. With a median age of presentation for both follicular lymphoma and MZL of over 60 years, oncologists should remain aware of this potentially fatal complication, especially in the frail, the elderly, and previously treated individuals who may have a high risk of myelosuppression. Clinicians should be prepared to rapidly adopt strategies of dose interruption, dose reduction, and growth factor use, as implemented in the trial. Of note, despite the high rates of severe neutropenia, only 3% of the participants experienced febrile neutropenia, and 71% patients in R² group and 61% in rituximab group completed planned protocol therapy. Growth factor use was high at 36% in the R² group, which may have been responsible for a lower incidence of febrile neutropenia.

Increased toxicities of tumor flare, rash, and constipation were observed in the R² arm. Patients with greater than grade 1 neuropathy were excluded. For those at risk of thromboembolism, prophylactic anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy was recommended in the trial. Lenalidomide dose was reduced to 10 mg for those with creatinine clearance of 30 to 59 mL/min.

The cost-effectiveness of lenalidomide/rituximab combination has not been fully studied against a sequential approach of using rituximab and lenalidomide for a limited number of cycles. The cost of a Revlimid 10-mg pill may be over $700.¹⁰ Costs associated with supportive care due to additional toxicities have not been quantified. For those with cost concerns or lack of insurance coverage, the R² regimen may be cost prohibitive without financial assistance from charities.

Indolent NHL remains mostly incurable. The R² approach is still not a curative one, and resources should be directed to investigate a cure for this population. Whenever feasible, participation in a clinical trial should be encouraged. Parameters have not been reported based on prognostic groups, and the study did not identify any biomarkers that may correlate with improved outcome. Perhaps a biomarker-based trial design may be most suitable in explaining the heterogeneity in follicular and marginal zone lymphomas.

—Rakesh Gaur, MD, MPH, FACP, Cancer and Blood Center at Kansas Institute of Medicine, Lenexa, KS

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate the association between long-term exercise interventions (duration ≥ 1 year) and risks of falls, injurious falls, multiple falls, fractures, hospitalization, and mortality in older adults.

Design. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with preplanned meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the association between long-term exercise interventions and falls and fall-related adverse outcomes in adults older than 60 years. A literature search using electronic databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, SportDiscus, PsychInfo, and Ageline, was performed between February 20 and March 5, 2018. Studies selected were RCTs with exercise duration of 1 year or longer, where effects of exercise intervention were compared with a comparator group of participants aged 60 years or older. Articles were independently screened, abstracted, and assessed for risk of bias by 2 raters, who resolved divergences in data extraction and synthesis via in-person meetings.

Setting and participants. A total of 46 studies (22,709 participants; median of 203 participants per study) were included in the review and 40 studies (21,868 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. The participants’ mean age was 73.1 ± 7.1 years, and 66.3% (15,054 participants) were women. Studies were mostly conducted in Europe (n = 15), North America (n = 13), and Oceania (n = 10). Multicomponent training involving multiple exercises (eg, aerobic, strength and balance; 29 RCTs) was the most common intervention modality, followed by aerobic (8 RCTs) and strength (5 RCTs) training. Exercise interventions had a mean frequency of 3 times/week, with each session lasting approximately 50 minutes, and were administered at a moderate intensity. The average compliance rate with exercise training was 65%. Comparator groups were often active controls that ranged from attention controls to more intensive interventions.

Main outcome measures. The 6 binary outcomes investigated were fallers who fell at least once, multiple times, or at least twice; fractures; hospitalization; and mortality. Estimates of outcomes were combined using risk ratios (RRs) using DerSimonian and Laird’s random-effects model (Mantel-Haenszel method). Heterogeneity was evaluated using I² statistics, and trials with low rates of compliance (< 30%) with exercise intervention or high attrition (> 40%) were excluded in primary analyses.

Main results. Exercise training significantly reduced the risk of falls by 12% (n = 20 RCTs; 4420 participants; RR, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-0.98) and injurious falls by 26% (9 RCTs; 4481 participants; RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.88), and reduced the risk of fractures by 16% (19 RCTs; 8410 participants; RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71-1.00; P = 0.05). Exercise training did not decrease the risk of multiple falls (13 RCTs; 3060 participants; RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.68-1.08), hospitalization (12 RCTs; 5639 participants; RR 0.94; 95% CI, 0.80-1.12), or mortality (29 RCTs; 11,441 participants; RR 0.96; 95% CI, 0.85-1.09). Sensitivity analyses yielded similar results, with the exception of the fixed-effect meta-analysis for the risk of fracture that showed a significant effect of long-term exercise training (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.70-1.00; P = 0.047). Meta-regression analysis on mortality and falls suggested that exercise frequency between 2 and 3 times per week was optimal and beneficial.

Conclusion. Long-term exercise training of 1 year or longer in duration is associated with a reduction in falls, injurious falls, and fractures in older adults. Moreover, moderate intensity, multicomponent exercise training performed 2 to 3 times weekly is likely safe and effective in this vulnerable population.

Commentary

Falls are exceedingly common (1 in 3 older Americans fall each year) and are the leading cause of fatal and nonfatal injuries in persons over the age of 65 years.^1,2 While fall prevention is a public health priority and a topic of interest in many research studies, there are important gaps in knowledge regarding optimal strategies to prevent falls and fall-related injuries in this high-risk population. The study reported by de Souto Barreto and colleagues provides new insights to address several of these gaps and may have a significant impact on the clinical practice of fall prevention in geriatric medicine.

Studies show that a single exercise intervention of short- to medium-term duration can prevent falls in community-dwelling older adults.³ However, the effects of long-term exercise training (ie, intervention lasting longer than a year) on fall prevention in this population is less well characterized. This study is the first meta-analysis that aimed to evaluate the potential beneficial impact of long-term exercise training on falls and adverse fall-related outcomes in adults ≥ 60 years of age who are prone to falls. The study’s findings indicate that long-term exercise training reduces the risk of falling by 12%, injurious falls by 26%, and factures by 16%. These results are important in that they add compelling evidence that exercise training of any duration can reduce falls and some fall-related adverse outcomes. Furthermore, the positive effects of long-term exercise training appear to mitigate some of the fatal and nonfatal injuries attributable to falls—the leading cause of such injuries in older adults.

The modality (type) and dose (frequency) of exercise training are important components of “exercise prescription” for older adults. However, there is a lack of research evidence to help clearly define these exercise parameters to better guide development of consensus exercise recommendations for older patients. This gap in knowledge limits the clinicians’ ability to recommend evidence-based treatment regimens to older adults who are at higher risk for falls. Moreover, although exercise programs are rarely associated with serious adverse events, recent findings from the Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders (LIFE) study found a modest and nonstatistically significant association between long-term, moderate-intensity physical activity programs and an increase in hospitalizations and mortality in older adults.^4,5 Taken together, these gaps in knowledge highlight the urgent need to better understand the optimal methods for administering exercise programs in older adults as well as the need for critical appraisals of the benefits and harms associated with long-term exercise training in this vulnerable population.

The results reported by de Souto Barreto and colleagues helped to address these questions. In this study, the authors found that long-term multicomponent training, particularly moderate intensity with balance exercises performed 2 to 3 times a week, appears to be a safe and effective intervention for reducing falls and injurious falls in older adults. Importantly, this type of long-term exercise regimen does not increase hospitalization and mortality, and thus supports the notion that exercise therapy is safe in older adults. Therefore, information gained from this meta-analysis should help to guide clinicians to devise a patient-centered exercise prescription for fall prevention.

The current study was well designed and has a number of strengths. The design of the systematic review and meta-analysis allowed aggregation of data from multiple trials, resulting in a more robust point estimate to evaluate the effects of long-term exercise training on falls and fall-related outcomes that otherwise cannot be achieved with individual trials. In addition, the emphasis on long-term exercise training in older adults in the setting of falls and adverse fall-related outcomes addresses a key area of research that currently lacks a sufficient evidence base. There are also several limitations in this study, primarily due to the nature of its meta-analysis design. For instance, the study populations included in the analysis are highly heterogeneous and range from those with dementia to healthy participants. In addition, long-term exercise training, defined as a duration ≥ 1 year, was arbitrarily established as the minimum period of intervention. Thus, potential important studies that include interventions of significant duration, but less than 1 year, may not have been captured in this analysis.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Falls in older adults are common and may lead to devastating health consequences. The implementation of a long-term, multicomponent, moderate-intensity exercise regimen performed 2 to 3 times weekly can reduce falls and injurious falls in older adults.

—Fred Ko, MD, MS

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate the association between long-term exercise interventions (duration ≥ 1 year) and risks of falls, injurious falls, multiple falls, fractures, hospitalization, and mortality in older adults.

Design. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with preplanned meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the association between long-term exercise interventions and falls and fall-related adverse outcomes in adults older than 60 years. A literature search using electronic databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, SportDiscus, PsychInfo, and Ageline, was performed between February 20 and March 5, 2018. Studies selected were RCTs with exercise duration of 1 year or longer, where effects of exercise intervention were compared with a comparator group of participants aged 60 years or older. Articles were independently screened, abstracted, and assessed for risk of bias by 2 raters, who resolved divergences in data extraction and synthesis via in-person meetings.

Setting and participants. A total of 46 studies (22,709 participants; median of 203 participants per study) were included in the review and 40 studies (21,868 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. The participants’ mean age was 73.1 ± 7.1 years, and 66.3% (15,054 participants) were women. Studies were mostly conducted in Europe (n = 15), North America (n = 13), and Oceania (n = 10). Multicomponent training involving multiple exercises (eg, aerobic, strength and balance; 29 RCTs) was the most common intervention modality, followed by aerobic (8 RCTs) and strength (5 RCTs) training. Exercise interventions had a mean frequency of 3 times/week, with each session lasting approximately 50 minutes, and were administered at a moderate intensity. The average compliance rate with exercise training was 65%. Comparator groups were often active controls that ranged from attention controls to more intensive interventions.

Main outcome measures. The 6 binary outcomes investigated were fallers who fell at least once, multiple times, or at least twice; fractures; hospitalization; and mortality. Estimates of outcomes were combined using risk ratios (RRs) using DerSimonian and Laird’s random-effects model (Mantel-Haenszel method). Heterogeneity was evaluated using I² statistics, and trials with low rates of compliance (< 30%) with exercise intervention or high attrition (> 40%) were excluded in primary analyses.

Main results. Exercise training significantly reduced the risk of falls by 12% (n = 20 RCTs; 4420 participants; RR, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-0.98) and injurious falls by 26% (9 RCTs; 4481 participants; RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.88), and reduced the risk of fractures by 16% (19 RCTs; 8410 participants; RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71-1.00; P = 0.05). Exercise training did not decrease the risk of multiple falls (13 RCTs; 3060 participants; RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.68-1.08), hospitalization (12 RCTs; 5639 participants; RR 0.94; 95% CI, 0.80-1.12), or mortality (29 RCTs; 11,441 participants; RR 0.96; 95% CI, 0.85-1.09). Sensitivity analyses yielded similar results, with the exception of the fixed-effect meta-analysis for the risk of fracture that showed a significant effect of long-term exercise training (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.70-1.00; P = 0.047). Meta-regression analysis on mortality and falls suggested that exercise frequency between 2 and 3 times per week was optimal and beneficial.

Conclusion. Long-term exercise training of 1 year or longer in duration is associated with a reduction in falls, injurious falls, and fractures in older adults. Moreover, moderate intensity, multicomponent exercise training performed 2 to 3 times weekly is likely safe and effective in this vulnerable population.

Commentary

Falls are exceedingly common (1 in 3 older Americans fall each year) and are the leading cause of fatal and nonfatal injuries in persons over the age of 65 years.^1,2 While fall prevention is a public health priority and a topic of interest in many research studies, there are important gaps in knowledge regarding optimal strategies to prevent falls and fall-related injuries in this high-risk population. The study reported by de Souto Barreto and colleagues provides new insights to address several of these gaps and may have a significant impact on the clinical practice of fall prevention in geriatric medicine.

Studies show that a single exercise intervention of short- to medium-term duration can prevent falls in community-dwelling older adults.³ However, the effects of long-term exercise training (ie, intervention lasting longer than a year) on fall prevention in this population is less well characterized. This study is the first meta-analysis that aimed to evaluate the potential beneficial impact of long-term exercise training on falls and adverse fall-related outcomes in adults ≥ 60 years of age who are prone to falls. The study’s findings indicate that long-term exercise training reduces the risk of falling by 12%, injurious falls by 26%, and factures by 16%. These results are important in that they add compelling evidence that exercise training of any duration can reduce falls and some fall-related adverse outcomes. Furthermore, the positive effects of long-term exercise training appear to mitigate some of the fatal and nonfatal injuries attributable to falls—the leading cause of such injuries in older adults.

The modality (type) and dose (frequency) of exercise training are important components of “exercise prescription” for older adults. However, there is a lack of research evidence to help clearly define these exercise parameters to better guide development of consensus exercise recommendations for older patients. This gap in knowledge limits the clinicians’ ability to recommend evidence-based treatment regimens to older adults who are at higher risk for falls. Moreover, although exercise programs are rarely associated with serious adverse events, recent findings from the Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders (LIFE) study found a modest and nonstatistically significant association between long-term, moderate-intensity physical activity programs and an increase in hospitalizations and mortality in older adults.^4,5 Taken together, these gaps in knowledge highlight the urgent need to better understand the optimal methods for administering exercise programs in older adults as well as the need for critical appraisals of the benefits and harms associated with long-term exercise training in this vulnerable population.

The results reported by de Souto Barreto and colleagues helped to address these questions. In this study, the authors found that long-term multicomponent training, particularly moderate intensity with balance exercises performed 2 to 3 times a week, appears to be a safe and effective intervention for reducing falls and injurious falls in older adults. Importantly, this type of long-term exercise regimen does not increase hospitalization and mortality, and thus supports the notion that exercise therapy is safe in older adults. Therefore, information gained from this meta-analysis should help to guide clinicians to devise a patient-centered exercise prescription for fall prevention.

The current study was well designed and has a number of strengths. The design of the systematic review and meta-analysis allowed aggregation of data from multiple trials, resulting in a more robust point estimate to evaluate the effects of long-term exercise training on falls and fall-related outcomes that otherwise cannot be achieved with individual trials. In addition, the emphasis on long-term exercise training in older adults in the setting of falls and adverse fall-related outcomes addresses a key area of research that currently lacks a sufficient evidence base. There are also several limitations in this study, primarily due to the nature of its meta-analysis design. For instance, the study populations included in the analysis are highly heterogeneous and range from those with dementia to healthy participants. In addition, long-term exercise training, defined as a duration ≥ 1 year, was arbitrarily established as the minimum period of intervention. Thus, potential important studies that include interventions of significant duration, but less than 1 year, may not have been captured in this analysis.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Falls in older adults are common and may lead to devastating health consequences. The implementation of a long-term, multicomponent, moderate-intensity exercise regimen performed 2 to 3 times weekly can reduce falls and injurious falls in older adults.

—Fred Ko, MD, MS

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate the association between long-term exercise interventions (duration ≥ 1 year) and risks of falls, injurious falls, multiple falls, fractures, hospitalization, and mortality in older adults.

Design. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with preplanned meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the association between long-term exercise interventions and falls and fall-related adverse outcomes in adults older than 60 years. A literature search using electronic databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, SportDiscus, PsychInfo, and Ageline, was performed between February 20 and March 5, 2018. Studies selected were RCTs with exercise duration of 1 year or longer, where effects of exercise intervention were compared with a comparator group of participants aged 60 years or older. Articles were independently screened, abstracted, and assessed for risk of bias by 2 raters, who resolved divergences in data extraction and synthesis via in-person meetings.

Setting and participants. A total of 46 studies (22,709 participants; median of 203 participants per study) were included in the review and 40 studies (21,868 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. The participants’ mean age was 73.1 ± 7.1 years, and 66.3% (15,054 participants) were women. Studies were mostly conducted in Europe (n = 15), North America (n = 13), and Oceania (n = 10). Multicomponent training involving multiple exercises (eg, aerobic, strength and balance; 29 RCTs) was the most common intervention modality, followed by aerobic (8 RCTs) and strength (5 RCTs) training. Exercise interventions had a mean frequency of 3 times/week, with each session lasting approximately 50 minutes, and were administered at a moderate intensity. The average compliance rate with exercise training was 65%. Comparator groups were often active controls that ranged from attention controls to more intensive interventions.

Main outcome measures. The 6 binary outcomes investigated were fallers who fell at least once, multiple times, or at least twice; fractures; hospitalization; and mortality. Estimates of outcomes were combined using risk ratios (RRs) using DerSimonian and Laird’s random-effects model (Mantel-Haenszel method). Heterogeneity was evaluated using I² statistics, and trials with low rates of compliance (< 30%) with exercise intervention or high attrition (> 40%) were excluded in primary analyses.

Main results. Exercise training significantly reduced the risk of falls by 12% (n = 20 RCTs; 4420 participants; RR, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-0.98) and injurious falls by 26% (9 RCTs; 4481 participants; RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.88), and reduced the risk of fractures by 16% (19 RCTs; 8410 participants; RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71-1.00; P = 0.05). Exercise training did not decrease the risk of multiple falls (13 RCTs; 3060 participants; RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.68-1.08), hospitalization (12 RCTs; 5639 participants; RR 0.94; 95% CI, 0.80-1.12), or mortality (29 RCTs; 11,441 participants; RR 0.96; 95% CI, 0.85-1.09). Sensitivity analyses yielded similar results, with the exception of the fixed-effect meta-analysis for the risk of fracture that showed a significant effect of long-term exercise training (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.70-1.00; P = 0.047). Meta-regression analysis on mortality and falls suggested that exercise frequency between 2 and 3 times per week was optimal and beneficial.

