User login
FDA warns of potentially lethal reaction to seizure meds
that can be life threatening if not detected and treated promptly, the Food and Drug Administration warns in an alert.
Known as drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), it may start as a rash but can quickly progress and cause injury to internal organs, the need for hospitalization, and death, the FDA notes.
A search of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) and the medical literature through March 2023 identified 32 serious cases of DRESS worldwide that were associated with levetiracetam.
Three cases occurred in the United States, and 29 occurred abroad. In all 32 cases, the patients were hospitalized and received medical treatment; in 2 cases, the patients died.
The median time to onset of DRESS in the levetiracetam cases was 24 days; times ranged from 7 to 170 days. The reported signs and symptoms included skin rash (n = 22), fever (n = 20), eosinophilia (n = 17), lymph node swelling (n = 9), and atypical lymphocytes (n = 4).
Twenty-two levetiracetam-associated cases of DRESS involved injury to one or more organs, including the liver, lungs, kidneys, and gallbladder.
In 25 of the 29 cases for which information on treatment discontinuation was available, DRESS symptoms resolved when levetiracetam was discontinued.
As for clobazam, a search of FAERS and the medical literature through July 2023 identified 10 serious cases of DRESS worldwide – 1 in the United States and 9 abroad. All 10 patients were hospitalized and received medical treatment. No deaths were reported.
The median time to onset of clobazam-associated DRESS was 21.5 days (range, 7-103 days). The reported signs and symptoms included skin rash (n = 10), fever (n = 8), eosinophilia (n = 7), facial swelling (n = 7), leukocytosis (n = 4), lymph node swelling (n = 4), and leukopenia/thrombocytopenia (n = 1).
In nine cases, there was injury to one or more organs, including the liver, kidneys, and gastrointestinal tract.
DRESS symptoms resolved in all 10 cases when treatment with clobazam was stopped. DRESS and other serious skin reactions reported with clobazam, a benzodiazepine, have not generally been associated with other benzodiazepines, the FDA notes.
Label updates
As a result of these cases, warnings about the risk of DRESS will be added to the prescribing information and patient medication guides for these medicines, the FDA announced.
“Health care professionals should be aware that prompt recognition and early treatment is important for improving DRESS outcomes and decreasing mortality,” the FDA said.
They noted that diagnosis is often difficult because early signs and symptoms, such as fever and swollen lymph nodes, may be present without evidence of a rash.
DRESS may develop 2-8 weeks after starting levetiracetam or clobazam. Symptoms and intensity can vary widely.
DRESS can also be confused with other serious skin reactions, such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis.
The FDA says patients should be advised of the signs and symptoms of DRESS and be told to stop taking the medicine and seek immediate medical attention if DRESS is suspected during treatment with levetiracetam or clobazam.
Adverse reactions with these medications should be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch program.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
that can be life threatening if not detected and treated promptly, the Food and Drug Administration warns in an alert.
Known as drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), it may start as a rash but can quickly progress and cause injury to internal organs, the need for hospitalization, and death, the FDA notes.
A search of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) and the medical literature through March 2023 identified 32 serious cases of DRESS worldwide that were associated with levetiracetam.
Three cases occurred in the United States, and 29 occurred abroad. In all 32 cases, the patients were hospitalized and received medical treatment; in 2 cases, the patients died.
The median time to onset of DRESS in the levetiracetam cases was 24 days; times ranged from 7 to 170 days. The reported signs and symptoms included skin rash (n = 22), fever (n = 20), eosinophilia (n = 17), lymph node swelling (n = 9), and atypical lymphocytes (n = 4).
Twenty-two levetiracetam-associated cases of DRESS involved injury to one or more organs, including the liver, lungs, kidneys, and gallbladder.
In 25 of the 29 cases for which information on treatment discontinuation was available, DRESS symptoms resolved when levetiracetam was discontinued.
As for clobazam, a search of FAERS and the medical literature through July 2023 identified 10 serious cases of DRESS worldwide – 1 in the United States and 9 abroad. All 10 patients were hospitalized and received medical treatment. No deaths were reported.
The median time to onset of clobazam-associated DRESS was 21.5 days (range, 7-103 days). The reported signs and symptoms included skin rash (n = 10), fever (n = 8), eosinophilia (n = 7), facial swelling (n = 7), leukocytosis (n = 4), lymph node swelling (n = 4), and leukopenia/thrombocytopenia (n = 1).
In nine cases, there was injury to one or more organs, including the liver, kidneys, and gastrointestinal tract.
DRESS symptoms resolved in all 10 cases when treatment with clobazam was stopped. DRESS and other serious skin reactions reported with clobazam, a benzodiazepine, have not generally been associated with other benzodiazepines, the FDA notes.
Label updates
As a result of these cases, warnings about the risk of DRESS will be added to the prescribing information and patient medication guides for these medicines, the FDA announced.
“Health care professionals should be aware that prompt recognition and early treatment is important for improving DRESS outcomes and decreasing mortality,” the FDA said.
They noted that diagnosis is often difficult because early signs and symptoms, such as fever and swollen lymph nodes, may be present without evidence of a rash.
DRESS may develop 2-8 weeks after starting levetiracetam or clobazam. Symptoms and intensity can vary widely.
DRESS can also be confused with other serious skin reactions, such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis.
The FDA says patients should be advised of the signs and symptoms of DRESS and be told to stop taking the medicine and seek immediate medical attention if DRESS is suspected during treatment with levetiracetam or clobazam.
Adverse reactions with these medications should be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch program.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
that can be life threatening if not detected and treated promptly, the Food and Drug Administration warns in an alert.
Known as drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), it may start as a rash but can quickly progress and cause injury to internal organs, the need for hospitalization, and death, the FDA notes.
A search of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) and the medical literature through March 2023 identified 32 serious cases of DRESS worldwide that were associated with levetiracetam.
Three cases occurred in the United States, and 29 occurred abroad. In all 32 cases, the patients were hospitalized and received medical treatment; in 2 cases, the patients died.
The median time to onset of DRESS in the levetiracetam cases was 24 days; times ranged from 7 to 170 days. The reported signs and symptoms included skin rash (n = 22), fever (n = 20), eosinophilia (n = 17), lymph node swelling (n = 9), and atypical lymphocytes (n = 4).
Twenty-two levetiracetam-associated cases of DRESS involved injury to one or more organs, including the liver, lungs, kidneys, and gallbladder.
In 25 of the 29 cases for which information on treatment discontinuation was available, DRESS symptoms resolved when levetiracetam was discontinued.
As for clobazam, a search of FAERS and the medical literature through July 2023 identified 10 serious cases of DRESS worldwide – 1 in the United States and 9 abroad. All 10 patients were hospitalized and received medical treatment. No deaths were reported.
The median time to onset of clobazam-associated DRESS was 21.5 days (range, 7-103 days). The reported signs and symptoms included skin rash (n = 10), fever (n = 8), eosinophilia (n = 7), facial swelling (n = 7), leukocytosis (n = 4), lymph node swelling (n = 4), and leukopenia/thrombocytopenia (n = 1).
In nine cases, there was injury to one or more organs, including the liver, kidneys, and gastrointestinal tract.
DRESS symptoms resolved in all 10 cases when treatment with clobazam was stopped. DRESS and other serious skin reactions reported with clobazam, a benzodiazepine, have not generally been associated with other benzodiazepines, the FDA notes.
Label updates
As a result of these cases, warnings about the risk of DRESS will be added to the prescribing information and patient medication guides for these medicines, the FDA announced.
“Health care professionals should be aware that prompt recognition and early treatment is important for improving DRESS outcomes and decreasing mortality,” the FDA said.
They noted that diagnosis is often difficult because early signs and symptoms, such as fever and swollen lymph nodes, may be present without evidence of a rash.
DRESS may develop 2-8 weeks after starting levetiracetam or clobazam. Symptoms and intensity can vary widely.
DRESS can also be confused with other serious skin reactions, such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis.
The FDA says patients should be advised of the signs and symptoms of DRESS and be told to stop taking the medicine and seek immediate medical attention if DRESS is suspected during treatment with levetiracetam or clobazam.
Adverse reactions with these medications should be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch program.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
New consensus guide on rare drug hypersensitivity reaction
TOPLINE:
).
METHODOLOGY:
Data on the evaluation, assessment, and treatment of the rare but potentially life-threatening drug hypersensitivity reaction are lacking.
To support clinicians in diagnosing and managing DRESS, a steering committee conducted a literature review to examine current research, identify evidence, and develop consensus statements. They invited experts from 21 countries across four continents to participate in a Delphi consensus process.
An international panel of 54 experts (including 45 dermatologists) initially assessed 100 statements related to baseline workup, severity of the condition, and treatment. Two more statements were added in the second round.
After revisions and the second round, the group reached consensus for 93 statements overall.
TAKEAWAY:
The statements generating the most disagreement involved diagnosis. The group ultimately supported the value of measuring the viral load of Epstein-Barr virus, cytomegalovirus, and human herpesvirus 6 in all patients with suspected DRESS. The group also agreed on screening for hepatitis A, B, and C in cases of liver involvement and screening for hepatitis B and C before starting systemic therapy.
The group agreed with previous severity criteria that differentiate between mild, moderate, and severe DRESS based on the extent of liver, kidney, and blood involvement and the damage of other organs.
Consensus on treatment was reached for all 12 relevant statements in the first Delphi round. Recommendations included the use of corticosteroids and immediate discontinuation of the drugs causing the reaction.
IN PRACTICE:
“This Delphi exercise aimed to provide a common ground of consensus,” the authors noted. However, “each of the addressed categories needs more in-depth follow-up studies to improve the clinical management of patients.”
SOURCE:
The DRESS Delphi consensus group conducted its exercise under the leadership of Marie-Charlotte Brüggen, MD, of the University Hospital of Zürich. The consensus was published online in the JAMA Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
Published evidence was limited because of the low prevalence of DRESS. The consensus statements should therefore be considered with caution and in the context of a clinician’s expertise and available resources. Research gaps also persist in how DRESS may vary with region and ethnicity. The severity thresholds need validation in a revised multicenter statement.
DISCLOSURES:
The consensus review received no outside funding. Dr. Brüggen disclosed relationships with the Swiss National Science Foundation, Christine Kühne – Center for Allergy Research and Education, FreeNovation, LEO Foundation, Olga Mayenfisch Foundation, University of Zürich, LEO Pharma, Pierre Fabre Eczema Foundation, Eli Lilly, AbbVie, GSK, and AstraZeneca. Coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, foundations, and medical publishing companies.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
).
METHODOLOGY:
Data on the evaluation, assessment, and treatment of the rare but potentially life-threatening drug hypersensitivity reaction are lacking.
To support clinicians in diagnosing and managing DRESS, a steering committee conducted a literature review to examine current research, identify evidence, and develop consensus statements. They invited experts from 21 countries across four continents to participate in a Delphi consensus process.
An international panel of 54 experts (including 45 dermatologists) initially assessed 100 statements related to baseline workup, severity of the condition, and treatment. Two more statements were added in the second round.
After revisions and the second round, the group reached consensus for 93 statements overall.
TAKEAWAY:
The statements generating the most disagreement involved diagnosis. The group ultimately supported the value of measuring the viral load of Epstein-Barr virus, cytomegalovirus, and human herpesvirus 6 in all patients with suspected DRESS. The group also agreed on screening for hepatitis A, B, and C in cases of liver involvement and screening for hepatitis B and C before starting systemic therapy.
The group agreed with previous severity criteria that differentiate between mild, moderate, and severe DRESS based on the extent of liver, kidney, and blood involvement and the damage of other organs.
Consensus on treatment was reached for all 12 relevant statements in the first Delphi round. Recommendations included the use of corticosteroids and immediate discontinuation of the drugs causing the reaction.
IN PRACTICE:
“This Delphi exercise aimed to provide a common ground of consensus,” the authors noted. However, “each of the addressed categories needs more in-depth follow-up studies to improve the clinical management of patients.”
