Pharmacology

The Food and Drug Administration has approved bimekizumab-bkzx (Bimzelx) for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults, the manufacturer announced in a press release.

The indication is for adults who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy.

With this approval, bimekizumab becomes the only interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F inhibitor approved for the treatment of these patients. Psoriasis affects more than 7.5 million U.S. adults, according to the National Psoriasis Foundation.

“We have been eagerly awaiting bimekizumab,” Mark Lebwohl, MD, bimekizumab investigator and dean for clinical therapeutics at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said in the press release.

Dr. Lebwohl states that bimekizumab “achieved superior levels of skin clearance at week 16 compared to placebo and three existing biologics for psoriasis, with responses being rapid and lasting up to a year. Long-term data have also shown that the majority of patients maintained high levels of clinical response through three years.”

The most common adverse reactions (occurring in at least 1% of patients) are upper respiratory infections, oral candidiasis, headache, tinea infections, gastroenteritis, herpes simplex infections, acne, folliculitis, other Candida infections, fatigue, and injection site reactions, according to the company, UCB.
 

Available in about 1 month in U.S.

Bimekizumab can be administered by a health care provider or it can be self-injected by a patient after training. It is available as a single-dose prefilled autoinjector and a single-dose prefilled syringe and will be available in the United States in about 1 month.

The recommended dosage of bimekizumab for patients with psoriasis is 320 mg (two subcutaneous injections of 160 mg each) at baseline, then on weeks 4, 8, 12, and 16, then every 8 weeks thereafter. For patients weighing at least 120 kg (about 265 lb), a dosage of 320 mg every 4 weeks after week 16 may be considered, the company states.

Three phase 3 trials

Approval was based on three phase 3 multicenter, randomized, placebo and/or active comparator-controlled trials: bimekizumab versus placebo and ustekinumab (BE VIVID); versus placebo (BE READY); and versus adalimumab (BE SURE).

“All studies met their co-primary endpoints and all ranked secondary endpoints,” the company reports. Secondary endpoints included the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 at week 4 and PASI 100 (complete skin clearance) at week 16.

Highlights from the trials include the following results, according to UCB:

• Clear or almost clear skin: More than 8 out of 10 patients achieved a 90% or greater reduction from baseline in the PASI 90 and an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0/1 at week 16.
• Complete skin clearance: About 60% of patients achieved PASI 100 at week 16.
• Time to response: More than 70% of patients achieved PASI 75 at week 4 following one 320-mg dose.

Safety information

The safety information includes the statement that bimekizumab may increase the risk for suicidal ideation and behavior, though a causal association has not been established. Prescribers should advise patients, caregivers, and families “to monitor for emergence or worsening of depression, suicidal ideation, or other mood changes,” according to the prescribing information.

Bimekizumab is being studied for other conditions, including hidradenitis suppurativa. In the European Union, it was approved for the treatment of psoriasis in 2021 and for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis in June 2023.

Dr. Lebwohl is an investigator for UCB. He has not accepted any consulting payments from UCB.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved bimekizumab-bkzx (Bimzelx) for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults, the manufacturer announced in a press release.

The indication is for adults who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy.

With this approval, bimekizumab becomes the only interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F inhibitor approved for the treatment of these patients. Psoriasis affects more than 7.5 million U.S. adults, according to the National Psoriasis Foundation.

“We have been eagerly awaiting bimekizumab,” Mark Lebwohl, MD, bimekizumab investigator and dean for clinical therapeutics at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said in the press release.

Dr. Lebwohl states that bimekizumab “achieved superior levels of skin clearance at week 16 compared to placebo and three existing biologics for psoriasis, with responses being rapid and lasting up to a year. Long-term data have also shown that the majority of patients maintained high levels of clinical response through three years.”

The most common adverse reactions (occurring in at least 1% of patients) are upper respiratory infections, oral candidiasis, headache, tinea infections, gastroenteritis, herpes simplex infections, acne, folliculitis, other Candida infections, fatigue, and injection site reactions, according to the company, UCB.
 

Available in about 1 month in U.S.

Bimekizumab can be administered by a health care provider or it can be self-injected by a patient after training. It is available as a single-dose prefilled autoinjector and a single-dose prefilled syringe and will be available in the United States in about 1 month.

The recommended dosage of bimekizumab for patients with psoriasis is 320 mg (two subcutaneous injections of 160 mg each) at baseline, then on weeks 4, 8, 12, and 16, then every 8 weeks thereafter. For patients weighing at least 120 kg (about 265 lb), a dosage of 320 mg every 4 weeks after week 16 may be considered, the company states.

Three phase 3 trials

Approval was based on three phase 3 multicenter, randomized, placebo and/or active comparator-controlled trials: bimekizumab versus placebo and ustekinumab (BE VIVID); versus placebo (BE READY); and versus adalimumab (BE SURE).

“All studies met their co-primary endpoints and all ranked secondary endpoints,” the company reports. Secondary endpoints included the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 at week 4 and PASI 100 (complete skin clearance) at week 16.

Highlights from the trials include the following results, according to UCB:

• Clear or almost clear skin: More than 8 out of 10 patients achieved a 90% or greater reduction from baseline in the PASI 90 and an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0/1 at week 16.
• Complete skin clearance: About 60% of patients achieved PASI 100 at week 16.
• Time to response: More than 70% of patients achieved PASI 75 at week 4 following one 320-mg dose.

Safety information

The safety information includes the statement that bimekizumab may increase the risk for suicidal ideation and behavior, though a causal association has not been established. Prescribers should advise patients, caregivers, and families “to monitor for emergence or worsening of depression, suicidal ideation, or other mood changes,” according to the prescribing information.

Bimekizumab is being studied for other conditions, including hidradenitis suppurativa. In the European Union, it was approved for the treatment of psoriasis in 2021 and for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis in June 2023.

Dr. Lebwohl is an investigator for UCB. He has not accepted any consulting payments from UCB.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved bimekizumab-bkzx (Bimzelx) for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults, the manufacturer announced in a press release.

The indication is for adults who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy.

With this approval, bimekizumab becomes the only interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F inhibitor approved for the treatment of these patients. Psoriasis affects more than 7.5 million U.S. adults, according to the National Psoriasis Foundation.

“We have been eagerly awaiting bimekizumab,” Mark Lebwohl, MD, bimekizumab investigator and dean for clinical therapeutics at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said in the press release.

Dr. Lebwohl states that bimekizumab “achieved superior levels of skin clearance at week 16 compared to placebo and three existing biologics for psoriasis, with responses being rapid and lasting up to a year. Long-term data have also shown that the majority of patients maintained high levels of clinical response through three years.”

The most common adverse reactions (occurring in at least 1% of patients) are upper respiratory infections, oral candidiasis, headache, tinea infections, gastroenteritis, herpes simplex infections, acne, folliculitis, other Candida infections, fatigue, and injection site reactions, according to the company, UCB.
 

Available in about 1 month in U.S.

Bimekizumab can be administered by a health care provider or it can be self-injected by a patient after training. It is available as a single-dose prefilled autoinjector and a single-dose prefilled syringe and will be available in the United States in about 1 month.

The recommended dosage of bimekizumab for patients with psoriasis is 320 mg (two subcutaneous injections of 160 mg each) at baseline, then on weeks 4, 8, 12, and 16, then every 8 weeks thereafter. For patients weighing at least 120 kg (about 265 lb), a dosage of 320 mg every 4 weeks after week 16 may be considered, the company states.

Three phase 3 trials

Approval was based on three phase 3 multicenter, randomized, placebo and/or active comparator-controlled trials: bimekizumab versus placebo and ustekinumab (BE VIVID); versus placebo (BE READY); and versus adalimumab (BE SURE).

“All studies met their co-primary endpoints and all ranked secondary endpoints,” the company reports. Secondary endpoints included the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 at week 4 and PASI 100 (complete skin clearance) at week 16.

Highlights from the trials include the following results, according to UCB:

• Clear or almost clear skin: More than 8 out of 10 patients achieved a 90% or greater reduction from baseline in the PASI 90 and an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0/1 at week 16.
• Complete skin clearance: About 60% of patients achieved PASI 100 at week 16.
• Time to response: More than 70% of patients achieved PASI 75 at week 4 following one 320-mg dose.

Safety information

The safety information includes the statement that bimekizumab may increase the risk for suicidal ideation and behavior, though a causal association has not been established. Prescribers should advise patients, caregivers, and families “to monitor for emergence or worsening of depression, suicidal ideation, or other mood changes,” according to the prescribing information.

Bimekizumab is being studied for other conditions, including hidradenitis suppurativa. In the European Union, it was approved for the treatment of psoriasis in 2021 and for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis in June 2023.

Dr. Lebwohl is an investigator for UCB. He has not accepted any consulting payments from UCB.

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

TOPLINE:

DMT310, a novel topical treatment applied once per week, appears to be safe and effective for moderate to severe acne.

METHODOLOGY:

• Poor patient compliance with topical acne therapies is a common clinical challenge.
• In a 12-week, randomized, controlled, phase 2b trial of 181 patients 12 years of age and older, researchers investigated the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of DMT310, a powdered mixture of Spongilla lacustris for treating moderate to severe acne. (In vitro studies have found that components of S. lacustris, a freshwater sponge, have effects that include antimicrobial activity against Cutibacterium acnes and anti-inflammatory activity in human keratinocytes).
• The study’s primary efficacy endpoint was the absolute change in inflammatory lesion count from baseline to week 12.
• Endpoint success was defined as an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 and at least a two-grade improvement from baseline at week 12.
•  

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 181 patients, 91 received DMT310 (applied once a week to the face and washed off after 10-15 minutes), and 90 received placebo.
• Patients in the DMT310 arm showed a significantly greater mean reduction in the number of inflammatory lesions at week 12, compared with those in the placebo arm (–15.64 vs. –10.84, respectively; P < .001).
• Similarly, patients in the DMT310 arm showed a significantly greater mean reduction in the number of noninflammatory lesions at week 12, compared with those in the placebo arm (–18.26 vs. –12.41, respectively; P < .001).
• At week 12, endpoint success based on IGA scores also significantly favored patients in the DMT310 arm, compared with those in the placebo arm (44.40% vs. 17.78%; P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

This study is too preliminary to have practice application. The researchers concluded that the findings “support further study of DMT310 in larger, confirmatory phase 3 trials.”

SOURCE:

Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, led the research. The study was published online June 7 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis did not include an active comparator group and it enrolled a limited number of Asian patients.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Eichenfield disclosed that he is a consultant to Dermata, which is developing DMT310, as were three other authors of the study. One author is a company employee. The remaining authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

DMT310, a novel topical treatment applied once per week, appears to be safe and effective for moderate to severe acne.

METHODOLOGY:

• Poor patient compliance with topical acne therapies is a common clinical challenge.
• In a 12-week, randomized, controlled, phase 2b trial of 181 patients 12 years of age and older, researchers investigated the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of DMT310, a powdered mixture of Spongilla lacustris for treating moderate to severe acne. (In vitro studies have found that components of S. lacustris, a freshwater sponge, have effects that include antimicrobial activity against Cutibacterium acnes and anti-inflammatory activity in human keratinocytes).
• The study’s primary efficacy endpoint was the absolute change in inflammatory lesion count from baseline to week 12.
• Endpoint success was defined as an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 and at least a two-grade improvement from baseline at week 12.
•  

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 181 patients, 91 received DMT310 (applied once a week to the face and washed off after 10-15 minutes), and 90 received placebo.
• Patients in the DMT310 arm showed a significantly greater mean reduction in the number of inflammatory lesions at week 12, compared with those in the placebo arm (–15.64 vs. –10.84, respectively; P < .001).
• Similarly, patients in the DMT310 arm showed a significantly greater mean reduction in the number of noninflammatory lesions at week 12, compared with those in the placebo arm (–18.26 vs. –12.41, respectively; P < .001).
• At week 12, endpoint success based on IGA scores also significantly favored patients in the DMT310 arm, compared with those in the placebo arm (44.40% vs. 17.78%; P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

This study is too preliminary to have practice application. The researchers concluded that the findings “support further study of DMT310 in larger, confirmatory phase 3 trials.”

SOURCE:

Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, led the research. The study was published online June 7 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis did not include an active comparator group and it enrolled a limited number of Asian patients.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Eichenfield disclosed that he is a consultant to Dermata, which is developing DMT310, as were three other authors of the study. One author is a company employee. The remaining authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

DMT310, a novel topical treatment applied once per week, appears to be safe and effective for moderate to severe acne.