Conclusion. Long-term exercise training of 1 year or longer in duration is associated with a reduction in falls, injurious falls, and fractures in older adults. Moreover, moderate intensity, multicomponent exercise training performed 2 to 3 times weekly is likely safe and effective in this vulnerable population.

Commentary

Falls are exceedingly common (1 in 3 older Americans fall each year) and are the leading cause of fatal and nonfatal injuries in persons over the age of 65 years.^1,2 While fall prevention is a public health priority and a topic of interest in many research studies, there are important gaps in knowledge regarding optimal strategies to prevent falls and fall-related injuries in this high-risk population. The study reported by de Souto Barreto and colleagues provides new insights to address several of these gaps and may have a significant impact on the clinical practice of fall prevention in geriatric medicine.

Studies show that a single exercise intervention of short- to medium-term duration can prevent falls in community-dwelling older adults.³ However, the effects of long-term exercise training (ie, intervention lasting longer than a year) on fall prevention in this population is less well characterized. This study is the first meta-analysis that aimed to evaluate the potential beneficial impact of long-term exercise training on falls and adverse fall-related outcomes in adults ≥ 60 years of age who are prone to falls. The study’s findings indicate that long-term exercise training reduces the risk of falling by 12%, injurious falls by 26%, and factures by 16%. These results are important in that they add compelling evidence that exercise training of any duration can reduce falls and some fall-related adverse outcomes. Furthermore, the positive effects of long-term exercise training appear to mitigate some of the fatal and nonfatal injuries attributable to falls—the leading cause of such injuries in older adults.

The modality (type) and dose (frequency) of exercise training are important components of “exercise prescription” for older adults. However, there is a lack of research evidence to help clearly define these exercise parameters to better guide development of consensus exercise recommendations for older patients. This gap in knowledge limits the clinicians’ ability to recommend evidence-based treatment regimens to older adults who are at higher risk for falls. Moreover, although exercise programs are rarely associated with serious adverse events, recent findings from the Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders (LIFE) study found a modest and nonstatistically significant association between long-term, moderate-intensity physical activity programs and an increase in hospitalizations and mortality in older adults.^4,5 Taken together, these gaps in knowledge highlight the urgent need to better understand the optimal methods for administering exercise programs in older adults as well as the need for critical appraisals of the benefits and harms associated with long-term exercise training in this vulnerable population.

The results reported by de Souto Barreto and colleagues helped to address these questions. In this study, the authors found that long-term multicomponent training, particularly moderate intensity with balance exercises performed 2 to 3 times a week, appears to be a safe and effective intervention for reducing falls and injurious falls in older adults. Importantly, this type of long-term exercise regimen does not increase hospitalization and mortality, and thus supports the notion that exercise therapy is safe in older adults. Therefore, information gained from this meta-analysis should help to guide clinicians to devise a patient-centered exercise prescription for fall prevention.

The current study was well designed and has a number of strengths. The design of the systematic review and meta-analysis allowed aggregation of data from multiple trials, resulting in a more robust point estimate to evaluate the effects of long-term exercise training on falls and fall-related outcomes that otherwise cannot be achieved with individual trials. In addition, the emphasis on long-term exercise training in older adults in the setting of falls and adverse fall-related outcomes addresses a key area of research that currently lacks a sufficient evidence base. There are also several limitations in this study, primarily due to the nature of its meta-analysis design. For instance, the study populations included in the analysis are highly heterogeneous and range from those with dementia to healthy participants. In addition, long-term exercise training, defined as a duration ≥ 1 year, was arbitrarily established as the minimum period of intervention. Thus, potential important studies that include interventions of significant duration, but less than 1 year, may not have been captured in this analysis.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Falls in older adults are common and may lead to devastating health consequences. The implementation of a long-term, multicomponent, moderate-intensity exercise regimen performed 2 to 3 times weekly can reduce falls and injurious falls in older adults.

—Fred Ko, MD, MS

Study Overview

Objective. To examine whether receiving primary care is associated with receipt of high-value services and low-value services and quality of patient experience.

Design. Secondary data analysis of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, which is an annual survey of a nationally representative sample of noninstitutionalized adults in the United States aged ≥ 18 years drawn from the National Health Interview Survey. The study used data from 2012 to 2014, and during these years the survey had a response rate ranging from 49% to 65%. The survey collected data through computer-assisted personal interviews and included data on demographic characteristics, health conditions, health status, medical services utilization, medications, costs, and experience with care. Between 21,905 and 26,509 respondents were surveyed each year.

To define whether a respondent received primary care, respondents were asked if they have a “usual source of care” and to provide the name of a physician they usually visit if they “are sick or need advice” about their health. Four additional questions asked respondents if they would visit their usual source of care for (1) “new health problems,” (2) “preventive health care such as general checkups, examinations, and immunizations,” (3) “ongoing health problems,” and (4) “referrals to other health professionals when needed.” These questions were intended to reflect the essential functions of primary care: providing first contact care that is comprehensive, continuous, and coordinated. Any respondents who indicated that they did not have a usual source of care or answered no to any of the 4 questions were considered to not have primary care. Among respondents who identified a usual source of care, 95% met criteria for having primary care.

Setting and participants. The study included 49,286 US adults with primary care and 21,133 US adults without primary care. The average age was 50 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 50-51) among those with primary care and 38 years (95% CI, 38-39) among those without primary care. Among those who had primary care, 55% were female, 50% were non-Hispanic white, 32% Hispanic, and 13% black; among those without primary care, 43% were female, 43% were non-Hispanic white, 35% Hispanic, and 13% black. Among respondents with primary care, 58% considered their health status to be excellent or very good, as compared with 66% of respondents without primary care. Lack of insurance was reported by 7% of respondents with primary care and 34% of respondents without primary care. Chronic disease was reported in 78% of respondents without primary care, as compared with 42% of respondents with primary care. The study uses propensity score matching methods to produce a matched cohort, taking into account potential confounders. The matching procedure resulted in a final sample of 43,766 respondents with primary care matched to 17,964 respondents without primary care.

Main outcome measures. Main study outcome measures included 39 quality measures aggregated into quality composites (6 high-value services and 4 low-value services), and 7 patient care experience measures aggregated into an overall patient experience rating and 2 experience composites. High-value services are defined as delivery of services that are likely of benefit, and include the use of recommended cancer screening such as colorectal cancer screening in appropriate age groups; recommended diagnostic and preventive testing such as cholesterol measurement and influenza vaccination; recommended diabetes care such as hemoglobin A1c measurement; recommended medical treatment for medical conditions such as heart failure, coronary artery disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; and recommended counseling such as smoking cessation. Low-value services are defined as delivery of services that are considered either inappropriate or of little to no benefit, and include cancer screening in older adults; inappropriate use of antibiotics such as for bronchitis; inappropriate medical treatment such as anxiolytic, sedative, or hypnotic prescriptions for older adults; and inappropriate imaging tests for certain conditions.

Composites of underuse (high-value care) and overuse (low-value care) were constructed from each measure of high- or low-value services by identifying respondents who were eligible for the measure and determining the proportion in which recommended care was delivered (for high-value measures) or avoided (for low-value measures). Patient care experience was measured by standardized CAHPS (Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) measurement for global rating of health care, doctor communication, and access to care. The patient care experience measures were dichotomized into positive responses as a rating of 8, 9, or 10 on items scored from 0 to 10, and 4 for items scored from 1 to 4. The experience composite was constructed by computing the mean for each respondent and then the mean for all respondents.

Main results. The study found that respondents with primary care were more likely to receive high-value care in 4 of 5 composite measures—cancer screening, diagnostic and preventive testing, diabetes care, and recommended counseling such as smoking cessation—but not in the composite recommended treatment for specific medical conditions such as heart failure. Respondents with primary care were more likely to receive recommended cancer screening, as compared to those without primary care (78% vs 67%, respectively, with a difference of 10.8%; 95% CI, 8.5%-13.0%). Respondents with primary care were also more likely to receive recommended diagnostic and preventive testing (with a difference of 9.9%; 95% CI, 8.7%-11.2%), to receive high-value diabetes care (with a difference of 7.8%; 95% CI, 1.2%-14.4%), and to receive counselling (with a difference of 6.9%; 95% CI, 4.1%-9.7%) when compared to respondents without primary care. However the rates of receipt of high-value medical treatments were similar among respondents with or without primary care (with a difference of –4.6% (95% CI, –14.3% to 5.0%). In contrast, rates of low-value care were similar for those with or without primary care in 3 of 4 composites, including low-value cancer screening, medical treatment, and imaging, while those with primary care had higher rates of low-value antibiotic use (with a difference of 11.0%; 95% CI, 2.8%-19.3%). Respondents with primary care reported better patient care experience, including global rating of their health care, physician communication, and access to care, when compared to those without primary care.

Conclusion. Receipt of primary care is associated with a better patient care experience, more high-value care, and slightly more low-value care.

Commentary

Primary care has long been considered the bedrock of modern health care, and the delivery of comprehensive, continuous, high-quality primary care yields benefits to patients and the health care system.¹ Primary care is associated with better outcomes, such as lower mortality and reduced rates of potentially avoidable hospitalizations, and people living in areas with higher concentrations of primary care are more likely to report better health.² Primary care is also associated with reductions in health care cost and utilization while maintaining quality.² The current study adds to what is known about the potential benefits of primary care by directly examining the association of the use of primary care versus no primary care with outcomes of high-value care, low-value care, and patient care experience. Because this study used nationally representative data, it was able to examine adults in all age groups, not only older adults in Medicare, which prior studies have relied on.³ The study’s findings—that adults seen in primary care receive more high-value care and report better care experiences—are not surprising. The study also found that slightly more low-value care is being delivered in primary care. These findings are consistent with prior studies. Also, although primary care overall may be associated with health care benefits, there is substantial variation in the rates of overuse (of low-value care) and underuse (of high-value care) in primary care, and this may represent opportunities for improvement.⁴

This study has several limitations. Because the study defined primary care using questions that identify essential elements of primary care—first contact, comprehensiveness, continuity, and coordinated care—the findings may not apply to all individuals who have identified a primary care provider, but only to those who experience comprehensive, continuous, and coordinated care. Inclusion of all individuals who identify a usual source of primary care as the sole criteria may attenuate the association of primary care with the outcome measures. It is, however, reassuring that among those who identified a usual source of care (primary care), 95% indicated that they have care that is consistent with the principles of first contact care, comprehensiveness, continuity, and coordinated care. Another limitation is that the use of the criteria to indicate high- or low-value care may not capture the nuances of patient-centered care, preferences, or individualized decision-making that occurs in clinical care. Nonetheless, definitions used in the study for high- and low-value care are consistent with prior literature, and offer a standardized measure to indicate quality of care.

Applications for Clinical Practice

A recent trend in health care is the shift of continuity of care from primary care providers or practices to facility-based care or no continuity of care at all, and this shift disproportionately affects patients with low income and is associated with more emergency room visits.⁵ The current study makes a strong case for the potential benefits of receiving primary care that is comprehensive, continuous, and coordinated, as patients in primary care are more likely to receive high-value over low-value care, and to have a better care experience. The ongoing debate on changes to the health care system and insurance options must take into account the impact of any changes on the population receiving primary care coverage, with the goal that more, rather than fewer, individuals realize the potential benefits of comprehensive primary care.

— William W. Hung, MD MPH

Study Overview

Objective. To examine whether receiving primary care is associated with receipt of high-value services and low-value services and quality of patient experience.

Design. Secondary data analysis of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, which is an annual survey of a nationally representative sample of noninstitutionalized adults in the United States aged ≥ 18 years drawn from the National Health Interview Survey. The study used data from 2012 to 2014, and during these years the survey had a response rate ranging from 49% to 65%. The survey collected data through computer-assisted personal interviews and included data on demographic characteristics, health conditions, health status, medical services utilization, medications, costs, and experience with care. Between 21,905 and 26,509 respondents were surveyed each year.

To define whether a respondent received primary care, respondents were asked if they have a “usual source of care” and to provide the name of a physician they usually visit if they “are sick or need advice” about their health. Four additional questions asked respondents if they would visit their usual source of care for (1) “new health problems,” (2) “preventive health care such as general checkups, examinations, and immunizations,” (3) “ongoing health problems,” and (4) “referrals to other health professionals when needed.” These questions were intended to reflect the essential functions of primary care: providing first contact care that is comprehensive, continuous, and coordinated. Any respondents who indicated that they did not have a usual source of care or answered no to any of the 4 questions were considered to not have primary care. Among respondents who identified a usual source of care, 95% met criteria for having primary care.

Setting and participants. The study included 49,286 US adults with primary care and 21,133 US adults without primary care. The average age was 50 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 50-51) among those with primary care and 38 years (95% CI, 38-39) among those without primary care. Among those who had primary care, 55% were female, 50% were non-Hispanic white, 32% Hispanic, and 13% black; among those without primary care, 43% were female, 43% were non-Hispanic white, 35% Hispanic, and 13% black. Among respondents with primary care, 58% considered their health status to be excellent or very good, as compared with 66% of respondents without primary care. Lack of insurance was reported by 7% of respondents with primary care and 34% of respondents without primary care. Chronic disease was reported in 78% of respondents without primary care, as compared with 42% of respondents with primary care. The study uses propensity score matching methods to produce a matched cohort, taking into account potential confounders. The matching procedure resulted in a final sample of 43,766 respondents with primary care matched to 17,964 respondents without primary care.

Main outcome measures. Main study outcome measures included 39 quality measures aggregated into quality composites (6 high-value services and 4 low-value services), and 7 patient care experience measures aggregated into an overall patient experience rating and 2 experience composites. High-value services are defined as delivery of services that are likely of benefit, and include the use of recommended cancer screening such as colorectal cancer screening in appropriate age groups; recommended diagnostic and preventive testing such as cholesterol measurement and influenza vaccination; recommended diabetes care such as hemoglobin A1c measurement; recommended medical treatment for medical conditions such as heart failure, coronary artery disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; and recommended counseling such as smoking cessation. Low-value services are defined as delivery of services that are considered either inappropriate or of little to no benefit, and include cancer screening in older adults; inappropriate use of antibiotics such as for bronchitis; inappropriate medical treatment such as anxiolytic, sedative, or hypnotic prescriptions for older adults; and inappropriate imaging tests for certain conditions.

Composites of underuse (high-value care) and overuse (low-value care) were constructed from each measure of high- or low-value services by identifying respondents who were eligible for the measure and determining the proportion in which recommended care was delivered (for high-value measures) or avoided (for low-value measures). Patient care experience was measured by standardized CAHPS (Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) measurement for global rating of health care, doctor communication, and access to care. The patient care experience measures were dichotomized into positive responses as a rating of 8, 9, or 10 on items scored from 0 to 10, and 4 for items scored from 1 to 4. The experience composite was constructed by computing the mean for each respondent and then the mean for all respondents.

Main results. The study found that respondents with primary care were more likely to receive high-value care in 4 of 5 composite measures—cancer screening, diagnostic and preventive testing, diabetes care, and recommended counseling such as smoking cessation—but not in the composite recommended treatment for specific medical conditions such as heart failure. Respondents with primary care were more likely to receive recommended cancer screening, as compared to those without primary care (78% vs 67%, respectively, with a difference of 10.8%; 95% CI, 8.5%-13.0%). Respondents with primary care were also more likely to receive recommended diagnostic and preventive testing (with a difference of 9.9%; 95% CI, 8.7%-11.2%), to receive high-value diabetes care (with a difference of 7.8%; 95% CI, 1.2%-14.4%), and to receive counselling (with a difference of 6.9%; 95% CI, 4.1%-9.7%) when compared to respondents without primary care. However the rates of receipt of high-value medical treatments were similar among respondents with or without primary care (with a difference of –4.6% (95% CI, –14.3% to 5.0%). In contrast, rates of low-value care were similar for those with or without primary care in 3 of 4 composites, including low-value cancer screening, medical treatment, and imaging, while those with primary care had higher rates of low-value antibiotic use (with a difference of 11.0%; 95% CI, 2.8%-19.3%). Respondents with primary care reported better patient care experience, including global rating of their health care, physician communication, and access to care, when compared to those without primary care.

Conclusion. Receipt of primary care is associated with a better patient care experience, more high-value care, and slightly more low-value care.

Commentary

Primary care has long been considered the bedrock of modern health care, and the delivery of comprehensive, continuous, high-quality primary care yields benefits to patients and the health care system.¹ Primary care is associated with better outcomes, such as lower mortality and reduced rates of potentially avoidable hospitalizations, and people living in areas with higher concentrations of primary care are more likely to report better health.² Primary care is also associated with reductions in health care cost and utilization while maintaining quality.² The current study adds to what is known about the potential benefits of primary care by directly examining the association of the use of primary care versus no primary care with outcomes of high-value care, low-value care, and patient care experience. Because this study used nationally representative data, it was able to examine adults in all age groups, not only older adults in Medicare, which prior studies have relied on.³ The study’s findings—that adults seen in primary care receive more high-value care and report better care experiences—are not surprising. The study also found that slightly more low-value care is being delivered in primary care. These findings are consistent with prior studies. Also, although primary care overall may be associated with health care benefits, there is substantial variation in the rates of overuse (of low-value care) and underuse (of high-value care) in primary care, and this may represent opportunities for improvement.⁴

This study has several limitations. Because the study defined primary care using questions that identify essential elements of primary care—first contact, comprehensiveness, continuity, and coordinated care—the findings may not apply to all individuals who have identified a primary care provider, but only to those who experience comprehensive, continuous, and coordinated care. Inclusion of all individuals who identify a usual source of primary care as the sole criteria may attenuate the association of primary care with the outcome measures. It is, however, reassuring that among those who identified a usual source of care (primary care), 95% indicated that they have care that is consistent with the principles of first contact care, comprehensiveness, continuity, and coordinated care. Another limitation is that the use of the criteria to indicate high- or low-value care may not capture the nuances of patient-centered care, preferences, or individualized decision-making that occurs in clinical care. Nonetheless, definitions used in the study for high- and low-value care are consistent with prior literature, and offer a standardized measure to indicate quality of care.

