User login
FDA approves first drug to treat Alzheimer’s agitation
(AD), making it the first FDA-approved drug for this indication.
“Agitation is one of the most common and challenging aspects of care among patients with dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease,” Tiffany Farchione, MD, director of the division of psychiatry in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a news release.
Agitation can include symptoms that range from pacing or restlessness to verbal and physical aggression. “These symptoms are leading causes of assisted living or nursing home placement and have been associated with accelerated disease progression,” Dr. Farchione said.
Brexpiprazole was approved by the FDA in 2015 as an adjunctive therapy to antidepressants for adults with major depressive disorder and for adults with schizophrenia.
Approval of the supplemental application for brexpiprazole for agitation associated with AD dementia was based on results of two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies.
In both studies, patients who received 2 mg or 3 mg of brexpiprazole showed statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in agitation symptoms, as shown by total Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) score, compared with patients who received placebo.
The recommended starting dosage for the treatment of agitation associated with AD dementia is 0.5 mg once daily on days 1-7; it was increased to 1 mg once daily on days 8-14 and then to the recommended target dose of 2 mg once daily.
The dosage can be increased to the maximum recommended daily dosage of 3 mg once daily after at least 14 days, depending on clinical response and tolerability.
The most common side effects of brexpiprazole in patients with agitation associated with AD dementia include headache, dizziness, urinary tract infection, nasopharyngitis, and sleep disturbances.
The drug includes a boxed warning for medications in this class that elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis treated with antipsychotic drugs are at an increased risk of death.
The supplemental application for brexpiprazole for agitation had fast-track designation.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
(AD), making it the first FDA-approved drug for this indication.
“Agitation is one of the most common and challenging aspects of care among patients with dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease,” Tiffany Farchione, MD, director of the division of psychiatry in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a news release.
Agitation can include symptoms that range from pacing or restlessness to verbal and physical aggression. “These symptoms are leading causes of assisted living or nursing home placement and have been associated with accelerated disease progression,” Dr. Farchione said.
Brexpiprazole was approved by the FDA in 2015 as an adjunctive therapy to antidepressants for adults with major depressive disorder and for adults with schizophrenia.
Approval of the supplemental application for brexpiprazole for agitation associated with AD dementia was based on results of two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies.
In both studies, patients who received 2 mg or 3 mg of brexpiprazole showed statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in agitation symptoms, as shown by total Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) score, compared with patients who received placebo.
The recommended starting dosage for the treatment of agitation associated with AD dementia is 0.5 mg once daily on days 1-7; it was increased to 1 mg once daily on days 8-14 and then to the recommended target dose of 2 mg once daily.
The dosage can be increased to the maximum recommended daily dosage of 3 mg once daily after at least 14 days, depending on clinical response and tolerability.
The most common side effects of brexpiprazole in patients with agitation associated with AD dementia include headache, dizziness, urinary tract infection, nasopharyngitis, and sleep disturbances.
The drug includes a boxed warning for medications in this class that elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis treated with antipsychotic drugs are at an increased risk of death.
The supplemental application for brexpiprazole for agitation had fast-track designation.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
(AD), making it the first FDA-approved drug for this indication.
“Agitation is one of the most common and challenging aspects of care among patients with dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease,” Tiffany Farchione, MD, director of the division of psychiatry in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a news release.
Agitation can include symptoms that range from pacing or restlessness to verbal and physical aggression. “These symptoms are leading causes of assisted living or nursing home placement and have been associated with accelerated disease progression,” Dr. Farchione said.
Brexpiprazole was approved by the FDA in 2015 as an adjunctive therapy to antidepressants for adults with major depressive disorder and for adults with schizophrenia.
Approval of the supplemental application for brexpiprazole for agitation associated with AD dementia was based on results of two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies.
In both studies, patients who received 2 mg or 3 mg of brexpiprazole showed statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in agitation symptoms, as shown by total Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) score, compared with patients who received placebo.
The recommended starting dosage for the treatment of agitation associated with AD dementia is 0.5 mg once daily on days 1-7; it was increased to 1 mg once daily on days 8-14 and then to the recommended target dose of 2 mg once daily.