METHODOLOGY:

• Poor patient compliance with topical acne therapies is a common clinical challenge.
• In a 12-week, randomized, controlled, phase 2b trial of 181 patients 12 years of age and older, researchers investigated the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of DMT310, a powdered mixture of Spongilla lacustris for treating moderate to severe acne. (In vitro studies have found that components of S. lacustris, a freshwater sponge, have effects that include antimicrobial activity against Cutibacterium acnes and anti-inflammatory activity in human keratinocytes).
• The study’s primary efficacy endpoint was the absolute change in inflammatory lesion count from baseline to week 12.
• Endpoint success was defined as an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 and at least a two-grade improvement from baseline at week 12.
•  

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 181 patients, 91 received DMT310 (applied once a week to the face and washed off after 10-15 minutes), and 90 received placebo.
• Patients in the DMT310 arm showed a significantly greater mean reduction in the number of inflammatory lesions at week 12, compared with those in the placebo arm (–15.64 vs. –10.84, respectively; P < .001).
• Similarly, patients in the DMT310 arm showed a significantly greater mean reduction in the number of noninflammatory lesions at week 12, compared with those in the placebo arm (–18.26 vs. –12.41, respectively; P < .001).
• At week 12, endpoint success based on IGA scores also significantly favored patients in the DMT310 arm, compared with those in the placebo arm (44.40% vs. 17.78%; P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

This study is too preliminary to have practice application. The researchers concluded that the findings “support further study of DMT310 in larger, confirmatory phase 3 trials.”

SOURCE:

Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, led the research. The study was published online June 7 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis did not include an active comparator group and it enrolled a limited number of Asian patients.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Eichenfield disclosed that he is a consultant to Dermata, which is developing DMT310, as were three other authors of the study. One author is a company employee. The remaining authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved nivolumab (Opdivo) for the treatment of completely resected stage IIB/C melanoma for patients aged 12 years and older, expanding the melanoma indication for the programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) inhibitor.

Nivolumab, developed by Bristol-Myers Squibb, was previously approved as a single agent or in combination with ipilimumab for patients aged 12 years and older with unresectable or metastatic melanoma and for the adjuvant treatment of those aged 12 and older with completely resected stage III or IV melanoma.

The new approval was based on findings from the phase 3 CHECKMATE-76K trial, which randomly assigned 790 patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive nivolumab 480 mg or placebo by intravenous infusion. All patients in the trial had good performance status, had undergone complete resection of the primary melanoma with negative margins, and had tested negative on sentinel lymph node assessment within 12 weeks prior to randomization. Patients received treatment every 4 weeks for up to 1 year or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity occurred.

Nivolumab reduced the risk of recurrence or death by 58% compared with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.42). Recurrence-free survival at 1 year was 89% with treatment, vs 79.4% with placebo. Median recurrence-free survival at 5 years was not reached in either arm.

Adverse reactions that were reported in at least 20% of patients included fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, rash, diarrhea, and pruritus.

The recommended nivolumab dose for patients weighing 40 kg or more is 480 mg every 4 weeks or 240 mg every 2 weeks until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity for up to 1 year. For pediatric patients who weigh less than 40 kg, the recommended dose is 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or 6 mg/kg every 4 weeks until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity for up to 1 year.

Bristol-Myers Squibb’s application for approval led to the agent’s being granted orphan drug designation, allowing expedited review.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved nivolumab (Opdivo) for the treatment of completely resected stage IIB/C melanoma for patients aged 12 years and older, expanding the melanoma indication for the programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) inhibitor.

Nivolumab, developed by Bristol-Myers Squibb, was previously approved as a single agent or in combination with ipilimumab for patients aged 12 years and older with unresectable or metastatic melanoma and for the adjuvant treatment of those aged 12 and older with completely resected stage III or IV melanoma.

The new approval was based on findings from the phase 3 CHECKMATE-76K trial, which randomly assigned 790 patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive nivolumab 480 mg or placebo by intravenous infusion. All patients in the trial had good performance status, had undergone complete resection of the primary melanoma with negative margins, and had tested negative on sentinel lymph node assessment within 12 weeks prior to randomization. Patients received treatment every 4 weeks for up to 1 year or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity occurred.

Nivolumab reduced the risk of recurrence or death by 58% compared with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.42). Recurrence-free survival at 1 year was 89% with treatment, vs 79.4% with placebo. Median recurrence-free survival at 5 years was not reached in either arm.

Adverse reactions that were reported in at least 20% of patients included fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, rash, diarrhea, and pruritus.

The recommended nivolumab dose for patients weighing 40 kg or more is 480 mg every 4 weeks or 240 mg every 2 weeks until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity for up to 1 year. For pediatric patients who weigh less than 40 kg, the recommended dose is 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or 6 mg/kg every 4 weeks until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity for up to 1 year.

Bristol-Myers Squibb’s application for approval led to the agent’s being granted orphan drug designation, allowing expedited review.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved nivolumab (Opdivo) for the treatment of completely resected stage IIB/C melanoma for patients aged 12 years and older, expanding the melanoma indication for the programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) inhibitor.

Nivolumab, developed by Bristol-Myers Squibb, was previously approved as a single agent or in combination with ipilimumab for patients aged 12 years and older with unresectable or metastatic melanoma and for the adjuvant treatment of those aged 12 and older with completely resected stage III or IV melanoma.

The new approval was based on findings from the phase 3 CHECKMATE-76K trial, which randomly assigned 790 patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive nivolumab 480 mg or placebo by intravenous infusion. All patients in the trial had good performance status, had undergone complete resection of the primary melanoma with negative margins, and had tested negative on sentinel lymph node assessment within 12 weeks prior to randomization. Patients received treatment every 4 weeks for up to 1 year or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity occurred.

Nivolumab reduced the risk of recurrence or death by 58% compared with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.42). Recurrence-free survival at 1 year was 89% with treatment, vs 79.4% with placebo. Median recurrence-free survival at 5 years was not reached in either arm.

Adverse reactions that were reported in at least 20% of patients included fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, rash, diarrhea, and pruritus.

The recommended nivolumab dose for patients weighing 40 kg or more is 480 mg every 4 weeks or 240 mg every 2 weeks until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity for up to 1 year. For pediatric patients who weigh less than 40 kg, the recommended dose is 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or 6 mg/kg every 4 weeks until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity for up to 1 year.

Bristol-Myers Squibb’s application for approval led to the agent’s being granted orphan drug designation, allowing expedited review.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The prevalence of reported diagnosed arthritis in the United States is highest overall in older adults with comorbid chronic conditions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers reviewed data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) from 2019 to 2021 to update the prevalence of self-reported arthritis in the United States.
• The sample sizes for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 NHIS were 31,997, 21,153, and 29,482, with survey response rates of 59.1%, 48.9%, and 50.9%, respectively.
• The unadjusted and age-standardized prevalence estimates were calculated for adults aged 18 years and older and based on self-reported health and demographic data.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, arthritis was diagnosed in 53.2 million adults aged 18 years and older in the United States; of these, 88.3% were aged 45 years and older and 48.3% were 65 years and older.
• Age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher in women vs men and among veterans vs nonveterans (20.9% vs 16.3% and 24.2% vs 18.5%, respectively).
• When categorized by race, age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher among non-Hispanic White individuals, compared with Hispanic or Latino individuals or non-Hispanic Asian individuals (20.1%, 14.7%, and 10.3%, respectively).
• The prevalence of arthritis also was higher among individuals with self-reported diagnosis of chronic conditions including dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, stroke, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer than in those without these conditions; approximately half of adults aged 65 years and older with arthritis reported at least one of these conditions.

IN PRACTICE:

“These prevalence estimates can be used to guide public health policies and activities to increase equitable access to physical activity opportunities within the built environment and other community-based, arthritis-appropriate, evidence-based interventions,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Elizabeth A. Fallon, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. The data were published online in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.  

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design prevented conclusions of causality between individual characteristics and arthritis diagnosis; other limitations included the reliance on self-reports, possible response bias, and the inability to calculate prevalence of arthritis subtypes. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

TOPLINE:

The prevalence of reported diagnosed arthritis in the United States is highest overall in older adults with comorbid chronic conditions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers reviewed data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) from 2019 to 2021 to update the prevalence of self-reported arthritis in the United States.
• The sample sizes for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 NHIS were 31,997, 21,153, and 29,482, with survey response rates of 59.1%, 48.9%, and 50.9%, respectively.
• The unadjusted and age-standardized prevalence estimates were calculated for adults aged 18 years and older and based on self-reported health and demographic data.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, arthritis was diagnosed in 53.2 million adults aged 18 years and older in the United States; of these, 88.3% were aged 45 years and older and 48.3% were 65 years and older.
• Age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher in women vs men and among veterans vs nonveterans (20.9% vs 16.3% and 24.2% vs 18.5%, respectively).
• When categorized by race, age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher among non-Hispanic White individuals, compared with Hispanic or Latino individuals or non-Hispanic Asian individuals (20.1%, 14.7%, and 10.3%, respectively).
• The prevalence of arthritis also was higher among individuals with self-reported diagnosis of chronic conditions including dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, stroke, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer than in those without these conditions; approximately half of adults aged 65 years and older with arthritis reported at least one of these conditions.

IN PRACTICE:

“These prevalence estimates can be used to guide public health policies and activities to increase equitable access to physical activity opportunities within the built environment and other community-based, arthritis-appropriate, evidence-based interventions,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Elizabeth A. Fallon, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. The data were published online in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.  

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design prevented conclusions of causality between individual characteristics and arthritis diagnosis; other limitations included the reliance on self-reports, possible response bias, and the inability to calculate prevalence of arthritis subtypes. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

TOPLINE:

The prevalence of reported diagnosed arthritis in the United States is highest overall in older adults with comorbid chronic conditions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers reviewed data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) from 2019 to 2021 to update the prevalence of self-reported arthritis in the United States.
• The sample sizes for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 NHIS were 31,997, 21,153, and 29,482, with survey response rates of 59.1%, 48.9%, and 50.9%, respectively.
• The unadjusted and age-standardized prevalence estimates were calculated for adults aged 18 years and older and based on self-reported health and demographic data.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, arthritis was diagnosed in 53.2 million adults aged 18 years and older in the United States; of these, 88.3% were aged 45 years and older and 48.3% were 65 years and older.
• Age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher in women vs men and among veterans vs nonveterans (20.9% vs 16.3% and 24.2% vs 18.5%, respectively).
• When categorized by race, age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher among non-Hispanic White individuals, compared with Hispanic or Latino individuals or non-Hispanic Asian individuals (20.1%, 14.7%, and 10.3%, respectively).
• The prevalence of arthritis also was higher among individuals with self-reported diagnosis of chronic conditions including dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, stroke, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer than in those without these conditions; approximately half of adults aged 65 years and older with arthritis reported at least one of these conditions.

IN PRACTICE:

“These prevalence estimates can be used to guide public health policies and activities to increase equitable access to physical activity opportunities within the built environment and other community-based, arthritis-appropriate, evidence-based interventions,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Elizabeth A. Fallon, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. The data were published online in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.  

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design prevented conclusions of causality between individual characteristics and arthritis diagnosis; other limitations included the reliance on self-reports, possible response bias, and the inability to calculate prevalence of arthritis subtypes. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

TOPLINE:

In combination with methotrexate, both abatacept (Orencia) and certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), but not tocilizumab (Actemra), showed superiority over different combinations of active conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for promoting remission in patients with early, untreated rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODOLOGY:

The study population included 812 adults from sites in six European countries who had treatment-naive early RA (less than 24 months’ duration) and moderate to severe disease.

Participants were randomly assigned to open-label treatment with methotrexate plus one of four treatments:

• Active conventional therapy (oral , tapered quickly and discontinued after 9 months, or , hydroxychloroquine, and intra-articular glucocorticoid injections in swollen joints).
• Certolizumab pegol.
• Abatacept.
• Tocilizumab.

In all the biologic-treated groups, intra-articular glucocorticoid injections were allowed on demand up to week 12; thereafter, up to 40 mg were allowed every 12 weeks. In all groups, intra-articular glucocorticoids were prohibited in weeks 20-24 and weeks 44-48 to minimize their influence on week 24 and week 48 outcomes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Clinical remission rates at week 48 based on Clinical Disease Activity Index scores of 2.8 or less were 59.3% with abatacept and 52.3% with certolizumab, which were significantly greater than the rate of 39.2% seen with active conventional therapy. The 51.9% rate seen with tocilizumab was not superior to active conventional therapy.
• The co–primary outcome of change in van der Heijde-modified Sharp Score from baseline to week 48 was relatively low across all groups: 0.45 for active conventional therapy, and 0.62, 0.47, and 0.50 for abatacept, certolizumab pegol, and tocilizumab, respectively.
• No new safety signals appeared, nor did any significantly increased risk associated with glucocorticoid use; at least one adverse event was reported in 88.3%, 89.6%, 85.8%, and 96.7% of patients taking conventional therapy, certolizumab pegol, abatacept, and tocilizumab, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

The results suggest that both abatacept and certolizumab pegol yield higher remission rates than optimized conventional therapy, and “should be considered when the management of patients with newly diagnosed RA is decided, both in clinical practice and in treatment recommendations,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The lead author on the study was Mikkel Østergaard, MD, PhD, of the Center for Rheumatology and Spine Diseases, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen. The study was published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Disease.  