Applications for Clinical Practice

A recent trend in health care is the shift of continuity of care from primary care providers or practices to facility-based care or no continuity of care at all, and this shift disproportionately affects patients with low income and is associated with more emergency room visits.⁵ The current study makes a strong case for the potential benefits of receiving primary care that is comprehensive, continuous, and coordinated, as patients in primary care are more likely to receive high-value over low-value care, and to have a better care experience. The ongoing debate on changes to the health care system and insurance options must take into account the impact of any changes on the population receiving primary care coverage, with the goal that more, rather than fewer, individuals realize the potential benefits of comprehensive primary care.

— William W. Hung, MD MPH

Study Overview

Objective. To examine whether receiving primary care is associated with receipt of high-value services and low-value services and quality of patient experience.

Design. Secondary data analysis of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, which is an annual survey of a nationally representative sample of noninstitutionalized adults in the United States aged ≥ 18 years drawn from the National Health Interview Survey. The study used data from 2012 to 2014, and during these years the survey had a response rate ranging from 49% to 65%. The survey collected data through computer-assisted personal interviews and included data on demographic characteristics, health conditions, health status, medical services utilization, medications, costs, and experience with care. Between 21,905 and 26,509 respondents were surveyed each year.

To define whether a respondent received primary care, respondents were asked if they have a “usual source of care” and to provide the name of a physician they usually visit if they “are sick or need advice” about their health. Four additional questions asked respondents if they would visit their usual source of care for (1) “new health problems,” (2) “preventive health care such as general checkups, examinations, and immunizations,” (3) “ongoing health problems,” and (4) “referrals to other health professionals when needed.” These questions were intended to reflect the essential functions of primary care: providing first contact care that is comprehensive, continuous, and coordinated. Any respondents who indicated that they did not have a usual source of care or answered no to any of the 4 questions were considered to not have primary care. Among respondents who identified a usual source of care, 95% met criteria for having primary care.

Setting and participants. The study included 49,286 US adults with primary care and 21,133 US adults without primary care. The average age was 50 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 50-51) among those with primary care and 38 years (95% CI, 38-39) among those without primary care. Among those who had primary care, 55% were female, 50% were non-Hispanic white, 32% Hispanic, and 13% black; among those without primary care, 43% were female, 43% were non-Hispanic white, 35% Hispanic, and 13% black. Among respondents with primary care, 58% considered their health status to be excellent or very good, as compared with 66% of respondents without primary care. Lack of insurance was reported by 7% of respondents with primary care and 34% of respondents without primary care. Chronic disease was reported in 78% of respondents without primary care, as compared with 42% of respondents with primary care. The study uses propensity score matching methods to produce a matched cohort, taking into account potential confounders. The matching procedure resulted in a final sample of 43,766 respondents with primary care matched to 17,964 respondents without primary care.

Main outcome measures. Main study outcome measures included 39 quality measures aggregated into quality composites (6 high-value services and 4 low-value services), and 7 patient care experience measures aggregated into an overall patient experience rating and 2 experience composites. High-value services are defined as delivery of services that are likely of benefit, and include the use of recommended cancer screening such as colorectal cancer screening in appropriate age groups; recommended diagnostic and preventive testing such as cholesterol measurement and influenza vaccination; recommended diabetes care such as hemoglobin A1c measurement; recommended medical treatment for medical conditions such as heart failure, coronary artery disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; and recommended counseling such as smoking cessation. Low-value services are defined as delivery of services that are considered either inappropriate or of little to no benefit, and include cancer screening in older adults; inappropriate use of antibiotics such as for bronchitis; inappropriate medical treatment such as anxiolytic, sedative, or hypnotic prescriptions for older adults; and inappropriate imaging tests for certain conditions.

Composites of underuse (high-value care) and overuse (low-value care) were constructed from each measure of high- or low-value services by identifying respondents who were eligible for the measure and determining the proportion in which recommended care was delivered (for high-value measures) or avoided (for low-value measures). Patient care experience was measured by standardized CAHPS (Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) measurement for global rating of health care, doctor communication, and access to care. The patient care experience measures were dichotomized into positive responses as a rating of 8, 9, or 10 on items scored from 0 to 10, and 4 for items scored from 1 to 4. The experience composite was constructed by computing the mean for each respondent and then the mean for all respondents.

Main results. The study found that respondents with primary care were more likely to receive high-value care in 4 of 5 composite measures—cancer screening, diagnostic and preventive testing, diabetes care, and recommended counseling such as smoking cessation—but not in the composite recommended treatment for specific medical conditions such as heart failure. Respondents with primary care were more likely to receive recommended cancer screening, as compared to those without primary care (78% vs 67%, respectively, with a difference of 10.8%; 95% CI, 8.5%-13.0%). Respondents with primary care were also more likely to receive recommended diagnostic and preventive testing (with a difference of 9.9%; 95% CI, 8.7%-11.2%), to receive high-value diabetes care (with a difference of 7.8%; 95% CI, 1.2%-14.4%), and to receive counselling (with a difference of 6.9%; 95% CI, 4.1%-9.7%) when compared to respondents without primary care. However the rates of receipt of high-value medical treatments were similar among respondents with or without primary care (with a difference of –4.6% (95% CI, –14.3% to 5.0%). In contrast, rates of low-value care were similar for those with or without primary care in 3 of 4 composites, including low-value cancer screening, medical treatment, and imaging, while those with primary care had higher rates of low-value antibiotic use (with a difference of 11.0%; 95% CI, 2.8%-19.3%). Respondents with primary care reported better patient care experience, including global rating of their health care, physician communication, and access to care, when compared to those without primary care.

Conclusion. Receipt of primary care is associated with a better patient care experience, more high-value care, and slightly more low-value care.

Commentary

Primary care has long been considered the bedrock of modern health care, and the delivery of comprehensive, continuous, high-quality primary care yields benefits to patients and the health care system.¹ Primary care is associated with better outcomes, such as lower mortality and reduced rates of potentially avoidable hospitalizations, and people living in areas with higher concentrations of primary care are more likely to report better health.² Primary care is also associated with reductions in health care cost and utilization while maintaining quality.² The current study adds to what is known about the potential benefits of primary care by directly examining the association of the use of primary care versus no primary care with outcomes of high-value care, low-value care, and patient care experience. Because this study used nationally representative data, it was able to examine adults in all age groups, not only older adults in Medicare, which prior studies have relied on.³ The study’s findings—that adults seen in primary care receive more high-value care and report better care experiences—are not surprising. The study also found that slightly more low-value care is being delivered in primary care. These findings are consistent with prior studies. Also, although primary care overall may be associated with health care benefits, there is substantial variation in the rates of overuse (of low-value care) and underuse (of high-value care) in primary care, and this may represent opportunities for improvement.⁴

This study has several limitations. Because the study defined primary care using questions that identify essential elements of primary care—first contact, comprehensiveness, continuity, and coordinated care—the findings may not apply to all individuals who have identified a primary care provider, but only to those who experience comprehensive, continuous, and coordinated care. Inclusion of all individuals who identify a usual source of primary care as the sole criteria may attenuate the association of primary care with the outcome measures. It is, however, reassuring that among those who identified a usual source of care (primary care), 95% indicated that they have care that is consistent with the principles of first contact care, comprehensiveness, continuity, and coordinated care. Another limitation is that the use of the criteria to indicate high- or low-value care may not capture the nuances of patient-centered care, preferences, or individualized decision-making that occurs in clinical care. Nonetheless, definitions used in the study for high- and low-value care are consistent with prior literature, and offer a standardized measure to indicate quality of care.

Applications for Clinical Practice

A recent trend in health care is the shift of continuity of care from primary care providers or practices to facility-based care or no continuity of care at all, and this shift disproportionately affects patients with low income and is associated with more emergency room visits.⁵ The current study makes a strong case for the potential benefits of receiving primary care that is comprehensive, continuous, and coordinated, as patients in primary care are more likely to receive high-value over low-value care, and to have a better care experience. The ongoing debate on changes to the health care system and insurance options must take into account the impact of any changes on the population receiving primary care coverage, with the goal that more, rather than fewer, individuals realize the potential benefits of comprehensive primary care.

— William W. Hung, MD MPH

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate the efficacy of enzalutamide compared with standard first-line testosterone suppression in men with newly diagnosed metastatic, castrate-sensitive prostate cancer.

Design. Multinational, open-label, randomized phase 3 trial.

Setting and participants. 1125 men were randomly assigned to receive enzalutamide (563 patients) or standard care (562 patients) from March 2014 through March 2017. Eligible patients had a histologic diagnosis of prostate adenocarcinoma with metastases documented by conventional imaging with computed tomography (CT) and/or technetium-99 bone scan. Prior use of adjuvant testosterone suppression was allowed for up to 2 years, provided this had been completed at least 12 months prior to enrollment.

Intervention. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to receive enzalutamide 160 mg daily or nonsteroidal antiandrogen therapy with bicalutamide, nilutamide, or flutamide. All patients received testosterone suppression with goserelin, leuprolide, or degarelix. Therapy was continued until disease progression or intolerable adverse effects occurred. In November 2014 the protocol was amended to allow for early administration of docetaxel 75 mg/m² every 3 weeks for 6 cycles and androgen suppression. Patients were stratified according to having received docetaxel prior to randomization. This amendment was based on evidence of improved survival noted with this combination, and the decision to add docetaxel was up to the treating physician. The randomization was further stratified by disease volume, the use of bone-modifying agents, and comorbidity scores. High-volume disease was defined as the presence of visceral metastases or at least 4 bone lesions, with at least 1 being in the appendicular skeleton.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression-free survival (PFS), clinical PFS, death from any cause, or the last known follow-up PSA. PSA progression was defined as an increase in PSA level from the nadir value by ≥ 25% and by ≥ 2 ng/mL.

Main results. The baseline characteristics were well balanced between the treatment arms. High-volume disease was present in 52% of patients. Early docetaxel was planned in 45% of patients; however, 22 patients in whom docetaxel treatment was planned did not receive it. All 6 cycles of docetaxel were given to 159 patients in the enzalutamide group and 181 patients in the standard-care group. After a median follow-up of 34 months, there were 102 deaths in the enzalutamide group and 143 deaths in the standard-care group, with a hazard ratio (HR) for death of 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52-0.86; P = 0.002). Early docetaxel treatment, volume of disease, and use of bone-modifying agents did not affect this outcome. At 3 years, the OS was 80% in the enzalutamide group and 72% in the standard-care group. The rate of PSA-determined PFS was higher in the enzalutamide group compared with the standard group (3-year event-free survival, 67% and 37%, respectively), with a HR of 0.39 (95% CI, 0.33-0.47; P < 0.001). There were fewer clinical PFS events in the enzalutamide group (167 events vs 320 events), with a HR of 0.40 (95% CI, 0.33-0.49; P < 0.001). Analysis of the stratified subgroups showed the effect on OS was diminished in those with use of bone-modifying agents, those with high-volume disease, and those who received early docetaxel. The clinical PFS benefit was maintained across all subgroups, albeit with a smaller effect in those with high-volume disease and in those with early docetaxel treatment.

Treatment discontinuation for reasons other than progressive disease occurred in 12% of those in the enzalutamide group and 19% of those in the standard-care group. Overall, the adverse events were consistent with the known safety profiles of the treatment regimen. Seizures occurred in 7 patients on enzalutamide and no patients in the standard-care group. Fatigue was more common with enzalutamide.

Conclusion. Enzalutamide treatment was associated with significantly longer PFS and OS compared with standard care in men with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer receiving testosterone suppression.

Commentary

The current study shows that the addition of enzalutamide to standard androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves OS and PFS in men with newly diagnosed metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Until recently, antiandrogen therapy had been the standard of care for these men; however, with the advent of novel antiandrogen agents, outcomes in men with metastatic prostate cancer in both the androgen-sensitive and castrate-resistant settings have steadily improved.^1-5 In the castrate-resistant setting, enzalutamide has previously been shown to improve survival in chemotherapy-naïve patients and those previously exposed to docetaxel chemotherapy.^5-7 Similarly, in the hormone-sensitive setting the combination of ADT with either abiraterone or chemotherapy has been shown to improve outcomes. In the phase 3 LATITUDE and STAMPEDE trials, the combination of abiraterone plus prednisone and ADT resulted in a 30% and 37% improvement in OS, respectively.^1,2 Six cycles of docetaxel in combination with ADT also resulted in a 37% increase in OS in those with high-volume metastatic disease.³

The current study adds to the growing body of literature suggesting that combination therapy in the upfront, hormone-sensitive setting improves outcomes. In the CHAARTED trial, the combination of docetaxel and ADT improved survival in men with high-volume disease, but it did not seem to benefit those with lower-volume disease.³ However, the current data suggests a survival advantage with enzalutamide with low-volume disease as well. The use of docetaxel was similar between the 2 groups, and this suggests that the benefits of enzalutamide cannot be attributed to early integration of docetaxel. It is important to note that the subgroup analysis of those who received early docetaxel showed that these patients did not experience the same survival benefit as those who did not receive docetaxel. However, this trial was not powered for this analysis, and thus it should be interpreted with caution. PFS benefit was maintained across those who received and did not receive early docetaxel. Also worth noting is the increased docetaxel-related toxicity in the combination docetaxel and enzalutamide arm of this study. The neurological toxicity of enzalutamide was again noted, with 7 seizure events documented in this study.

Because this report on the ENZAMET study is an interim analysis, it will be important to follow these outcomes as the data set matures to ensure these effects are maintained over time. Additionally, it will be important to see what implications the addition of enzalutamide have on quality of life measures, as these data have not yet been published.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The ENZAMET study provides evidence that in men with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer receiving ADT, the addition of enzalutamide improves PFS and OS. In men who received early docetaxel, enzalutamide was associated with increased toxicity. Additionally, while PFS was improved in men who received enzalutamide and docetaxel, OS was not improved. The neurologic toxicities of enzalutamide should be considered, particularly in those with a prior history of seizure disorders. Based on these data, enzalutamide in combination with ADT represents a reasonable treatment option in men with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.

—Daniel Isaac, DO, MS

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate the efficacy of enzalutamide compared with standard first-line testosterone suppression in men with newly diagnosed metastatic, castrate-sensitive prostate cancer.

Design. Multinational, open-label, randomized phase 3 trial.

Setting and participants. 1125 men were randomly assigned to receive enzalutamide (563 patients) or standard care (562 patients) from March 2014 through March 2017. Eligible patients had a histologic diagnosis of prostate adenocarcinoma with metastases documented by conventional imaging with computed tomography (CT) and/or technetium-99 bone scan. Prior use of adjuvant testosterone suppression was allowed for up to 2 years, provided this had been completed at least 12 months prior to enrollment.

Intervention. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to receive enzalutamide 160 mg daily or nonsteroidal antiandrogen therapy with bicalutamide, nilutamide, or flutamide. All patients received testosterone suppression with goserelin, leuprolide, or degarelix. Therapy was continued until disease progression or intolerable adverse effects occurred. In November 2014 the protocol was amended to allow for early administration of docetaxel 75 mg/m² every 3 weeks for 6 cycles and androgen suppression. Patients were stratified according to having received docetaxel prior to randomization. This amendment was based on evidence of improved survival noted with this combination, and the decision to add docetaxel was up to the treating physician. The randomization was further stratified by disease volume, the use of bone-modifying agents, and comorbidity scores. High-volume disease was defined as the presence of visceral metastases or at least 4 bone lesions, with at least 1 being in the appendicular skeleton.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression-free survival (PFS), clinical PFS, death from any cause, or the last known follow-up PSA. PSA progression was defined as an increase in PSA level from the nadir value by ≥ 25% and by ≥ 2 ng/mL.

Main results. The baseline characteristics were well balanced between the treatment arms. High-volume disease was present in 52% of patients. Early docetaxel was planned in 45% of patients; however, 22 patients in whom docetaxel treatment was planned did not receive it. All 6 cycles of docetaxel were given to 159 patients in the enzalutamide group and 181 patients in the standard-care group. After a median follow-up of 34 months, there were 102 deaths in the enzalutamide group and 143 deaths in the standard-care group, with a hazard ratio (HR) for death of 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52-0.86; P = 0.002). Early docetaxel treatment, volume of disease, and use of bone-modifying agents did not affect this outcome. At 3 years, the OS was 80% in the enzalutamide group and 72% in the standard-care group. The rate of PSA-determined PFS was higher in the enzalutamide group compared with the standard group (3-year event-free survival, 67% and 37%, respectively), with a HR of 0.39 (95% CI, 0.33-0.47; P < 0.001). There were fewer clinical PFS events in the enzalutamide group (167 events vs 320 events), with a HR of 0.40 (95% CI, 0.33-0.49; P < 0.001). Analysis of the stratified subgroups showed the effect on OS was diminished in those with use of bone-modifying agents, those with high-volume disease, and those who received early docetaxel. The clinical PFS benefit was maintained across all subgroups, albeit with a smaller effect in those with high-volume disease and in those with early docetaxel treatment.

Treatment discontinuation for reasons other than progressive disease occurred in 12% of those in the enzalutamide group and 19% of those in the standard-care group. Overall, the adverse events were consistent with the known safety profiles of the treatment regimen. Seizures occurred in 7 patients on enzalutamide and no patients in the standard-care group. Fatigue was more common with enzalutamide.