The dosage can be increased to the maximum recommended daily dosage of 3 mg once daily after at least 14 days, depending on clinical response and tolerability.
The most common side effects of brexpiprazole in patients with agitation associated with AD dementia include headache, dizziness, urinary tract infection, nasopharyngitis, and sleep disturbances.
The drug includes a boxed warning for medications in this class that elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis treated with antipsychotic drugs are at an increased risk of death.
The supplemental application for brexpiprazole for agitation had fast-track designation.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Two phase 3 trials show benefits of dupilumab for prurigo nodularis
The results, which were published online in Nature Medicine, were the basis for the FDA approval of dupilumab (Dupixent) for adults with PN in September 2022, the first treatment approved for treating PN in the United States.
“These positive studies support the involvement of type 2 cytokines in driving PN disease pathogenesis and the targeting of the [interleukin]-4/IL-13 axis as a novel therapeutic paradigm for patients with PN,” wrote the researchers, who were led by principal investigator Gil Yosipovitch, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Miami, Fla. Dupilumab, an IL-4 receptor alpha antagonist, blocks the shared receptor component (IL-4R alpha) for IL-4 and IL-13.
For the two phase 3 trials, which were called LIBERTY-PN PRIME and PRIME2 and were sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, researchers randomized adults with PN with 20 or more nodules and severe itch uncontrolled with topical therapies 1:1 to 300 mg dupilumab or placebo subcutaneously every 2 weeks for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was pruritus improvement, which was measured by the proportion of patients with a 4-point or greater reduction in Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale (WI-NRS) from baseline at week 24 (PRIME) or week 12 (PRIME2). Key secondary endpoints included a reduction in the number of nodules to 5 or fewer at week 24.
PRIME and PRIME2 enrolled 151 and 160 patients, respectively. In PRIME, 60% of patients in the dupilumab arm achieved a 4-point or greater reduction in the WI-NRS at week 24, compared with 18.4% of patients in the placebo arm (P < .001). In PRIME2, 37.2% of patients in the dupilumab arm achieved a 4-point or greater reduction in the WI-NRS at week 12, compared with 22% of patients in the placebo arm (P = .022).
The researchers also reported that, from an initial baseline of 20 to greater than 100 nodules, 32.0% of dupilumab-treated patients in PRIME and 25.6% in PRIME2 showed a reduction to 5 nodules or fewer, which corresponded to a response of “clear” or “almost clear” skin at week 12, compared with 11.8% and 12.2% of placebo-treated patients, respectively. This treatment effect on skin lesions continued to improve after week 12, with 48% of dupilumab-treated patients in PRIME and 44.9% in PRIME2 having five nodules or fewer at week 24, compared with 18.4% and 15.9% of placebo-treated patients, respectively. Safety was consistent with the known dupilumab safety profile.
“Validation is the first success of this paper,” said Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study. “While both the safety and efficacy of dupilumab in these two phase 3 programs is the meat of the matter, nuanced highlights for me include the rigid nature of the exclusion criteria to ensure a study population that truly has PN as a stand-alone disease, rather than a secondary finding as we once believed to be the entire story. I think it’s important for us to recognize that it’s not one or the other, rather there is both ‘primary’ prurigo nodularis, and then there is secondary prurigo nodularis associated with something else [a wide range of underlying medical conditions], just like we divide primary and secondary hyperhidrosis.”
Dr. Yosipovitch reported having competing interests with several pharmaceutical companies, including Regeneron and Sanofi. Dr. Friedman disclosed that he is a consultant to and a speaker for Regeneron.
The results, which were published online in Nature Medicine, were the basis for the FDA approval of dupilumab (Dupixent) for adults with PN in September 2022, the first treatment approved for treating PN in the United States.
“These positive studies support the involvement of type 2 cytokines in driving PN disease pathogenesis and the targeting of the [interleukin]-4/IL-13 axis as a novel therapeutic paradigm for patients with PN,” wrote the researchers, who were led by principal investigator Gil Yosipovitch, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Miami, Fla. Dupilumab, an IL-4 receptor alpha antagonist, blocks the shared receptor component (IL-4R alpha) for IL-4 and IL-13.