LIMITATIONS:

The open-label study design could influence some subjective outcomes, and conventional therapy included two slightly different strategies based on national recommendations for the individual countries.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by multiple public sources to centers from countries participating in the study, as well as the Icelandic Society for Rheumatology, the Swedish Rheumatism Association, and the Research Fund of University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland. UCB and Bristol-Myers Squibb provided certolizumab pegol and abatacept, respectively, at no cost, but were not otherwise involved in the study. Many authors, including Dr. Østergaard, report financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies. The full list can be found with the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

In combination with methotrexate, both abatacept (Orencia) and certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), but not tocilizumab (Actemra), showed superiority over different combinations of active conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for promoting remission in patients with early, untreated rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODOLOGY:

The study population included 812 adults from sites in six European countries who had treatment-naive early RA (less than 24 months’ duration) and moderate to severe disease.

Participants were randomly assigned to open-label treatment with methotrexate plus one of four treatments:

• Active conventional therapy (oral , tapered quickly and discontinued after 9 months, or , hydroxychloroquine, and intra-articular glucocorticoid injections in swollen joints).
• Certolizumab pegol.
• Abatacept.
• Tocilizumab.

In all the biologic-treated groups, intra-articular glucocorticoid injections were allowed on demand up to week 12; thereafter, up to 40 mg were allowed every 12 weeks. In all groups, intra-articular glucocorticoids were prohibited in weeks 20-24 and weeks 44-48 to minimize their influence on week 24 and week 48 outcomes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Clinical remission rates at week 48 based on Clinical Disease Activity Index scores of 2.8 or less were 59.3% with abatacept and 52.3% with certolizumab, which were significantly greater than the rate of 39.2% seen with active conventional therapy. The 51.9% rate seen with tocilizumab was not superior to active conventional therapy.
• The co–primary outcome of change in van der Heijde-modified Sharp Score from baseline to week 48 was relatively low across all groups: 0.45 for active conventional therapy, and 0.62, 0.47, and 0.50 for abatacept, certolizumab pegol, and tocilizumab, respectively.
• No new safety signals appeared, nor did any significantly increased risk associated with glucocorticoid use; at least one adverse event was reported in 88.3%, 89.6%, 85.8%, and 96.7% of patients taking conventional therapy, certolizumab pegol, abatacept, and tocilizumab, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

The results suggest that both abatacept and certolizumab pegol yield higher remission rates than optimized conventional therapy, and “should be considered when the management of patients with newly diagnosed RA is decided, both in clinical practice and in treatment recommendations,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The lead author on the study was Mikkel Østergaard, MD, PhD, of the Center for Rheumatology and Spine Diseases, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen. The study was published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Disease.  

LIMITATIONS:

The open-label study design could influence some subjective outcomes, and conventional therapy included two slightly different strategies based on national recommendations for the individual countries.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by multiple public sources to centers from countries participating in the study, as well as the Icelandic Society for Rheumatology, the Swedish Rheumatism Association, and the Research Fund of University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland. UCB and Bristol-Myers Squibb provided certolizumab pegol and abatacept, respectively, at no cost, but were not otherwise involved in the study. Many authors, including Dr. Østergaard, report financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies. The full list can be found with the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

In combination with methotrexate, both abatacept (Orencia) and certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), but not tocilizumab (Actemra), showed superiority over different combinations of active conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for promoting remission in patients with early, untreated rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODOLOGY:

The study population included 812 adults from sites in six European countries who had treatment-naive early RA (less than 24 months’ duration) and moderate to severe disease.

Participants were randomly assigned to open-label treatment with methotrexate plus one of four treatments:

• Active conventional therapy (oral , tapered quickly and discontinued after 9 months, or , hydroxychloroquine, and intra-articular glucocorticoid injections in swollen joints).
• Certolizumab pegol.
• Abatacept.
• Tocilizumab.

In all the biologic-treated groups, intra-articular glucocorticoid injections were allowed on demand up to week 12; thereafter, up to 40 mg were allowed every 12 weeks. In all groups, intra-articular glucocorticoids were prohibited in weeks 20-24 and weeks 44-48 to minimize their influence on week 24 and week 48 outcomes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Clinical remission rates at week 48 based on Clinical Disease Activity Index scores of 2.8 or less were 59.3% with abatacept and 52.3% with certolizumab, which were significantly greater than the rate of 39.2% seen with active conventional therapy. The 51.9% rate seen with tocilizumab was not superior to active conventional therapy.
• The co–primary outcome of change in van der Heijde-modified Sharp Score from baseline to week 48 was relatively low across all groups: 0.45 for active conventional therapy, and 0.62, 0.47, and 0.50 for abatacept, certolizumab pegol, and tocilizumab, respectively.
• No new safety signals appeared, nor did any significantly increased risk associated with glucocorticoid use; at least one adverse event was reported in 88.3%, 89.6%, 85.8%, and 96.7% of patients taking conventional therapy, certolizumab pegol, abatacept, and tocilizumab, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

The results suggest that both abatacept and certolizumab pegol yield higher remission rates than optimized conventional therapy, and “should be considered when the management of patients with newly diagnosed RA is decided, both in clinical practice and in treatment recommendations,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The lead author on the study was Mikkel Østergaard, MD, PhD, of the Center for Rheumatology and Spine Diseases, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen. The study was published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Disease.  

LIMITATIONS:

The open-label study design could influence some subjective outcomes, and conventional therapy included two slightly different strategies based on national recommendations for the individual countries.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by multiple public sources to centers from countries participating in the study, as well as the Icelandic Society for Rheumatology, the Swedish Rheumatism Association, and the Research Fund of University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland. UCB and Bristol-Myers Squibb provided certolizumab pegol and abatacept, respectively, at no cost, but were not otherwise involved in the study. Many authors, including Dr. Østergaard, report financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies. The full list can be found with the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Solriamfetol – a medication approved for excessive daytime sleepiness caused by narcolepsy or obstructive sleep apnea – significantly improved symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and clinical impression of ADHD severity in a pilot study of adults with ADHD.

METHODOLOGY:

• Solriamfetol is a dopamine and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor that shares some of the properties of current ADHD medications.
• Researchers conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-optimization trial of 75- or 150-mg solriamfetol in 60 adults with ADHD. For nearly all of the individuals who received solriamfetol, doses increased to 150 mg after the first week.
• The primary outcome was change in scores on the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS).
• Secondary outcomes included scores on the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scale and standard measures of executive function, behavior, and sleep.

TAKEAWAY:

• By week 6, total AISRS score improved 25% for 52% of individuals to took solriamfetol, vs. 17% of those who received placebo. Total AISRS score improved 50% by week 6 in 28% of those who took solriamfetol, vs. 3.4% of those who received placebo.
• By week 6, CGI ratings of “much improved” or “very much improved” occurred in significantly more individuals who received solriamfetol than those who took placebo (45% vs. 7%).
• Significantly more individuals who received solriamfetol than placebo self-reported improvements in executive function (69% vs. 34%). Improvement in wakefulness was noted with solriamfetol, but that did not moderate the change in ADHD symptom burden.
• Solriamfetol was well tolerated, with no significant effect on sleep quality or blood pressure. Adverse effects that occurred at a higher rate in the treatment group than in the placebo group were typical for solriamfetol and sympathomimetic agents used for ADHD.

IN PRACTICE:

Massachusetts General Hospital

“Solriamfetol may be a safe and effective treatment for ADHD in adults. Larger studies replicating these findings could confirm the strong evidence of benefit and the tolerability of this agent as a treatment,” lead author Craig B.H. Surman, MD, director of the clinical and research program in adult ADHD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in a statement.

SOURCE:

The study was published online in The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations include the small sample size and short 6-week duration. More women than men received solriamfetol; it’s unclear how this could have affected the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was an investigator-initiated trial supported by Jazz Pharmaceuticals and Axsome Therapeutics. Dr. Surman has received consultant fees, research support, and royalties from multiple companies.

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

TOPLINE:

Solriamfetol – a medication approved for excessive daytime sleepiness caused by narcolepsy or obstructive sleep apnea – significantly improved symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and clinical impression of ADHD severity in a pilot study of adults with ADHD.

METHODOLOGY:

• Solriamfetol is a dopamine and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor that shares some of the properties of current ADHD medications.
• Researchers conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-optimization trial of 75- or 150-mg solriamfetol in 60 adults with ADHD. For nearly all of the individuals who received solriamfetol, doses increased to 150 mg after the first week.
• The primary outcome was change in scores on the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS).
• Secondary outcomes included scores on the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scale and standard measures of executive function, behavior, and sleep.

TAKEAWAY:

• By week 6, total AISRS score improved 25% for 52% of individuals to took solriamfetol, vs. 17% of those who received placebo. Total AISRS score improved 50% by week 6 in 28% of those who took solriamfetol, vs. 3.4% of those who received placebo.
• By week 6, CGI ratings of “much improved” or “very much improved” occurred in significantly more individuals who received solriamfetol than those who took placebo (45% vs. 7%).
• Significantly more individuals who received solriamfetol than placebo self-reported improvements in executive function (69% vs. 34%). Improvement in wakefulness was noted with solriamfetol, but that did not moderate the change in ADHD symptom burden.
• Solriamfetol was well tolerated, with no significant effect on sleep quality or blood pressure. Adverse effects that occurred at a higher rate in the treatment group than in the placebo group were typical for solriamfetol and sympathomimetic agents used for ADHD.

IN PRACTICE:

Massachusetts General Hospital

“Solriamfetol may be a safe and effective treatment for ADHD in adults. Larger studies replicating these findings could confirm the strong evidence of benefit and the tolerability of this agent as a treatment,” lead author Craig B.H. Surman, MD, director of the clinical and research program in adult ADHD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in a statement.

SOURCE:

The study was published online in The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations include the small sample size and short 6-week duration. More women than men received solriamfetol; it’s unclear how this could have affected the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was an investigator-initiated trial supported by Jazz Pharmaceuticals and Axsome Therapeutics. Dr. Surman has received consultant fees, research support, and royalties from multiple companies.

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

TOPLINE:

Solriamfetol – a medication approved for excessive daytime sleepiness caused by narcolepsy or obstructive sleep apnea – significantly improved symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and clinical impression of ADHD severity in a pilot study of adults with ADHD.

METHODOLOGY:

• Solriamfetol is a dopamine and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor that shares some of the properties of current ADHD medications.
• Researchers conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-optimization trial of 75- or 150-mg solriamfetol in 60 adults with ADHD. For nearly all of the individuals who received solriamfetol, doses increased to 150 mg after the first week.
• The primary outcome was change in scores on the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS).
• Secondary outcomes included scores on the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scale and standard measures of executive function, behavior, and sleep.

TAKEAWAY:

• By week 6, total AISRS score improved 25% for 52% of individuals to took solriamfetol, vs. 17% of those who received placebo. Total AISRS score improved 50% by week 6 in 28% of those who took solriamfetol, vs. 3.4% of those who received placebo.
• By week 6, CGI ratings of “much improved” or “very much improved” occurred in significantly more individuals who received solriamfetol than those who took placebo (45% vs. 7%).
• Significantly more individuals who received solriamfetol than placebo self-reported improvements in executive function (69% vs. 34%). Improvement in wakefulness was noted with solriamfetol, but that did not moderate the change in ADHD symptom burden.
• Solriamfetol was well tolerated, with no significant effect on sleep quality or blood pressure. Adverse effects that occurred at a higher rate in the treatment group than in the placebo group were typical for solriamfetol and sympathomimetic agents used for ADHD.

IN PRACTICE:

Massachusetts General Hospital

“Solriamfetol may be a safe and effective treatment for ADHD in adults. Larger studies replicating these findings could confirm the strong evidence of benefit and the tolerability of this agent as a treatment,” lead author Craig B.H. Surman, MD, director of the clinical and research program in adult ADHD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in a statement.

SOURCE:

The study was published online in The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations include the small sample size and short 6-week duration. More women than men received solriamfetol; it’s unclear how this could have affected the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was an investigator-initiated trial supported by Jazz Pharmaceuticals and Axsome Therapeutics. Dr. Surman has received consultant fees, research support, and royalties from multiple companies.

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

VANCOUVER – A highly controlled retrospective analysis suggests that denosumab (Prolia) leads to greater reduction in fracture risk than does zoledronic acid (Reclast) among treatment-naive postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

A previous head-to-head comparison showed that denosumab increased bone mineral density at key skeletal sites compared with zoledronic acid, but only a single, small observational study has examined fracture risk, and it found no difference.