Conclusion. Enzalutamide treatment was associated with significantly longer PFS and OS compared with standard care in men with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer receiving testosterone suppression.

Commentary

The current study shows that the addition of enzalutamide to standard androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves OS and PFS in men with newly diagnosed metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Until recently, antiandrogen therapy had been the standard of care for these men; however, with the advent of novel antiandrogen agents, outcomes in men with metastatic prostate cancer in both the androgen-sensitive and castrate-resistant settings have steadily improved.^1-5 In the castrate-resistant setting, enzalutamide has previously been shown to improve survival in chemotherapy-naïve patients and those previously exposed to docetaxel chemotherapy.^5-7 Similarly, in the hormone-sensitive setting the combination of ADT with either abiraterone or chemotherapy has been shown to improve outcomes. In the phase 3 LATITUDE and STAMPEDE trials, the combination of abiraterone plus prednisone and ADT resulted in a 30% and 37% improvement in OS, respectively.^1,2 Six cycles of docetaxel in combination with ADT also resulted in a 37% increase in OS in those with high-volume metastatic disease.³

The current study adds to the growing body of literature suggesting that combination therapy in the upfront, hormone-sensitive setting improves outcomes. In the CHAARTED trial, the combination of docetaxel and ADT improved survival in men with high-volume disease, but it did not seem to benefit those with lower-volume disease.³ However, the current data suggests a survival advantage with enzalutamide with low-volume disease as well. The use of docetaxel was similar between the 2 groups, and this suggests that the benefits of enzalutamide cannot be attributed to early integration of docetaxel. It is important to note that the subgroup analysis of those who received early docetaxel showed that these patients did not experience the same survival benefit as those who did not receive docetaxel. However, this trial was not powered for this analysis, and thus it should be interpreted with caution. PFS benefit was maintained across those who received and did not receive early docetaxel. Also worth noting is the increased docetaxel-related toxicity in the combination docetaxel and enzalutamide arm of this study. The neurological toxicity of enzalutamide was again noted, with 7 seizure events documented in this study.

Because this report on the ENZAMET study is an interim analysis, it will be important to follow these outcomes as the data set matures to ensure these effects are maintained over time. Additionally, it will be important to see what implications the addition of enzalutamide have on quality of life measures, as these data have not yet been published.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The ENZAMET study provides evidence that in men with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer receiving ADT, the addition of enzalutamide improves PFS and OS. In men who received early docetaxel, enzalutamide was associated with increased toxicity. Additionally, while PFS was improved in men who received enzalutamide and docetaxel, OS was not improved. The neurologic toxicities of enzalutamide should be considered, particularly in those with a prior history of seizure disorders. Based on these data, enzalutamide in combination with ADT represents a reasonable treatment option in men with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.

—Daniel Isaac, DO, MS

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate the efficacy of enzalutamide compared with standard first-line testosterone suppression in men with newly diagnosed metastatic, castrate-sensitive prostate cancer.

Design. Multinational, open-label, randomized phase 3 trial.

Setting and participants. 1125 men were randomly assigned to receive enzalutamide (563 patients) or standard care (562 patients) from March 2014 through March 2017. Eligible patients had a histologic diagnosis of prostate adenocarcinoma with metastases documented by conventional imaging with computed tomography (CT) and/or technetium-99 bone scan. Prior use of adjuvant testosterone suppression was allowed for up to 2 years, provided this had been completed at least 12 months prior to enrollment.

Intervention. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to receive enzalutamide 160 mg daily or nonsteroidal antiandrogen therapy with bicalutamide, nilutamide, or flutamide. All patients received testosterone suppression with goserelin, leuprolide, or degarelix. Therapy was continued until disease progression or intolerable adverse effects occurred. In November 2014 the protocol was amended to allow for early administration of docetaxel 75 mg/m² every 3 weeks for 6 cycles and androgen suppression. Patients were stratified according to having received docetaxel prior to randomization. This amendment was based on evidence of improved survival noted with this combination, and the decision to add docetaxel was up to the treating physician. The randomization was further stratified by disease volume, the use of bone-modifying agents, and comorbidity scores. High-volume disease was defined as the presence of visceral metastases or at least 4 bone lesions, with at least 1 being in the appendicular skeleton.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression-free survival (PFS), clinical PFS, death from any cause, or the last known follow-up PSA. PSA progression was defined as an increase in PSA level from the nadir value by ≥ 25% and by ≥ 2 ng/mL.

Main results. The baseline characteristics were well balanced between the treatment arms. High-volume disease was present in 52% of patients. Early docetaxel was planned in 45% of patients; however, 22 patients in whom docetaxel treatment was planned did not receive it. All 6 cycles of docetaxel were given to 159 patients in the enzalutamide group and 181 patients in the standard-care group. After a median follow-up of 34 months, there were 102 deaths in the enzalutamide group and 143 deaths in the standard-care group, with a hazard ratio (HR) for death of 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52-0.86; P = 0.002). Early docetaxel treatment, volume of disease, and use of bone-modifying agents did not affect this outcome. At 3 years, the OS was 80% in the enzalutamide group and 72% in the standard-care group. The rate of PSA-determined PFS was higher in the enzalutamide group compared with the standard group (3-year event-free survival, 67% and 37%, respectively), with a HR of 0.39 (95% CI, 0.33-0.47; P < 0.001). There were fewer clinical PFS events in the enzalutamide group (167 events vs 320 events), with a HR of 0.40 (95% CI, 0.33-0.49; P < 0.001). Analysis of the stratified subgroups showed the effect on OS was diminished in those with use of bone-modifying agents, those with high-volume disease, and those who received early docetaxel. The clinical PFS benefit was maintained across all subgroups, albeit with a smaller effect in those with high-volume disease and in those with early docetaxel treatment.

Treatment discontinuation for reasons other than progressive disease occurred in 12% of those in the enzalutamide group and 19% of those in the standard-care group. Overall, the adverse events were consistent with the known safety profiles of the treatment regimen. Seizures occurred in 7 patients on enzalutamide and no patients in the standard-care group. Fatigue was more common with enzalutamide.

Conclusion. Enzalutamide treatment was associated with significantly longer PFS and OS compared with standard care in men with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer receiving testosterone suppression.

Commentary

The current study shows that the addition of enzalutamide to standard androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves OS and PFS in men with newly diagnosed metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Until recently, antiandrogen therapy had been the standard of care for these men; however, with the advent of novel antiandrogen agents, outcomes in men with metastatic prostate cancer in both the androgen-sensitive and castrate-resistant settings have steadily improved.^1-5 In the castrate-resistant setting, enzalutamide has previously been shown to improve survival in chemotherapy-naïve patients and those previously exposed to docetaxel chemotherapy.^5-7 Similarly, in the hormone-sensitive setting the combination of ADT with either abiraterone or chemotherapy has been shown to improve outcomes. In the phase 3 LATITUDE and STAMPEDE trials, the combination of abiraterone plus prednisone and ADT resulted in a 30% and 37% improvement in OS, respectively.^1,2 Six cycles of docetaxel in combination with ADT also resulted in a 37% increase in OS in those with high-volume metastatic disease.³

The current study adds to the growing body of literature suggesting that combination therapy in the upfront, hormone-sensitive setting improves outcomes. In the CHAARTED trial, the combination of docetaxel and ADT improved survival in men with high-volume disease, but it did not seem to benefit those with lower-volume disease.³ However, the current data suggests a survival advantage with enzalutamide with low-volume disease as well. The use of docetaxel was similar between the 2 groups, and this suggests that the benefits of enzalutamide cannot be attributed to early integration of docetaxel. It is important to note that the subgroup analysis of those who received early docetaxel showed that these patients did not experience the same survival benefit as those who did not receive docetaxel. However, this trial was not powered for this analysis, and thus it should be interpreted with caution. PFS benefit was maintained across those who received and did not receive early docetaxel. Also worth noting is the increased docetaxel-related toxicity in the combination docetaxel and enzalutamide arm of this study. The neurological toxicity of enzalutamide was again noted, with 7 seizure events documented in this study.

Because this report on the ENZAMET study is an interim analysis, it will be important to follow these outcomes as the data set matures to ensure these effects are maintained over time. Additionally, it will be important to see what implications the addition of enzalutamide have on quality of life measures, as these data have not yet been published.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The ENZAMET study provides evidence that in men with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer receiving ADT, the addition of enzalutamide improves PFS and OS. In men who received early docetaxel, enzalutamide was associated with increased toxicity. Additionally, while PFS was improved in men who received enzalutamide and docetaxel, OS was not improved. The neurologic toxicities of enzalutamide should be considered, particularly in those with a prior history of seizure disorders. Based on these data, enzalutamide in combination with ADT represents a reasonable treatment option in men with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.

—Daniel Isaac, DO, MS

Study Overview

Objective. To investigate the 5-year clinical outcome of patients undergoing hybrid revascularization for multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD).

Design. Multicenter, open-label, prospective randomized control trial.

Setting and participants. 200 patients with multivessel CAD referred for conventional surgical revascularization were randomly assigned to undergo hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at 5 years.

Main results. After excluding 9 patients who were lost to follow-up before 5 years, 191 patients (94 in HCR group and 97 in CABG group) formed the basis of the study. All-cause mortality at 5-year follow-up was similar in the 2 groups (6.4% versus 9.2%, P = 0.69). The rates of myocardial infarction (4.3% versus 7.2%, P = 0.30), repeat revascularization (37.2% versus 45.4%, P = 0.38), stroke (2.1% versus 4.1%, P = 0.35), and major adverse and cardiac and cerebrovascular events (45.2% versus 53.4%, P = 0.39) were similar in the 2 groups. These findings were consistent across all levels of risk for surgical complications (EuroScore) and for complexity of revascularization (SYNTAX score).

Conclusion. HCR has similar 5-year all-cause mortality when compared with conventional CABG.

Commentary

HCR has been proposed as a less invasive, effective alternative revascularization strategy to conventional CABG for patients with multivessel CAD. The hybrid approach typically combines the long-term durability of grafting of the left anterior descending artery (LAD) using the left internal mammary artery and the percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-LAD stenosis; this approach has been shown to have similar or perhaps even better long-term patency compared with saphenous vein grafts.^1,2 Previous studies have demonstrated the feasibility of HCR by comparing HCR to conventional CABG at 1 year.² However, the long-term outcome of HCR compared to conventional CABG has not been previously reported.

In this context, Tajstra et al reported the 5-year follow-up from their prospective randomized pilot study. They report that among the 200 patients with multivessel coronary disease randomly assigned to either HCR or CABG, all-cause mortality at 5-year follow-up was similar in the 2 groups (6.4% versus 9.2%, P = 0.69). The rates of myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, stroke, and major adverse and cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) were also similar in the 2 groups.

This is an important study because it is the first to compare the long-term outcome of HCR with conventional CABG; previous studies have been limited due to their short- to mid-term follow-up.² However, because this study was not powered to assess the superiority of the HCR compared to conventional CABG, future randomized control trials with a larger number of patients are needed.

Future studies must address some important questions. First, the patients in the present study were younger (mean age, 62.1 ± 8.3 years) with less comorbidity and a relatively low SYNTAX score (23.6 ± 6.1 for the HCR arm). As CABG and PCI are associated with similar long- term outcomes in patients with low (< 22) to intermediate (22–32) SYNTAX score,³ comparisons between HCR and multivessel PCI using the current generation of drug-eluting stents are needed. The results from the ongoing Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Trial (NCT03089398) will shed light on this clinical question. Second, whether these findings can be extended to patients with a high baseline SYNTAX score needs further study. Nonetheless, outcomes were similar between the 2 strategies in the intermediate (n = 98) and high (n = 8) SYNTAX score groups. Interestingly, there is no clear benefit of HCR in the high surgical risk groups as measured by EuroScore. Third, in addition to the hard outcomes (death and MACCE), the quality of life of patients measured by an established metric, such as the Seattle Angina Questionnaire, need to be assessed. Last, the completeness of revascularization in each group needs to be further evaluated because incomplete revascularization is a known predictor of adverse outcomes.^4,5

Applications for Clinical Practice

In patients with multivessel coronary disease with low SYNTAX score, the 5-year outcome for HCR was similar to that of conventional CABG. Further larger studies are needed to assess the superiority of this approach.

—Taishi Hirai, MD, University of Missouri Medical Center, Columbia, MO; Hiroto Kitahara, MD, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL; and John Blair, MD, Medstar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC

Study Overview

Objective. To investigate the 5-year clinical outcome of patients undergoing hybrid revascularization for multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD).

Design. Multicenter, open-label, prospective randomized control trial.

Setting and participants. 200 patients with multivessel CAD referred for conventional surgical revascularization were randomly assigned to undergo hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at 5 years.

Main results. After excluding 9 patients who were lost to follow-up before 5 years, 191 patients (94 in HCR group and 97 in CABG group) formed the basis of the study. All-cause mortality at 5-year follow-up was similar in the 2 groups (6.4% versus 9.2%, P = 0.69). The rates of myocardial infarction (4.3% versus 7.2%, P = 0.30), repeat revascularization (37.2% versus 45.4%, P = 0.38), stroke (2.1% versus 4.1%, P = 0.35), and major adverse and cardiac and cerebrovascular events (45.2% versus 53.4%, P = 0.39) were similar in the 2 groups. These findings were consistent across all levels of risk for surgical complications (EuroScore) and for complexity of revascularization (SYNTAX score).

Conclusion. HCR has similar 5-year all-cause mortality when compared with conventional CABG.

Commentary

HCR has been proposed as a less invasive, effective alternative revascularization strategy to conventional CABG for patients with multivessel CAD. The hybrid approach typically combines the long-term durability of grafting of the left anterior descending artery (LAD) using the left internal mammary artery and the percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-LAD stenosis; this approach has been shown to have similar or perhaps even better long-term patency compared with saphenous vein grafts.^1,2 Previous studies have demonstrated the feasibility of HCR by comparing HCR to conventional CABG at 1 year.² However, the long-term outcome of HCR compared to conventional CABG has not been previously reported.

In this context, Tajstra et al reported the 5-year follow-up from their prospective randomized pilot study. They report that among the 200 patients with multivessel coronary disease randomly assigned to either HCR or CABG, all-cause mortality at 5-year follow-up was similar in the 2 groups (6.4% versus 9.2%, P = 0.69). The rates of myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, stroke, and major adverse and cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) were also similar in the 2 groups.

This is an important study because it is the first to compare the long-term outcome of HCR with conventional CABG; previous studies have been limited due to their short- to mid-term follow-up.² However, because this study was not powered to assess the superiority of the HCR compared to conventional CABG, future randomized control trials with a larger number of patients are needed.

Future studies must address some important questions. First, the patients in the present study were younger (mean age, 62.1 ± 8.3 years) with less comorbidity and a relatively low SYNTAX score (23.6 ± 6.1 for the HCR arm). As CABG and PCI are associated with similar long- term outcomes in patients with low (< 22) to intermediate (22–32) SYNTAX score,³ comparisons between HCR and multivessel PCI using the current generation of drug-eluting stents are needed. The results from the ongoing Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Trial (NCT03089398) will shed light on this clinical question. Second, whether these findings can be extended to patients with a high baseline SYNTAX score needs further study. Nonetheless, outcomes were similar between the 2 strategies in the intermediate (n = 98) and high (n = 8) SYNTAX score groups. Interestingly, there is no clear benefit of HCR in the high surgical risk groups as measured by EuroScore. Third, in addition to the hard outcomes (death and MACCE), the quality of life of patients measured by an established metric, such as the Seattle Angina Questionnaire, need to be assessed. Last, the completeness of revascularization in each group needs to be further evaluated because incomplete revascularization is a known predictor of adverse outcomes.^4,5

Applications for Clinical Practice

In patients with multivessel coronary disease with low SYNTAX score, the 5-year outcome for HCR was similar to that of conventional CABG. Further larger studies are needed to assess the superiority of this approach.

—Taishi Hirai, MD, University of Missouri Medical Center, Columbia, MO; Hiroto Kitahara, MD, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL; and John Blair, MD, Medstar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC

Study Overview

Objective. To investigate the 5-year clinical outcome of patients undergoing hybrid revascularization for multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD).

Design. Multicenter, open-label, prospective randomized control trial.

Setting and participants. 200 patients with multivessel CAD referred for conventional surgical revascularization were randomly assigned to undergo hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at 5 years.

Main results. After excluding 9 patients who were lost to follow-up before 5 years, 191 patients (94 in HCR group and 97 in CABG group) formed the basis of the study. All-cause mortality at 5-year follow-up was similar in the 2 groups (6.4% versus 9.2%, P = 0.69). The rates of myocardial infarction (4.3% versus 7.2%, P = 0.30), repeat revascularization (37.2% versus 45.4%, P = 0.38), stroke (2.1% versus 4.1%, P = 0.35), and major adverse and cardiac and cerebrovascular events (45.2% versus 53.4%, P = 0.39) were similar in the 2 groups. These findings were consistent across all levels of risk for surgical complications (EuroScore) and for complexity of revascularization (SYNTAX score).

Conclusion. HCR has similar 5-year all-cause mortality when compared with conventional CABG.

Commentary

HCR has been proposed as a less invasive, effective alternative revascularization strategy to conventional CABG for patients with multivessel CAD. The hybrid approach typically combines the long-term durability of grafting of the left anterior descending artery (LAD) using the left internal mammary artery and the percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-LAD stenosis; this approach has been shown to have similar or perhaps even better long-term patency compared with saphenous vein grafts.^1,2 Previous studies have demonstrated the feasibility of HCR by comparing HCR to conventional CABG at 1 year.² However, the long-term outcome of HCR compared to conventional CABG has not been previously reported.