For the two phase 3 trials, which were called LIBERTY-PN PRIME and PRIME2 and were sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, researchers randomized adults with PN with 20 or more nodules and severe itch uncontrolled with topical therapies 1:1 to 300 mg dupilumab or placebo subcutaneously every 2 weeks for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was pruritus improvement, which was measured by the proportion of patients with a 4-point or greater reduction in Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale (WI-NRS) from baseline at week 24 (PRIME) or week 12 (PRIME2). Key secondary endpoints included a reduction in the number of nodules to 5 or fewer at week 24.
PRIME and PRIME2 enrolled 151 and 160 patients, respectively. In PRIME, 60% of patients in the dupilumab arm achieved a 4-point or greater reduction in the WI-NRS at week 24, compared with 18.4% of patients in the placebo arm (P < .001). In PRIME2, 37.2% of patients in the dupilumab arm achieved a 4-point or greater reduction in the WI-NRS at week 12, compared with 22% of patients in the placebo arm (P = .022).
The researchers also reported that, from an initial baseline of 20 to greater than 100 nodules, 32.0% of dupilumab-treated patients in PRIME and 25.6% in PRIME2 showed a reduction to 5 nodules or fewer, which corresponded to a response of “clear” or “almost clear” skin at week 12, compared with 11.8% and 12.2% of placebo-treated patients, respectively. This treatment effect on skin lesions continued to improve after week 12, with 48% of dupilumab-treated patients in PRIME and 44.9% in PRIME2 having five nodules or fewer at week 24, compared with 18.4% and 15.9% of placebo-treated patients, respectively. Safety was consistent with the known dupilumab safety profile.
“Validation is the first success of this paper,” said Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study. “While both the safety and efficacy of dupilumab in these two phase 3 programs is the meat of the matter, nuanced highlights for me include the rigid nature of the exclusion criteria to ensure a study population that truly has PN as a stand-alone disease, rather than a secondary finding as we once believed to be the entire story. I think it’s important for us to recognize that it’s not one or the other, rather there is both ‘primary’ prurigo nodularis, and then there is secondary prurigo nodularis associated with something else [a wide range of underlying medical conditions], just like we divide primary and secondary hyperhidrosis.”
Dr. Yosipovitch reported having competing interests with several pharmaceutical companies, including Regeneron and Sanofi. Dr. Friedman disclosed that he is a consultant to and a speaker for Regeneron.
The results, which were published online in Nature Medicine, were the basis for the FDA approval of dupilumab (Dupixent) for adults with PN in September 2022, the first treatment approved for treating PN in the United States.
“These positive studies support the involvement of type 2 cytokines in driving PN disease pathogenesis and the targeting of the [interleukin]-4/IL-13 axis as a novel therapeutic paradigm for patients with PN,” wrote the researchers, who were led by principal investigator Gil Yosipovitch, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Miami, Fla. Dupilumab, an IL-4 receptor alpha antagonist, blocks the shared receptor component (IL-4R alpha) for IL-4 and IL-13.
For the two phase 3 trials, which were called LIBERTY-PN PRIME and PRIME2 and were sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, researchers randomized adults with PN with 20 or more nodules and severe itch uncontrolled with topical therapies 1:1 to 300 mg dupilumab or placebo subcutaneously every 2 weeks for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was pruritus improvement, which was measured by the proportion of patients with a 4-point or greater reduction in Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale (WI-NRS) from baseline at week 24 (PRIME) or week 12 (PRIME2). Key secondary endpoints included a reduction in the number of nodules to 5 or fewer at week 24.
PRIME and PRIME2 enrolled 151 and 160 patients, respectively. In PRIME, 60% of patients in the dupilumab arm achieved a 4-point or greater reduction in the WI-NRS at week 24, compared with 18.4% of patients in the placebo arm (P < .001). In PRIME2, 37.2% of patients in the dupilumab arm achieved a 4-point or greater reduction in the WI-NRS at week 12, compared with 22% of patients in the placebo arm (P = .022).