SOURCE:
The DRESS Delphi consensus group conducted its exercise under the leadership of Marie-Charlotte Brüggen, MD, of the University Hospital of Zürich. The consensus was published online in the JAMA Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
Published evidence was limited because of the low prevalence of DRESS. The consensus statements should therefore be considered with caution and in the context of a clinician’s expertise and available resources. Research gaps also persist in how DRESS may vary with region and ethnicity. The severity thresholds need validation in a revised multicenter statement.
DISCLOSURES:
The consensus review received no outside funding. Dr. Brüggen disclosed relationships with the Swiss National Science Foundation, Christine Kühne – Center for Allergy Research and Education, FreeNovation, LEO Foundation, Olga Mayenfisch Foundation, University of Zürich, LEO Pharma, Pierre Fabre Eczema Foundation, Eli Lilly, AbbVie, GSK, and AstraZeneca. Coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, foundations, and medical publishing companies.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
).
METHODOLOGY:
Data on the evaluation, assessment, and treatment of the rare but potentially life-threatening drug hypersensitivity reaction are lacking.
To support clinicians in diagnosing and managing DRESS, a steering committee conducted a literature review to examine current research, identify evidence, and develop consensus statements. They invited experts from 21 countries across four continents to participate in a Delphi consensus process.
An international panel of 54 experts (including 45 dermatologists) initially assessed 100 statements related to baseline workup, severity of the condition, and treatment. Two more statements were added in the second round.
After revisions and the second round, the group reached consensus for 93 statements overall.
TAKEAWAY:
The statements generating the most disagreement involved diagnosis. The group ultimately supported the value of measuring the viral load of Epstein-Barr virus, cytomegalovirus, and human herpesvirus 6 in all patients with suspected DRESS. The group also agreed on screening for hepatitis A, B, and C in cases of liver involvement and screening for hepatitis B and C before starting systemic therapy.
The group agreed with previous severity criteria that differentiate between mild, moderate, and severe DRESS based on the extent of liver, kidney, and blood involvement and the damage of other organs.
Consensus on treatment was reached for all 12 relevant statements in the first Delphi round. Recommendations included the use of corticosteroids and immediate discontinuation of the drugs causing the reaction.
IN PRACTICE:
“This Delphi exercise aimed to provide a common ground of consensus,” the authors noted. However, “each of the addressed categories needs more in-depth follow-up studies to improve the clinical management of patients.”
SOURCE:
The DRESS Delphi consensus group conducted its exercise under the leadership of Marie-Charlotte Brüggen, MD, of the University Hospital of Zürich. The consensus was published online in the JAMA Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
Published evidence was limited because of the low prevalence of DRESS. The consensus statements should therefore be considered with caution and in the context of a clinician’s expertise and available resources. Research gaps also persist in how DRESS may vary with region and ethnicity. The severity thresholds need validation in a revised multicenter statement.
DISCLOSURES:
The consensus review received no outside funding. Dr. Brüggen disclosed relationships with the Swiss National Science Foundation, Christine Kühne – Center for Allergy Research and Education, FreeNovation, LEO Foundation, Olga Mayenfisch Foundation, University of Zürich, LEO Pharma, Pierre Fabre Eczema Foundation, Eli Lilly, AbbVie, GSK, and AstraZeneca. Coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, foundations, and medical publishing companies.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA OKs new agent to block chemotherapy-induced neutropenia
Efbemalenograstim joins other agents already on the U.S. market, including pegfilgrastim (Neulasta), that aim to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia.
The approval of efbemalenograstim was based on two randomized trials. The first included 122 women with either metastatic or nonmetastatic breast cancer who were receiving doxorubicin and docetaxel. These patients were randomly assigned to receive either one subcutaneous injection of efbemalenograstim or placebo on the second day of their first chemotherapy cycle. All patients received efbemalenograstim on the second day of cycles two through four.
The mean duration of grade 4 neutropenia in the first cycle was 1.4 days with efbemalenograstim versus 4.3 days with placebo. Only 4.8% of patients who received efbemalenograstim experienced chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia, compared with 25.6% who received the placebo.
The new agent went up against pegfilgrastim in the second trial, which included 393 women who received docetaxel and cyclophosphamide as treatment for nonmetastatic breast cancer. These patients were randomly assigned to receive either a single subcutaneous injection of efbemalenograstim or pegfilgrastim on the second day of each cycle.
During the first cycle, patients in both arms of the trial experienced a mean of 0.2 days of grade 4 neutropenia.
The most common side effects associated with efbemalenograstim were nausea, anemia, and thrombocytopenia. Similar to pegfilgrastim’s label, efbemalenograstim’s label warns of possible splenic rupture, respiratory distress syndrome, sickle cell crisis, and other serious adverse events.
The FDA recommends a dose of 20 mg subcutaneous once per chemotherapy cycle.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Efbemalenograstim joins other agents already on the U.S. market, including pegfilgrastim (Neulasta), that aim to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia.
The approval of efbemalenograstim was based on two randomized trials. The first included 122 women with either metastatic or nonmetastatic breast cancer who were receiving doxorubicin and docetaxel. These patients were randomly assigned to receive either one subcutaneous injection of efbemalenograstim or placebo on the second day of their first chemotherapy cycle. All patients received efbemalenograstim on the second day of cycles two through four.
The mean duration of grade 4 neutropenia in the first cycle was 1.4 days with efbemalenograstim versus 4.3 days with placebo. Only 4.8% of patients who received efbemalenograstim experienced chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia, compared with 25.6% who received the placebo.
The new agent went up against pegfilgrastim in the second trial, which included 393 women who received docetaxel and cyclophosphamide as treatment for nonmetastatic breast cancer. These patients were randomly assigned to receive either a single subcutaneous injection of efbemalenograstim or pegfilgrastim on the second day of each cycle.
During the first cycle, patients in both arms of the trial experienced a mean of 0.2 days of grade 4 neutropenia.
The most common side effects associated with efbemalenograstim were nausea, anemia, and thrombocytopenia. Similar to pegfilgrastim’s label, efbemalenograstim’s label warns of possible splenic rupture, respiratory distress syndrome, sickle cell crisis, and other serious adverse events.
The FDA recommends a dose of 20 mg subcutaneous once per chemotherapy cycle.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Efbemalenograstim joins other agents already on the U.S. market, including pegfilgrastim (Neulasta), that aim to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia.
The approval of efbemalenograstim was based on two randomized trials. The first included 122 women with either metastatic or nonmetastatic breast cancer who were receiving doxorubicin and docetaxel. These patients were randomly assigned to receive either one subcutaneous injection of efbemalenograstim or placebo on the second day of their first chemotherapy cycle. All patients received efbemalenograstim on the second day of cycles two through four.
The mean duration of grade 4 neutropenia in the first cycle was 1.4 days with efbemalenograstim versus 4.3 days with placebo. Only 4.8% of patients who received efbemalenograstim experienced chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia, compared with 25.6% who received the placebo.
The new agent went up against pegfilgrastim in the second trial, which included 393 women who received docetaxel and cyclophosphamide as treatment for nonmetastatic breast cancer. These patients were randomly assigned to receive either a single subcutaneous injection of efbemalenograstim or pegfilgrastim on the second day of each cycle.
During the first cycle, patients in both arms of the trial experienced a mean of 0.2 days of grade 4 neutropenia.
The most common side effects associated with efbemalenograstim were nausea, anemia, and thrombocytopenia. Similar to pegfilgrastim’s label, efbemalenograstim’s label warns of possible splenic rupture, respiratory distress syndrome, sickle cell crisis, and other serious adverse events.
The FDA recommends a dose of 20 mg subcutaneous once per chemotherapy cycle.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Low-dose methotrexate carries higher risk for older patients with CKD
TOPLINE:
The use of low-dose methotrexate among older adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) was associated with a significantly increased risk at 90 days for serious adverse events requiring a hospital visit, compared with starting treatment with hydroxychloroquine.
METHODOLOGY:
- In a retrospective, population-based cohort study conducted in Ontario, researchers used linked administrative healthcare data to identify adults aged 66 years and older with CKD who were not undergoing dialysis and were new to medication; CKD was defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of less than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2.
- The study population included 2,309 individuals who began treatment with low-dose methotrexate (5-35 mg/week); they were matched with 2,309 individuals who began treatment with hydroxychloroquine (200-400 mg/day). The median age was 76 years, 69% were women, and rheumatoid arthritis was the most common diagnosis (56%).
- The primary outcome was the risk of a hospital visit at 90 days for a composite of serious adverse events that included myelosuppression, sepsis, pneumotoxic effects, or hepatoxic effects.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 3.55% of methotrexate patients and 1.73% of hydroxychloroquine patients met the primary outcome (risk ratio, 2.05); these events occurred at a median of 49 days and 43 days after starting the medications for the two groups, respectively.
- In an analysis by eGFR category, the risk of serious adverse events at 90 days increased among patients with eGFR levels less than 45 mL/min per 1.73 m2 (RR, 2.79).
- In a secondary comparison, the 90-day risk of serious adverse events was higher among methotrexate patients who began treatment with doses of 15-35 mg/week in comparison with those whose initial doses were 5 to less than 15 mg/week.
IN PRACTICE:
“Patients with CKD starting low-dose methotrexate should have active surveillance, including blood tests and chest radiographs performed regularly to monitor for signs of myelosuppression, infection, hepatotoxic effects, and pneumotoxic effects,” the researchers wrote.
SOURCE:
The lead author on the study was Flory T. Muanda, MD, of Western University, London, Ont. The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The observational design and lack of data on patients’ adherence to medications were among the limiting factors, as were the focus on older adults with CKD and the lack of assessment of the risk-benefit ratio of low-dose methotrexate.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. Dr. Muanda had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
The use of low-dose methotrexate among older adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) was associated with a significantly increased risk at 90 days for serious adverse events requiring a hospital visit, compared with starting treatment with hydroxychloroquine.
METHODOLOGY:
- In a retrospective, population-based cohort study conducted in Ontario, researchers used linked administrative healthcare data to identify adults aged 66 years and older with CKD who were not undergoing dialysis and were new to medication; CKD was defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of less than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2.
- The study population included 2,309 individuals who began treatment with low-dose methotrexate (5-35 mg/week); they were matched with 2,309 individuals who began treatment with hydroxychloroquine (200-400 mg/day). The median age was 76 years, 69% were women, and rheumatoid arthritis was the most common diagnosis (56%).
- The primary outcome was the risk of a hospital visit at 90 days for a composite of serious adverse events that included myelosuppression, sepsis, pneumotoxic effects, or hepatoxic effects.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 3.55% of methotrexate patients and 1.73% of hydroxychloroquine patients met the primary outcome (risk ratio, 2.05); these events occurred at a median of 49 days and 43 days after starting the medications for the two groups, respectively.
- In an analysis by eGFR category, the risk of serious adverse events at 90 days increased among patients with eGFR levels less than 45 mL/min per 1.73 m2 (RR, 2.79).
- In a secondary comparison, the 90-day risk of serious adverse events was higher among methotrexate patients who began treatment with doses of 15-35 mg/week in comparison with those whose initial doses were 5 to less than 15 mg/week.
IN PRACTICE:
“Patients with CKD starting low-dose methotrexate should have active surveillance, including blood tests and chest radiographs performed regularly to monitor for signs of myelosuppression, infection, hepatotoxic effects, and pneumotoxic effects,” the researchers wrote.
SOURCE:
The lead author on the study was Flory T. Muanda, MD, of Western University, London, Ont. The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The observational design and lack of data on patients’ adherence to medications were among the limiting factors, as were the focus on older adults with CKD and the lack of assessment of the risk-benefit ratio of low-dose methotrexate.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. Dr. Muanda had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
The use of low-dose methotrexate among older adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) was associated with a significantly increased risk at 90 days for serious adverse events requiring a hospital visit, compared with starting treatment with hydroxychloroquine.