In this context, Tajstra et al reported the 5-year follow-up from their prospective randomized pilot study. They report that among the 200 patients with multivessel coronary disease randomly assigned to either HCR or CABG, all-cause mortality at 5-year follow-up was similar in the 2 groups (6.4% versus 9.2%, P = 0.69). The rates of myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, stroke, and major adverse and cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) were also similar in the 2 groups.

This is an important study because it is the first to compare the long-term outcome of HCR with conventional CABG; previous studies have been limited due to their short- to mid-term follow-up.² However, because this study was not powered to assess the superiority of the HCR compared to conventional CABG, future randomized control trials with a larger number of patients are needed.

Future studies must address some important questions. First, the patients in the present study were younger (mean age, 62.1 ± 8.3 years) with less comorbidity and a relatively low SYNTAX score (23.6 ± 6.1 for the HCR arm). As CABG and PCI are associated with similar long- term outcomes in patients with low (< 22) to intermediate (22–32) SYNTAX score,³ comparisons between HCR and multivessel PCI using the current generation of drug-eluting stents are needed. The results from the ongoing Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Trial (NCT03089398) will shed light on this clinical question. Second, whether these findings can be extended to patients with a high baseline SYNTAX score needs further study. Nonetheless, outcomes were similar between the 2 strategies in the intermediate (n = 98) and high (n = 8) SYNTAX score groups. Interestingly, there is no clear benefit of HCR in the high surgical risk groups as measured by EuroScore. Third, in addition to the hard outcomes (death and MACCE), the quality of life of patients measured by an established metric, such as the Seattle Angina Questionnaire, need to be assessed. Last, the completeness of revascularization in each group needs to be further evaluated because incomplete revascularization is a known predictor of adverse outcomes.^4,5

Applications for Clinical Practice

In patients with multivessel coronary disease with low SYNTAX score, the 5-year outcome for HCR was similar to that of conventional CABG. Further larger studies are needed to assess the superiority of this approach.

—Taishi Hirai, MD, University of Missouri Medical Center, Columbia, MO; Hiroto Kitahara, MD, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL; and John Blair, MD, Medstar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC

Study Overview

Objective. To assess whether immediate restoration of sinus rhythm is necessary in hemodynamically stable, recent onset (< 36 hr), symptomatic atrial fibrillation in the emergency department.

Design. Multicenter, randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial, RACE 7 ACWAS (Rate Control versus Electrical Cardioversion Trial 7--Acute Cardioversion versus Wait and See).

Setting and participants. 15 hospitals in the Netherlands, including 3 academic hospitals, 8 nonacademic teaching hospitals, and 4 nonteaching hospitals. Patients 18 years of age or older with recent-onset (< 36 hr), symptomatic atrial fibrillation without signs of myocardial ischemia or a history of persistent atrial fibrillation who presented to the emergency department were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either a wait-and-see approach or early cardioversion. The wait-and-see approach consisted of the administration of rate-control medication, including intravenous or oral beta-adrenergic-receptor blocking agents, nondihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers, or digoxin to achieve a heart rate of 110 beats per minute or less and symptomatic relief. Patients were then discharged with an outpatient visit scheduled for the next day and a referral for cardioversion as close as possible to 48 hours after the onset of symptoms. The cardioconversion group received pharmacologic cardioversion with flecainide unless contraindicated, then electrical cardioversion was performed.

Main outcome measures. Primary outcome was the presence of sinus rhythm on electrocardiogram (ECG) recorded at the 4-week trial visit. Secondary endpoints included the duration of the index visit at the emergency department, emergency department visits related to atrial fibrillation, cardiovascular complications, and time until recurrence of atrial fibrillation.

Main results. From October 2014 through September 2018, 437 patients underwent randomization, with 218 patients assigned to the delayed cardioversion group and 219 to the early cardioversion group. Mean age was 65 years, and a majority of the patients (60%) were men (n = 261). The primary end point of the presence of sinus rhythm on the ECG recorded at the 4-week visit was present in 193 of 212 patients (91%) in the delayed cardioversion group and in 202 of 215 patients (94%) in the early cardioversion group. The –2.9 percentage points with confidence interval [CI] –8.2 to 2.2 (P = 0.005) met the criteria for the noninferiority of the wait-and-see approach.

For secondary outcomes, the median duration of the index visit was 120 minutes (range, 60 to 253) in the delayed cardioversion group and 158 minutes (range, 110 to 228) in the early cardioversion group. The median difference between the 2 groups was 30 minutes (95% CI, 6 to 51 minutes). There was no significant difference in cardiovascular complications between the 2 groups. Fourteen of 212 patients (7%) in the delayed cardioversion group and 14 of 215 patients (7%) in the early cardioversion group had subsequent visits to the emergency department because of a recurrence of atrial fibrillation. Telemetric ECG recordings were available for 335 of the 437 patients. Recurrence of atrial fibrillation occurred in 49 of the 164 (30%) patients in the delayed cardioversion group and 50 of the 171 (29%) patients in the early cardioversion group.

In terms of treatment, conversion to sinus rhythm within 48 hours occurred spontaneously in 150 of 218 patients (69%) in the delayed cardioversion group after receiving rate-control medications only. Of the 218 patients, 61 (28%) had delayed cardioversion (9 by pharmacologic and 52 by electrical cardioversion) as per protocol and achieved sinus rhythm within 48 hours. In the early cardioversion group, conversion to sinus rhythm occurred spontaneously in 36 of 219 patients (16%) before the initiation of the cardioversion and in 171 of 219 (78%) after cardioversion (83 by pharmacologic and 88 by electrical).

Conclusion. For patients with recent-onset, symptomatic atrial fibrillation, allowing a short time for spontaneous conversion to sinus rhythm is reasonable as demonstrated by this noninferiority study.

Commentary

Atrial fibrillation accounts for nearly 0.5% of all emergency department visits, and this number is increasing.^1,2 Patients commonly undergo immediate restoration of sinus rhythm by means of pharmacologic or electrical cardioversion. However, it is questionable whether immediate restoration of sinus rhythm is necessary, as spontaneous conversion to sinus rhythm occurs frequently. In addition, the safety of cardioversion between 12 and 48 hours after the onset of atrial fibrillation is questionable.^3,4

In this pragmatic trial, the findings suggest that rate-control therapy alone can achieve prompt symptom relief in almost all eligible patients, had a low risk of complications, and reduced the median length of stay in the emergency department to 2 hours. Independent of cardioversion strategy, the authors stressed the importance of management of stroke risk when patients present with atrial fibrillation to the emergency department. In this trial, 2 patients had cerebral embolism even though both were started on anticoagulation in the index visit. One patient from the delayed cardioversion group was on dabigatran after spontaneous conversion to sinus rhythm and had an event 5 days after the index visit. The other patient, from the early cardioversion group, was on rivaroxaban and had an event 10 days after electrical cardiology. In order for the results of this trial to be broadly applicable, exclusion of intraatrial thrombus on transesophageal echocardiography may be necessary when the onset of atrial fibrillation is not as clear.

There are several limitations of this study. First, this study included only 171 of the 3706 patients (4.6%) screened systematically at the 2 academic centers, but included 266 from 13 centers without systematic screening. The large amount of patients excluded from the controlled environment made the results less generalizable in the broader scope. Second, the reported incidence of recurrent atrial fibrillation within 4 weeks after randomization was an underestimation of the true recurrence rate since the trial used intermittent monitoring. Although the incidence of about 30% was similar between the 2 groups, the authors suggested that the probability of recurrence of atrial fibrillation was not affected by management approach during the acute event. Finally, for these results to be applicable in the general population, defined treatment algorithms and access to prompt follow-up are needed, and these may not be practical in other clinical settings.^2,5

Applications for Clinical Practice

The current study demonstrated immediate cardioversion is not necessary for patients with recent-onset, symptomatic atrial fibrillation in the emergency department. Allowing a short time for spontaneous conversion to sinus rhythm is reasonable as long as the total time in atrial fibrillation is less than 48 hours. Special consideration for anticoagulation is critical because stroke has been associated with atrial fibrillation duration between 24 and 48 hours.

—Ka Ming Gordon Ngai, MD, MPH

Study Overview

Objective. To assess whether immediate restoration of sinus rhythm is necessary in hemodynamically stable, recent onset (< 36 hr), symptomatic atrial fibrillation in the emergency department.

Design. Multicenter, randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial, RACE 7 ACWAS (Rate Control versus Electrical Cardioversion Trial 7--Acute Cardioversion versus Wait and See).

Setting and participants. 15 hospitals in the Netherlands, including 3 academic hospitals, 8 nonacademic teaching hospitals, and 4 nonteaching hospitals. Patients 18 years of age or older with recent-onset (< 36 hr), symptomatic atrial fibrillation without signs of myocardial ischemia or a history of persistent atrial fibrillation who presented to the emergency department were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either a wait-and-see approach or early cardioversion. The wait-and-see approach consisted of the administration of rate-control medication, including intravenous or oral beta-adrenergic-receptor blocking agents, nondihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers, or digoxin to achieve a heart rate of 110 beats per minute or less and symptomatic relief. Patients were then discharged with an outpatient visit scheduled for the next day and a referral for cardioversion as close as possible to 48 hours after the onset of symptoms. The cardioconversion group received pharmacologic cardioversion with flecainide unless contraindicated, then electrical cardioversion was performed.

Main outcome measures. Primary outcome was the presence of sinus rhythm on electrocardiogram (ECG) recorded at the 4-week trial visit. Secondary endpoints included the duration of the index visit at the emergency department, emergency department visits related to atrial fibrillation, cardiovascular complications, and time until recurrence of atrial fibrillation.

Main results. From October 2014 through September 2018, 437 patients underwent randomization, with 218 patients assigned to the delayed cardioversion group and 219 to the early cardioversion group. Mean age was 65 years, and a majority of the patients (60%) were men (n = 261). The primary end point of the presence of sinus rhythm on the ECG recorded at the 4-week visit was present in 193 of 212 patients (91%) in the delayed cardioversion group and in 202 of 215 patients (94%) in the early cardioversion group. The –2.9 percentage points with confidence interval [CI] –8.2 to 2.2 (P = 0.005) met the criteria for the noninferiority of the wait-and-see approach.

For secondary outcomes, the median duration of the index visit was 120 minutes (range, 60 to 253) in the delayed cardioversion group and 158 minutes (range, 110 to 228) in the early cardioversion group. The median difference between the 2 groups was 30 minutes (95% CI, 6 to 51 minutes). There was no significant difference in cardiovascular complications between the 2 groups. Fourteen of 212 patients (7%) in the delayed cardioversion group and 14 of 215 patients (7%) in the early cardioversion group had subsequent visits to the emergency department because of a recurrence of atrial fibrillation. Telemetric ECG recordings were available for 335 of the 437 patients. Recurrence of atrial fibrillation occurred in 49 of the 164 (30%) patients in the delayed cardioversion group and 50 of the 171 (29%) patients in the early cardioversion group.

In terms of treatment, conversion to sinus rhythm within 48 hours occurred spontaneously in 150 of 218 patients (69%) in the delayed cardioversion group after receiving rate-control medications only. Of the 218 patients, 61 (28%) had delayed cardioversion (9 by pharmacologic and 52 by electrical cardioversion) as per protocol and achieved sinus rhythm within 48 hours. In the early cardioversion group, conversion to sinus rhythm occurred spontaneously in 36 of 219 patients (16%) before the initiation of the cardioversion and in 171 of 219 (78%) after cardioversion (83 by pharmacologic and 88 by electrical).

Conclusion. For patients with recent-onset, symptomatic atrial fibrillation, allowing a short time for spontaneous conversion to sinus rhythm is reasonable as demonstrated by this noninferiority study.

Commentary

Atrial fibrillation accounts for nearly 0.5% of all emergency department visits, and this number is increasing.^1,2 Patients commonly undergo immediate restoration of sinus rhythm by means of pharmacologic or electrical cardioversion. However, it is questionable whether immediate restoration of sinus rhythm is necessary, as spontaneous conversion to sinus rhythm occurs frequently. In addition, the safety of cardioversion between 12 and 48 hours after the onset of atrial fibrillation is questionable.^3,4

In this pragmatic trial, the findings suggest that rate-control therapy alone can achieve prompt symptom relief in almost all eligible patients, had a low risk of complications, and reduced the median length of stay in the emergency department to 2 hours. Independent of cardioversion strategy, the authors stressed the importance of management of stroke risk when patients present with atrial fibrillation to the emergency department. In this trial, 2 patients had cerebral embolism even though both were started on anticoagulation in the index visit. One patient from the delayed cardioversion group was on dabigatran after spontaneous conversion to sinus rhythm and had an event 5 days after the index visit. The other patient, from the early cardioversion group, was on rivaroxaban and had an event 10 days after electrical cardiology. In order for the results of this trial to be broadly applicable, exclusion of intraatrial thrombus on transesophageal echocardiography may be necessary when the onset of atrial fibrillation is not as clear.

There are several limitations of this study. First, this study included only 171 of the 3706 patients (4.6%) screened systematically at the 2 academic centers, but included 266 from 13 centers without systematic screening. The large amount of patients excluded from the controlled environment made the results less generalizable in the broader scope. Second, the reported incidence of recurrent atrial fibrillation within 4 weeks after randomization was an underestimation of the true recurrence rate since the trial used intermittent monitoring. Although the incidence of about 30% was similar between the 2 groups, the authors suggested that the probability of recurrence of atrial fibrillation was not affected by management approach during the acute event. Finally, for these results to be applicable in the general population, defined treatment algorithms and access to prompt follow-up are needed, and these may not be practical in other clinical settings.^2,5

Applications for Clinical Practice

The current study demonstrated immediate cardioversion is not necessary for patients with recent-onset, symptomatic atrial fibrillation in the emergency department. Allowing a short time for spontaneous conversion to sinus rhythm is reasonable as long as the total time in atrial fibrillation is less than 48 hours. Special consideration for anticoagulation is critical because stroke has been associated with atrial fibrillation duration between 24 and 48 hours.

—Ka Ming Gordon Ngai, MD, MPH

Study Overview

Objective. To assess whether immediate restoration of sinus rhythm is necessary in hemodynamically stable, recent onset (< 36 hr), symptomatic atrial fibrillation in the emergency department.

Design. Multicenter, randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial, RACE 7 ACWAS (Rate Control versus Electrical Cardioversion Trial 7--Acute Cardioversion versus Wait and See).

Setting and participants. 15 hospitals in the Netherlands, including 3 academic hospitals, 8 nonacademic teaching hospitals, and 4 nonteaching hospitals. Patients 18 years of age or older with recent-onset (< 36 hr), symptomatic atrial fibrillation without signs of myocardial ischemia or a history of persistent atrial fibrillation who presented to the emergency department were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either a wait-and-see approach or early cardioversion. The wait-and-see approach consisted of the administration of rate-control medication, including intravenous or oral beta-adrenergic-receptor blocking agents, nondihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers, or digoxin to achieve a heart rate of 110 beats per minute or less and symptomatic relief. Patients were then discharged with an outpatient visit scheduled for the next day and a referral for cardioversion as close as possible to 48 hours after the onset of symptoms. The cardioconversion group received pharmacologic cardioversion with flecainide unless contraindicated, then electrical cardioversion was performed.

Main outcome measures. Primary outcome was the presence of sinus rhythm on electrocardiogram (ECG) recorded at the 4-week trial visit. Secondary endpoints included the duration of the index visit at the emergency department, emergency department visits related to atrial fibrillation, cardiovascular complications, and time until recurrence of atrial fibrillation.

Main results. From October 2014 through September 2018, 437 patients underwent randomization, with 218 patients assigned to the delayed cardioversion group and 219 to the early cardioversion group. Mean age was 65 years, and a majority of the patients (60%) were men (n = 261). The primary end point of the presence of sinus rhythm on the ECG recorded at the 4-week visit was present in 193 of 212 patients (91%) in the delayed cardioversion group and in 202 of 215 patients (94%) in the early cardioversion group. The –2.9 percentage points with confidence interval [CI] –8.2 to 2.2 (P = 0.005) met the criteria for the noninferiority of the wait-and-see approach.

For secondary outcomes, the median duration of the index visit was 120 minutes (range, 60 to 253) in the delayed cardioversion group and 158 minutes (range, 110 to 228) in the early cardioversion group. The median difference between the 2 groups was 30 minutes (95% CI, 6 to 51 minutes). There was no significant difference in cardiovascular complications between the 2 groups. Fourteen of 212 patients (7%) in the delayed cardioversion group and 14 of 215 patients (7%) in the early cardioversion group had subsequent visits to the emergency department because of a recurrence of atrial fibrillation. Telemetric ECG recordings were available for 335 of the 437 patients. Recurrence of atrial fibrillation occurred in 49 of the 164 (30%) patients in the delayed cardioversion group and 50 of the 171 (29%) patients in the early cardioversion group.

In terms of treatment, conversion to sinus rhythm within 48 hours occurred spontaneously in 150 of 218 patients (69%) in the delayed cardioversion group after receiving rate-control medications only. Of the 218 patients, 61 (28%) had delayed cardioversion (9 by pharmacologic and 52 by electrical cardioversion) as per protocol and achieved sinus rhythm within 48 hours. In the early cardioversion group, conversion to sinus rhythm occurred spontaneously in 36 of 219 patients (16%) before the initiation of the cardioversion and in 171 of 219 (78%) after cardioversion (83 by pharmacologic and 88 by electrical).

Conclusion. For patients with recent-onset, symptomatic atrial fibrillation, allowing a short time for spontaneous conversion to sinus rhythm is reasonable as demonstrated by this noninferiority study.