The researchers also reported that, from an initial baseline of 20 to greater than 100 nodules, 32.0% of dupilumab-treated patients in PRIME and 25.6% in PRIME2 showed a reduction to 5 nodules or fewer, which corresponded to a response of “clear” or “almost clear” skin at week 12, compared with 11.8% and 12.2% of placebo-treated patients, respectively. This treatment effect on skin lesions continued to improve after week 12, with 48% of dupilumab-treated patients in PRIME and 44.9% in PRIME2 having five nodules or fewer at week 24, compared with 18.4% and 15.9% of placebo-treated patients, respectively. Safety was consistent with the known dupilumab safety profile.
“Validation is the first success of this paper,” said Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study. “While both the safety and efficacy of dupilumab in these two phase 3 programs is the meat of the matter, nuanced highlights for me include the rigid nature of the exclusion criteria to ensure a study population that truly has PN as a stand-alone disease, rather than a secondary finding as we once believed to be the entire story. I think it’s important for us to recognize that it’s not one or the other, rather there is both ‘primary’ prurigo nodularis, and then there is secondary prurigo nodularis associated with something else [a wide range of underlying medical conditions], just like we divide primary and secondary hyperhidrosis.”
Dr. Yosipovitch reported having competing interests with several pharmaceutical companies, including Regeneron and Sanofi. Dr. Friedman disclosed that he is a consultant to and a speaker for Regeneron.
FROM NATURE MEDICINE
FDA expands use of dapagliflozin to broader range of HF
– including HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).
The sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor was previously approved in the United States for adults with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).
The expanded indication is based on data from the phase 3 DELIVER trial, which showed clear clinical benefits of the SGLT2 inhibitor for patients with HF regardless of left ventricular function.
In the trial, which included more than 6,200 patients, dapagliflozin led to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful early reduction in the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular (CV) death or worsening HF for patients with HFmrEF or HFpEFF.
In addition, results of a pooled analysis of the DAPA-HF and DELIVER phase 3 trials showed a consistent benefit from dapagliflozin treatment in significantly reducing the combined endpoint of CV death or HF hospitalization across the range of LVEF.
The European Commission expanded the indication for dapagliflozin (Forxiga) to include HF across the full spectrum of LVEF in February.
The SGLT2 inhibitor is also approved for use by patients with chronic kidney disease. It was first approved in 2014 to improve glycemic control for patients with diabetes mellitus.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
– including HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).
The sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor was previously approved in the United States for adults with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).
The expanded indication is based on data from the phase 3 DELIVER trial, which showed clear clinical benefits of the SGLT2 inhibitor for patients with HF regardless of left ventricular function.
In the trial, which included more than 6,200 patients, dapagliflozin led to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful early reduction in the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular (CV) death or worsening HF for patients with HFmrEF or HFpEFF.
In addition, results of a pooled analysis of the DAPA-HF and DELIVER phase 3 trials showed a consistent benefit from dapagliflozin treatment in significantly reducing the combined endpoint of CV death or HF hospitalization across the range of LVEF.
The European Commission expanded the indication for dapagliflozin (Forxiga) to include HF across the full spectrum of LVEF in February.
The SGLT2 inhibitor is also approved for use by patients with chronic kidney disease. It was first approved in 2014 to improve glycemic control for patients with diabetes mellitus.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
– including HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).
The sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor was previously approved in the United States for adults with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).
The expanded indication is based on data from the phase 3 DELIVER trial, which showed clear clinical benefits of the SGLT2 inhibitor for patients with HF regardless of left ventricular function.
In the trial, which included more than 6,200 patients, dapagliflozin led to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful early reduction in the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular (CV) death or worsening HF for patients with HFmrEF or HFpEFF.
In addition, results of a pooled analysis of the DAPA-HF and DELIVER phase 3 trials showed a consistent benefit from dapagliflozin treatment in significantly reducing the combined endpoint of CV death or HF hospitalization across the range of LVEF.
The European Commission expanded the indication for dapagliflozin (Forxiga) to include HF across the full spectrum of LVEF in February.