METHODOLOGY:
- In a retrospective, population-based cohort study conducted in Ontario, researchers used linked administrative healthcare data to identify adults aged 66 years and older with CKD who were not undergoing dialysis and were new to medication; CKD was defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of less than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2.
- The study population included 2,309 individuals who began treatment with low-dose methotrexate (5-35 mg/week); they were matched with 2,309 individuals who began treatment with hydroxychloroquine (200-400 mg/day). The median age was 76 years, 69% were women, and rheumatoid arthritis was the most common diagnosis (56%).
- The primary outcome was the risk of a hospital visit at 90 days for a composite of serious adverse events that included myelosuppression, sepsis, pneumotoxic effects, or hepatoxic effects.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 3.55% of methotrexate patients and 1.73% of hydroxychloroquine patients met the primary outcome (risk ratio, 2.05); these events occurred at a median of 49 days and 43 days after starting the medications for the two groups, respectively.
- In an analysis by eGFR category, the risk of serious adverse events at 90 days increased among patients with eGFR levels less than 45 mL/min per 1.73 m2 (RR, 2.79).
- In a secondary comparison, the 90-day risk of serious adverse events was higher among methotrexate patients who began treatment with doses of 15-35 mg/week in comparison with those whose initial doses were 5 to less than 15 mg/week.
IN PRACTICE:
“Patients with CKD starting low-dose methotrexate should have active surveillance, including blood tests and chest radiographs performed regularly to monitor for signs of myelosuppression, infection, hepatotoxic effects, and pneumotoxic effects,” the researchers wrote.
SOURCE:
The lead author on the study was Flory T. Muanda, MD, of Western University, London, Ont. The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The observational design and lack of data on patients’ adherence to medications were among the limiting factors, as were the focus on older adults with CKD and the lack of assessment of the risk-benefit ratio of low-dose methotrexate.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. Dr. Muanda had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Long-term use of ADHD meds and CVD risk: New data
results of a large Swedish nested case-control study suggest.
The increased risk was evident only for hypertension and arterial disease, was dose dependent, and was higher for stimulant than nonstimulant ADHD medications.
“Clinicians should be vigilant in monitoring signs and symptoms of cardiovascular diseases, particularly among those receiving higher doses,” Zheng Chang, PhD, principal researcher, department of medical epidemiology and biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, said in an interview.
“Treatment decisions, as always, should be based on careful weighing of potential benefits and risks at individual patient level, rather than simple one-size-fits-all recommendations,” Dr. Chang added.
The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry
Filling in the research gaps
The use of medications to treat ADHD has increased markedly over the past decades in both children and adults. The potential risk for CVD associated with long-term ADHD medication use remains unclear. Most “longitudinal” studies that have looked at the association have an average follow-up time of no more than 2 years, the authors note.
In contrast, the Swedish study assessed the association between cumulative use of ADHD medication in children and adults followed for up to 14 years and also looked at whether associations differ across types of medication and dosages, types of CVD, gender, and age.
Among 278,027 individuals aged 6-64 years diagnosed with ADHD or dispensed ADHD medication, 10,388 with CVD were identified and matched to 51,672 controls without CVD.
Longer cumulative duration of ADHD medication use was associated with a statistically significant increased risk for CVD, compared with no use.
When the risk for specific CVDs was examined, long-term use of ADHD medication (compared with no use) was associated with an increased risk for hypertension and arterial disease but not arrhythmias, heart failure, ischemic heart disease, thromboembolic disease, or cerebrovascular disease.
For hypertension, the adjusted odds ratio was 1.72 (95% confidence interval, 1.51-1.97) for 3 to ≤ 5 years and 1.80 (95% CI, 1.55-2.08) for > 5 years of medication use. For arterial disease, the AOR was 1.65 (95% CI, 1.11-2.45) for 3 to ≤ 5 years and 1.49 (95% CI, 0.96-2.32) for > 5 years of use.
Stimulants confer greatest risk
Across the 14-year follow-up period, each additional year of ADHD medication use was associated with an average 4% increased CVD risk, with a larger 8% increased risk in the first 3 years of cumulative use, followed by stable risk over the remaining follow-up.
Similar risks were observed in children and adults, as well as in females and males.
When focusing on specific ADHD medications, compared with no use, long-term use of the stimulant methylphenidate was associated with an increased risk for CVD (AOR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.10-1.31] for 3 to ≤ 5 years and 1.19 [95% CI, 1.08-1.31] for > 5 years).
The same was true for long-term use of the stimulant lisdexamfetamine (AOR, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.05-1.44] for 2 to ≤ 3 years and 1.17 [95% CI, 0.98-1.40] for > 3 years).
In contrast, use of the nonstimulant atomoxetine was associated with elevated CVD risk only for the first year of use (AOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.13).
The increased risk for CVD occurred only above certain average daily doses: 45 mg for methylphenidate and lisdexamfetamine, 22.5 mg for amphetamines, and 120 mg for atomoxetine.
The authors note that, although they accounted for a wide range of potential confounding variables, considering the observational nature of the study and the possibility of residual confounding, they could not prove causality.
‘Tricky trade-offs’
The coauthors of an editorial in JAMA Psychiatry (2023 Nov 22. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2023.4126) note that the study “should remind us that clinical decision-making is often based on tricky trade-offs that should be considered at the individual patient level.”
Given that hypertension is the leading cause of CV morbidity and mortality worldwide, the increased likelihood of hypertension with long-term use of ADHD medications “cannot be disregarded,” write Samuele Cortese, MD, PhD, and Cristiano Fava, MD, PhD, with University of Southampton (England).
“These findings are especially relevant given the reported association between ADHD and physical conditions, such as obesity, which further contribute to increased cardiovascular risk,” they add.
Dr. Cortese and Dr. Fava say that the increased CV risk – averaging 4% per year and stabilizing after 3 years of treatment – “should be carefully weighed against the established benefits, on a case-by-case basis.”
“Importantly,” they write, “large real-world self-controlled studies have shown that individuals with ADHD experience significantly fewer unintentional physical injuries, motor vehicle crashes, substance use disorders, and criminal acts, as well as improved academic functioning, during periods when they are taking, compared with periods when they are not taking, methylphenidate.”
The risk-benefit ratio, however, may be lower in people with preexisting heart conditions. However, more evidence and precise recommendations are needed in relation to the treatment of individuals with ADHD and preexisting CV conditions, the editorial writers say.
This study was supported by grants from the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program. The authors and editorial writers have no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
results of a large Swedish nested case-control study suggest.
The increased risk was evident only for hypertension and arterial disease, was dose dependent, and was higher for stimulant than nonstimulant ADHD medications.
“Clinicians should be vigilant in monitoring signs and symptoms of cardiovascular diseases, particularly among those receiving higher doses,” Zheng Chang, PhD, principal researcher, department of medical epidemiology and biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, said in an interview.
“Treatment decisions, as always, should be based on careful weighing of potential benefits and risks at individual patient level, rather than simple one-size-fits-all recommendations,” Dr. Chang added.
The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry
Filling in the research gaps
The use of medications to treat ADHD has increased markedly over the past decades in both children and adults. The potential risk for CVD associated with long-term ADHD medication use remains unclear. Most “longitudinal” studies that have looked at the association have an average follow-up time of no more than 2 years, the authors note.
In contrast, the Swedish study assessed the association between cumulative use of ADHD medication in children and adults followed for up to 14 years and also looked at whether associations differ across types of medication and dosages, types of CVD, gender, and age.
Among 278,027 individuals aged 6-64 years diagnosed with ADHD or dispensed ADHD medication, 10,388 with CVD were identified and matched to 51,672 controls without CVD.
Longer cumulative duration of ADHD medication use was associated with a statistically significant increased risk for CVD, compared with no use.
When the risk for specific CVDs was examined, long-term use of ADHD medication (compared with no use) was associated with an increased risk for hypertension and arterial disease but not arrhythmias, heart failure, ischemic heart disease, thromboembolic disease, or cerebrovascular disease.
For hypertension, the adjusted odds ratio was 1.72 (95% confidence interval, 1.51-1.97) for 3 to ≤ 5 years and 1.80 (95% CI, 1.55-2.08) for > 5 years of medication use. For arterial disease, the AOR was 1.65 (95% CI, 1.11-2.45) for 3 to ≤ 5 years and 1.49 (95% CI, 0.96-2.32) for > 5 years of use.
Stimulants confer greatest risk
Across the 14-year follow-up period, each additional year of ADHD medication use was associated with an average 4% increased CVD risk, with a larger 8% increased risk in the first 3 years of cumulative use, followed by stable risk over the remaining follow-up.
Similar risks were observed in children and adults, as well as in females and males.
When focusing on specific ADHD medications, compared with no use, long-term use of the stimulant methylphenidate was associated with an increased risk for CVD (AOR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.10-1.31] for 3 to ≤ 5 years and 1.19 [95% CI, 1.08-1.31] for > 5 years).
The same was true for long-term use of the stimulant lisdexamfetamine (AOR, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.05-1.44] for 2 to ≤ 3 years and 1.17 [95% CI, 0.98-1.40] for > 3 years).
In contrast, use of the nonstimulant atomoxetine was associated with elevated CVD risk only for the first year of use (AOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.13).
The increased risk for CVD occurred only above certain average daily doses: 45 mg for methylphenidate and lisdexamfetamine, 22.5 mg for amphetamines, and 120 mg for atomoxetine.
The authors note that, although they accounted for a wide range of potential confounding variables, considering the observational nature of the study and the possibility of residual confounding, they could not prove causality.
‘Tricky trade-offs’
The coauthors of an editorial in JAMA Psychiatry (2023 Nov 22. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2023.4126) note that the study “should remind us that clinical decision-making is often based on tricky trade-offs that should be considered at the individual patient level.”
Given that hypertension is the leading cause of CV morbidity and mortality worldwide, the increased likelihood of hypertension with long-term use of ADHD medications “cannot be disregarded,” write Samuele Cortese, MD, PhD, and Cristiano Fava, MD, PhD, with University of Southampton (England).
“These findings are especially relevant given the reported association between ADHD and physical conditions, such as obesity, which further contribute to increased cardiovascular risk,” they add.
Dr. Cortese and Dr. Fava say that the increased CV risk – averaging 4% per year and stabilizing after 3 years of treatment – “should be carefully weighed against the established benefits, on a case-by-case basis.”
“Importantly,” they write, “large real-world self-controlled studies have shown that individuals with ADHD experience significantly fewer unintentional physical injuries, motor vehicle crashes, substance use disorders, and criminal acts, as well as improved academic functioning, during periods when they are taking, compared with periods when they are not taking, methylphenidate.”
The risk-benefit ratio, however, may be lower in people with preexisting heart conditions. However, more evidence and precise recommendations are needed in relation to the treatment of individuals with ADHD and preexisting CV conditions, the editorial writers say.
This study was supported by grants from the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program. The authors and editorial writers have no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
results of a large Swedish nested case-control study suggest.
The increased risk was evident only for hypertension and arterial disease, was dose dependent, and was higher for stimulant than nonstimulant ADHD medications.
“Clinicians should be vigilant in monitoring signs and symptoms of cardiovascular diseases, particularly among those receiving higher doses,” Zheng Chang, PhD, principal researcher, department of medical epidemiology and biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, said in an interview.
“Treatment decisions, as always, should be based on careful weighing of potential benefits and risks at individual patient level, rather than simple one-size-fits-all recommendations,” Dr. Chang added.
The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry
Filling in the research gaps
The use of medications to treat ADHD has increased markedly over the past decades in both children and adults. The potential risk for CVD associated with long-term ADHD medication use remains unclear. Most “longitudinal” studies that have looked at the association have an average follow-up time of no more than 2 years, the authors note.
In contrast, the Swedish study assessed the association between cumulative use of ADHD medication in children and adults followed for up to 14 years and also looked at whether associations differ across types of medication and dosages, types of CVD, gender, and age.