The new study, presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, used a relatively new method of real-world comparative effectiveness analysis called negative control outcome (NCO) to analyze Medicare fee-for-service data.

NCO analysis takes extra pains to remove bias through data that might be linked to potential confounders but could not reasonably be attributed to a drug. For example, people who have greater contact with the health care system may be more likely to get one drug or another. The researchers used the frequency of receiving a flu or pneumonia vaccine as a proxy for this. If the two comparison groups had a significant difference in a proxy, it suggested a hidden bias and forced the researchers to abandon those groupings. Another example used car accidents as a proxy for cognitive impairment.

“If you find meaningful differences between the two groups, and you can say there’s no way a bone drug could account for these differences, then we shouldn’t do this analysis because these groups just aren’t comparable. They probably differ by that confounding factor we couldn’t measure,” said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, who presented the study. He is a professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The study strongly suggests superiority for denosumab. “There was a significant difference in multiple different groupings of fractures – beginning at year 2, extending to year 3 and even out to year 5 – that showed that there is a significant reduction in fracture risk if you get treated with denosumab [that was greater] than if you get treated with zoledronic acid,” Dr. Curtis said.

The researchers weighed 118 covariates and ultimately identified a population of 90,805 women taking denosumab and 37,328 taking zoledronic acid that was equally balanced in all patient characteristics. The mean age was about 75 years in the denosumab group and 74 in the zoledronic acid group.

The researchers found a 34% lower risk for hip fracture in the denosumab group by 5 years (relative risk, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.90).

Similar patterns in fracture risk reduction were observed at 5 years for nonvertebral fracture (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.82), nonhip nonvertebral fracture (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50-0.88), and major osteoporotic fracture (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59-0.89).

During the Q&A session after the talk, one audience member commented that the study was limited because the researchers only followed patients who received zoledronic acid for 60 days, which could have missed potential long-term benefits of the drug, especially since bisphosphonates have a lengthy skeletal retention time. Dr. Curtis acknowledged the point but said, “Usually, that’s not something we do, but these are different enough mechanisms of action that it may be warranted at least as a sensitivity analysis,” he said.

The study and its methodology were impressive, according to Yumie Rhee, MD, who comoderated the session where the study was presented. “I think they did a really good job by doing the negative control analysis. We’re not going to have a head-to-head clinical trial, so we don’t know the real fracture reduction differences [between denosumab and zoledronic acid]. [The NCO analysis] is more than the propensity matching score that we do usually,” said Dr. Rhee, who is a professor of endocrinology at Yonsei University College of Medicine in Seoul, South Korea.

In particular, the study showed a significantly greater reduction in hip fractures with denosumab. “Even in the RCTs, it was really hard to see the reduction in hip fracture, so I think this is showing much stronger data for denosumab. Especially in patients who have more [general fracture] risk and patients with higher hip fracture risk, I would go with denosumab,” Dr. Rhee said.

Her comoderator, Maria Zanchetta, MD, agreed. “It can have clinical implication, because we think denosumab is better than [zoledronic acid] for higher-risk patients, but we didn’t have the evidence. So at least we have a new [study] to look at, and I think it’s very important for our practice,” said Dr. Zanchetta, who is a professor of osteology at the Institute of Diagnostics and Metabolic Research, Universidad del Salvador, Buenos Aires.

The study was funded by Amgen, which markets denosumab. Dr. Curtis has consulted for Amgen. Dr. Rhee and Dr. Zanchetta report no relevant financial relationships.

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

VANCOUVER – A highly controlled retrospective analysis suggests that denosumab (Prolia) leads to greater reduction in fracture risk than does zoledronic acid (Reclast) among treatment-naive postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

A previous head-to-head comparison showed that denosumab increased bone mineral density at key skeletal sites compared with zoledronic acid, but only a single, small observational study has examined fracture risk, and it found no difference.

The new study, presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, used a relatively new method of real-world comparative effectiveness analysis called negative control outcome (NCO) to analyze Medicare fee-for-service data.

NCO analysis takes extra pains to remove bias through data that might be linked to potential confounders but could not reasonably be attributed to a drug. For example, people who have greater contact with the health care system may be more likely to get one drug or another. The researchers used the frequency of receiving a flu or pneumonia vaccine as a proxy for this. If the two comparison groups had a significant difference in a proxy, it suggested a hidden bias and forced the researchers to abandon those groupings. Another example used car accidents as a proxy for cognitive impairment.

“If you find meaningful differences between the two groups, and you can say there’s no way a bone drug could account for these differences, then we shouldn’t do this analysis because these groups just aren’t comparable. They probably differ by that confounding factor we couldn’t measure,” said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, who presented the study. He is a professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The study strongly suggests superiority for denosumab. “There was a significant difference in multiple different groupings of fractures – beginning at year 2, extending to year 3 and even out to year 5 – that showed that there is a significant reduction in fracture risk if you get treated with denosumab [that was greater] than if you get treated with zoledronic acid,” Dr. Curtis said.

The researchers weighed 118 covariates and ultimately identified a population of 90,805 women taking denosumab and 37,328 taking zoledronic acid that was equally balanced in all patient characteristics. The mean age was about 75 years in the denosumab group and 74 in the zoledronic acid group.

The researchers found a 34% lower risk for hip fracture in the denosumab group by 5 years (relative risk, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.90).

Similar patterns in fracture risk reduction were observed at 5 years for nonvertebral fracture (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.82), nonhip nonvertebral fracture (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50-0.88), and major osteoporotic fracture (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59-0.89).

During the Q&A session after the talk, one audience member commented that the study was limited because the researchers only followed patients who received zoledronic acid for 60 days, which could have missed potential long-term benefits of the drug, especially since bisphosphonates have a lengthy skeletal retention time. Dr. Curtis acknowledged the point but said, “Usually, that’s not something we do, but these are different enough mechanisms of action that it may be warranted at least as a sensitivity analysis,” he said.

The study and its methodology were impressive, according to Yumie Rhee, MD, who comoderated the session where the study was presented. “I think they did a really good job by doing the negative control analysis. We’re not going to have a head-to-head clinical trial, so we don’t know the real fracture reduction differences [between denosumab and zoledronic acid]. [The NCO analysis] is more than the propensity matching score that we do usually,” said Dr. Rhee, who is a professor of endocrinology at Yonsei University College of Medicine in Seoul, South Korea.

In particular, the study showed a significantly greater reduction in hip fractures with denosumab. “Even in the RCTs, it was really hard to see the reduction in hip fracture, so I think this is showing much stronger data for denosumab. Especially in patients who have more [general fracture] risk and patients with higher hip fracture risk, I would go with denosumab,” Dr. Rhee said.

Her comoderator, Maria Zanchetta, MD, agreed. “It can have clinical implication, because we think denosumab is better than [zoledronic acid] for higher-risk patients, but we didn’t have the evidence. So at least we have a new [study] to look at, and I think it’s very important for our practice,” said Dr. Zanchetta, who is a professor of osteology at the Institute of Diagnostics and Metabolic Research, Universidad del Salvador, Buenos Aires.

The study was funded by Amgen, which markets denosumab. Dr. Curtis has consulted for Amgen. Dr. Rhee and Dr. Zanchetta report no relevant financial relationships.

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

VANCOUVER – A highly controlled retrospective analysis suggests that denosumab (Prolia) leads to greater reduction in fracture risk than does zoledronic acid (Reclast) among treatment-naive postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

A previous head-to-head comparison showed that denosumab increased bone mineral density at key skeletal sites compared with zoledronic acid, but only a single, small observational study has examined fracture risk, and it found no difference.

The new study, presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, used a relatively new method of real-world comparative effectiveness analysis called negative control outcome (NCO) to analyze Medicare fee-for-service data.

NCO analysis takes extra pains to remove bias through data that might be linked to potential confounders but could not reasonably be attributed to a drug. For example, people who have greater contact with the health care system may be more likely to get one drug or another. The researchers used the frequency of receiving a flu or pneumonia vaccine as a proxy for this. If the two comparison groups had a significant difference in a proxy, it suggested a hidden bias and forced the researchers to abandon those groupings. Another example used car accidents as a proxy for cognitive impairment.

“If you find meaningful differences between the two groups, and you can say there’s no way a bone drug could account for these differences, then we shouldn’t do this analysis because these groups just aren’t comparable. They probably differ by that confounding factor we couldn’t measure,” said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, who presented the study. He is a professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The study strongly suggests superiority for denosumab. “There was a significant difference in multiple different groupings of fractures – beginning at year 2, extending to year 3 and even out to year 5 – that showed that there is a significant reduction in fracture risk if you get treated with denosumab [that was greater] than if you get treated with zoledronic acid,” Dr. Curtis said.

The researchers weighed 118 covariates and ultimately identified a population of 90,805 women taking denosumab and 37,328 taking zoledronic acid that was equally balanced in all patient characteristics. The mean age was about 75 years in the denosumab group and 74 in the zoledronic acid group.

The researchers found a 34% lower risk for hip fracture in the denosumab group by 5 years (relative risk, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.90).

Similar patterns in fracture risk reduction were observed at 5 years for nonvertebral fracture (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.82), nonhip nonvertebral fracture (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50-0.88), and major osteoporotic fracture (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59-0.89).

During the Q&A session after the talk, one audience member commented that the study was limited because the researchers only followed patients who received zoledronic acid for 60 days, which could have missed potential long-term benefits of the drug, especially since bisphosphonates have a lengthy skeletal retention time. Dr. Curtis acknowledged the point but said, “Usually, that’s not something we do, but these are different enough mechanisms of action that it may be warranted at least as a sensitivity analysis,” he said.

The study and its methodology were impressive, according to Yumie Rhee, MD, who comoderated the session where the study was presented. “I think they did a really good job by doing the negative control analysis. We’re not going to have a head-to-head clinical trial, so we don’t know the real fracture reduction differences [between denosumab and zoledronic acid]. [The NCO analysis] is more than the propensity matching score that we do usually,” said Dr. Rhee, who is a professor of endocrinology at Yonsei University College of Medicine in Seoul, South Korea.

In particular, the study showed a significantly greater reduction in hip fractures with denosumab. “Even in the RCTs, it was really hard to see the reduction in hip fracture, so I think this is showing much stronger data for denosumab. Especially in patients who have more [general fracture] risk and patients with higher hip fracture risk, I would go with denosumab,” Dr. Rhee said.

Her comoderator, Maria Zanchetta, MD, agreed. “It can have clinical implication, because we think denosumab is better than [zoledronic acid] for higher-risk patients, but we didn’t have the evidence. So at least we have a new [study] to look at, and I think it’s very important for our practice,” said Dr. Zanchetta, who is a professor of osteology at the Institute of Diagnostics and Metabolic Research, Universidad del Salvador, Buenos Aires.

The study was funded by Amgen, which markets denosumab. Dr. Curtis has consulted for Amgen. Dr. Rhee and Dr. Zanchetta report no relevant financial relationships.

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – The investigational incretin receptor agonist pemvidutide produced significant weight loss and other cardiometabolic benefits in a phase 2 randomized trial, adding a different type of “twincretin” to a growing mix of incretin-based weight-loss drugs in development that also offer additional benefits.

Pemvidutide (Altimmune Inc) is a long-acting “balanced” dual agonist of both glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and glucagon that is in development for the treatment of obesity and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) but not type 2 diabetes, as its effect on glucose is neutral. Phase 1 data for pemvidutide’s liver effect were presented in 2022.

In contrast, the dual GLP-1-glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonist tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) has been approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. It awaits an indication for obesity.

“When you look [at] the results for any given agent, think about obesity as a series of problems. Some overlap, and some don’t. While about 20%-25% of people with obesity also have type 2 diabetes, not everybody does. So the compounds that don’t lower glucose ... those will be great for others who have [fatty liver disease] or hyperlipidemia. ... It’s not going to be one compound for everybody,” said Louis J. Aronne, MD, director of the center for weight management and metabolic clinical research, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Results of a new 24-week interim analysis of data from the phase 2 pemvidutide trial, called MOMENTUM, were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes by Dr. Aronne.

Included in that session were encore presentations of data for another GLP-1-glucagon dual agonist, survodutide, as well as data for Eli Lilly’s GLP-1-GIP-glucagon “triagonist,” retatrutide. Retatrutide is in development to induce weight loss, while survodutide (Boehringer Ingelheim and Zealand Pharma), like pemvidutide, is in development to induce weight loss and treat fatty liver disease.

Added Dr. Aronne, “As good as [the triple agonist] retatrutide looks, I doubt that every single person with obesity in the world will be treated with it. ... Think about this as a field, the way you treat diabetes and every other chronic illness.”