The SGLT2 inhibitor is also approved for use by patients with chronic kidney disease. It was first approved in 2014 to improve glycemic control for patients with diabetes mellitus.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Medications that scare me
An 85-year-old woman is brought to the emergency department after a syncopal episode. Her caregivers report a similar episode 2 weeks ago, but she recovered so quickly they did not seek evaluation for her.
Medications: Omeprazole 20 mg, pravastatin 40 mg, citalopram 10 mg, albuterol, donepezil 10 mg, isosorbide mononitrate 60 mg, and calcium. On exam, blood pressure is 100/60 mm Hg, pulse 55. ECG indicates bradycardia with normal intervals. What drug most likely caused her syncope?
A. Citalopram
B. Pravastatin
C. Donepezil
D. Isosorbide
E. Calcium
This woman’s syncope is likely caused by donepezil. Citalopram can lengthen the QT interval, especially in elderly patients, but the normal intervals on ECG eliminate this possibility. Donepezil can cause bradycardia, which can contribute to syncope.
Hernandez and colleagues evaluated a cohort of veterans with dementia over an 8-year period.1 They found that there was a 1.4-fold increased risk of bradycardia in patients with dementia treated with an acetylcholine inhibitor (compared with that in patients who were not taking these medications) and that there was a dose-dependent increase in risk for patients on donepezil.
Park-Wyllie et al. found in a study of 1.4 million older adults a greater than twofold risk of hospitalization for bradycardia in patients treated with a cholinesterase inhibitor.2 Gill and colleagues performed a population-based cohort study of 19,803 elderly patients with dementia who were prescribed cholinesterase inhibitors, and compared them to age-matched controls.3 They found increased hospital visits for syncope in people receiving cholinesterase inhibitors (hazard ratio, 1.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.57-1.98). Other syncope-related events were also more common in people receiving cholinesterase inhibitors, compared with controls: hospital visits for bradycardia (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.32-2.15), permanent pacemaker insertion (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.12-2.00), and hip fracture (HR, 1.18; (95% CI, 1.04-1.34).
Nausea, vomiting, and weight loss are much more common than the rarer side effects of bradycardia and syncope. The frequency of gastroenterological side effects is up to 25%. Cholinesterase inhibitors have modest effects on cognitive function with a high number needed to treat (NNT) of 10, and an NNT as high as 100 for global function. The number needed to harm (NNH) is 4, when gastrointestinal symptoms are added in.4 Another important, problematic side effect of cholinesterase inhibitors is urinary incontinence. This often leads to patients receiving medications, to combat this side effect, that may worsen cognitive function.
Another commonly used medication that scares me in certain circumstances is trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. My main concern is when it is used in patients who are elderly, have chronic kidney disease, or are taking other medications that can cause hyperkalemia (ACEIs, ARBs, potassium-sparing diuretics including spironolactone). Hyperkalemia is a real concern in these patient populations. Trimethoprim reduces renal potassium excretion through the competitive inhibition of sodium channels in the distal nephron, in a manner similar to the potassium-sparing diuretic amiloride. Hospitalizations for hyperkalemia are more common in patients who take ACEIs and ARBs and are prescribed trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, compared with other antibiotics.5
Sudden cardiac death is also more common in patients who are taking ACEIs or ARBs and receive trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole.6 Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole also has a powerful interaction with warfarin, both displacing warfarin from albumin and inhibiting its metabolism. It raises the INR (international normalized ratio) in warfarin-treated patients much greater than do other antibiotics.7
Pearls
- Think carefully about the use of cholinesterase inhibitors because of the unfavorable NNH vs. NNT.
- Use caution prescribing trimethoprim for patients who are elderly, especially if they are on an ACEI, an ARB, or spironolactone, and in patients with chronic kidney disease.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].
References
1. Hernandez RK et al. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009;57:1997-2003.
2. Park-Wyllie LY et al. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000157.
3. Gill SS et al. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:867-73.
4. Peters KR. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2013 Jul;61(7):1170-4.
5. Antoniou TN et al. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(12):1045-9.
6. Fralick M et al. BMJ. 2014 Oct 30;349:g6196.
7. Glasheen JJ et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2005 Jul;20(7):653-6.
An 85-year-old woman is brought to the emergency department after a syncopal episode. Her caregivers report a similar episode 2 weeks ago, but she recovered so quickly they did not seek evaluation for her.