Among 278,027 individuals aged 6-64 years diagnosed with ADHD or dispensed ADHD medication, 10,388 with CVD were identified and matched to 51,672 controls without CVD.
Longer cumulative duration of ADHD medication use was associated with a statistically significant increased risk for CVD, compared with no use.
When the risk for specific CVDs was examined, long-term use of ADHD medication (compared with no use) was associated with an increased risk for hypertension and arterial disease but not arrhythmias, heart failure, ischemic heart disease, thromboembolic disease, or cerebrovascular disease.
For hypertension, the adjusted odds ratio was 1.72 (95% confidence interval, 1.51-1.97) for 3 to ≤ 5 years and 1.80 (95% CI, 1.55-2.08) for > 5 years of medication use. For arterial disease, the AOR was 1.65 (95% CI, 1.11-2.45) for 3 to ≤ 5 years and 1.49 (95% CI, 0.96-2.32) for > 5 years of use.
Stimulants confer greatest risk
Across the 14-year follow-up period, each additional year of ADHD medication use was associated with an average 4% increased CVD risk, with a larger 8% increased risk in the first 3 years of cumulative use, followed by stable risk over the remaining follow-up.
Similar risks were observed in children and adults, as well as in females and males.
When focusing on specific ADHD medications, compared with no use, long-term use of the stimulant methylphenidate was associated with an increased risk for CVD (AOR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.10-1.31] for 3 to ≤ 5 years and 1.19 [95% CI, 1.08-1.31] for > 5 years).
The same was true for long-term use of the stimulant lisdexamfetamine (AOR, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.05-1.44] for 2 to ≤ 3 years and 1.17 [95% CI, 0.98-1.40] for > 3 years).
In contrast, use of the nonstimulant atomoxetine was associated with elevated CVD risk only for the first year of use (AOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.13).
The increased risk for CVD occurred only above certain average daily doses: 45 mg for methylphenidate and lisdexamfetamine, 22.5 mg for amphetamines, and 120 mg for atomoxetine.
The authors note that, although they accounted for a wide range of potential confounding variables, considering the observational nature of the study and the possibility of residual confounding, they could not prove causality.
‘Tricky trade-offs’
The coauthors of an editorial in JAMA Psychiatry (2023 Nov 22. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2023.4126) note that the study “should remind us that clinical decision-making is often based on tricky trade-offs that should be considered at the individual patient level.”
Given that hypertension is the leading cause of CV morbidity and mortality worldwide, the increased likelihood of hypertension with long-term use of ADHD medications “cannot be disregarded,” write Samuele Cortese, MD, PhD, and Cristiano Fava, MD, PhD, with University of Southampton (England).
“These findings are especially relevant given the reported association between ADHD and physical conditions, such as obesity, which further contribute to increased cardiovascular risk,” they add.
Dr. Cortese and Dr. Fava say that the increased CV risk – averaging 4% per year and stabilizing after 3 years of treatment – “should be carefully weighed against the established benefits, on a case-by-case basis.”
“Importantly,” they write, “large real-world self-controlled studies have shown that individuals with ADHD experience significantly fewer unintentional physical injuries, motor vehicle crashes, substance use disorders, and criminal acts, as well as improved academic functioning, during periods when they are taking, compared with periods when they are not taking, methylphenidate.”
The risk-benefit ratio, however, may be lower in people with preexisting heart conditions. However, more evidence and precise recommendations are needed in relation to the treatment of individuals with ADHD and preexisting CV conditions, the editorial writers say.
This study was supported by grants from the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program. The authors and editorial writers have no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA PSYCHIATRY
At 52 weeks, complete hair regrowth rates still climbing on deuruxolitinib
BERLIN – at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
With response curves still climbing at follow-up to date, the results are “truly, truly remarkable,” said Brett King, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
Deuruxolitinib is a JAK inhibitor that has specificity for the 1 and 2 subtypes. At 24 weeks in the phase 3 THRIVE-AA1 and THRIVE-AA2 trials, presented at the American Academy of Dermatology annual meeting earlier this year, about 40% of those on the 12-mg twice-daily dose and 32% of those on the 8-mg twice-daily dose achieved a Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score of ≤ 20%, signifying 80% or greater hair regrowth at 24 weeks. The placebo response was 0%.
By 52 weeks, the proportion had climbed to 62% among those on continuous deuruxolitinib whether maintained on the 8-mg or 12-mg twice daily doses. Among patients on placebo, 58.4% reached this endpoint after being switched at 24 weeks to the 12-mg twice daily dose. Of the patients on placebo switched to 8 mg twice daily, the 52-week response was 45.2%, according to Dr. King.
There were 741 patients available at 52 weeks for this on-going analysis. The mean SALT scores at entry exceeded 80%, meaning complete or near complete hair loss. The substantial proportion of patients who met the primary endpoint of SALT ≤ 20 at the end of the blinded period was encouraging, but Dr. King said that the 52-week results are important, not only showing the response was sustained, but that greater regrowth occurs over time.
“Alopecia takes time to treat,” said Dr. King, summarizing the lesson from these data. Moreover, he added that the long-term data are likely to under represent the absolute benefit even if no further growth is achieved with even longer follow-up. One reason is that missing long-term data were accounted for with a last-observation-carried-forward approach.
In other words, “this is the floor when considering response at 52 weeks,” Dr. King said. “In the real world, where adjunctive measures such as intralesional Kenalog [triamcinolone acetonide] or topical treatments are added, we are likely to do even better,” he added.
Adverse events remained low
Treatment-emergent adverse events remained low with “nothing particularly surprising,” Dr. King said. The rate of serious adverse events over 52 weeks was less than 2% on either dose of deuruxolitinib. The proportion of patients who discontinued treatment because of an adverse event was 0.7% in the 8-mg twice-daily arm and 1.1% in the 12-mg twice-daily arm.
Most approved oral JAK inhibitors carry a boxed warning based on a trial conducted with the relatively nonspecific tofacitinib. The trial enrolled older patients with rheumatoid arthritis at risk for thrombotic events, raising questions about its relevance to selective JAK inhibitors employed for other indications. There was only one thrombosis observed in the 52-week alopecia areata follow-up in a patient on deuruxolitinib. Dr. King noted that this patient, who was obese and was on the higher of the two doses, had multiple comorbidities, including systemic lupus erythematosus.
There were no major adverse cardiac events reported in long-term follow-up or cases of tuberculosis. The rate of opportunistic infections was 0.1% in the 8-mg twice-daily arm and 0.2% in the 12-mg twice-daily arm. Serious infections were observed in 0.6% and 0.4% of these two arms, respectively. There were four malignancies (0.5%) in each of the two study arms.
Of the side effects likely to be related to deuruxolitinib, acne was observed in about 10% of patients on either dose. The mechanism is unclear, but Dr. King reported this has been commonly observed with other JAK inhibitors.
Asked his opinion about the optimal starting dose of deuruxolitinib, Dr. King said, “in my mind, the efficacy of 8 mg is so impressive that I would not struggle at all in starting there,” noting that the higher dose could be considered with a slow or inadequate response.
Two JAK inhibitors are already approved
If approved for alopecia areata, deuruxolitinib will be the third JAK inhibitor available for this indication, following the recent approvals of baricitinib and ritlecitinib.
Calling JAK inhibitors “a major advance in the treatment of alopecia areata, particularly for those patients with severe, refractory disease,” Lynne Goldberg, MD, professor of dermatology at Boston University, and director of the hair clinic, Boston Medical Center, said that the proportion of patients with SALT scores ≤ 20 at 52-weeks is “huge.”
She is generally comfortable with the safety of the JAK inhibitors for alopecia areata.
“I believe that, in general, these medications are well tolerated in the alopecia areata population, particularly in otherwise healthy, young patients,” she said, indicating the benefit-to-risk ratio is particularly acceptable when disease is severe.
“This disease has tremendous emotional and functional implications, and many patients with severe or recurrent disease are willing to chance the side effects to live with a full head of hair,” she said. She added that well-informed patients can “make their own, individual assessment.”
Dr. King has financial relationships with approximately 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Concert Pharmaceuticals, which makes deuruxolitinib and provided funding for this study. Dr. Goldberg reports no financial conflicts relevant to this topic.
BERLIN – at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
With response curves still climbing at follow-up to date, the results are “truly, truly remarkable,” said Brett King, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
Deuruxolitinib is a JAK inhibitor that has specificity for the 1 and 2 subtypes. At 24 weeks in the phase 3 THRIVE-AA1 and THRIVE-AA2 trials, presented at the American Academy of Dermatology annual meeting earlier this year, about 40% of those on the 12-mg twice-daily dose and 32% of those on the 8-mg twice-daily dose achieved a Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score of ≤ 20%, signifying 80% or greater hair regrowth at 24 weeks. The placebo response was 0%.
By 52 weeks, the proportion had climbed to 62% among those on continuous deuruxolitinib whether maintained on the 8-mg or 12-mg twice daily doses. Among patients on placebo, 58.4% reached this endpoint after being switched at 24 weeks to the 12-mg twice daily dose. Of the patients on placebo switched to 8 mg twice daily, the 52-week response was 45.2%, according to Dr. King.
There were 741 patients available at 52 weeks for this on-going analysis. The mean SALT scores at entry exceeded 80%, meaning complete or near complete hair loss. The substantial proportion of patients who met the primary endpoint of SALT ≤ 20 at the end of the blinded period was encouraging, but Dr. King said that the 52-week results are important, not only showing the response was sustained, but that greater regrowth occurs over time.
“Alopecia takes time to treat,” said Dr. King, summarizing the lesson from these data. Moreover, he added that the long-term data are likely to under represent the absolute benefit even if no further growth is achieved with even longer follow-up. One reason is that missing long-term data were accounted for with a last-observation-carried-forward approach.
In other words, “this is the floor when considering response at 52 weeks,” Dr. King said. “In the real world, where adjunctive measures such as intralesional Kenalog [triamcinolone acetonide] or topical treatments are added, we are likely to do even better,” he added.
Adverse events remained low
Treatment-emergent adverse events remained low with “nothing particularly surprising,” Dr. King said. The rate of serious adverse events over 52 weeks was less than 2% on either dose of deuruxolitinib. The proportion of patients who discontinued treatment because of an adverse event was 0.7% in the 8-mg twice-daily arm and 1.1% in the 12-mg twice-daily arm.
Most approved oral JAK inhibitors carry a boxed warning based on a trial conducted with the relatively nonspecific tofacitinib. The trial enrolled older patients with rheumatoid arthritis at risk for thrombotic events, raising questions about its relevance to selective JAK inhibitors employed for other indications. There was only one thrombosis observed in the 52-week alopecia areata follow-up in a patient on deuruxolitinib. Dr. King noted that this patient, who was obese and was on the higher of the two doses, had multiple comorbidities, including systemic lupus erythematosus.
There were no major adverse cardiac events reported in long-term follow-up or cases of tuberculosis. The rate of opportunistic infections was 0.1% in the 8-mg twice-daily arm and 0.2% in the 12-mg twice-daily arm. Serious infections were observed in 0.6% and 0.4% of these two arms, respectively. There were four malignancies (0.5%) in each of the two study arms.
Of the side effects likely to be related to deuruxolitinib, acne was observed in about 10% of patients on either dose. The mechanism is unclear, but Dr. King reported this has been commonly observed with other JAK inhibitors.
Asked his opinion about the optimal starting dose of deuruxolitinib, Dr. King said, “in my mind, the efficacy of 8 mg is so impressive that I would not struggle at all in starting there,” noting that the higher dose could be considered with a slow or inadequate response.
Two JAK inhibitors are already approved
If approved for alopecia areata, deuruxolitinib will be the third JAK inhibitor available for this indication, following the recent approvals of baricitinib and ritlecitinib.
Calling JAK inhibitors “a major advance in the treatment of alopecia areata, particularly for those patients with severe, refractory disease,” Lynne Goldberg, MD, professor of dermatology at Boston University, and director of the hair clinic, Boston Medical Center, said that the proportion of patients with SALT scores ≤ 20 at 52-weeks is “huge.”