Commentary

Atrial fibrillation accounts for nearly 0.5% of all emergency department visits, and this number is increasing.^1,2 Patients commonly undergo immediate restoration of sinus rhythm by means of pharmacologic or electrical cardioversion. However, it is questionable whether immediate restoration of sinus rhythm is necessary, as spontaneous conversion to sinus rhythm occurs frequently. In addition, the safety of cardioversion between 12 and 48 hours after the onset of atrial fibrillation is questionable.^3,4

In this pragmatic trial, the findings suggest that rate-control therapy alone can achieve prompt symptom relief in almost all eligible patients, had a low risk of complications, and reduced the median length of stay in the emergency department to 2 hours. Independent of cardioversion strategy, the authors stressed the importance of management of stroke risk when patients present with atrial fibrillation to the emergency department. In this trial, 2 patients had cerebral embolism even though both were started on anticoagulation in the index visit. One patient from the delayed cardioversion group was on dabigatran after spontaneous conversion to sinus rhythm and had an event 5 days after the index visit. The other patient, from the early cardioversion group, was on rivaroxaban and had an event 10 days after electrical cardiology. In order for the results of this trial to be broadly applicable, exclusion of intraatrial thrombus on transesophageal echocardiography may be necessary when the onset of atrial fibrillation is not as clear.

There are several limitations of this study. First, this study included only 171 of the 3706 patients (4.6%) screened systematically at the 2 academic centers, but included 266 from 13 centers without systematic screening. The large amount of patients excluded from the controlled environment made the results less generalizable in the broader scope. Second, the reported incidence of recurrent atrial fibrillation within 4 weeks after randomization was an underestimation of the true recurrence rate since the trial used intermittent monitoring. Although the incidence of about 30% was similar between the 2 groups, the authors suggested that the probability of recurrence of atrial fibrillation was not affected by management approach during the acute event. Finally, for these results to be applicable in the general population, defined treatment algorithms and access to prompt follow-up are needed, and these may not be practical in other clinical settings.^2,5

Applications for Clinical Practice

The current study demonstrated immediate cardioversion is not necessary for patients with recent-onset, symptomatic atrial fibrillation in the emergency department. Allowing a short time for spontaneous conversion to sinus rhythm is reasonable as long as the total time in atrial fibrillation is less than 48 hours. Special consideration for anticoagulation is critical because stroke has been associated with atrial fibrillation duration between 24 and 48 hours.

—Ka Ming Gordon Ngai, MD, MPH

Study Overview

Objective. To test the effect of 12 months of vitamin D supplementation on lower-extremity power and function in older community-dwelling adults screened for low serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D).

Design. A single-center, double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled study in which participants were assigned to 800 IU of vitamin D₃ supplementation or placebo daily and were followed over a total period of 12 months.

Setting and participants. A total of 100 community-dwelling men and women aged ≥ 60 years with serum 25(OH)D ≤ 20 ng/mL at screening participated. Participants were prescreened by phone, and were excluded if they met any of the following exclusion criteria: vitamin D supplement use > 600 IU/day (for age 60-70 years) or > 800 IU/day (for age ≥ 71 years); vitamin D injection within the previous 3 months; > 2 falls or 1 fall with injury in past year; use of cane, walker, or other indoor walking aid; history of kidney stones within past 3 years; hypercalcemia (serum calcium > 10.8 mg/dL); renal dysfunction (glomerular filtration rate, < 30 mL/min); history of liver disease, sarcoidosis, lymphoma, dysphagia, or other gastrointestinal disorder; neuromuscular disorder affecting lower-extremity function; hip replacement within the past year; cancer treatment in the past 3 years; treatment with thiazide diuretics > 37.5 mg, teriparatide, denosumab, or bisphosphonates within the past 2 years; oral steroids (for > 3 weeks in the past 6 months); and use of fat malabsorption products or anticonvulsive therapy.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was leg extensor power assessed using a computer-interfaced bilateral Keiser pneumatic leg press. Secondary outcomes to measure physical function included: (1) backward tandem walk test (which is an indicator of balance and postural control during movement¹); (2) Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) testing, which includes a balance assessment (ability to stand with feet positioned normally, semi-tandem, and tandem for 10s), a timed 4-m walk, and a chair stand test (time to complete 5 repeated chair stands); (3) stair climbing (ie, time to climb 10 steps, as a measure of knee extensor strength and functional capacity); and (4) handgrip strength (using a dynamometer). Lean tissue mass was assessed by dual X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA scan). Finally, other measures included serum total 25(OH)D levels measured at baseline, 4, 8, and 12 months, as well as 24-hour urine collection for urea-nitrogen and creatinine measurements.

Main results. Of the 2289 individuals screened for the study, 100 met eligibility criteria and underwent randomization to receive either 800 IU vitamin D supplementation daily (n = 49) or placebo (n = 51). Three patients (2 in vitamin D group and 1 in placebo group) were lost to follow up. The mean age of all participants was 69.6 ± 6.9 years. In the vitamin D group versus the control group, respectively, the percent male: female ratio was 66:34 versus 63:37, and percent Caucasian was 75% versus 82%. Mean body mass index was 28.2 ± 7.0 and mean serum 25(OH)D was 20.2 ± 6.7 ng/mL. At the end of the study (12 months), 70% of participants given vitamin D supplementation had 25(OH)D levels ≥ 30 ng/mL and all participants had levels ≥ 20 ng/mL. In the placebo group, the serum 25(OH)D level was ≥ 20 ng/mL in 54% and ≥ 30 ng/mL in 6%. The mean serum 25(OH)D level increased to 32.5 ± 5.1 ng/mL in the vitamin D–supplemented group, but no significant change was found in the placebo group (treatment × time, P < 0.001). Overall, the serum 1,25 (OH)2D3 levels did not differ between the 2 groups over the intervention period (time, P = 0.49; treatment × time, P = 0.27). Dietary intake of vitamin D, calcium, nitrogen, and protein did not differ or change over time between the 2 groups. The change in leg press power, function, and strength did not differ between the groups over 12 months (all treatment × time, P values ≥ 0.60). A total of 27 falls were reported (14 in vitamin D versus 9 in control group), of which 9 were associated with injuries. There was no significant change in lean body mass at the end of the study period in either group (treatment × time, P = 0.98).

Conclusion. In community-dwelling older adults with vitamin D deficiency (≤ 20 ng/mL), 12-month daily supplementation with 800 IU of vitamin D₃ resulted in sufficient increases in serum 25(OH)D levels, but did not improve lower-extremity power, strength, or lean mass.

Commentary

Vitamin D deficiency is common in older adults (prevalence of about 41% in US adults ≥ 65 years old, according to Forrest et al²) and is likely due to dietary deficiency, reduced sun exposure (lifestyle), and decreased intestinal calcium absorption. As such, vitamin D deficiency has historically been a topic of debate and of interest in geriatric medicine, as it relates to muscle weakness, which in turn leads to increased susceptibility to falls.³ Interestingly, vitamin D receptors are expressed in human skeletal muscle,⁴ and in one study, 3-month supplementation of vitamin D led to an increase in type II skeletal muscle fibers in older women.⁵ Similarly, results from a meta-analysis of 5 randomized controlled trials (RCTs)⁶ showed that vitamin D supplementation may reduce fall risk in older adults by 22% (corrected odds ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.92). Thus, in keeping with this general theme of vitamin D supplementation yielding beneficial effects in clinical outcomes, clinicians have long accepted and practiced routine vitamin D supplementation in caring for older adults.

In more recent years, the role of vitamin D supplementation in primary care has become controversial,⁷ as observed in a recent paradigm shift of moving away from routine supplementation for fall and fracture prevention in clinical practice.⁸ In a recent meta-analysis of 33 RCTs in older community-dwelling adults, supplementation with vitamin D with or without calcium did not result in a reduction of hip fracture or total number of fractures.⁹ Moreover, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recently published updated recommendations on the use of vitamin D supplementation for primary prevention of fractures¹⁰ and prevention of falls¹¹ in community-dwelling adults. In these updated recommendations, the USPSTF indicated that insufficient evidence exists to recommend vitamin D supplementation to prevent fractures in men and premenopausal women, and recommends against vitamin D supplementation for prevention of falls. Finally, USPSTF recommends against low-dose vitamin D (400 IU or less) supplementation for primary prevention of fractures in community-dwelling, postmenopausal women.¹⁰ Nevertheless, these statements are not applicable for individuals with a prior history of osteoporotic fractures, increased risk of falls, or a diagnosis of vitamin D deficiency or osteoporosis. Therefore, vitamin D supplementation for prevention of fall and fractures should be practiced with caution.

Vitamin D supplementation is no longer routinely recommended for fall and fracture prevention. However, if we believe that poor lower extremity muscle strength is a risk factor for falls,¹² then the question of whether vitamin D has a beneficial role in improving lower extremity strength in older adults needs to be addressed. Results regarding the effect of vitamin D supplementation on muscle function have so far been mixed. For example, in a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of 160 postmenopausal women with low vitamin D level (< 20 ng/mL), vitamin D₃ supplementation at 1000 IU/day for 9 months showed a significant increase in lower extremity muscle strength.¹³ However, in another randomized double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of 130 men aged 65 to 90 years with low vitamin D level (< 30 ng/mL) and an SPPB score of ≤ 9 (mild-moderate limitation in mobility), daily supplementation with 4000 IU of vitamin D₃ for 9 months did not result in improved SPPB score or gait speed.¹⁴ In the study reported by Shea et al, the authors showed that 800 IU of daily vitamin D supplementation (consistent with the Institute of Medicine [IOM] recommendations for older adults¹⁵) in community-dwelling older adults with vitamin D deficiency (< 20 ng/mL) did not improve lower extremity muscle strength. This finding is significant in that it adds further evidence to support the rationale against using vitamin D supplementation for the sole purpose of improving lower extremity muscle function in older adults with vitamin D deficiency.

Valuable strengths of this study include its randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial design testing the IOM recommended dose of daily vitamin D supplementation for older adults. In addition, compared to some of the prior studies mentioned above, the study population included both males and females, although the final study population resulted in some gender bias (with male predominance). Moreover, participants were followed for a sufficient amount of time (1 year), with an excellent adherence rate (only 3 were lost to follow-up) and with corresponding improvement in vitamin D levels. Finally, the use of SPPB as a readout for primary outcome should also be commended, as this assessment is a well-validated method for measuring lower extremity function with scaled scores that predict poor outcomes.¹⁶ However, some limitations include the aforementioned predominance of male participants and Caucasian race in both intervention and control groups, as well as discrepancies between the measurement methods for serum vitamin D levels (ie, finger-stick cards versus clinical lab measurement) that may have underestimated the actual serum 25(OH)D levels.

Applications for Clinical Practice

While the null findings from the Shea and colleagues study are applicable to healthier community-dwelling older adults, they may not be generalizable to the care of more frail older patients due to their increased risks for falls and high vulnerability to adverse outcomes. Thus, further studies that account for baseline sarcopenia, frailty, and other fall-risk factors (eg, polypharmacy) are needed to better evaluate the value of vitamin D supplementation in this most vulnerable population.

— Caroline Park, MD, PhD, and Fred Ko, MD
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY

Study Overview

Objective. To test the effect of 12 months of vitamin D supplementation on lower-extremity power and function in older community-dwelling adults screened for low serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D).

Design. A single-center, double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled study in which participants were assigned to 800 IU of vitamin D₃ supplementation or placebo daily and were followed over a total period of 12 months.

Setting and participants. A total of 100 community-dwelling men and women aged ≥ 60 years with serum 25(OH)D ≤ 20 ng/mL at screening participated. Participants were prescreened by phone, and were excluded if they met any of the following exclusion criteria: vitamin D supplement use > 600 IU/day (for age 60-70 years) or > 800 IU/day (for age ≥ 71 years); vitamin D injection within the previous 3 months; > 2 falls or 1 fall with injury in past year; use of cane, walker, or other indoor walking aid; history of kidney stones within past 3 years; hypercalcemia (serum calcium > 10.8 mg/dL); renal dysfunction (glomerular filtration rate, < 30 mL/min); history of liver disease, sarcoidosis, lymphoma, dysphagia, or other gastrointestinal disorder; neuromuscular disorder affecting lower-extremity function; hip replacement within the past year; cancer treatment in the past 3 years; treatment with thiazide diuretics > 37.5 mg, teriparatide, denosumab, or bisphosphonates within the past 2 years; oral steroids (for > 3 weeks in the past 6 months); and use of fat malabsorption products or anticonvulsive therapy.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was leg extensor power assessed using a computer-interfaced bilateral Keiser pneumatic leg press. Secondary outcomes to measure physical function included: (1) backward tandem walk test (which is an indicator of balance and postural control during movement¹); (2) Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) testing, which includes a balance assessment (ability to stand with feet positioned normally, semi-tandem, and tandem for 10s), a timed 4-m walk, and a chair stand test (time to complete 5 repeated chair stands); (3) stair climbing (ie, time to climb 10 steps, as a measure of knee extensor strength and functional capacity); and (4) handgrip strength (using a dynamometer). Lean tissue mass was assessed by dual X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA scan). Finally, other measures included serum total 25(OH)D levels measured at baseline, 4, 8, and 12 months, as well as 24-hour urine collection for urea-nitrogen and creatinine measurements.

Main results. Of the 2289 individuals screened for the study, 100 met eligibility criteria and underwent randomization to receive either 800 IU vitamin D supplementation daily (n = 49) or placebo (n = 51). Three patients (2 in vitamin D group and 1 in placebo group) were lost to follow up. The mean age of all participants was 69.6 ± 6.9 years. In the vitamin D group versus the control group, respectively, the percent male: female ratio was 66:34 versus 63:37, and percent Caucasian was 75% versus 82%. Mean body mass index was 28.2 ± 7.0 and mean serum 25(OH)D was 20.2 ± 6.7 ng/mL. At the end of the study (12 months), 70% of participants given vitamin D supplementation had 25(OH)D levels ≥ 30 ng/mL and all participants had levels ≥ 20 ng/mL. In the placebo group, the serum 25(OH)D level was ≥ 20 ng/mL in 54% and ≥ 30 ng/mL in 6%. The mean serum 25(OH)D level increased to 32.5 ± 5.1 ng/mL in the vitamin D–supplemented group, but no significant change was found in the placebo group (treatment × time, P < 0.001). Overall, the serum 1,25 (OH)2D3 levels did not differ between the 2 groups over the intervention period (time, P = 0.49; treatment × time, P = 0.27). Dietary intake of vitamin D, calcium, nitrogen, and protein did not differ or change over time between the 2 groups. The change in leg press power, function, and strength did not differ between the groups over 12 months (all treatment × time, P values ≥ 0.60). A total of 27 falls were reported (14 in vitamin D versus 9 in control group), of which 9 were associated with injuries. There was no significant change in lean body mass at the end of the study period in either group (treatment × time, P = 0.98).

Conclusion. In community-dwelling older adults with vitamin D deficiency (≤ 20 ng/mL), 12-month daily supplementation with 800 IU of vitamin D₃ resulted in sufficient increases in serum 25(OH)D levels, but did not improve lower-extremity power, strength, or lean mass.

Commentary

Vitamin D deficiency is common in older adults (prevalence of about 41% in US adults ≥ 65 years old, according to Forrest et al²) and is likely due to dietary deficiency, reduced sun exposure (lifestyle), and decreased intestinal calcium absorption. As such, vitamin D deficiency has historically been a topic of debate and of interest in geriatric medicine, as it relates to muscle weakness, which in turn leads to increased susceptibility to falls.³ Interestingly, vitamin D receptors are expressed in human skeletal muscle,⁴ and in one study, 3-month supplementation of vitamin D led to an increase in type II skeletal muscle fibers in older women.⁵ Similarly, results from a meta-analysis of 5 randomized controlled trials (RCTs)⁶ showed that vitamin D supplementation may reduce fall risk in older adults by 22% (corrected odds ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.92). Thus, in keeping with this general theme of vitamin D supplementation yielding beneficial effects in clinical outcomes, clinicians have long accepted and practiced routine vitamin D supplementation in caring for older adults.

In more recent years, the role of vitamin D supplementation in primary care has become controversial,⁷ as observed in a recent paradigm shift of moving away from routine supplementation for fall and fracture prevention in clinical practice.⁸ In a recent meta-analysis of 33 RCTs in older community-dwelling adults, supplementation with vitamin D with or without calcium did not result in a reduction of hip fracture or total number of fractures.⁹ Moreover, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recently published updated recommendations on the use of vitamin D supplementation for primary prevention of fractures¹⁰ and prevention of falls¹¹ in community-dwelling adults. In these updated recommendations, the USPSTF indicated that insufficient evidence exists to recommend vitamin D supplementation to prevent fractures in men and premenopausal women, and recommends against vitamin D supplementation for prevention of falls. Finally, USPSTF recommends against low-dose vitamin D (400 IU or less) supplementation for primary prevention of fractures in community-dwelling, postmenopausal women.¹⁰ Nevertheless, these statements are not applicable for individuals with a prior history of osteoporotic fractures, increased risk of falls, or a diagnosis of vitamin D deficiency or osteoporosis. Therefore, vitamin D supplementation for prevention of fall and fractures should be practiced with caution.

Vitamin D supplementation is no longer routinely recommended for fall and fracture prevention. However, if we believe that poor lower extremity muscle strength is a risk factor for falls,¹² then the question of whether vitamin D has a beneficial role in improving lower extremity strength in older adults needs to be addressed. Results regarding the effect of vitamin D supplementation on muscle function have so far been mixed. For example, in a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of 160 postmenopausal women with low vitamin D level (< 20 ng/mL), vitamin D₃ supplementation at 1000 IU/day for 9 months showed a significant increase in lower extremity muscle strength.¹³ However, in another randomized double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of 130 men aged 65 to 90 years with low vitamin D level (< 30 ng/mL) and an SPPB score of ≤ 9 (mild-moderate limitation in mobility), daily supplementation with 4000 IU of vitamin D₃ for 9 months did not result in improved SPPB score or gait speed.¹⁴ In the study reported by Shea et al, the authors showed that 800 IU of daily vitamin D supplementation (consistent with the Institute of Medicine [IOM] recommendations for older adults¹⁵) in community-dwelling older adults with vitamin D deficiency (< 20 ng/mL) did not improve lower extremity muscle strength. This finding is significant in that it adds further evidence to support the rationale against using vitamin D supplementation for the sole purpose of improving lower extremity muscle function in older adults with vitamin D deficiency.