Medications: Omeprazole 20 mg, pravastatin 40 mg, citalopram 10 mg, albuterol, donepezil 10 mg, isosorbide mononitrate 60 mg, and calcium. On exam, blood pressure is 100/60 mm Hg, pulse 55. ECG indicates bradycardia with normal intervals. What drug most likely caused her syncope?
A. Citalopram
B. Pravastatin
C. Donepezil
D. Isosorbide
E. Calcium
This woman’s syncope is likely caused by donepezil. Citalopram can lengthen the QT interval, especially in elderly patients, but the normal intervals on ECG eliminate this possibility. Donepezil can cause bradycardia, which can contribute to syncope.
Hernandez and colleagues evaluated a cohort of veterans with dementia over an 8-year period.1 They found that there was a 1.4-fold increased risk of bradycardia in patients with dementia treated with an acetylcholine inhibitor (compared with that in patients who were not taking these medications) and that there was a dose-dependent increase in risk for patients on donepezil.
Park-Wyllie et al. found in a study of 1.4 million older adults a greater than twofold risk of hospitalization for bradycardia in patients treated with a cholinesterase inhibitor.2 Gill and colleagues performed a population-based cohort study of 19,803 elderly patients with dementia who were prescribed cholinesterase inhibitors, and compared them to age-matched controls.3 They found increased hospital visits for syncope in people receiving cholinesterase inhibitors (hazard ratio, 1.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.57-1.98). Other syncope-related events were also more common in people receiving cholinesterase inhibitors, compared with controls: hospital visits for bradycardia (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.32-2.15), permanent pacemaker insertion (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.12-2.00), and hip fracture (HR, 1.18; (95% CI, 1.04-1.34).
Nausea, vomiting, and weight loss are much more common than the rarer side effects of bradycardia and syncope. The frequency of gastroenterological side effects is up to 25%. Cholinesterase inhibitors have modest effects on cognitive function with a high number needed to treat (NNT) of 10, and an NNT as high as 100 for global function. The number needed to harm (NNH) is 4, when gastrointestinal symptoms are added in.4 Another important, problematic side effect of cholinesterase inhibitors is urinary incontinence. This often leads to patients receiving medications, to combat this side effect, that may worsen cognitive function.
Another commonly used medication that scares me in certain circumstances is trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. My main concern is when it is used in patients who are elderly, have chronic kidney disease, or are taking other medications that can cause hyperkalemia (ACEIs, ARBs, potassium-sparing diuretics including spironolactone). Hyperkalemia is a real concern in these patient populations. Trimethoprim reduces renal potassium excretion through the competitive inhibition of sodium channels in the distal nephron, in a manner similar to the potassium-sparing diuretic amiloride. Hospitalizations for hyperkalemia are more common in patients who take ACEIs and ARBs and are prescribed trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, compared with other antibiotics.5
Sudden cardiac death is also more common in patients who are taking ACEIs or ARBs and receive trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole.6 Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole also has a powerful interaction with warfarin, both displacing warfarin from albumin and inhibiting its metabolism. It raises the INR (international normalized ratio) in warfarin-treated patients much greater than do other antibiotics.7
Pearls
- Think carefully about the use of cholinesterase inhibitors because of the unfavorable NNH vs. NNT.
- Use caution prescribing trimethoprim for patients who are elderly, especially if they are on an ACEI, an ARB, or spironolactone, and in patients with chronic kidney disease.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].
References
1. Hernandez RK et al. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009;57:1997-2003.
2. Park-Wyllie LY et al. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000157.
3. Gill SS et al. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:867-73.
4. Peters KR. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2013 Jul;61(7):1170-4.
5. Antoniou TN et al. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(12):1045-9.
6. Fralick M et al. BMJ. 2014 Oct 30;349:g6196.
7. Glasheen JJ et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2005 Jul;20(7):653-6.
An 85-year-old woman is brought to the emergency department after a syncopal episode. Her caregivers report a similar episode 2 weeks ago, but she recovered so quickly they did not seek evaluation for her.