Asked to comment, session moderator Rajna Golubic, PhD, of the Oxford (England) Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, told this news organization, “We need to think in terms of treating beyond weight loss. ... We need to look at the person holistically and at other aspects of cardiometabolic health and treat in a personalized way and choose treatments according to the comorbidities people have.”

Regarding the dual GLP-1-glucagon agonists, including pemvidutide, Dr. Golubic pointed out that the glucagon agonism does the opposite of glucose-lowering agents but that the compound is “balanced for greater affinity for the GLP-1 receptor vs. glucagon, so that the beneficial effects outweigh the effect for glucose but it still harnesses the benefits of glucagon on liver with a decrease in liver fat, with positive effects on heart, positive effects on kidneys, and other beneficial metabolic effects.”
 

Pemvidutide lowers weight, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, and blood pressure

Dr. Aronne began his presentation by noting that dyslipidemia, fatty liver disease, and hypertension are the most significant comorbidities of obesity, occurring in 66%-70%, 58%-75%, and 45%-55% of patients, respectively, while type 2 diabetes is less common, at 19%-23%.

Pemvidutide’s GLP-1 receptor agonism reduces appetite, inflammation, and gastric emptying, while glucagon agonism increases lipolysis, mobilizes fat, and increases energy expenditure, Dr. Aronne explained.

The 48-week phase 2 MOMENTUM trial randomly assigned 320 participants with overweight or obesity and at least one obesity-related comorbidity but not diabetes to receive weekly doses of 1.2 mg, 1.8 mg, or 2.4 mg of pemvidutide or placebo. The two lower pemvidutide doses were initiated immediately without titration, while the 2.4-mg dose was titrated rapidly over 4 weeks.

In a prespecified interim analysis of 160 participants, the percent body weight loss at 24 weeks was 10.7%, 9.4%, and 7.3% with the 2.4-mg, 1.8-mg, and 1.2-mg doses, respectively (P < .001). All weight loss values were significant; weight loss with placebo was a nonsignificant 1%.

The proportions of patients who lost at least 5% of their body weight were 84.6%, 66.7%, and 66.7%, respectively, vs. 25% with placebo. Half of the patients who received the 2.4-mg and 1.8-mg doses lost at least 10% of their body weight. Reductions in waist circumference followed suit; the patients who received the 2.4-mg dose lost an average of 10.2 cm, or “in the U.S., about 4 inches or 4 belt loops. That’s pretty good, you need a new belt,” Dr. Aronne commented.

Significant reductions in total cholesterol and triglyceride levels were also seen at week 24 by 16.5% and 25.0%, respectively, with the 2.4-mg dose. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels also dropped, although not significantly; high-density lipoprotein levels dropped significantly.

Systolic blood pressure dropped by 5.5 mm Hg, and diastolic blood pressure dropped by 1.8 mm Hg in the 2.4-mg group and by lesser degrees among the patients who received lower doses. There were no significant changes in heart rate, Dr. Aronne noted.

Glucose homeostasis was preserved in all groups throughout the 24 weeks.

As with all drugs in the incretin class, gastrointestinal adverse events were common. Severe vomiting occurred in one person in the 1.8-mg group and in four with 2.4 mg. Efforts will be made to reduce that in subsequent trials, Dr. Aronne said.

“We have learned over time that going more gradually in titrating up these agents is a better strategy, allowing dose reduction may be a better strategy, and allowing antiemetics temporarily as we increase the dose is a lesson that many have learned doing these trials and of course in our clinical practices,” he commented.

Dr. Golubic told this news organization that the recent emergence of potent incretin-based weight loss drugs is “a huge paradigm shift. The prevalence of obesity will be 35% or higher by 2035. Bariatric surgery isn’t feasible for everyone, and it’s very expensive, so we need drugs to provide benefits in terms of lowering weight, glucose, and other cardiometabolic risk factors.”

The full 48-week data for MOMENTUM will be announced in the fourth quarter of 2023.

Dr. Aronne has received consulting fees from and serves on advisory boards for Allurion, Altimmune, Atria, Gelesis, Jamieson Wellness, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Optum, Eli Lilly, Senda Biosciences, and Versanis; has received research funding from Allurion, AstraZeneca, Gelesis, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novo Nordisk, and Eli Lilly; has equity interests in Allurion, ERX Pharmaceuticals, Gelesis, Intellihealth, Jamieson Wellness, and Myos Corp; and serves on a board of directors for ERX Pharmaceuticals, Intellihealth, and Jamieson Wellness. Dr. Golubic has received research support from AstraZeneca.

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – The investigational incretin receptor agonist pemvidutide produced significant weight loss and other cardiometabolic benefits in a phase 2 randomized trial, adding a different type of “twincretin” to a growing mix of incretin-based weight-loss drugs in development that also offer additional benefits.

Pemvidutide (Altimmune Inc) is a long-acting “balanced” dual agonist of both glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and glucagon that is in development for the treatment of obesity and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) but not type 2 diabetes, as its effect on glucose is neutral. Phase 1 data for pemvidutide’s liver effect were presented in 2022.

In contrast, the dual GLP-1-glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonist tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) has been approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. It awaits an indication for obesity.

“When you look [at] the results for any given agent, think about obesity as a series of problems. Some overlap, and some don’t. While about 20%-25% of people with obesity also have type 2 diabetes, not everybody does. So the compounds that don’t lower glucose ... those will be great for others who have [fatty liver disease] or hyperlipidemia. ... It’s not going to be one compound for everybody,” said Louis J. Aronne, MD, director of the center for weight management and metabolic clinical research, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Results of a new 24-week interim analysis of data from the phase 2 pemvidutide trial, called MOMENTUM, were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes by Dr. Aronne.

Included in that session were encore presentations of data for another GLP-1-glucagon dual agonist, survodutide, as well as data for Eli Lilly’s GLP-1-GIP-glucagon “triagonist,” retatrutide. Retatrutide is in development to induce weight loss, while survodutide (Boehringer Ingelheim and Zealand Pharma), like pemvidutide, is in development to induce weight loss and treat fatty liver disease.

Added Dr. Aronne, “As good as [the triple agonist] retatrutide looks, I doubt that every single person with obesity in the world will be treated with it. ... Think about this as a field, the way you treat diabetes and every other chronic illness.”

Asked to comment, session moderator Rajna Golubic, PhD, of the Oxford (England) Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, told this news organization, “We need to think in terms of treating beyond weight loss. ... We need to look at the person holistically and at other aspects of cardiometabolic health and treat in a personalized way and choose treatments according to the comorbidities people have.”

Regarding the dual GLP-1-glucagon agonists, including pemvidutide, Dr. Golubic pointed out that the glucagon agonism does the opposite of glucose-lowering agents but that the compound is “balanced for greater affinity for the GLP-1 receptor vs. glucagon, so that the beneficial effects outweigh the effect for glucose but it still harnesses the benefits of glucagon on liver with a decrease in liver fat, with positive effects on heart, positive effects on kidneys, and other beneficial metabolic effects.”
 

Pemvidutide lowers weight, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, and blood pressure

Dr. Aronne began his presentation by noting that dyslipidemia, fatty liver disease, and hypertension are the most significant comorbidities of obesity, occurring in 66%-70%, 58%-75%, and 45%-55% of patients, respectively, while type 2 diabetes is less common, at 19%-23%.

Pemvidutide’s GLP-1 receptor agonism reduces appetite, inflammation, and gastric emptying, while glucagon agonism increases lipolysis, mobilizes fat, and increases energy expenditure, Dr. Aronne explained.

The 48-week phase 2 MOMENTUM trial randomly assigned 320 participants with overweight or obesity and at least one obesity-related comorbidity but not diabetes to receive weekly doses of 1.2 mg, 1.8 mg, or 2.4 mg of pemvidutide or placebo. The two lower pemvidutide doses were initiated immediately without titration, while the 2.4-mg dose was titrated rapidly over 4 weeks.

In a prespecified interim analysis of 160 participants, the percent body weight loss at 24 weeks was 10.7%, 9.4%, and 7.3% with the 2.4-mg, 1.8-mg, and 1.2-mg doses, respectively (P < .001). All weight loss values were significant; weight loss with placebo was a nonsignificant 1%.

The proportions of patients who lost at least 5% of their body weight were 84.6%, 66.7%, and 66.7%, respectively, vs. 25% with placebo. Half of the patients who received the 2.4-mg and 1.8-mg doses lost at least 10% of their body weight. Reductions in waist circumference followed suit; the patients who received the 2.4-mg dose lost an average of 10.2 cm, or “in the U.S., about 4 inches or 4 belt loops. That’s pretty good, you need a new belt,” Dr. Aronne commented.

Significant reductions in total cholesterol and triglyceride levels were also seen at week 24 by 16.5% and 25.0%, respectively, with the 2.4-mg dose. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels also dropped, although not significantly; high-density lipoprotein levels dropped significantly.

Systolic blood pressure dropped by 5.5 mm Hg, and diastolic blood pressure dropped by 1.8 mm Hg in the 2.4-mg group and by lesser degrees among the patients who received lower doses. There were no significant changes in heart rate, Dr. Aronne noted.

Glucose homeostasis was preserved in all groups throughout the 24 weeks.

As with all drugs in the incretin class, gastrointestinal adverse events were common. Severe vomiting occurred in one person in the 1.8-mg group and in four with 2.4 mg. Efforts will be made to reduce that in subsequent trials, Dr. Aronne said.

“We have learned over time that going more gradually in titrating up these agents is a better strategy, allowing dose reduction may be a better strategy, and allowing antiemetics temporarily as we increase the dose is a lesson that many have learned doing these trials and of course in our clinical practices,” he commented.

Dr. Golubic told this news organization that the recent emergence of potent incretin-based weight loss drugs is “a huge paradigm shift. The prevalence of obesity will be 35% or higher by 2035. Bariatric surgery isn’t feasible for everyone, and it’s very expensive, so we need drugs to provide benefits in terms of lowering weight, glucose, and other cardiometabolic risk factors.”

The full 48-week data for MOMENTUM will be announced in the fourth quarter of 2023.

Dr. Aronne has received consulting fees from and serves on advisory boards for Allurion, Altimmune, Atria, Gelesis, Jamieson Wellness, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Optum, Eli Lilly, Senda Biosciences, and Versanis; has received research funding from Allurion, AstraZeneca, Gelesis, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novo Nordisk, and Eli Lilly; has equity interests in Allurion, ERX Pharmaceuticals, Gelesis, Intellihealth, Jamieson Wellness, and Myos Corp; and serves on a board of directors for ERX Pharmaceuticals, Intellihealth, and Jamieson Wellness. Dr. Golubic has received research support from AstraZeneca.

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – The investigational incretin receptor agonist pemvidutide produced significant weight loss and other cardiometabolic benefits in a phase 2 randomized trial, adding a different type of “twincretin” to a growing mix of incretin-based weight-loss drugs in development that also offer additional benefits.

Pemvidutide (Altimmune Inc) is a long-acting “balanced” dual agonist of both glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and glucagon that is in development for the treatment of obesity and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) but not type 2 diabetes, as its effect on glucose is neutral. Phase 1 data for pemvidutide’s liver effect were presented in 2022.

In contrast, the dual GLP-1-glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonist tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) has been approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. It awaits an indication for obesity.

“When you look [at] the results for any given agent, think about obesity as a series of problems. Some overlap, and some don’t. While about 20%-25% of people with obesity also have type 2 diabetes, not everybody does. So the compounds that don’t lower glucose ... those will be great for others who have [fatty liver disease] or hyperlipidemia. ... It’s not going to be one compound for everybody,” said Louis J. Aronne, MD, director of the center for weight management and metabolic clinical research, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Results of a new 24-week interim analysis of data from the phase 2 pemvidutide trial, called MOMENTUM, were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes by Dr. Aronne.

Included in that session were encore presentations of data for another GLP-1-glucagon dual agonist, survodutide, as well as data for Eli Lilly’s GLP-1-GIP-glucagon “triagonist,” retatrutide. Retatrutide is in development to induce weight loss, while survodutide (Boehringer Ingelheim and Zealand Pharma), like pemvidutide, is in development to induce weight loss and treat fatty liver disease.

Added Dr. Aronne, “As good as [the triple agonist] retatrutide looks, I doubt that every single person with obesity in the world will be treated with it. ... Think about this as a field, the way you treat diabetes and every other chronic illness.”

Asked to comment, session moderator Rajna Golubic, PhD, of the Oxford (England) Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, told this news organization, “We need to think in terms of treating beyond weight loss. ... We need to look at the person holistically and at other aspects of cardiometabolic health and treat in a personalized way and choose treatments according to the comorbidities people have.”

Regarding the dual GLP-1-glucagon agonists, including pemvidutide, Dr. Golubic pointed out that the glucagon agonism does the opposite of glucose-lowering agents but that the compound is “balanced for greater affinity for the GLP-1 receptor vs. glucagon, so that the beneficial effects outweigh the effect for glucose but it still harnesses the benefits of glucagon on liver with a decrease in liver fat, with positive effects on heart, positive effects on kidneys, and other beneficial metabolic effects.”
 