Valuable strengths of this study include its randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial design testing the IOM recommended dose of daily vitamin D supplementation for older adults. In addition, compared to some of the prior studies mentioned above, the study population included both males and females, although the final study population resulted in some gender bias (with male predominance). Moreover, participants were followed for a sufficient amount of time (1 year), with an excellent adherence rate (only 3 were lost to follow-up) and with corresponding improvement in vitamin D levels. Finally, the use of SPPB as a readout for primary outcome should also be commended, as this assessment is a well-validated method for measuring lower extremity function with scaled scores that predict poor outcomes.¹⁶ However, some limitations include the aforementioned predominance of male participants and Caucasian race in both intervention and control groups, as well as discrepancies between the measurement methods for serum vitamin D levels (ie, finger-stick cards versus clinical lab measurement) that may have underestimated the actual serum 25(OH)D levels.

Applications for Clinical Practice

While the null findings from the Shea and colleagues study are applicable to healthier community-dwelling older adults, they may not be generalizable to the care of more frail older patients due to their increased risks for falls and high vulnerability to adverse outcomes. Thus, further studies that account for baseline sarcopenia, frailty, and other fall-risk factors (eg, polypharmacy) are needed to better evaluate the value of vitamin D supplementation in this most vulnerable population.

— Caroline Park, MD, PhD, and Fred Ko, MD
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY

Study Overview

Objective. To test the effect of 12 months of vitamin D supplementation on lower-extremity power and function in older community-dwelling adults screened for low serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D).

Design. A single-center, double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled study in which participants were assigned to 800 IU of vitamin D₃ supplementation or placebo daily and were followed over a total period of 12 months.

Setting and participants. A total of 100 community-dwelling men and women aged ≥ 60 years with serum 25(OH)D ≤ 20 ng/mL at screening participated. Participants were prescreened by phone, and were excluded if they met any of the following exclusion criteria: vitamin D supplement use > 600 IU/day (for age 60-70 years) or > 800 IU/day (for age ≥ 71 years); vitamin D injection within the previous 3 months; > 2 falls or 1 fall with injury in past year; use of cane, walker, or other indoor walking aid; history of kidney stones within past 3 years; hypercalcemia (serum calcium > 10.8 mg/dL); renal dysfunction (glomerular filtration rate, < 30 mL/min); history of liver disease, sarcoidosis, lymphoma, dysphagia, or other gastrointestinal disorder; neuromuscular disorder affecting lower-extremity function; hip replacement within the past year; cancer treatment in the past 3 years; treatment with thiazide diuretics > 37.5 mg, teriparatide, denosumab, or bisphosphonates within the past 2 years; oral steroids (for > 3 weeks in the past 6 months); and use of fat malabsorption products or anticonvulsive therapy.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was leg extensor power assessed using a computer-interfaced bilateral Keiser pneumatic leg press. Secondary outcomes to measure physical function included: (1) backward tandem walk test (which is an indicator of balance and postural control during movement¹); (2) Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) testing, which includes a balance assessment (ability to stand with feet positioned normally, semi-tandem, and tandem for 10s), a timed 4-m walk, and a chair stand test (time to complete 5 repeated chair stands); (3) stair climbing (ie, time to climb 10 steps, as a measure of knee extensor strength and functional capacity); and (4) handgrip strength (using a dynamometer). Lean tissue mass was assessed by dual X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA scan). Finally, other measures included serum total 25(OH)D levels measured at baseline, 4, 8, and 12 months, as well as 24-hour urine collection for urea-nitrogen and creatinine measurements.

Main results. Of the 2289 individuals screened for the study, 100 met eligibility criteria and underwent randomization to receive either 800 IU vitamin D supplementation daily (n = 49) or placebo (n = 51). Three patients (2 in vitamin D group and 1 in placebo group) were lost to follow up. The mean age of all participants was 69.6 ± 6.9 years. In the vitamin D group versus the control group, respectively, the percent male: female ratio was 66:34 versus 63:37, and percent Caucasian was 75% versus 82%. Mean body mass index was 28.2 ± 7.0 and mean serum 25(OH)D was 20.2 ± 6.7 ng/mL. At the end of the study (12 months), 70% of participants given vitamin D supplementation had 25(OH)D levels ≥ 30 ng/mL and all participants had levels ≥ 20 ng/mL. In the placebo group, the serum 25(OH)D level was ≥ 20 ng/mL in 54% and ≥ 30 ng/mL in 6%. The mean serum 25(OH)D level increased to 32.5 ± 5.1 ng/mL in the vitamin D–supplemented group, but no significant change was found in the placebo group (treatment × time, P < 0.001). Overall, the serum 1,25 (OH)2D3 levels did not differ between the 2 groups over the intervention period (time, P = 0.49; treatment × time, P = 0.27). Dietary intake of vitamin D, calcium, nitrogen, and protein did not differ or change over time between the 2 groups. The change in leg press power, function, and strength did not differ between the groups over 12 months (all treatment × time, P values ≥ 0.60). A total of 27 falls were reported (14 in vitamin D versus 9 in control group), of which 9 were associated with injuries. There was no significant change in lean body mass at the end of the study period in either group (treatment × time, P = 0.98).

Conclusion. In community-dwelling older adults with vitamin D deficiency (≤ 20 ng/mL), 12-month daily supplementation with 800 IU of vitamin D₃ resulted in sufficient increases in serum 25(OH)D levels, but did not improve lower-extremity power, strength, or lean mass.

Commentary

Vitamin D deficiency is common in older adults (prevalence of about 41% in US adults ≥ 65 years old, according to Forrest et al²) and is likely due to dietary deficiency, reduced sun exposure (lifestyle), and decreased intestinal calcium absorption. As such, vitamin D deficiency has historically been a topic of debate and of interest in geriatric medicine, as it relates to muscle weakness, which in turn leads to increased susceptibility to falls.³ Interestingly, vitamin D receptors are expressed in human skeletal muscle,⁴ and in one study, 3-month supplementation of vitamin D led to an increase in type II skeletal muscle fibers in older women.⁵ Similarly, results from a meta-analysis of 5 randomized controlled trials (RCTs)⁶ showed that vitamin D supplementation may reduce fall risk in older adults by 22% (corrected odds ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.92). Thus, in keeping with this general theme of vitamin D supplementation yielding beneficial effects in clinical outcomes, clinicians have long accepted and practiced routine vitamin D supplementation in caring for older adults.

In more recent years, the role of vitamin D supplementation in primary care has become controversial,⁷ as observed in a recent paradigm shift of moving away from routine supplementation for fall and fracture prevention in clinical practice.⁸ In a recent meta-analysis of 33 RCTs in older community-dwelling adults, supplementation with vitamin D with or without calcium did not result in a reduction of hip fracture or total number of fractures.⁹ Moreover, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recently published updated recommendations on the use of vitamin D supplementation for primary prevention of fractures¹⁰ and prevention of falls¹¹ in community-dwelling adults. In these updated recommendations, the USPSTF indicated that insufficient evidence exists to recommend vitamin D supplementation to prevent fractures in men and premenopausal women, and recommends against vitamin D supplementation for prevention of falls. Finally, USPSTF recommends against low-dose vitamin D (400 IU or less) supplementation for primary prevention of fractures in community-dwelling, postmenopausal women.¹⁰ Nevertheless, these statements are not applicable for individuals with a prior history of osteoporotic fractures, increased risk of falls, or a diagnosis of vitamin D deficiency or osteoporosis. Therefore, vitamin D supplementation for prevention of fall and fractures should be practiced with caution.

Vitamin D supplementation is no longer routinely recommended for fall and fracture prevention. However, if we believe that poor lower extremity muscle strength is a risk factor for falls,¹² then the question of whether vitamin D has a beneficial role in improving lower extremity strength in older adults needs to be addressed. Results regarding the effect of vitamin D supplementation on muscle function have so far been mixed. For example, in a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of 160 postmenopausal women with low vitamin D level (< 20 ng/mL), vitamin D₃ supplementation at 1000 IU/day for 9 months showed a significant increase in lower extremity muscle strength.¹³ However, in another randomized double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of 130 men aged 65 to 90 years with low vitamin D level (< 30 ng/mL) and an SPPB score of ≤ 9 (mild-moderate limitation in mobility), daily supplementation with 4000 IU of vitamin D₃ for 9 months did not result in improved SPPB score or gait speed.¹⁴ In the study reported by Shea et al, the authors showed that 800 IU of daily vitamin D supplementation (consistent with the Institute of Medicine [IOM] recommendations for older adults¹⁵) in community-dwelling older adults with vitamin D deficiency (< 20 ng/mL) did not improve lower extremity muscle strength. This finding is significant in that it adds further evidence to support the rationale against using vitamin D supplementation for the sole purpose of improving lower extremity muscle function in older adults with vitamin D deficiency.

Valuable strengths of this study include its randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial design testing the IOM recommended dose of daily vitamin D supplementation for older adults. In addition, compared to some of the prior studies mentioned above, the study population included both males and females, although the final study population resulted in some gender bias (with male predominance). Moreover, participants were followed for a sufficient amount of time (1 year), with an excellent adherence rate (only 3 were lost to follow-up) and with corresponding improvement in vitamin D levels. Finally, the use of SPPB as a readout for primary outcome should also be commended, as this assessment is a well-validated method for measuring lower extremity function with scaled scores that predict poor outcomes.¹⁶ However, some limitations include the aforementioned predominance of male participants and Caucasian race in both intervention and control groups, as well as discrepancies between the measurement methods for serum vitamin D levels (ie, finger-stick cards versus clinical lab measurement) that may have underestimated the actual serum 25(OH)D levels.

Applications for Clinical Practice

While the null findings from the Shea and colleagues study are applicable to healthier community-dwelling older adults, they may not be generalizable to the care of more frail older patients due to their increased risks for falls and high vulnerability to adverse outcomes. Thus, further studies that account for baseline sarcopenia, frailty, and other fall-risk factors (eg, polypharmacy) are needed to better evaluate the value of vitamin D supplementation in this most vulnerable population.

— Caroline Park, MD, PhD, and Fred Ko, MD
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a once-daily 2-drug antiretroviral (ARV) regimen, dolutegravir plus lamivudine, for the treatment of HIV-1 infection in adults naive to antiretroviral therapy (ART).

Design. GEMINI-1 and GEMINI-2 were 2 identically designed multicenter, double-blind, randomized, noninferiority, phase 3 clinical trials conducted between July 18, 2016 and March 31, 2017. Participants were stratified to receive 1 of 2 once-daily HIV regimens: the study regimen, consisting of once-daily dolutegravir 50 mg plus lamivudine 300 mg, or the standard-of-care regimen, consisting of once-daily dolutegravir 50 mg plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) 300 mg plus emtricitabine 200 mg. While this article presents results at week 48, both trials are scheduled to evaluate participants up to week 148 in an attempt to evaluate long-term efficacy and safety.

Setting and participants. Eligible participants had to be aged 18 years or older with treatment-naive HIV-1 infection. Women were eligible if they were not (1) pregnant, (2) lactating, or (3) of reproductive potential, defined by various means, including tubal ligation, hysterectomy, postmenopausal, and the use of highly effective contraception. Initially, eligibility screening restricted participation to those with viral loads between 1000 and 100,000 copies/mL. However, the upper limit was later increased to 500,000 copies/mL based on an independent review of results from other clinical trials^1,2 evaluating dual therapy with dolutegravir and lamivudine, which indicated efficacy in patients with viral loads up to 500,000.^3-5

Notable exclusion criteria included: (1) major mutations to nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, and protease inhibitors; (2) evidence of hepatitis B infection; (3) hepatitis C infection with anticipation of initiating treatment within 48 weeks of study enrollment; and (4) stage 3 HIV disease, per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria, with the exception of cutaneous Kaposi sarcoma and CD4 cell counts < 200 cells/mL.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint was demonstration of noninferiority of the 2-drug ARV regimen through assessment of the proportion of participants who achieved virologic suppression at week 48 in the intent-to-treat-exposed population. For the purposes of this study, virologic suppression was defined as having fewer than 50 copies of HIV-1 RNA per mL at week 48. For evaluation of safety and toxicity concerns, renal and bone biomarkers were assessed at study entry and at weeks 24 and 48. In addition, participants who met virological withdrawal criteria were evaluated for integrase strand transfer inhibitor mutations. Virological withdrawal was defined as the presence of 1 of the following: (1) HIV RNA > 200 copies/mL at week 24, (2) HIV RNA > 200 copies/mL after previous HIV RNA < 200 copies/mL (confirmed rebound), and (3) a < 1 log₁₀ copies/mL decrease from baseline (unless already < 200 copies/mL).

Main results. GEMINI-1 and GEMINI-2 randomized a combined total of 1441 participants to receive either the once-daily 2-drug ARV regimen (dolutegravir and lamivudine, n = 719) or the once-daily 3-drug ARV regimen (dolutegravir, TDF, and emtricitabine, n = 722). Of the 533 participants who did not meet inclusion criteria, the predominant reasons for exclusion were either having preexisting major viral resistance mutations (n = 246) or viral loads outside the range of 1000 to 500,000 copies/mL (n = 133).

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between both groups. The median age was 33 years (10% were over 50 years of age), and participants were mostly male (85%) and white (68%). Baseline HIV RNA counts of > 100,000 copies/mL were found in 293 participants (20%), and 188 (8%) participants had CD4 counts of ≤ 200 cells/mL.

Noninferiority of the once-daily 2-drug versus the once-daily 3-drug ARV regimen was demonstrated in both the GEMINI-1 and GEMINI-2 trials for the intent-to-treat-exposed population. In GEMINI-1, 90% (n = 320) in the 2-drug ARV group achieved virologic suppression at week 48 compared to 93% (n = 332) in the 3-drug ARV group (no statistically significant difference). In GEMINI-2, 93% (n =335 ) in the 2-drug ARV group achieved virologic suppression at week 48 compared to 94% (n = 337) in the 3-drug ARV group (no statistically significant difference).

A subgroup analysis found no significant impact of baseline HIV RNA (> 100,000 compared to ≤ 100,000 copies/mL) on achieving virologic suppression at week 48. However, a subgroup analysis did find that participants with CD4 counts < 200 copies/mL had a reduced response in the once-daily 2-drug versus 3-drug ARV regimen for achieving virologic response at week 48 (79% versus 93%, respectively).

Overall, 10 participants met virological withdrawal criteria during the study period, and 4 of these were on the 2-drug ARV regimen. For these 10 participants, genotypic testing did not find emergence of resistance to either nucleoside reverse transcriptase or integrase strand transfer inhibitors.

Regarding renal biomarkers, increases of both serum creatinine and urinary excretion of protein creatinine were significantly greater in the 3-drug ARV group. Also, biomarkers indicating increased bone turnover were elevated in both groups, but the degree of elevation was significantly lower in the 2-drug ARV regimen cohort. It is unclear whether these findings reflect an increased or decreased risk of developing osteopenia or osteoporosis in the 2 study groups.

Conclusion. The once-daily 2-drug ARV regimen dolutegravir and lamivudine is noninferior to the guideline-recommended once-daily 3-drug ARV regimen dolutegravir, TDF, and emtricitabine at achieving viral suppression in ART-naive HIV-1 infected individuals with HIV RNA counts < 500,000 copies/mL. However, the efficacy of this ARV regimen may be compromised in individuals with CD4 counts < 200 cells/mL.

Currently, the mainstay of HIV pharmacotherapy is a 3-drug regimen consisting of 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors in combination with 1 drug from another class, with an integrase strand transfer inhibitor being the preferred third drug.⁶ Despite the improved tolerability of contemporary ARVs, there remains concern among HIV practitioners regarding potential toxicities associated with cumulative drug exposure, specifically related to nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. As a result, there has been much interest in evaluating 2-drug ARV regimens for HIV treatment in order to reduce overall drug exposure.^7-10

The 48-week results of the GEMINI-1 and GEMINI-2 trials, published in early 2019, further expand our understanding regarding the efficacy and safety of 2-drug regimens in HIV treatment. These identically designed studies evaluated once-daily dolutegravir and lamivudine for HIV in a treatment-naive population. This goes a step further than the SWORD-1 and SWORD-2 trials, which evaluated once-daily dolutegravir and rilpivirine as a step-down therapy for virologically suppressed individuals and led to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the single-tablet combination regimen dolutegravir/rilpivirine (Juluca).¹⁰ Therefore, whereas the SWORD trials evaluated a 2-drug regimen for maintenance of virologic suppression, the GEMINI trials assessed whether a 2-drug regimen can both achieve and maintain virologic suppression.