She is generally comfortable with the safety of the JAK inhibitors for alopecia areata.
“I believe that, in general, these medications are well tolerated in the alopecia areata population, particularly in otherwise healthy, young patients,” she said, indicating the benefit-to-risk ratio is particularly acceptable when disease is severe.
“This disease has tremendous emotional and functional implications, and many patients with severe or recurrent disease are willing to chance the side effects to live with a full head of hair,” she said. She added that well-informed patients can “make their own, individual assessment.”
Dr. King has financial relationships with approximately 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Concert Pharmaceuticals, which makes deuruxolitinib and provided funding for this study. Dr. Goldberg reports no financial conflicts relevant to this topic.
BERLIN – at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
With response curves still climbing at follow-up to date, the results are “truly, truly remarkable,” said Brett King, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
Deuruxolitinib is a JAK inhibitor that has specificity for the 1 and 2 subtypes. At 24 weeks in the phase 3 THRIVE-AA1 and THRIVE-AA2 trials, presented at the American Academy of Dermatology annual meeting earlier this year, about 40% of those on the 12-mg twice-daily dose and 32% of those on the 8-mg twice-daily dose achieved a Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score of ≤ 20%, signifying 80% or greater hair regrowth at 24 weeks. The placebo response was 0%.
By 52 weeks, the proportion had climbed to 62% among those on continuous deuruxolitinib whether maintained on the 8-mg or 12-mg twice daily doses. Among patients on placebo, 58.4% reached this endpoint after being switched at 24 weeks to the 12-mg twice daily dose. Of the patients on placebo switched to 8 mg twice daily, the 52-week response was 45.2%, according to Dr. King.
There were 741 patients available at 52 weeks for this on-going analysis. The mean SALT scores at entry exceeded 80%, meaning complete or near complete hair loss. The substantial proportion of patients who met the primary endpoint of SALT ≤ 20 at the end of the blinded period was encouraging, but Dr. King said that the 52-week results are important, not only showing the response was sustained, but that greater regrowth occurs over time.
“Alopecia takes time to treat,” said Dr. King, summarizing the lesson from these data. Moreover, he added that the long-term data are likely to under represent the absolute benefit even if no further growth is achieved with even longer follow-up. One reason is that missing long-term data were accounted for with a last-observation-carried-forward approach.
In other words, “this is the floor when considering response at 52 weeks,” Dr. King said. “In the real world, where adjunctive measures such as intralesional Kenalog [triamcinolone acetonide] or topical treatments are added, we are likely to do even better,” he added.
Adverse events remained low
Treatment-emergent adverse events remained low with “nothing particularly surprising,” Dr. King said. The rate of serious adverse events over 52 weeks was less than 2% on either dose of deuruxolitinib. The proportion of patients who discontinued treatment because of an adverse event was 0.7% in the 8-mg twice-daily arm and 1.1% in the 12-mg twice-daily arm.
Most approved oral JAK inhibitors carry a boxed warning based on a trial conducted with the relatively nonspecific tofacitinib. The trial enrolled older patients with rheumatoid arthritis at risk for thrombotic events, raising questions about its relevance to selective JAK inhibitors employed for other indications. There was only one thrombosis observed in the 52-week alopecia areata follow-up in a patient on deuruxolitinib. Dr. King noted that this patient, who was obese and was on the higher of the two doses, had multiple comorbidities, including systemic lupus erythematosus.
There were no major adverse cardiac events reported in long-term follow-up or cases of tuberculosis. The rate of opportunistic infections was 0.1% in the 8-mg twice-daily arm and 0.2% in the 12-mg twice-daily arm. Serious infections were observed in 0.6% and 0.4% of these two arms, respectively. There were four malignancies (0.5%) in each of the two study arms.
Of the side effects likely to be related to deuruxolitinib, acne was observed in about 10% of patients on either dose. The mechanism is unclear, but Dr. King reported this has been commonly observed with other JAK inhibitors.
Asked his opinion about the optimal starting dose of deuruxolitinib, Dr. King said, “in my mind, the efficacy of 8 mg is so impressive that I would not struggle at all in starting there,” noting that the higher dose could be considered with a slow or inadequate response.
Two JAK inhibitors are already approved
If approved for alopecia areata, deuruxolitinib will be the third JAK inhibitor available for this indication, following the recent approvals of baricitinib and ritlecitinib.
Calling JAK inhibitors “a major advance in the treatment of alopecia areata, particularly for those patients with severe, refractory disease,” Lynne Goldberg, MD, professor of dermatology at Boston University, and director of the hair clinic, Boston Medical Center, said that the proportion of patients with SALT scores ≤ 20 at 52-weeks is “huge.”
She is generally comfortable with the safety of the JAK inhibitors for alopecia areata.
“I believe that, in general, these medications are well tolerated in the alopecia areata population, particularly in otherwise healthy, young patients,” she said, indicating the benefit-to-risk ratio is particularly acceptable when disease is severe.
“This disease has tremendous emotional and functional implications, and many patients with severe or recurrent disease are willing to chance the side effects to live with a full head of hair,” she said. She added that well-informed patients can “make their own, individual assessment.”
Dr. King has financial relationships with approximately 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Concert Pharmaceuticals, which makes deuruxolitinib and provided funding for this study. Dr. Goldberg reports no financial conflicts relevant to this topic.
At THE EADV CONGRESS
Tapinarof effective for AD in patients as young as 2 years
BERLIN – of age, according to results of two pivotal trials presented at the at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
If approved for AD, one advantage of tapinarof cream relative to topical corticosteroids is potential use “without restrictions on duration, extent, or site of application,” reported Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, director of clinical research, George Washington University, Washington.
Tapinarof cream, 1%, an aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonist, was approved in 2022 for treating plaque psoriasis in adults.
In the two phase 3 trials, ADORING 1 and ADORING 2, which were presented together at the meeting, the primary endpoint was Validated Investigator Global Assessment (vIGA) for AD of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) at 8 weeks. For this endpoint and all secondary endpoints, the relative advantage of the active cream over the vehicle alone was about the same in both studies.
For example, the vIGA clear or almost clear response was met by 45.4% and 46.4% of those in the experimental arm of ADORING 1 and 2, respectively, but only 13.9% and 18.0% in the control arms (P < .0001 for both).
For the secondary endpoint of Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI75), signifying 75% clearance of skin lesions, the response rates were 55.8% and 59.1% in the two trials, but only 22.9% and 24.1% in the respective control arms (P < .0001 for both).
The two identically designed trials randomized patients with moderate to severe AD in a 2:1 ratio to tapinarof cream or vehicle alone. There were 407 patients ages 2-81 years in ADORING I and 406 in ADORING 2. Patients were instructed to apply the active cream or vehicle once per day.
The safety data for tapinarof in these studies was generally consistent with the experience with this agent in plaque psoriasis. According to Dr. Silverberg, there was a modest increase in reports of headache early in this study, but these were transient. Follicular events were also more common on tapinarof than on its vehicle, but Dr. Silverberg said that the rate of discontinuations for adverse events, although low in both arms, was numerically lower in the active treatment arm in both trials.
“There were reports of contact dermatitis in the psoriasis studies, but we have not seen this in the AD trials,” Dr. Silverberg said.
Itch control evaluated
In a separate presentation of ADORING 1 and 2 results, Eric Simpson, MD, professor of dermatology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, provided detailed information about itch control, which was evaluated with the Peak Pruritus–Numerical Rating Scale (PP-NRS).
“The PP-NRS considers a person’s worst itch over the past 24 hours based on an 11-point scale,” explained Dr. Simpson, who said that patients scored itch daily with comparisons made at weeks 1, 2, 4, and 8.
Over time, pruritus scores fell in both groups, but reductions were far steeper among those in the active treatment arms.
“In ADORING 1, there were greater reductions in itch as early as day 1,” Dr. Simpson reported. Although the differences in itch were not detected until day 2 in ADORING 2, the differences were already significant and clinically meaningful in both studies by the end of the first week.
By week 8, the mean reductions in PP-NRS scores were 2.6 and 2.4 in the vehicle arms of ADORING 1 and 2, respectively. In the treatment arm, the reduction was 4.1 points in both arms (P < .0001 for both studies).
Forty-eight–week follow-up planned
More than 90% of patients in both studies have rolled over into the open-label extension ADORING 3 trial, with a planned follow-up of 48 weeks, according to Dr. Silverberg, who said that those in the placebo arm have been crossed over to tapinarof.
The response and the safety appear to be similar in adults and children, although Dr. Silverberg said that further analyses of outcomes by age are planned. He noted that there is also an ongoing study of tapinarof in children with plaque psoriasis.
In AD in particular, Dr. Silverberg said there is “an unmet need” for a topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory. While topical corticosteroids are a mainstay of AD therapy in children as well as adults, he noted the limitations of these drugs, including that they can only be applied for limited periods.
Tapinarof binds to the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR), which regulates immune function in the skin and is expressed in many skin cell types. By inhibiting AhR, tapinarof blocks cytokine activation and has an antioxidant effect.
Adelaide A. Hebert, MD, professor and director of pediatric dermatology, McGovern Medical School at UTHealth, Houston, has participated in clinical studies of tapinarof for AD, and said she has been impressed with its efficacy and tolerability in children as well as adults. In the case of children, parents, as well as patients, “valued the rapid onset of disease control, the once-daily application regimen, and the itch control,” she said in an interview after the meeting.
If approved, Dr. Hebert said, “this novel steroid-free medication has the potential to change the management arena for pediatric and adult patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.”
The recent introduction of new systemic therapies for AD, such as JAK inhibitors, has increased options for AD control, but “we still need effective and safe topical therapies, especially in children and young adults,” said Sonja Ständer, MD, head of the Interdisciplinary Center for Chronic Pruritus, University of Münster (Germany). Author of a comprehensive review article on AD in the New England Journal of Medicine 2 years ago, Dr. Ständer said results from the phase 3 topical tapinarof trials, as well as the phase 3 topical ruxolitinib trials, which were also presented as late breakers at the 2023 EADV meeting, provide “hope that an alternative to topical steroids will soon be available.”
Based on their safety and rapid control of itch in children with AD, “these will complement our current portfolio of topical therapies very well and have the potential to replace topical steroids early in therapy or to replace them altogether,” she told this news organization.
Dermavant Sciences, manufacturer of tapinarof, anticipates filing for Food and Drug Administration approval for AD in the first quarter of 2024, according to a company statement.
Dr. Silverberg and Dr. Simpson reported financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Dermavant, which provided funding for the ADORING trials. Dr. Hebert has financial relationship with more than 15 pharmaceutical companies, including Dermavent and other companies that have or are developing therapies for AD. Dr. Ständer reported financial relationships with Beiersdorf, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Kiniksa, Pfizer, and Sanofi.
BERLIN – of age, according to results of two pivotal trials presented at the at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
If approved for AD, one advantage of tapinarof cream relative to topical corticosteroids is potential use “without restrictions on duration, extent, or site of application,” reported Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, director of clinical research, George Washington University, Washington.
Tapinarof cream, 1%, an aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonist, was approved in 2022 for treating plaque psoriasis in adults.
In the two phase 3 trials, ADORING 1 and ADORING 2, which were presented together at the meeting, the primary endpoint was Validated Investigator Global Assessment (vIGA) for AD of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) at 8 weeks. For this endpoint and all secondary endpoints, the relative advantage of the active cream over the vehicle alone was about the same in both studies.
For example, the vIGA clear or almost clear response was met by 45.4% and 46.4% of those in the experimental arm of ADORING 1 and 2, respectively, but only 13.9% and 18.0% in the control arms (P < .0001 for both).
For the secondary endpoint of Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI75), signifying 75% clearance of skin lesions, the response rates were 55.8% and 59.1% in the two trials, but only 22.9% and 24.1% in the respective control arms (P < .0001 for both).