Pemvidutide lowers weight, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, and blood pressure

Dr. Aronne began his presentation by noting that dyslipidemia, fatty liver disease, and hypertension are the most significant comorbidities of obesity, occurring in 66%-70%, 58%-75%, and 45%-55% of patients, respectively, while type 2 diabetes is less common, at 19%-23%.

Pemvidutide’s GLP-1 receptor agonism reduces appetite, inflammation, and gastric emptying, while glucagon agonism increases lipolysis, mobilizes fat, and increases energy expenditure, Dr. Aronne explained.

The 48-week phase 2 MOMENTUM trial randomly assigned 320 participants with overweight or obesity and at least one obesity-related comorbidity but not diabetes to receive weekly doses of 1.2 mg, 1.8 mg, or 2.4 mg of pemvidutide or placebo. The two lower pemvidutide doses were initiated immediately without titration, while the 2.4-mg dose was titrated rapidly over 4 weeks.

In a prespecified interim analysis of 160 participants, the percent body weight loss at 24 weeks was 10.7%, 9.4%, and 7.3% with the 2.4-mg, 1.8-mg, and 1.2-mg doses, respectively (P < .001). All weight loss values were significant; weight loss with placebo was a nonsignificant 1%.

The proportions of patients who lost at least 5% of their body weight were 84.6%, 66.7%, and 66.7%, respectively, vs. 25% with placebo. Half of the patients who received the 2.4-mg and 1.8-mg doses lost at least 10% of their body weight. Reductions in waist circumference followed suit; the patients who received the 2.4-mg dose lost an average of 10.2 cm, or “in the U.S., about 4 inches or 4 belt loops. That’s pretty good, you need a new belt,” Dr. Aronne commented.

Significant reductions in total cholesterol and triglyceride levels were also seen at week 24 by 16.5% and 25.0%, respectively, with the 2.4-mg dose. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels also dropped, although not significantly; high-density lipoprotein levels dropped significantly.

Systolic blood pressure dropped by 5.5 mm Hg, and diastolic blood pressure dropped by 1.8 mm Hg in the 2.4-mg group and by lesser degrees among the patients who received lower doses. There were no significant changes in heart rate, Dr. Aronne noted.

Glucose homeostasis was preserved in all groups throughout the 24 weeks.

As with all drugs in the incretin class, gastrointestinal adverse events were common. Severe vomiting occurred in one person in the 1.8-mg group and in four with 2.4 mg. Efforts will be made to reduce that in subsequent trials, Dr. Aronne said.

“We have learned over time that going more gradually in titrating up these agents is a better strategy, allowing dose reduction may be a better strategy, and allowing antiemetics temporarily as we increase the dose is a lesson that many have learned doing these trials and of course in our clinical practices,” he commented.

Dr. Golubic told this news organization that the recent emergence of potent incretin-based weight loss drugs is “a huge paradigm shift. The prevalence of obesity will be 35% or higher by 2035. Bariatric surgery isn’t feasible for everyone, and it’s very expensive, so we need drugs to provide benefits in terms of lowering weight, glucose, and other cardiometabolic risk factors.”

The full 48-week data for MOMENTUM will be announced in the fourth quarter of 2023.

Dr. Aronne has received consulting fees from and serves on advisory boards for Allurion, Altimmune, Atria, Gelesis, Jamieson Wellness, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Optum, Eli Lilly, Senda Biosciences, and Versanis; has received research funding from Allurion, AstraZeneca, Gelesis, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novo Nordisk, and Eli Lilly; has equity interests in Allurion, ERX Pharmaceuticals, Gelesis, Intellihealth, Jamieson Wellness, and Myos Corp; and serves on a board of directors for ERX Pharmaceuticals, Intellihealth, and Jamieson Wellness. Dr. Golubic has received research support from AstraZeneca.

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

PHILADELPHIA – Treatment of vasomotor symptoms with estetrol (E4) led to improvements in postmenopausal patients’ lipid profiles and blood glucose, according to findings of a phase 3 clinical trial presented at the annual meeting of the Menopause Society (formerly The North American Menopause Society).

Participants taking estetrol experienced a decrease in hemoglobin A1c, fasting plasma glucose, total cholesterol, LDL and lipoprotein as well as an increase in HDL cholesterol, according to the findings presented by Wolf Utian, MD, PhD, DSC, a professor emeritus of reproductive biology at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and medical director emeritus of the Menopause Society.

A separate poster at the conference from the same trial also reported significant improvements from estetrol in quality of life, including that related to vasomotor symptoms, and several psychosocial and sexual functioning areas.

Mayo Clinic

E4 is already available as combination oral contraception and is now being considered for treating vasomotor symptoms, explained Chrisandra Shufelt, MD, professor and chair of general internal of medicine and associate director of the Women’s Health Research Center at Mayo Clinic Florida, who was not involved in the study.
 

Background on estetrol

E4 is a human fetal liver estrogen produced during pregnancy that’s synthesized from plants for pharmaceutical use, including as the oral contraceptive drospirenone, Dr. Utian told attendees. It’s classified as a native estrogen with selective tissue activity (NEST), he said.

“E4 is a completely different native estrogen with oral administration mimicking the benefits of transdermals and hence safe and effective,” Dr. Utian said in an interview. “It would be a significant new addition to the pharmaceutical armamentarium.”

Two phase 3 trials presented by Dr. Utian at the same conference last year found estetrol reduced the frequency and severity of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms, and a previous phase 2 trial finding vasomotor and genitourinary symptom benefits suggested it had potential benefits for lipids, carbohydrate metabolism, and bone turnover.

“In summary, E4 at a daily dose of 15 mg exhibited estrogenic effects in the vagina, leading to improved vaginal health and reduced signs of atrophy, emerging as a promising treatment option not only for vasomotor symptoms but also for other significant menopausal symptoms,” Dr. Utian said. “E4 could offer comprehensive relief for women experiencing a range of menopause-related discomforts.”

Dr. Utian also referenced a 2017 trial in which estetrol positively impacted lipid profiles, “lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, increasing high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and showing minimal influence on triglycerides,” he said. “Importantly, estetrol was associated with a significant decrease in osteocalcin levels in the higher dose groups, suggesting a potential preventive effect on bone loss,” he added. A recent review of the overall evidence on estetrol suggests its use is “promising,” Dr. Utian noted.
 

Current trial

His current randomized controlled phase 3 trial included postmenopausal women ages 40-65 from 151 sites in 14 countries in Europe, Latin America, and North America, and Russia. Among the 640 participants in the trial, 213 women randomly received 15 mg of estetrol, 213 women received 20 mg of estetrol, and 214 women received a placebo every day for 3 months. All women without hysterectomies also received 200 mg of progesterone once daily for two weeks after completing the estetrol treatment to protect the endometrium.

Researchers took blood samples from the participants at baseline and week 12 to assess total cholesterol, LDL, HDL, the total cholesterol/HDL ratio, triglycerides, lipoprotein A, fasting plasma glucose, insulin, and A1c.

Compared with women in the placebo group, women in both the 15 mg and 20 mg groups saw a statistically significant decrease in lipoprotein A and in the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL, and a statistically significant increase in HDL. Only the women in the 15 mg group saw a statistically significant decrease in LDL and increase in triglycerides; an increase in triglycerides in the 20 mg group did not reach statistical significance.

Statistically significant decreases in fasting plasma glucose and A1c also occurred in both treatment groups, but a decrease in insulin levels and in the homeostasis model-assessment-estimated insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) seen in both treatment arms did not reach significance.

“While the mean changes after 12 weeks from baseline overall were small changes to the cholesterol and blood sugar profiles, they are clinically meaningful because it suggests that E4 does not have any adverse effects to these measures,” Dr. Shufelt said in an interview. “An advantage is that this gives us another hormone option for vasomotor symptoms since it is a native estrogen with selective tissue.”

It’s too early, however, to determine whether estetrol offers benefits in terms of its safety profile, compared with currently available therapies, Dr. Shufelt said.

”These findings of E4 are similar to how oral estradiol changes lipids, which finds an increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and decreases plasma concentrations of total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. an increase in HDL-C and triglycerides and decrease in LDL-C,” she said.
 

Poster findings also promising

For the findings reported in the poster, researchers assessed quality of life and the clinical meaningfulness of vasomotor symptoms’ reduction at baseline and 12 weeks using the Menopause-Specific Quality of Life (MENQOL) questionnaire and the Clinical Global Impression questionnaire, respectively. They also assessed women’s self-reported genitourinary symptoms, including vaginal dryness, pain during urination, vaginal pain and bleeding related to sex, and vaginal or vulvar irritation or itching. Most of these findings primarily confirmed previous positive effects from E4 in other trials.

Women in both the 15 mg and 20 mg estetrol groups reported a statistically significant improvement at 12 weeks, compared with placebo, in their total MENQOL score and in the vasomotor, psychosocial, and sexual functioning domain scores (P < .05). Those in the 20 mg group also had a statistically significant improvement in their physical domain score (P < .05).

Although numerical improvements in genitourinary symptoms occurred at 12 weeks across all three groups, the only statistically significant difference from baseline occurred in patients taking 15 mg of estetrol, who experienced a decrease in vaginal dryness and vaginal pain during sex (P = .0142 and P = .003, respectively).

The Clinical Global Impression questionnaire asked women at 4 and 12 weeks to rate on a seven-item Likert scale their response to this question: “Rate the total improvement, whether or not in your judgment it is due entirely to drug treatment. Compared to your condition at admission to the study, how much has it changed?” Responses of “very much improved” and “much improved” counted as a clinically meaningful difference.

Compared with 27.9% of patients in the placebo group, 52.9% of patients in the 15 mg group and 59.8% of patients in the 20 mg group rated the weekly frequency of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms as “much improved” or “very much improved” at 4 weeks (P < .0001). At 12 weeks, those numbers rose to 47% in the placebo group, 73.3% in the 15 mg group and 77.8% in the 20 mg group (P < .0001).

The trial’s primary limitation at this point is having only a 12-week follow-up, Dr. Shufelt said, though a few other questions remain.

“Because the two phase 3 RCTs included hysterectomized and nonhysterectomized women, it was unclear how many women in the study had E4 alone versus E4 with progesterone, as that might play a role in both cholesterol and carbohydrate metabolism,” Dr. Shufelt said. “While baseline data was not presented, it would also be important to know baseline values for the women and confirm that none were on lipid-lowering medications.”

The research was funded by Estetra SRL, an affiliate of Mithra Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Utian is a member of the Mithra and Elektra Scientific Advisory Boards. Dr. Shufelt has no disclosures.
 

PHILADELPHIA – Treatment of vasomotor symptoms with estetrol (E4) led to improvements in postmenopausal patients’ lipid profiles and blood glucose, according to findings of a phase 3 clinical trial presented at the annual meeting of the Menopause Society (formerly The North American Menopause Society).

Participants taking estetrol experienced a decrease in hemoglobin A1c, fasting plasma glucose, total cholesterol, LDL and lipoprotein as well as an increase in HDL cholesterol, according to the findings presented by Wolf Utian, MD, PhD, DSC, a professor emeritus of reproductive biology at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and medical director emeritus of the Menopause Society.

A separate poster at the conference from the same trial also reported significant improvements from estetrol in quality of life, including that related to vasomotor symptoms, and several psychosocial and sexual functioning areas.

Mayo Clinic

E4 is already available as combination oral contraception and is now being considered for treating vasomotor symptoms, explained Chrisandra Shufelt, MD, professor and chair of general internal of medicine and associate director of the Women’s Health Research Center at Mayo Clinic Florida, who was not involved in the study.
 

Background on estetrol

E4 is a human fetal liver estrogen produced during pregnancy that’s synthesized from plants for pharmaceutical use, including as the oral contraceptive drospirenone, Dr. Utian told attendees. It’s classified as a native estrogen with selective tissue activity (NEST), he said.

“E4 is a completely different native estrogen with oral administration mimicking the benefits of transdermals and hence safe and effective,” Dr. Utian said in an interview. “It would be a significant new addition to the pharmaceutical armamentarium.”

Two phase 3 trials presented by Dr. Utian at the same conference last year found estetrol reduced the frequency and severity of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms, and a previous phase 2 trial finding vasomotor and genitourinary symptom benefits suggested it had potential benefits for lipids, carbohydrate metabolism, and bone turnover.

“In summary, E4 at a daily dose of 15 mg exhibited estrogenic effects in the vagina, leading to improved vaginal health and reduced signs of atrophy, emerging as a promising treatment option not only for vasomotor symptoms but also for other significant menopausal symptoms,” Dr. Utian said. “E4 could offer comprehensive relief for women experiencing a range of menopause-related discomforts.”