The results of the GEMINI trials are promising for a future direction in HIV care. The rates of virologic suppression achieved in these trials are comparable to those seen in the SWORD trials.¹⁰ Furthermore, the virologic response seen in the GEMINI trials is comparable to that seen in similar trials that evaluated a 3-drug ARV regimen consisting of an integrase strand transfer inhibitor–based backbone in ART-naive individuals.^11,12

A major confounder to the design of this trial was that it included TDF as one of the components in the comparator arm, an agent that has already been demonstrated to have detrimental effects on both renal and bone health.^13,14 Additionally, the bone biomarker results were inconclusive, and the agents’ effects on bone would have been better demonstrated through bone mineral density testing, as had been done in prior trials.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Given the recent FDA approval of the single-tablet combination regimen dolutegravir and lamivudine (Dovato), this once-daily 2-drug ARV regimen will begin making its way into clinical practice for certain patients. Prior to starting this regimen, hepatitis B infection first must be ruled out due to poor efficacy of lamivudine monotherapy for management of chronic hepatitis B infection.¹⁵ Additionally, baseline genotype testing should be performed prior to starting this ART given that approximately 10% of newly diagnosed HIV patients have baseline resistance mutations.¹⁶ Obtaining rapid genotype testing may be difficult to accomplish in low-resource settings where such testing is not readily available. Finally, this approach may not be applicable to those presenting with acute HIV infection, in whom viral loads are often in the millions of copies per mL. It is likely that dolutegravir/lamivudine could assume a role similar to that of dolutegravir/rilpivirine, in which patients who present with acute HIV step down to a 2-drug regimen once their viral loads have either dropped below 500,000 copies/mL or have already been suppressed.

—Evan K. Mallory, PharmD, Banner-University Medical Center Tucson, and Norman L. Beatty, MD, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, AZ

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a once-daily 2-drug antiretroviral (ARV) regimen, dolutegravir plus lamivudine, for the treatment of HIV-1 infection in adults naive to antiretroviral therapy (ART).

Design. GEMINI-1 and GEMINI-2 were 2 identically designed multicenter, double-blind, randomized, noninferiority, phase 3 clinical trials conducted between July 18, 2016 and March 31, 2017. Participants were stratified to receive 1 of 2 once-daily HIV regimens: the study regimen, consisting of once-daily dolutegravir 50 mg plus lamivudine 300 mg, or the standard-of-care regimen, consisting of once-daily dolutegravir 50 mg plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) 300 mg plus emtricitabine 200 mg. While this article presents results at week 48, both trials are scheduled to evaluate participants up to week 148 in an attempt to evaluate long-term efficacy and safety.

Setting and participants. Eligible participants had to be aged 18 years or older with treatment-naive HIV-1 infection. Women were eligible if they were not (1) pregnant, (2) lactating, or (3) of reproductive potential, defined by various means, including tubal ligation, hysterectomy, postmenopausal, and the use of highly effective contraception. Initially, eligibility screening restricted participation to those with viral loads between 1000 and 100,000 copies/mL. However, the upper limit was later increased to 500,000 copies/mL based on an independent review of results from other clinical trials^1,2 evaluating dual therapy with dolutegravir and lamivudine, which indicated efficacy in patients with viral loads up to 500,000.^3-5

Notable exclusion criteria included: (1) major mutations to nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, and protease inhibitors; (2) evidence of hepatitis B infection; (3) hepatitis C infection with anticipation of initiating treatment within 48 weeks of study enrollment; and (4) stage 3 HIV disease, per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria, with the exception of cutaneous Kaposi sarcoma and CD4 cell counts < 200 cells/mL.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint was demonstration of noninferiority of the 2-drug ARV regimen through assessment of the proportion of participants who achieved virologic suppression at week 48 in the intent-to-treat-exposed population. For the purposes of this study, virologic suppression was defined as having fewer than 50 copies of HIV-1 RNA per mL at week 48. For evaluation of safety and toxicity concerns, renal and bone biomarkers were assessed at study entry and at weeks 24 and 48. In addition, participants who met virological withdrawal criteria were evaluated for integrase strand transfer inhibitor mutations. Virological withdrawal was defined as the presence of 1 of the following: (1) HIV RNA > 200 copies/mL at week 24, (2) HIV RNA > 200 copies/mL after previous HIV RNA < 200 copies/mL (confirmed rebound), and (3) a < 1 log₁₀ copies/mL decrease from baseline (unless already < 200 copies/mL).

Main results. GEMINI-1 and GEMINI-2 randomized a combined total of 1441 participants to receive either the once-daily 2-drug ARV regimen (dolutegravir and lamivudine, n = 719) or the once-daily 3-drug ARV regimen (dolutegravir, TDF, and emtricitabine, n = 722). Of the 533 participants who did not meet inclusion criteria, the predominant reasons for exclusion were either having preexisting major viral resistance mutations (n = 246) or viral loads outside the range of 1000 to 500,000 copies/mL (n = 133).

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between both groups. The median age was 33 years (10% were over 50 years of age), and participants were mostly male (85%) and white (68%). Baseline HIV RNA counts of > 100,000 copies/mL were found in 293 participants (20%), and 188 (8%) participants had CD4 counts of ≤ 200 cells/mL.

Noninferiority of the once-daily 2-drug versus the once-daily 3-drug ARV regimen was demonstrated in both the GEMINI-1 and GEMINI-2 trials for the intent-to-treat-exposed population. In GEMINI-1, 90% (n = 320) in the 2-drug ARV group achieved virologic suppression at week 48 compared to 93% (n = 332) in the 3-drug ARV group (no statistically significant difference). In GEMINI-2, 93% (n =335 ) in the 2-drug ARV group achieved virologic suppression at week 48 compared to 94% (n = 337) in the 3-drug ARV group (no statistically significant difference).

A subgroup analysis found no significant impact of baseline HIV RNA (> 100,000 compared to ≤ 100,000 copies/mL) on achieving virologic suppression at week 48. However, a subgroup analysis did find that participants with CD4 counts < 200 copies/mL had a reduced response in the once-daily 2-drug versus 3-drug ARV regimen for achieving virologic response at week 48 (79% versus 93%, respectively).

Overall, 10 participants met virological withdrawal criteria during the study period, and 4 of these were on the 2-drug ARV regimen. For these 10 participants, genotypic testing did not find emergence of resistance to either nucleoside reverse transcriptase or integrase strand transfer inhibitors.

Regarding renal biomarkers, increases of both serum creatinine and urinary excretion of protein creatinine were significantly greater in the 3-drug ARV group. Also, biomarkers indicating increased bone turnover were elevated in both groups, but the degree of elevation was significantly lower in the 2-drug ARV regimen cohort. It is unclear whether these findings reflect an increased or decreased risk of developing osteopenia or osteoporosis in the 2 study groups.

Conclusion. The once-daily 2-drug ARV regimen dolutegravir and lamivudine is noninferior to the guideline-recommended once-daily 3-drug ARV regimen dolutegravir, TDF, and emtricitabine at achieving viral suppression in ART-naive HIV-1 infected individuals with HIV RNA counts < 500,000 copies/mL. However, the efficacy of this ARV regimen may be compromised in individuals with CD4 counts < 200 cells/mL.

Currently, the mainstay of HIV pharmacotherapy is a 3-drug regimen consisting of 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors in combination with 1 drug from another class, with an integrase strand transfer inhibitor being the preferred third drug.⁶ Despite the improved tolerability of contemporary ARVs, there remains concern among HIV practitioners regarding potential toxicities associated with cumulative drug exposure, specifically related to nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. As a result, there has been much interest in evaluating 2-drug ARV regimens for HIV treatment in order to reduce overall drug exposure.^7-10

The 48-week results of the GEMINI-1 and GEMINI-2 trials, published in early 2019, further expand our understanding regarding the efficacy and safety of 2-drug regimens in HIV treatment. These identically designed studies evaluated once-daily dolutegravir and lamivudine for HIV in a treatment-naive population. This goes a step further than the SWORD-1 and SWORD-2 trials, which evaluated once-daily dolutegravir and rilpivirine as a step-down therapy for virologically suppressed individuals and led to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the single-tablet combination regimen dolutegravir/rilpivirine (Juluca).¹⁰ Therefore, whereas the SWORD trials evaluated a 2-drug regimen for maintenance of virologic suppression, the GEMINI trials assessed whether a 2-drug regimen can both achieve and maintain virologic suppression.

The results of the GEMINI trials are promising for a future direction in HIV care. The rates of virologic suppression achieved in these trials are comparable to those seen in the SWORD trials.¹⁰ Furthermore, the virologic response seen in the GEMINI trials is comparable to that seen in similar trials that evaluated a 3-drug ARV regimen consisting of an integrase strand transfer inhibitor–based backbone in ART-naive individuals.^11,12

A major confounder to the design of this trial was that it included TDF as one of the components in the comparator arm, an agent that has already been demonstrated to have detrimental effects on both renal and bone health.^13,14 Additionally, the bone biomarker results were inconclusive, and the agents’ effects on bone would have been better demonstrated through bone mineral density testing, as had been done in prior trials.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Given the recent FDA approval of the single-tablet combination regimen dolutegravir and lamivudine (Dovato), this once-daily 2-drug ARV regimen will begin making its way into clinical practice for certain patients. Prior to starting this regimen, hepatitis B infection first must be ruled out due to poor efficacy of lamivudine monotherapy for management of chronic hepatitis B infection.¹⁵ Additionally, baseline genotype testing should be performed prior to starting this ART given that approximately 10% of newly diagnosed HIV patients have baseline resistance mutations.¹⁶ Obtaining rapid genotype testing may be difficult to accomplish in low-resource settings where such testing is not readily available. Finally, this approach may not be applicable to those presenting with acute HIV infection, in whom viral loads are often in the millions of copies per mL. It is likely that dolutegravir/lamivudine could assume a role similar to that of dolutegravir/rilpivirine, in which patients who present with acute HIV step down to a 2-drug regimen once their viral loads have either dropped below 500,000 copies/mL or have already been suppressed.

—Evan K. Mallory, PharmD, Banner-University Medical Center Tucson, and Norman L. Beatty, MD, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, AZ

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a once-daily 2-drug antiretroviral (ARV) regimen, dolutegravir plus lamivudine, for the treatment of HIV-1 infection in adults naive to antiretroviral therapy (ART).

Design. GEMINI-1 and GEMINI-2 were 2 identically designed multicenter, double-blind, randomized, noninferiority, phase 3 clinical trials conducted between July 18, 2016 and March 31, 2017. Participants were stratified to receive 1 of 2 once-daily HIV regimens: the study regimen, consisting of once-daily dolutegravir 50 mg plus lamivudine 300 mg, or the standard-of-care regimen, consisting of once-daily dolutegravir 50 mg plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) 300 mg plus emtricitabine 200 mg. While this article presents results at week 48, both trials are scheduled to evaluate participants up to week 148 in an attempt to evaluate long-term efficacy and safety.

Setting and participants. Eligible participants had to be aged 18 years or older with treatment-naive HIV-1 infection. Women were eligible if they were not (1) pregnant, (2) lactating, or (3) of reproductive potential, defined by various means, including tubal ligation, hysterectomy, postmenopausal, and the use of highly effective contraception. Initially, eligibility screening restricted participation to those with viral loads between 1000 and 100,000 copies/mL. However, the upper limit was later increased to 500,000 copies/mL based on an independent review of results from other clinical trials^1,2 evaluating dual therapy with dolutegravir and lamivudine, which indicated efficacy in patients with viral loads up to 500,000.^3-5

Notable exclusion criteria included: (1) major mutations to nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, and protease inhibitors; (2) evidence of hepatitis B infection; (3) hepatitis C infection with anticipation of initiating treatment within 48 weeks of study enrollment; and (4) stage 3 HIV disease, per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria, with the exception of cutaneous Kaposi sarcoma and CD4 cell counts < 200 cells/mL.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint was demonstration of noninferiority of the 2-drug ARV regimen through assessment of the proportion of participants who achieved virologic suppression at week 48 in the intent-to-treat-exposed population. For the purposes of this study, virologic suppression was defined as having fewer than 50 copies of HIV-1 RNA per mL at week 48. For evaluation of safety and toxicity concerns, renal and bone biomarkers were assessed at study entry and at weeks 24 and 48. In addition, participants who met virological withdrawal criteria were evaluated for integrase strand transfer inhibitor mutations. Virological withdrawal was defined as the presence of 1 of the following: (1) HIV RNA > 200 copies/mL at week 24, (2) HIV RNA > 200 copies/mL after previous HIV RNA < 200 copies/mL (confirmed rebound), and (3) a < 1 log₁₀ copies/mL decrease from baseline (unless already < 200 copies/mL).

Main results. GEMINI-1 and GEMINI-2 randomized a combined total of 1441 participants to receive either the once-daily 2-drug ARV regimen (dolutegravir and lamivudine, n = 719) or the once-daily 3-drug ARV regimen (dolutegravir, TDF, and emtricitabine, n = 722). Of the 533 participants who did not meet inclusion criteria, the predominant reasons for exclusion were either having preexisting major viral resistance mutations (n = 246) or viral loads outside the range of 1000 to 500,000 copies/mL (n = 133).

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between both groups. The median age was 33 years (10% were over 50 years of age), and participants were mostly male (85%) and white (68%). Baseline HIV RNA counts of > 100,000 copies/mL were found in 293 participants (20%), and 188 (8%) participants had CD4 counts of ≤ 200 cells/mL.

Noninferiority of the once-daily 2-drug versus the once-daily 3-drug ARV regimen was demonstrated in both the GEMINI-1 and GEMINI-2 trials for the intent-to-treat-exposed population. In GEMINI-1, 90% (n = 320) in the 2-drug ARV group achieved virologic suppression at week 48 compared to 93% (n = 332) in the 3-drug ARV group (no statistically significant difference). In GEMINI-2, 93% (n =335 ) in the 2-drug ARV group achieved virologic suppression at week 48 compared to 94% (n = 337) in the 3-drug ARV group (no statistically significant difference).

A subgroup analysis found no significant impact of baseline HIV RNA (> 100,000 compared to ≤ 100,000 copies/mL) on achieving virologic suppression at week 48. However, a subgroup analysis did find that participants with CD4 counts < 200 copies/mL had a reduced response in the once-daily 2-drug versus 3-drug ARV regimen for achieving virologic response at week 48 (79% versus 93%, respectively).

Overall, 10 participants met virological withdrawal criteria during the study period, and 4 of these were on the 2-drug ARV regimen. For these 10 participants, genotypic testing did not find emergence of resistance to either nucleoside reverse transcriptase or integrase strand transfer inhibitors.

Regarding renal biomarkers, increases of both serum creatinine and urinary excretion of protein creatinine were significantly greater in the 3-drug ARV group. Also, biomarkers indicating increased bone turnover were elevated in both groups, but the degree of elevation was significantly lower in the 2-drug ARV regimen cohort. It is unclear whether these findings reflect an increased or decreased risk of developing osteopenia or osteoporosis in the 2 study groups.

Conclusion. The once-daily 2-drug ARV regimen dolutegravir and lamivudine is noninferior to the guideline-recommended once-daily 3-drug ARV regimen dolutegravir, TDF, and emtricitabine at achieving viral suppression in ART-naive HIV-1 infected individuals with HIV RNA counts < 500,000 copies/mL. However, the efficacy of this ARV regimen may be compromised in individuals with CD4 counts < 200 cells/mL.

Currently, the mainstay of HIV pharmacotherapy is a 3-drug regimen consisting of 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors in combination with 1 drug from another class, with an integrase strand transfer inhibitor being the preferred third drug.⁶ Despite the improved tolerability of contemporary ARVs, there remains concern among HIV practitioners regarding potential toxicities associated with cumulative drug exposure, specifically related to nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. As a result, there has been much interest in evaluating 2-drug ARV regimens for HIV treatment in order to reduce overall drug exposure.^7-10

The 48-week results of the GEMINI-1 and GEMINI-2 trials, published in early 2019, further expand our understanding regarding the efficacy and safety of 2-drug regimens in HIV treatment. These identically designed studies evaluated once-daily dolutegravir and lamivudine for HIV in a treatment-naive population. This goes a step further than the SWORD-1 and SWORD-2 trials, which evaluated once-daily dolutegravir and rilpivirine as a step-down therapy for virologically suppressed individuals and led to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the single-tablet combination regimen dolutegravir/rilpivirine (Juluca).¹⁰ Therefore, whereas the SWORD trials evaluated a 2-drug regimen for maintenance of virologic suppression, the GEMINI trials assessed whether a 2-drug regimen can both achieve and maintain virologic suppression.

The results of the GEMINI trials are promising for a future direction in HIV care. The rates of virologic suppression achieved in these trials are comparable to those seen in the SWORD trials.¹⁰ Furthermore, the virologic response seen in the GEMINI trials is comparable to that seen in similar trials that evaluated a 3-drug ARV regimen consisting of an integrase strand transfer inhibitor–based backbone in ART-naive individuals.^11,12

A major confounder to the design of this trial was that it included TDF as one of the components in the comparator arm, an agent that has already been demonstrated to have detrimental effects on both renal and bone health.^13,14 Additionally, the bone biomarker results were inconclusive, and the agents’ effects on bone would have been better demonstrated through bone mineral density testing, as had been done in prior trials.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Given the recent FDA approval of the single-tablet combination regimen dolutegravir and lamivudine (Dovato), this once-daily 2-drug ARV regimen will begin making its way into clinical practice for certain patients. Prior to starting this regimen, hepatitis B infection first must be ruled out due to poor efficacy of lamivudine monotherapy for management of chronic hepatitis B infection.¹⁵ Additionally, baseline genotype testing should be performed prior to starting this ART given that approximately 10% of newly diagnosed HIV patients have baseline resistance mutations.¹⁶ Obtaining rapid genotype testing may be difficult to accomplish in low-resource settings where such testing is not readily available. Finally, this approach may not be applicable to those presenting with acute HIV infection, in whom viral loads are often in the millions of copies per mL. It is likely that dolutegravir/lamivudine could assume a role similar to that of dolutegravir/rilpivirine, in which patients who present with acute HIV step down to a 2-drug regimen once their viral loads have either dropped below 500,000 copies/mL or have already been suppressed.

—Evan K. Mallory, PharmD, Banner-University Medical Center Tucson, and Norman L. Beatty, MD, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, AZ