The two identically designed trials randomized patients with moderate to severe AD in a 2:1 ratio to tapinarof cream or vehicle alone. There were 407 patients ages 2-81 years in ADORING I and 406 in ADORING 2. Patients were instructed to apply the active cream or vehicle once per day.
The safety data for tapinarof in these studies was generally consistent with the experience with this agent in plaque psoriasis. According to Dr. Silverberg, there was a modest increase in reports of headache early in this study, but these were transient. Follicular events were also more common on tapinarof than on its vehicle, but Dr. Silverberg said that the rate of discontinuations for adverse events, although low in both arms, was numerically lower in the active treatment arm in both trials.
“There were reports of contact dermatitis in the psoriasis studies, but we have not seen this in the AD trials,” Dr. Silverberg said.
Itch control evaluated
In a separate presentation of ADORING 1 and 2 results, Eric Simpson, MD, professor of dermatology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, provided detailed information about itch control, which was evaluated with the Peak Pruritus–Numerical Rating Scale (PP-NRS).
“The PP-NRS considers a person’s worst itch over the past 24 hours based on an 11-point scale,” explained Dr. Simpson, who said that patients scored itch daily with comparisons made at weeks 1, 2, 4, and 8.
Over time, pruritus scores fell in both groups, but reductions were far steeper among those in the active treatment arms.
“In ADORING 1, there were greater reductions in itch as early as day 1,” Dr. Simpson reported. Although the differences in itch were not detected until day 2 in ADORING 2, the differences were already significant and clinically meaningful in both studies by the end of the first week.
By week 8, the mean reductions in PP-NRS scores were 2.6 and 2.4 in the vehicle arms of ADORING 1 and 2, respectively. In the treatment arm, the reduction was 4.1 points in both arms (P < .0001 for both studies).
Forty-eight–week follow-up planned
More than 90% of patients in both studies have rolled over into the open-label extension ADORING 3 trial, with a planned follow-up of 48 weeks, according to Dr. Silverberg, who said that those in the placebo arm have been crossed over to tapinarof.
The response and the safety appear to be similar in adults and children, although Dr. Silverberg said that further analyses of outcomes by age are planned. He noted that there is also an ongoing study of tapinarof in children with plaque psoriasis.
In AD in particular, Dr. Silverberg said there is “an unmet need” for a topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory. While topical corticosteroids are a mainstay of AD therapy in children as well as adults, he noted the limitations of these drugs, including that they can only be applied for limited periods.
Tapinarof binds to the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR), which regulates immune function in the skin and is expressed in many skin cell types. By inhibiting AhR, tapinarof blocks cytokine activation and has an antioxidant effect.
Adelaide A. Hebert, MD, professor and director of pediatric dermatology, McGovern Medical School at UTHealth, Houston, has participated in clinical studies of tapinarof for AD, and said she has been impressed with its efficacy and tolerability in children as well as adults. In the case of children, parents, as well as patients, “valued the rapid onset of disease control, the once-daily application regimen, and the itch control,” she said in an interview after the meeting.
If approved, Dr. Hebert said, “this novel steroid-free medication has the potential to change the management arena for pediatric and adult patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.”
The recent introduction of new systemic therapies for AD, such as JAK inhibitors, has increased options for AD control, but “we still need effective and safe topical therapies, especially in children and young adults,” said Sonja Ständer, MD, head of the Interdisciplinary Center for Chronic Pruritus, University of Münster (Germany). Author of a comprehensive review article on AD in the New England Journal of Medicine 2 years ago, Dr. Ständer said results from the phase 3 topical tapinarof trials, as well as the phase 3 topical ruxolitinib trials, which were also presented as late breakers at the 2023 EADV meeting, provide “hope that an alternative to topical steroids will soon be available.”
Based on their safety and rapid control of itch in children with AD, “these will complement our current portfolio of topical therapies very well and have the potential to replace topical steroids early in therapy or to replace them altogether,” she told this news organization.
Dermavant Sciences, manufacturer of tapinarof, anticipates filing for Food and Drug Administration approval for AD in the first quarter of 2024, according to a company statement.
Dr. Silverberg and Dr. Simpson reported financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Dermavant, which provided funding for the ADORING trials. Dr. Hebert has financial relationship with more than 15 pharmaceutical companies, including Dermavent and other companies that have or are developing therapies for AD. Dr. Ständer reported financial relationships with Beiersdorf, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Kiniksa, Pfizer, and Sanofi.
BERLIN – of age, according to results of two pivotal trials presented at the at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
If approved for AD, one advantage of tapinarof cream relative to topical corticosteroids is potential use “without restrictions on duration, extent, or site of application,” reported Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, director of clinical research, George Washington University, Washington.
Tapinarof cream, 1%, an aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonist, was approved in 2022 for treating plaque psoriasis in adults.
In the two phase 3 trials, ADORING 1 and ADORING 2, which were presented together at the meeting, the primary endpoint was Validated Investigator Global Assessment (vIGA) for AD of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) at 8 weeks. For this endpoint and all secondary endpoints, the relative advantage of the active cream over the vehicle alone was about the same in both studies.
For example, the vIGA clear or almost clear response was met by 45.4% and 46.4% of those in the experimental arm of ADORING 1 and 2, respectively, but only 13.9% and 18.0% in the control arms (P < .0001 for both).
For the secondary endpoint of Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI75), signifying 75% clearance of skin lesions, the response rates were 55.8% and 59.1% in the two trials, but only 22.9% and 24.1% in the respective control arms (P < .0001 for both).
The two identically designed trials randomized patients with moderate to severe AD in a 2:1 ratio to tapinarof cream or vehicle alone. There were 407 patients ages 2-81 years in ADORING I and 406 in ADORING 2. Patients were instructed to apply the active cream or vehicle once per day.
The safety data for tapinarof in these studies was generally consistent with the experience with this agent in plaque psoriasis. According to Dr. Silverberg, there was a modest increase in reports of headache early in this study, but these were transient. Follicular events were also more common on tapinarof than on its vehicle, but Dr. Silverberg said that the rate of discontinuations for adverse events, although low in both arms, was numerically lower in the active treatment arm in both trials.
“There were reports of contact dermatitis in the psoriasis studies, but we have not seen this in the AD trials,” Dr. Silverberg said.
Itch control evaluated
In a separate presentation of ADORING 1 and 2 results, Eric Simpson, MD, professor of dermatology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, provided detailed information about itch control, which was evaluated with the Peak Pruritus–Numerical Rating Scale (PP-NRS).
“The PP-NRS considers a person’s worst itch over the past 24 hours based on an 11-point scale,” explained Dr. Simpson, who said that patients scored itch daily with comparisons made at weeks 1, 2, 4, and 8.
Over time, pruritus scores fell in both groups, but reductions were far steeper among those in the active treatment arms.
“In ADORING 1, there were greater reductions in itch as early as day 1,” Dr. Simpson reported. Although the differences in itch were not detected until day 2 in ADORING 2, the differences were already significant and clinically meaningful in both studies by the end of the first week.
By week 8, the mean reductions in PP-NRS scores were 2.6 and 2.4 in the vehicle arms of ADORING 1 and 2, respectively. In the treatment arm, the reduction was 4.1 points in both arms (P < .0001 for both studies).
Forty-eight–week follow-up planned
More than 90% of patients in both studies have rolled over into the open-label extension ADORING 3 trial, with a planned follow-up of 48 weeks, according to Dr. Silverberg, who said that those in the placebo arm have been crossed over to tapinarof.
The response and the safety appear to be similar in adults and children, although Dr. Silverberg said that further analyses of outcomes by age are planned. He noted that there is also an ongoing study of tapinarof in children with plaque psoriasis.
In AD in particular, Dr. Silverberg said there is “an unmet need” for a topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory. While topical corticosteroids are a mainstay of AD therapy in children as well as adults, he noted the limitations of these drugs, including that they can only be applied for limited periods.
Tapinarof binds to the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR), which regulates immune function in the skin and is expressed in many skin cell types. By inhibiting AhR, tapinarof blocks cytokine activation and has an antioxidant effect.
Adelaide A. Hebert, MD, professor and director of pediatric dermatology, McGovern Medical School at UTHealth, Houston, has participated in clinical studies of tapinarof for AD, and said she has been impressed with its efficacy and tolerability in children as well as adults. In the case of children, parents, as well as patients, “valued the rapid onset of disease control, the once-daily application regimen, and the itch control,” she said in an interview after the meeting.
If approved, Dr. Hebert said, “this novel steroid-free medication has the potential to change the management arena for pediatric and adult patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.”
The recent introduction of new systemic therapies for AD, such as JAK inhibitors, has increased options for AD control, but “we still need effective and safe topical therapies, especially in children and young adults,” said Sonja Ständer, MD, head of the Interdisciplinary Center for Chronic Pruritus, University of Münster (Germany). Author of a comprehensive review article on AD in the New England Journal of Medicine 2 years ago, Dr. Ständer said results from the phase 3 topical tapinarof trials, as well as the phase 3 topical ruxolitinib trials, which were also presented as late breakers at the 2023 EADV meeting, provide “hope that an alternative to topical steroids will soon be available.”
Based on their safety and rapid control of itch in children with AD, “these will complement our current portfolio of topical therapies very well and have the potential to replace topical steroids early in therapy or to replace them altogether,” she told this news organization.
Dermavant Sciences, manufacturer of tapinarof, anticipates filing for Food and Drug Administration approval for AD in the first quarter of 2024, according to a company statement.
Dr. Silverberg and Dr. Simpson reported financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Dermavant, which provided funding for the ADORING trials. Dr. Hebert has financial relationship with more than 15 pharmaceutical companies, including Dermavent and other companies that have or are developing therapies for AD. Dr. Ständer reported financial relationships with Beiersdorf, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Kiniksa, Pfizer, and Sanofi.
AT THE EADV CONGRESS
Pharmacist-based strategy places more patients on statins
Visit-based strategy has more modest effect
PHILADELPHIA – In two studies run in parallel fashion to test different strategies, one that employed automatic referral to a pharmacist appeared to be superior to one using alerts from the electronic health record (EHR) in increasing the number of at-risk patients receiving a prescription for statins.
, reported Alexander C. Faranoff, MD, assistant professor of cardiovascular medicine at Penn Medicine, Philadelphia.
The parallel studies were part of the SUPER LIPID program, created to generate evidence-based strategies for increasing the proportion of at-risk patients on statins. Dr. Faranoff said current data show that at least 50% of patients indicated for high-intensity statins in the United States are not taking them.
The two studies were presented together in a late breaking presentation at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
EHR algorithm identifies statin candidates
The candidates for statin therapy were identified through an EHR algorithm for both studies. Both compared the impact of the intervention against a baseline period of usual care, although the study of EHR alerts also randomized physicians to provide usual care for 3 months or 6 months prior to intervention.
Dr. Faranoff described these interventions as non–visit related and visit related.
In the study of the non–visit-related strategy, referrals were generated by EHR and sent directly to the pharmacist. Upon receipt, the pharmacist verified the order was appropriate and called the patient directly to discuss starting therapy. Patients agreeing to start a statin were provided with a prescription and followed by the pharmacist.
In the study of the patient-visit approach, physicians seeing EHR-identified candidates received interruptive pop-up alerts during patient encounters. The physicians were randomized to provide usual care for 3 or 6 months before they began receiving alerts. The alerts recommended referral to a pharmacist.
During usual care in the non–visit-related study, only 15.2% of the 975 candidates for statins received a prescription. During the intervention period, the rate climbed to 31.6%. Statistically, the intervention more than doubled the odds ratio (OR) of receiving a statin prescription relative to usual care (OR 2.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.47-3.37).
In addition, the proportion of patients receiving an appropriate dose of statins climbed from 7.7% in the period of usual care to 24.8% in the intervention period (OR 6.79; 95% CI 4.00-11.53).