Dr. Utian also referenced a 2017 trial in which estetrol positively impacted lipid profiles, “lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, increasing high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and showing minimal influence on triglycerides,” he said. “Importantly, estetrol was associated with a significant decrease in osteocalcin levels in the higher dose groups, suggesting a potential preventive effect on bone loss,” he added. A recent review of the overall evidence on estetrol suggests its use is “promising,” Dr. Utian noted.
 

Current trial

His current randomized controlled phase 3 trial included postmenopausal women ages 40-65 from 151 sites in 14 countries in Europe, Latin America, and North America, and Russia. Among the 640 participants in the trial, 213 women randomly received 15 mg of estetrol, 213 women received 20 mg of estetrol, and 214 women received a placebo every day for 3 months. All women without hysterectomies also received 200 mg of progesterone once daily for two weeks after completing the estetrol treatment to protect the endometrium.

Researchers took blood samples from the participants at baseline and week 12 to assess total cholesterol, LDL, HDL, the total cholesterol/HDL ratio, triglycerides, lipoprotein A, fasting plasma glucose, insulin, and A1c.

Compared with women in the placebo group, women in both the 15 mg and 20 mg groups saw a statistically significant decrease in lipoprotein A and in the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL, and a statistically significant increase in HDL. Only the women in the 15 mg group saw a statistically significant decrease in LDL and increase in triglycerides; an increase in triglycerides in the 20 mg group did not reach statistical significance.

Statistically significant decreases in fasting plasma glucose and A1c also occurred in both treatment groups, but a decrease in insulin levels and in the homeostasis model-assessment-estimated insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) seen in both treatment arms did not reach significance.

“While the mean changes after 12 weeks from baseline overall were small changes to the cholesterol and blood sugar profiles, they are clinically meaningful because it suggests that E4 does not have any adverse effects to these measures,” Dr. Shufelt said in an interview. “An advantage is that this gives us another hormone option for vasomotor symptoms since it is a native estrogen with selective tissue.”

It’s too early, however, to determine whether estetrol offers benefits in terms of its safety profile, compared with currently available therapies, Dr. Shufelt said.

”These findings of E4 are similar to how oral estradiol changes lipids, which finds an increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and decreases plasma concentrations of total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. an increase in HDL-C and triglycerides and decrease in LDL-C,” she said.
 

Poster findings also promising

For the findings reported in the poster, researchers assessed quality of life and the clinical meaningfulness of vasomotor symptoms’ reduction at baseline and 12 weeks using the Menopause-Specific Quality of Life (MENQOL) questionnaire and the Clinical Global Impression questionnaire, respectively. They also assessed women’s self-reported genitourinary symptoms, including vaginal dryness, pain during urination, vaginal pain and bleeding related to sex, and vaginal or vulvar irritation or itching. Most of these findings primarily confirmed previous positive effects from E4 in other trials.

Women in both the 15 mg and 20 mg estetrol groups reported a statistically significant improvement at 12 weeks, compared with placebo, in their total MENQOL score and in the vasomotor, psychosocial, and sexual functioning domain scores (P < .05). Those in the 20 mg group also had a statistically significant improvement in their physical domain score (P < .05).

Although numerical improvements in genitourinary symptoms occurred at 12 weeks across all three groups, the only statistically significant difference from baseline occurred in patients taking 15 mg of estetrol, who experienced a decrease in vaginal dryness and vaginal pain during sex (P = .0142 and P = .003, respectively).

The Clinical Global Impression questionnaire asked women at 4 and 12 weeks to rate on a seven-item Likert scale their response to this question: “Rate the total improvement, whether or not in your judgment it is due entirely to drug treatment. Compared to your condition at admission to the study, how much has it changed?” Responses of “very much improved” and “much improved” counted as a clinically meaningful difference.

Compared with 27.9% of patients in the placebo group, 52.9% of patients in the 15 mg group and 59.8% of patients in the 20 mg group rated the weekly frequency of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms as “much improved” or “very much improved” at 4 weeks (P < .0001). At 12 weeks, those numbers rose to 47% in the placebo group, 73.3% in the 15 mg group and 77.8% in the 20 mg group (P < .0001).

The trial’s primary limitation at this point is having only a 12-week follow-up, Dr. Shufelt said, though a few other questions remain.

“Because the two phase 3 RCTs included hysterectomized and nonhysterectomized women, it was unclear how many women in the study had E4 alone versus E4 with progesterone, as that might play a role in both cholesterol and carbohydrate metabolism,” Dr. Shufelt said. “While baseline data was not presented, it would also be important to know baseline values for the women and confirm that none were on lipid-lowering medications.”

The research was funded by Estetra SRL, an affiliate of Mithra Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Utian is a member of the Mithra and Elektra Scientific Advisory Boards. Dr. Shufelt has no disclosures.
 

PHILADELPHIA – Treatment of vasomotor symptoms with estetrol (E4) led to improvements in postmenopausal patients’ lipid profiles and blood glucose, according to findings of a phase 3 clinical trial presented at the annual meeting of the Menopause Society (formerly The North American Menopause Society).

Participants taking estetrol experienced a decrease in hemoglobin A1c, fasting plasma glucose, total cholesterol, LDL and lipoprotein as well as an increase in HDL cholesterol, according to the findings presented by Wolf Utian, MD, PhD, DSC, a professor emeritus of reproductive biology at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and medical director emeritus of the Menopause Society.

A separate poster at the conference from the same trial also reported significant improvements from estetrol in quality of life, including that related to vasomotor symptoms, and several psychosocial and sexual functioning areas.

Mayo Clinic

E4 is already available as combination oral contraception and is now being considered for treating vasomotor symptoms, explained Chrisandra Shufelt, MD, professor and chair of general internal of medicine and associate director of the Women’s Health Research Center at Mayo Clinic Florida, who was not involved in the study.
 

Background on estetrol

E4 is a human fetal liver estrogen produced during pregnancy that’s synthesized from plants for pharmaceutical use, including as the oral contraceptive drospirenone, Dr. Utian told attendees. It’s classified as a native estrogen with selective tissue activity (NEST), he said.

“E4 is a completely different native estrogen with oral administration mimicking the benefits of transdermals and hence safe and effective,” Dr. Utian said in an interview. “It would be a significant new addition to the pharmaceutical armamentarium.”

Two phase 3 trials presented by Dr. Utian at the same conference last year found estetrol reduced the frequency and severity of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms, and a previous phase 2 trial finding vasomotor and genitourinary symptom benefits suggested it had potential benefits for lipids, carbohydrate metabolism, and bone turnover.

“In summary, E4 at a daily dose of 15 mg exhibited estrogenic effects in the vagina, leading to improved vaginal health and reduced signs of atrophy, emerging as a promising treatment option not only for vasomotor symptoms but also for other significant menopausal symptoms,” Dr. Utian said. “E4 could offer comprehensive relief for women experiencing a range of menopause-related discomforts.”

Dr. Utian also referenced a 2017 trial in which estetrol positively impacted lipid profiles, “lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, increasing high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and showing minimal influence on triglycerides,” he said. “Importantly, estetrol was associated with a significant decrease in osteocalcin levels in the higher dose groups, suggesting a potential preventive effect on bone loss,” he added. A recent review of the overall evidence on estetrol suggests its use is “promising,” Dr. Utian noted.
 

Current trial

His current randomized controlled phase 3 trial included postmenopausal women ages 40-65 from 151 sites in 14 countries in Europe, Latin America, and North America, and Russia. Among the 640 participants in the trial, 213 women randomly received 15 mg of estetrol, 213 women received 20 mg of estetrol, and 214 women received a placebo every day for 3 months. All women without hysterectomies also received 200 mg of progesterone once daily for two weeks after completing the estetrol treatment to protect the endometrium.

Researchers took blood samples from the participants at baseline and week 12 to assess total cholesterol, LDL, HDL, the total cholesterol/HDL ratio, triglycerides, lipoprotein A, fasting plasma glucose, insulin, and A1c.

Compared with women in the placebo group, women in both the 15 mg and 20 mg groups saw a statistically significant decrease in lipoprotein A and in the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL, and a statistically significant increase in HDL. Only the women in the 15 mg group saw a statistically significant decrease in LDL and increase in triglycerides; an increase in triglycerides in the 20 mg group did not reach statistical significance.

Statistically significant decreases in fasting plasma glucose and A1c also occurred in both treatment groups, but a decrease in insulin levels and in the homeostasis model-assessment-estimated insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) seen in both treatment arms did not reach significance.

“While the mean changes after 12 weeks from baseline overall were small changes to the cholesterol and blood sugar profiles, they are clinically meaningful because it suggests that E4 does not have any adverse effects to these measures,” Dr. Shufelt said in an interview. “An advantage is that this gives us another hormone option for vasomotor symptoms since it is a native estrogen with selective tissue.”

It’s too early, however, to determine whether estetrol offers benefits in terms of its safety profile, compared with currently available therapies, Dr. Shufelt said.

”These findings of E4 are similar to how oral estradiol changes lipids, which finds an increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and decreases plasma concentrations of total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. an increase in HDL-C and triglycerides and decrease in LDL-C,” she said.
 

Poster findings also promising

For the findings reported in the poster, researchers assessed quality of life and the clinical meaningfulness of vasomotor symptoms’ reduction at baseline and 12 weeks using the Menopause-Specific Quality of Life (MENQOL) questionnaire and the Clinical Global Impression questionnaire, respectively. They also assessed women’s self-reported genitourinary symptoms, including vaginal dryness, pain during urination, vaginal pain and bleeding related to sex, and vaginal or vulvar irritation or itching. Most of these findings primarily confirmed previous positive effects from E4 in other trials.

Women in both the 15 mg and 20 mg estetrol groups reported a statistically significant improvement at 12 weeks, compared with placebo, in their total MENQOL score and in the vasomotor, psychosocial, and sexual functioning domain scores (P < .05). Those in the 20 mg group also had a statistically significant improvement in their physical domain score (P < .05).

Although numerical improvements in genitourinary symptoms occurred at 12 weeks across all three groups, the only statistically significant difference from baseline occurred in patients taking 15 mg of estetrol, who experienced a decrease in vaginal dryness and vaginal pain during sex (P = .0142 and P = .003, respectively).

The Clinical Global Impression questionnaire asked women at 4 and 12 weeks to rate on a seven-item Likert scale their response to this question: “Rate the total improvement, whether or not in your judgment it is due entirely to drug treatment. Compared to your condition at admission to the study, how much has it changed?” Responses of “very much improved” and “much improved” counted as a clinically meaningful difference.

Compared with 27.9% of patients in the placebo group, 52.9% of patients in the 15 mg group and 59.8% of patients in the 20 mg group rated the weekly frequency of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms as “much improved” or “very much improved” at 4 weeks (P < .0001). At 12 weeks, those numbers rose to 47% in the placebo group, 73.3% in the 15 mg group and 77.8% in the 20 mg group (P < .0001).

The trial’s primary limitation at this point is having only a 12-week follow-up, Dr. Shufelt said, though a few other questions remain.

“Because the two phase 3 RCTs included hysterectomized and nonhysterectomized women, it was unclear how many women in the study had E4 alone versus E4 with progesterone, as that might play a role in both cholesterol and carbohydrate metabolism,” Dr. Shufelt said. “While baseline data was not presented, it would also be important to know baseline values for the women and confirm that none were on lipid-lowering medications.”

The research was funded by Estetra SRL, an affiliate of Mithra Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Utian is a member of the Mithra and Elektra Scientific Advisory Boards. Dr. Shufelt has no disclosures.
 

CLEVELAND – Patients with heart failure (HF) who are started on sacubitril-valsartan (Entresto) in the hospital or soon after discharge will see a sharp drop in clinical risk whether their ejection fraction is “reduced” or merely “below normal,” suggests a combined analysis of two major studies.

Short-term risk for cardiovascular (CV) death or HF hospitalization fell 30% for such patients put on the angiotensin-receptor/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) at that early stage, compared with those assigned to receive an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB).

Of note, the risk-reduction benefit reached 41% among the overwhelming majority of patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 60% or lower across the two trials, PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF. No such significant benefit was seen in patients with higher LVEF.

The prespecified analysis of 1,347 patients medically stabilized after a “worsening-HF event” was reported by Robert J. Mentz, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

Across both studies, levels of the prognostically telling biomarker NT-proBNP dropped further in the ARNI group, by almost a fourth, compared with those getting an ACE inhibitor or ARB. The difference emerged within a week and was “similar and consistent” throughout at least 8 weeks of follow-up, Dr. Mentz said.

Sacubitril-valsartan is approved in the United States for chronic HF, broadly but with labeling suggesting clearer efficacy at lower LVEF levels, based on the PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF trials.

The PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF trials lending patients to the current analysis demonstrated superiority for the drug vs. an ACE inhibitor or ARB when started in hospital in stabilized patients with HF.
 

Cautions about starting sacubitril-valsartan

In the pooled analysis, patients on sacubitril-valsartan were more likely to experience symptomatic hypotension, with a relative risk for drug’s known potential side effect reaching 1.35 (95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.72), compared with ACE inhibitor or ARB recipients.

But the hypotension risk when starting the drug is manageable to some extent, observed Dr. Mentz. “We can safely start sacubitril-valsartan in the hospital or early post discharge, but we need to make sure their volume status is okay” and keep track of their blood pressure trajectory, he told this news organization.

Those with initially low BP, unsurprisingly, seem more susceptible to the problem, Dr. Mentz said. In such patients “on antihypertensives or other therapies that aren’t going to give them a clinical outcome benefit,” those meds can be withdrawn or their dosages reduced before sacubitril-valsartan is added.

Such cautions are an “important take-home message” of the analysis, observed invited discussant Carolyn S. P. Lam, MBBS, PhD, National Heart Centre, Singapore, after the Dr. Mentz presentation.

Sacubitril-valsartan should be started only in stabilized patients, she emphasized. It should be delayed in those “with ongoing adjustments of antihypertensives, diuretics, and so on,” in whom premature initiation of the drug may promote symptomatic hypotension. Should that happen, Dr. Lam cautioned, there’s a risk that such patients would be “mislabeled as intolerant” of the ARNI and so wouldn’t be started on it later.

The pooled PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF analysis, Dr. Lam proposed, might also help overcome the “clinical inertia and fear” that is slowing the uptake of early guideline-directed drug therapy initiation in patients hospitalized with HF.
 

LVEF spectrum across two studies

As Dr. Mentz reported, the analysis included 881 and 466 patients from PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF, respectively. Of the total, 673 were assigned to receive valsartan and 674 to receive either enalapril or valsartan. Overall, 36% of the population were women.

Patients in PIONEER-HF, with an LVEF 40% or lower, were started on their assigned drug during an acute-HF hospitalization and followed a median of 8 weeks. PARAGLIDE-HF patients, with LVEF higher than 40%, started therapy either in hospital (in 70% of cases) or within 30 days of their HF event; they were followed a median of 6 months.

Hazard ratios for outcomes in the sacubitril-valsartan group vs. those on ACE inhibitors or ARBs were 0.76; 95% CI, 0.69-0.83; P < .0001 for change in NT-proBNP levels. For the composite of CV death or HF hospitalization, HRs were as follows:

• 0.70 (95% CI, 0.54-0.91; P = .0077) overall.
• 0.59 (95% CI, 0.44-0.79) for LVEF < 60%.
• 1.53 (95% CI, 0.80-2.91) for LVEF > 60%.

Current guidelines, Dr. Mentz noted, recommend that sacubitril-valsartan “be initiated de novo” predischarge in patients without contraindications who are hospitalized with acute HF with reduced LVEF. The combined analysis of PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF, he said, potentially extends the recommendation “across the ejection fraction spectrum.”

Dr. Mentz has received research support and honoraria from Abbott, American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Cytokinetics, Fast BioMedical, Gilead, Innolife, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Medable, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Pharmacosmos, Relypsa, Respicardia, Roche, Sanofi, Vifor, Windtree Therapeutics, and Zoll. Dr. Lam has reported financial relationships “with more than 25 pharmaceutical or device manufacturers, many of which produce therapies for heart failure,” as well as with Medscape/WebMD Global LLC.

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

CLEVELAND – Patients with heart failure (HF) who are started on sacubitril-valsartan (Entresto) in the hospital or soon after discharge will see a sharp drop in clinical risk whether their ejection fraction is “reduced” or merely “below normal,” suggests a combined analysis of two major studies.

Short-term risk for cardiovascular (CV) death or HF hospitalization fell 30% for such patients put on the angiotensin-receptor/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) at that early stage, compared with those assigned to receive an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB).

Of note, the risk-reduction benefit reached 41% among the overwhelming majority of patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 60% or lower across the two trials, PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF. No such significant benefit was seen in patients with higher LVEF.

The prespecified analysis of 1,347 patients medically stabilized after a “worsening-HF event” was reported by Robert J. Mentz, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

Across both studies, levels of the prognostically telling biomarker NT-proBNP dropped further in the ARNI group, by almost a fourth, compared with those getting an ACE inhibitor or ARB. The difference emerged within a week and was “similar and consistent” throughout at least 8 weeks of follow-up, Dr. Mentz said.

Sacubitril-valsartan is approved in the United States for chronic HF, broadly but with labeling suggesting clearer efficacy at lower LVEF levels, based on the PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF trials.

The PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF trials lending patients to the current analysis demonstrated superiority for the drug vs. an ACE inhibitor or ARB when started in hospital in stabilized patients with HF.
 

Cautions about starting sacubitril-valsartan

In the pooled analysis, patients on sacubitril-valsartan were more likely to experience symptomatic hypotension, with a relative risk for drug’s known potential side effect reaching 1.35 (95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.72), compared with ACE inhibitor or ARB recipients.

But the hypotension risk when starting the drug is manageable to some extent, observed Dr. Mentz. “We can safely start sacubitril-valsartan in the hospital or early post discharge, but we need to make sure their volume status is okay” and keep track of their blood pressure trajectory, he told this news organization.

Those with initially low BP, unsurprisingly, seem more susceptible to the problem, Dr. Mentz said. In such patients “on antihypertensives or other therapies that aren’t going to give them a clinical outcome benefit,” those meds can be withdrawn or their dosages reduced before sacubitril-valsartan is added.

Such cautions are an “important take-home message” of the analysis, observed invited discussant Carolyn S. P. Lam, MBBS, PhD, National Heart Centre, Singapore, after the Dr. Mentz presentation.

Sacubitril-valsartan should be started only in stabilized patients, she emphasized. It should be delayed in those “with ongoing adjustments of antihypertensives, diuretics, and so on,” in whom premature initiation of the drug may promote symptomatic hypotension. Should that happen, Dr. Lam cautioned, there’s a risk that such patients would be “mislabeled as intolerant” of the ARNI and so wouldn’t be started on it later.

The pooled PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF analysis, Dr. Lam proposed, might also help overcome the “clinical inertia and fear” that is slowing the uptake of early guideline-directed drug therapy initiation in patients hospitalized with HF.
 

LVEF spectrum across two studies

As Dr. Mentz reported, the analysis included 881 and 466 patients from PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF, respectively. Of the total, 673 were assigned to receive valsartan and 674 to receive either enalapril or valsartan. Overall, 36% of the population were women.

Patients in PIONEER-HF, with an LVEF 40% or lower, were started on their assigned drug during an acute-HF hospitalization and followed a median of 8 weeks. PARAGLIDE-HF patients, with LVEF higher than 40%, started therapy either in hospital (in 70% of cases) or within 30 days of their HF event; they were followed a median of 6 months.

Hazard ratios for outcomes in the sacubitril-valsartan group vs. those on ACE inhibitors or ARBs were 0.76; 95% CI, 0.69-0.83; P < .0001 for change in NT-proBNP levels. For the composite of CV death or HF hospitalization, HRs were as follows:

• 0.70 (95% CI, 0.54-0.91; P = .0077) overall.
• 0.59 (95% CI, 0.44-0.79) for LVEF < 60%.
• 1.53 (95% CI, 0.80-2.91) for LVEF > 60%.

Current guidelines, Dr. Mentz noted, recommend that sacubitril-valsartan “be initiated de novo” predischarge in patients without contraindications who are hospitalized with acute HF with reduced LVEF. The combined analysis of PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF, he said, potentially extends the recommendation “across the ejection fraction spectrum.”

Dr. Mentz has received research support and honoraria from Abbott, American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Cytokinetics, Fast BioMedical, Gilead, Innolife, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Medable, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Pharmacosmos, Relypsa, Respicardia, Roche, Sanofi, Vifor, Windtree Therapeutics, and Zoll. Dr. Lam has reported financial relationships “with more than 25 pharmaceutical or device manufacturers, many of which produce therapies for heart failure,” as well as with Medscape/WebMD Global LLC.

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

CLEVELAND – Patients with heart failure (HF) who are started on sacubitril-valsartan (Entresto) in the hospital or soon after discharge will see a sharp drop in clinical risk whether their ejection fraction is “reduced” or merely “below normal,” suggests a combined analysis of two major studies.

Short-term risk for cardiovascular (CV) death or HF hospitalization fell 30% for such patients put on the angiotensin-receptor/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) at that early stage, compared with those assigned to receive an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB).

Of note, the risk-reduction benefit reached 41% among the overwhelming majority of patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 60% or lower across the two trials, PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF. No such significant benefit was seen in patients with higher LVEF.

The prespecified analysis of 1,347 patients medically stabilized after a “worsening-HF event” was reported by Robert J. Mentz, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

Across both studies, levels of the prognostically telling biomarker NT-proBNP dropped further in the ARNI group, by almost a fourth, compared with those getting an ACE inhibitor or ARB. The difference emerged within a week and was “similar and consistent” throughout at least 8 weeks of follow-up, Dr. Mentz said.

Sacubitril-valsartan is approved in the United States for chronic HF, broadly but with labeling suggesting clearer efficacy at lower LVEF levels, based on the PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF trials.

The PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF trials lending patients to the current analysis demonstrated superiority for the drug vs. an ACE inhibitor or ARB when started in hospital in stabilized patients with HF.
 

Cautions about starting sacubitril-valsartan

In the pooled analysis, patients on sacubitril-valsartan were more likely to experience symptomatic hypotension, with a relative risk for drug’s known potential side effect reaching 1.35 (95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.72), compared with ACE inhibitor or ARB recipients.

But the hypotension risk when starting the drug is manageable to some extent, observed Dr. Mentz. “We can safely start sacubitril-valsartan in the hospital or early post discharge, but we need to make sure their volume status is okay” and keep track of their blood pressure trajectory, he told this news organization.

Those with initially low BP, unsurprisingly, seem more susceptible to the problem, Dr. Mentz said. In such patients “on antihypertensives or other therapies that aren’t going to give them a clinical outcome benefit,” those meds can be withdrawn or their dosages reduced before sacubitril-valsartan is added.

Such cautions are an “important take-home message” of the analysis, observed invited discussant Carolyn S. P. Lam, MBBS, PhD, National Heart Centre, Singapore, after the Dr. Mentz presentation.

Sacubitril-valsartan should be started only in stabilized patients, she emphasized. It should be delayed in those “with ongoing adjustments of antihypertensives, diuretics, and so on,” in whom premature initiation of the drug may promote symptomatic hypotension. Should that happen, Dr. Lam cautioned, there’s a risk that such patients would be “mislabeled as intolerant” of the ARNI and so wouldn’t be started on it later.

The pooled PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF analysis, Dr. Lam proposed, might also help overcome the “clinical inertia and fear” that is slowing the uptake of early guideline-directed drug therapy initiation in patients hospitalized with HF.
 

LVEF spectrum across two studies

As Dr. Mentz reported, the analysis included 881 and 466 patients from PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF, respectively. Of the total, 673 were assigned to receive valsartan and 674 to receive either enalapril or valsartan. Overall, 36% of the population were women.

Patients in PIONEER-HF, with an LVEF 40% or lower, were started on their assigned drug during an acute-HF hospitalization and followed a median of 8 weeks. PARAGLIDE-HF patients, with LVEF higher than 40%, started therapy either in hospital (in 70% of cases) or within 30 days of their HF event; they were followed a median of 6 months.

Hazard ratios for outcomes in the sacubitril-valsartan group vs. those on ACE inhibitors or ARBs were 0.76; 95% CI, 0.69-0.83; P < .0001 for change in NT-proBNP levels. For the composite of CV death or HF hospitalization, HRs were as follows:

• 0.70 (95% CI, 0.54-0.91; P = .0077) overall.
• 0.59 (95% CI, 0.44-0.79) for LVEF < 60%.
• 1.53 (95% CI, 0.80-2.91) for LVEF > 60%.

Current guidelines, Dr. Mentz noted, recommend that sacubitril-valsartan “be initiated de novo” predischarge in patients without contraindications who are hospitalized with acute HF with reduced LVEF. The combined analysis of PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF, he said, potentially extends the recommendation “across the ejection fraction spectrum.”

Dr. Mentz has received research support and honoraria from Abbott, American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Cytokinetics, Fast BioMedical, Gilead, Innolife, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Medable, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Pharmacosmos, Relypsa, Respicardia, Roche, Sanofi, Vifor, Windtree Therapeutics, and Zoll. Dr. Lam has reported financial relationships “with more than 25 pharmaceutical or device manufacturers, many of which produce therapies for heart failure,” as well as with Medscape/WebMD Global LLC.

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