Visit-based study also randomized
In the study evaluating a visit-based intervention, 16 physicians were randomized to deliver usual care for 3 or 6 months. Of physicians randomized to 3 months, 970 candidates for statins were treated during the 6-month intervention period. The physicians randomized to usual care for 6 months treated 672 candidates for statins during a 3-month intervention period,
More than 3,000 alerts were sent to both groups of physicians over the intervention period. Only 165 (4.6%) were associated with a prescription.
For the group randomized to 3 months of usual care, the proportion of candidates for statins who received a prescription rose from 14.9% during the period of usual care to 17.6% in the first 3 months of intervention and then fell slightly to 15.5% in the second 3 months.
For the group randomized to usual care for 6 months, the proportion of candidates for statins who received a prescription rose from about 11% during the period of usual care to 14.6%. Combining data from both arms, the small gain in prescriptions was significant but modest (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.02-2.00).
In addition, the visit-based EHR notifications failed to yield a significant gain in the proportion of patients on an appropriate statin dose. During the intervention period, this proportion was only about 9% of patients treated by either of the two groups of randomized physicians,
The SUPER LIPID program involved 11 internal medicine and family medicine clinics in rural Pennsylvania. In the visit-based intervention, 16 primary care physicians (PCPs) were randomized. In the asynchronous intervention, 10 primary care practices participated. The EHR identified a total of 1,950 candidates for a statin.
Although the gain in statin prescriptions was disappointing for the visit-based intervention, the strategy of using the EHR to refer statin-eligible patients to pharmacists “could be an effective adjunct to visit-based clinical interactions in increasing statin prescribing for high-risk patients,” Dr. Faranoff maintained.
Overcoming clinical inertia a challenge
The greater efficacy of a pharmacist-based approach did not surprise the AHA-invited discussant, Benjamin M. Scirica, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Pointing out that the pharmacist-based strategy of increasing statin prescriptions is more complicated and more costly, he said, “You get what you pay for.” In his opinion, simple solutions are unlikely ever to be effective due to the complex reasons for clinical inertia. Overall, he thinks a multifaceted approach to placing more patients who need statins on therapy is essential.
“Implementation science is hard,” Dr. Scirica said. Even though the referral-to-a-pharmacist approach ended up putting more patients on statins and putting them on an appropriate dose, he said even this more effective strategy “is still not getting to the majority of patients.”
This does not mean that this approach is without merit or should not be one of many strategies employed, but Dr. Scirica said “there is so much more to be done,” and that it should be employed along with other initiatives.
Faranoff reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Scirica reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Aktiia, AstraZeneca, Better Therapeutics, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Hanmi, Lexicon, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.
Visit-based strategy has more modest effect
Visit-based strategy has more modest effect
PHILADELPHIA – In two studies run in parallel fashion to test different strategies, one that employed automatic referral to a pharmacist appeared to be superior to one using alerts from the electronic health record (EHR) in increasing the number of at-risk patients receiving a prescription for statins.
, reported Alexander C. Faranoff, MD, assistant professor of cardiovascular medicine at Penn Medicine, Philadelphia.
The parallel studies were part of the SUPER LIPID program, created to generate evidence-based strategies for increasing the proportion of at-risk patients on statins. Dr. Faranoff said current data show that at least 50% of patients indicated for high-intensity statins in the United States are not taking them.
The two studies were presented together in a late breaking presentation at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
EHR algorithm identifies statin candidates
The candidates for statin therapy were identified through an EHR algorithm for both studies. Both compared the impact of the intervention against a baseline period of usual care, although the study of EHR alerts also randomized physicians to provide usual care for 3 months or 6 months prior to intervention.
Dr. Faranoff described these interventions as non–visit related and visit related.
In the study of the non–visit-related strategy, referrals were generated by EHR and sent directly to the pharmacist. Upon receipt, the pharmacist verified the order was appropriate and called the patient directly to discuss starting therapy. Patients agreeing to start a statin were provided with a prescription and followed by the pharmacist.
In the study of the patient-visit approach, physicians seeing EHR-identified candidates received interruptive pop-up alerts during patient encounters. The physicians were randomized to provide usual care for 3 or 6 months before they began receiving alerts. The alerts recommended referral to a pharmacist.
During usual care in the non–visit-related study, only 15.2% of the 975 candidates for statins received a prescription. During the intervention period, the rate climbed to 31.6%. Statistically, the intervention more than doubled the odds ratio (OR) of receiving a statin prescription relative to usual care (OR 2.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.47-3.37).
In addition, the proportion of patients receiving an appropriate dose of statins climbed from 7.7% in the period of usual care to 24.8% in the intervention period (OR 6.79; 95% CI 4.00-11.53).
Visit-based study also randomized
In the study evaluating a visit-based intervention, 16 physicians were randomized to deliver usual care for 3 or 6 months. Of physicians randomized to 3 months, 970 candidates for statins were treated during the 6-month intervention period. The physicians randomized to usual care for 6 months treated 672 candidates for statins during a 3-month intervention period,
More than 3,000 alerts were sent to both groups of physicians over the intervention period. Only 165 (4.6%) were associated with a prescription.
For the group randomized to 3 months of usual care, the proportion of candidates for statins who received a prescription rose from 14.9% during the period of usual care to 17.6% in the first 3 months of intervention and then fell slightly to 15.5% in the second 3 months.
For the group randomized to usual care for 6 months, the proportion of candidates for statins who received a prescription rose from about 11% during the period of usual care to 14.6%. Combining data from both arms, the small gain in prescriptions was significant but modest (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.02-2.00).
In addition, the visit-based EHR notifications failed to yield a significant gain in the proportion of patients on an appropriate statin dose. During the intervention period, this proportion was only about 9% of patients treated by either of the two groups of randomized physicians,
The SUPER LIPID program involved 11 internal medicine and family medicine clinics in rural Pennsylvania. In the visit-based intervention, 16 primary care physicians (PCPs) were randomized. In the asynchronous intervention, 10 primary care practices participated. The EHR identified a total of 1,950 candidates for a statin.
Although the gain in statin prescriptions was disappointing for the visit-based intervention, the strategy of using the EHR to refer statin-eligible patients to pharmacists “could be an effective adjunct to visit-based clinical interactions in increasing statin prescribing for high-risk patients,” Dr. Faranoff maintained.
Overcoming clinical inertia a challenge
The greater efficacy of a pharmacist-based approach did not surprise the AHA-invited discussant, Benjamin M. Scirica, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Pointing out that the pharmacist-based strategy of increasing statin prescriptions is more complicated and more costly, he said, “You get what you pay for.” In his opinion, simple solutions are unlikely ever to be effective due to the complex reasons for clinical inertia. Overall, he thinks a multifaceted approach to placing more patients who need statins on therapy is essential.
“Implementation science is hard,” Dr. Scirica said. Even though the referral-to-a-pharmacist approach ended up putting more patients on statins and putting them on an appropriate dose, he said even this more effective strategy “is still not getting to the majority of patients.”
This does not mean that this approach is without merit or should not be one of many strategies employed, but Dr. Scirica said “there is so much more to be done,” and that it should be employed along with other initiatives.
Faranoff reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Scirica reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Aktiia, AstraZeneca, Better Therapeutics, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Hanmi, Lexicon, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.
PHILADELPHIA – In two studies run in parallel fashion to test different strategies, one that employed automatic referral to a pharmacist appeared to be superior to one using alerts from the electronic health record (EHR) in increasing the number of at-risk patients receiving a prescription for statins.
, reported Alexander C. Faranoff, MD, assistant professor of cardiovascular medicine at Penn Medicine, Philadelphia.
The parallel studies were part of the SUPER LIPID program, created to generate evidence-based strategies for increasing the proportion of at-risk patients on statins. Dr. Faranoff said current data show that at least 50% of patients indicated for high-intensity statins in the United States are not taking them.
The two studies were presented together in a late breaking presentation at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
EHR algorithm identifies statin candidates
The candidates for statin therapy were identified through an EHR algorithm for both studies. Both compared the impact of the intervention against a baseline period of usual care, although the study of EHR alerts also randomized physicians to provide usual care for 3 months or 6 months prior to intervention.
Dr. Faranoff described these interventions as non–visit related and visit related.
In the study of the non–visit-related strategy, referrals were generated by EHR and sent directly to the pharmacist. Upon receipt, the pharmacist verified the order was appropriate and called the patient directly to discuss starting therapy. Patients agreeing to start a statin were provided with a prescription and followed by the pharmacist.
In the study of the patient-visit approach, physicians seeing EHR-identified candidates received interruptive pop-up alerts during patient encounters. The physicians were randomized to provide usual care for 3 or 6 months before they began receiving alerts. The alerts recommended referral to a pharmacist.
During usual care in the non–visit-related study, only 15.2% of the 975 candidates for statins received a prescription. During the intervention period, the rate climbed to 31.6%. Statistically, the intervention more than doubled the odds ratio (OR) of receiving a statin prescription relative to usual care (OR 2.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.47-3.37).
In addition, the proportion of patients receiving an appropriate dose of statins climbed from 7.7% in the period of usual care to 24.8% in the intervention period (OR 6.79; 95% CI 4.00-11.53).
Visit-based study also randomized
In the study evaluating a visit-based intervention, 16 physicians were randomized to deliver usual care for 3 or 6 months. Of physicians randomized to 3 months, 970 candidates for statins were treated during the 6-month intervention period. The physicians randomized to usual care for 6 months treated 672 candidates for statins during a 3-month intervention period,
More than 3,000 alerts were sent to both groups of physicians over the intervention period. Only 165 (4.6%) were associated with a prescription.
For the group randomized to 3 months of usual care, the proportion of candidates for statins who received a prescription rose from 14.9% during the period of usual care to 17.6% in the first 3 months of intervention and then fell slightly to 15.5% in the second 3 months.
For the group randomized to usual care for 6 months, the proportion of candidates for statins who received a prescription rose from about 11% during the period of usual care to 14.6%. Combining data from both arms, the small gain in prescriptions was significant but modest (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.02-2.00).
In addition, the visit-based EHR notifications failed to yield a significant gain in the proportion of patients on an appropriate statin dose. During the intervention period, this proportion was only about 9% of patients treated by either of the two groups of randomized physicians,
The SUPER LIPID program involved 11 internal medicine and family medicine clinics in rural Pennsylvania. In the visit-based intervention, 16 primary care physicians (PCPs) were randomized. In the asynchronous intervention, 10 primary care practices participated. The EHR identified a total of 1,950 candidates for a statin.
Although the gain in statin prescriptions was disappointing for the visit-based intervention, the strategy of using the EHR to refer statin-eligible patients to pharmacists “could be an effective adjunct to visit-based clinical interactions in increasing statin prescribing for high-risk patients,” Dr. Faranoff maintained.
Overcoming clinical inertia a challenge
The greater efficacy of a pharmacist-based approach did not surprise the AHA-invited discussant, Benjamin M. Scirica, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Pointing out that the pharmacist-based strategy of increasing statin prescriptions is more complicated and more costly, he said, “You get what you pay for.” In his opinion, simple solutions are unlikely ever to be effective due to the complex reasons for clinical inertia. Overall, he thinks a multifaceted approach to placing more patients who need statins on therapy is essential.
“Implementation science is hard,” Dr. Scirica said. Even though the referral-to-a-pharmacist approach ended up putting more patients on statins and putting them on an appropriate dose, he said even this more effective strategy “is still not getting to the majority of patients.”
This does not mean that this approach is without merit or should not be one of many strategies employed, but Dr. Scirica said “there is so much more to be done,” and that it should be employed along with other initiatives.
Faranoff reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Scirica reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Aktiia, AstraZeneca, Better Therapeutics, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Hanmi, Lexicon, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.
AT AHA 2023
Most effective meds for alcohol use disorder flagged
TOPLINE:
In conjunction with psychosocial interventions, oral naltrexone and acamprosate are both effective first-line drug therapies for alcohol use disorder (AUD), results of a systematic review and meta-analysis found.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers evaluated efficacy and comparative efficacy of three therapies for AUD that are approved in the United States (acamprosate, naltrexone, and disulfiram) and six that are commonly used off-label (baclofen, gabapentin, varenicline, topiramate, prazosin, and ondansetron).
- Data came from 118 randomized clinical trials lasting at least 12 weeks with 20,976 participants.
- 74% of these studies included psychosocial co-interventions, and the primary outcome was alcohol consumption.
- Numbers needed to treat (NNT) were calculated for medications with at least moderate strength of evidence for benefit.
TAKEAWAY:
- Acamprosate (NNT = 11) and naltrexone (50 mg/day; NNT = 18) had the highest strength of evidence and were both associated with statistically significant improvement in drinking outcomes.
- Oral naltrexone but not acamprosate was also associated with lower rates of return to heavy drinking (NNT = 11), compared with placebo.
- Injectable naltrexone was not associated with return to any or heavy drinking but was associated with fewer drinking days over the 30-day treatment period (weighted mean difference, –4.99 days).
- The four trials that directly compared acamprosate with oral naltrexone did not consistently establish superiority of either medication for alcohol use outcomes, and among off-label drugs, only topiramate had moderate strength of evidence for benefit.
IN PRACTICE:
“Alcohol use disorder affects more than 28.3 million people in the United States and is associated with increased rates of morbidity and mortality. In conjunction with psychosocial interventions, these findings support the use of oral naltrexone, 50 mg/day, and acamprosate as first-line pharmacotherapies for alcohol use disorder,” the authors write.
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Melissa McPheeters, PhD, MPH, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, was published online in JAMA.
LIMITATIONS:
Most study participants had moderate to severe AUD, and the applicability of the findings to people with mild AUD is uncertain. The mean age of participants was typically between ages 40 and 49 years, and it’s unclear whether the medications have similar efficacy for older or younger age groups. Information on adverse effects was limited.
DISCLOSURES:
Funding for the study was provided by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. The authors have disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
In conjunction with psychosocial interventions, oral naltrexone and acamprosate are both effective first-line drug therapies for alcohol use disorder (AUD), results of a systematic review and meta-analysis found.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers evaluated efficacy and comparative efficacy of three therapies for AUD that are approved in the United States (acamprosate, naltrexone, and disulfiram) and six that are commonly used off-label (baclofen, gabapentin, varenicline, topiramate, prazosin, and ondansetron).
- Data came from 118 randomized clinical trials lasting at least 12 weeks with 20,976 participants.
- 74% of these studies included psychosocial co-interventions, and the primary outcome was alcohol consumption.
- Numbers needed to treat (NNT) were calculated for medications with at least moderate strength of evidence for benefit.
TAKEAWAY:
- Acamprosate (NNT = 11) and naltrexone (50 mg/day; NNT = 18) had the highest strength of evidence and were both associated with statistically significant improvement in drinking outcomes.
- Oral naltrexone but not acamprosate was also associated with lower rates of return to heavy drinking (NNT = 11), compared with placebo.
- Injectable naltrexone was not associated with return to any or heavy drinking but was associated with fewer drinking days over the 30-day treatment period (weighted mean difference, –4.99 days).
- The four trials that directly compared acamprosate with oral naltrexone did not consistently establish superiority of either medication for alcohol use outcomes, and among off-label drugs, only topiramate had moderate strength of evidence for benefit.
IN PRACTICE:
“Alcohol use disorder affects more than 28.3 million people in the United States and is associated with increased rates of morbidity and mortality. In conjunction with psychosocial interventions, these findings support the use of oral naltrexone, 50 mg/day, and acamprosate as first-line pharmacotherapies for alcohol use disorder,” the authors write.
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Melissa McPheeters, PhD, MPH, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, was published online in JAMA.
LIMITATIONS:
Most study participants had moderate to severe AUD, and the applicability of the findings to people with mild AUD is uncertain. The mean age of participants was typically between ages 40 and 49 years, and it’s unclear whether the medications have similar efficacy for older or younger age groups. Information on adverse effects was limited.
DISCLOSURES:
Funding for the study was provided by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. The authors have disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
In conjunction with psychosocial interventions, oral naltrexone and acamprosate are both effective first-line drug therapies for alcohol use disorder (AUD), results of a systematic review and meta-analysis found.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers evaluated efficacy and comparative efficacy of three therapies for AUD that are approved in the United States (acamprosate, naltrexone, and disulfiram) and six that are commonly used off-label (baclofen, gabapentin, varenicline, topiramate, prazosin, and ondansetron).
- Data came from 118 randomized clinical trials lasting at least 12 weeks with 20,976 participants.
- 74% of these studies included psychosocial co-interventions, and the primary outcome was alcohol consumption.
- Numbers needed to treat (NNT) were calculated for medications with at least moderate strength of evidence for benefit.
TAKEAWAY:
- Acamprosate (NNT = 11) and naltrexone (50 mg/day; NNT = 18) had the highest strength of evidence and were both associated with statistically significant improvement in drinking outcomes.
- Oral naltrexone but not acamprosate was also associated with lower rates of return to heavy drinking (NNT = 11), compared with placebo.
- Injectable naltrexone was not associated with return to any or heavy drinking but was associated with fewer drinking days over the 30-day treatment period (weighted mean difference, –4.99 days).
- The four trials that directly compared acamprosate with oral naltrexone did not consistently establish superiority of either medication for alcohol use outcomes, and among off-label drugs, only topiramate had moderate strength of evidence for benefit.
IN PRACTICE:
“Alcohol use disorder affects more than 28.3 million people in the United States and is associated with increased rates of morbidity and mortality. In conjunction with psychosocial interventions, these findings support the use of oral naltrexone, 50 mg/day, and acamprosate as first-line pharmacotherapies for alcohol use disorder,” the authors write.
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Melissa McPheeters, PhD, MPH, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, was published online in JAMA.
LIMITATIONS:
Most study participants had moderate to severe AUD, and the applicability of the findings to people with mild AUD is uncertain. The mean age of participants was typically between ages 40 and 49 years, and it’s unclear whether the medications have similar efficacy for older or younger age groups. Information on adverse effects was limited.
DISCLOSURES:
Funding for the study was provided by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. The authors have disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA approves first tx for rare, deadly clotting disorder
Congenital TTP affects fewer than 1,000 people in the United States and is caused by a mutation in the ADAMTS13 gene, which makes an enzyme that regulates blood clotting. Patients with the congenital TTP typically receive prophylactic plasma-based therapy to replenish the ADAMTS13 enzyme and reduce the risk for clotting and bleeding. The condition, however, can be fatal if left untreated.
The new agent is a purified recombinant form of the ADAMTS13 enzyme that works by replacing low levels of the deficient enzyme in patients with congenital TTP. Adzynma is given prophylactically to reduce the risk for disease symptoms and on demand when a patient is experiencing an acute event, according to the FDA approval announcement.
The approval was based on a global randomized phase 3 study comparing the product with plasma-based therapies in 46 patients with congenital TTP. Patients in the trial were randomized to receive 6 months of treatment with either intravenous Adzynma — given once every other week as prophylactic enzyme replacement therapy or once daily as on-demand enzyme replacement therapy — or plasma-based therapies. The patients then crossed over to the other treatment for 6 months.
Interim findings from the study showed that Adzynma reduced the incidence of thrombocytopenia — the most common symptom of congenital TTP — by 60% compared with plasma-based therapy (rate ratio, 0.40). No patients experienced an acute TTP event during Adzynma prophylaxis, Takeda said.
Significantly more patients receiving plasma-based therapies experienced treatment-emergent adverse events compared with those receiving the biologic.
The most common side effects associated with the biologic were headache (31.3%), diarrhea (16.7%), migraine (14.6%), abdominal pain (12.5%), nausea (12.5%), upper respiratory tract infection (12.5%), dizziness (10.4%), and vomiting (10.4%). No treatment-related adverse events, including allergic reactions, were observed during administration.
“The FDA remains deeply committed in our efforts to help facilitate the development and approval of safe and effective therapies for patients with rare diseases,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, stated. The “approval reflects important progress in the development of much-needed treatment options for patients affected by this life-threatening disorder.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Congenital TTP affects fewer than 1,000 people in the United States and is caused by a mutation in the ADAMTS13 gene, which makes an enzyme that regulates blood clotting. Patients with the congenital TTP typically receive prophylactic plasma-based therapy to replenish the ADAMTS13 enzyme and reduce the risk for clotting and bleeding. The condition, however, can be fatal if left untreated.
The new agent is a purified recombinant form of the ADAMTS13 enzyme that works by replacing low levels of the deficient enzyme in patients with congenital TTP. Adzynma is given prophylactically to reduce the risk for disease symptoms and on demand when a patient is experiencing an acute event, according to the FDA approval announcement.
The approval was based on a global randomized phase 3 study comparing the product with plasma-based therapies in 46 patients with congenital TTP. Patients in the trial were randomized to receive 6 months of treatment with either intravenous Adzynma — given once every other week as prophylactic enzyme replacement therapy or once daily as on-demand enzyme replacement therapy — or plasma-based therapies. The patients then crossed over to the other treatment for 6 months.
Interim findings from the study showed that Adzynma reduced the incidence of thrombocytopenia — the most common symptom of congenital TTP — by 60% compared with plasma-based therapy (rate ratio, 0.40). No patients experienced an acute TTP event during Adzynma prophylaxis, Takeda said.
Significantly more patients receiving plasma-based therapies experienced treatment-emergent adverse events compared with those receiving the biologic.
The most common side effects associated with the biologic were headache (31.3%), diarrhea (16.7%), migraine (14.6%), abdominal pain (12.5%), nausea (12.5%), upper respiratory tract infection (12.5%), dizziness (10.4%), and vomiting (10.4%). No treatment-related adverse events, including allergic reactions, were observed during administration.
“The FDA remains deeply committed in our efforts to help facilitate the development and approval of safe and effective therapies for patients with rare diseases,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, stated. The “approval reflects important progress in the development of much-needed treatment options for patients affected by this life-threatening disorder.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Congenital TTP affects fewer than 1,000 people in the United States and is caused by a mutation in the ADAMTS13 gene, which makes an enzyme that regulates blood clotting. Patients with the congenital TTP typically receive prophylactic plasma-based therapy to replenish the ADAMTS13 enzyme and reduce the risk for clotting and bleeding. The condition, however, can be fatal if left untreated.
The new agent is a purified recombinant form of the ADAMTS13 enzyme that works by replacing low levels of the deficient enzyme in patients with congenital TTP. Adzynma is given prophylactically to reduce the risk for disease symptoms and on demand when a patient is experiencing an acute event, according to the FDA approval announcement.
The approval was based on a global randomized phase 3 study comparing the product with plasma-based therapies in 46 patients with congenital TTP. Patients in the trial were randomized to receive 6 months of treatment with either intravenous Adzynma — given once every other week as prophylactic enzyme replacement therapy or once daily as on-demand enzyme replacement therapy — or plasma-based therapies. The patients then crossed over to the other treatment for 6 months.
Interim findings from the study showed that Adzynma reduced the incidence of thrombocytopenia — the most common symptom of congenital TTP — by 60% compared with plasma-based therapy (rate ratio, 0.40). No patients experienced an acute TTP event during Adzynma prophylaxis, Takeda said.
Significantly more patients receiving plasma-based therapies experienced treatment-emergent adverse events compared with those receiving the biologic.
The most common side effects associated with the biologic were headache (31.3%), diarrhea (16.7%), migraine (14.6%), abdominal pain (12.5%), nausea (12.5%), upper respiratory tract infection (12.5%), dizziness (10.4%), and vomiting (10.4%). No treatment-related adverse events, including allergic reactions, were observed during administration.
“The FDA remains deeply committed in our efforts to help facilitate the development and approval of safe and effective therapies for patients with rare diseases,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, stated. The “approval reflects important progress in the development of much-needed treatment options for patients affected by this life-threatening disorder.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.