Medications: Omeprazole 20 mg, pravastatin 40 mg, citalopram 10 mg, albuterol, donepezil 10 mg, isosorbide mononitrate 60 mg, and calcium. On exam, blood pressure is 100/60 mm Hg, pulse 55. ECG indicates bradycardia with normal intervals. What drug most likely caused her syncope?
A. Citalopram
B. Pravastatin
C. Donepezil
D. Isosorbide
E. Calcium
This woman’s syncope is likely caused by donepezil. Citalopram can lengthen the QT interval, especially in elderly patients, but the normal intervals on ECG eliminate this possibility. Donepezil can cause bradycardia, which can contribute to syncope.
Hernandez and colleagues evaluated a cohort of veterans with dementia over an 8-year period.1 They found that there was a 1.4-fold increased risk of bradycardia in patients with dementia treated with an acetylcholine inhibitor (compared with that in patients who were not taking these medications) and that there was a dose-dependent increase in risk for patients on donepezil.
Park-Wyllie et al. found in a study of 1.4 million older adults a greater than twofold risk of hospitalization for bradycardia in patients treated with a cholinesterase inhibitor.2 Gill and colleagues performed a population-based cohort study of 19,803 elderly patients with dementia who were prescribed cholinesterase inhibitors, and compared them to age-matched controls.3 They found increased hospital visits for syncope in people receiving cholinesterase inhibitors (hazard ratio, 1.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.57-1.98). Other syncope-related events were also more common in people receiving cholinesterase inhibitors, compared with controls: hospital visits for bradycardia (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.32-2.15), permanent pacemaker insertion (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.12-2.00), and hip fracture (HR, 1.18; (95% CI, 1.04-1.34).
Nausea, vomiting, and weight loss are much more common than the rarer side effects of bradycardia and syncope. The frequency of gastroenterological side effects is up to 25%. Cholinesterase inhibitors have modest effects on cognitive function with a high number needed to treat (NNT) of 10, and an NNT as high as 100 for global function. The number needed to harm (NNH) is 4, when gastrointestinal symptoms are added in.4 Another important, problematic side effect of cholinesterase inhibitors is urinary incontinence. This often leads to patients receiving medications, to combat this side effect, that may worsen cognitive function.
Another commonly used medication that scares me in certain circumstances is trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. My main concern is when it is used in patients who are elderly, have chronic kidney disease, or are taking other medications that can cause hyperkalemia (ACEIs, ARBs, potassium-sparing diuretics including spironolactone). Hyperkalemia is a real concern in these patient populations. Trimethoprim reduces renal potassium excretion through the competitive inhibition of sodium channels in the distal nephron, in a manner similar to the potassium-sparing diuretic amiloride. Hospitalizations for hyperkalemia are more common in patients who take ACEIs and ARBs and are prescribed trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, compared with other antibiotics.5
Sudden cardiac death is also more common in patients who are taking ACEIs or ARBs and receive trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole.6 Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole also has a powerful interaction with warfarin, both displacing warfarin from albumin and inhibiting its metabolism. It raises the INR (international normalized ratio) in warfarin-treated patients much greater than do other antibiotics.7
Pearls
- Think carefully about the use of cholinesterase inhibitors because of the unfavorable NNH vs. NNT.
- Use caution prescribing trimethoprim for patients who are elderly, especially if they are on an ACEI, an ARB, or spironolactone, and in patients with chronic kidney disease.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].
References
1. Hernandez RK et al. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009;57:1997-2003.
2. Park-Wyllie LY et al. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000157.
3. Gill SS et al. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:867-73.
4. Peters KR. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2013 Jul;61(7):1170-4.
5. Antoniou TN et al. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(12):1045-9.
6. Fralick M et al. BMJ. 2014 Oct 30;349:g6196.
7. Glasheen JJ et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2005 Jul;20(7):653-6.
Phase 3 trial: Maribavir yields post-transplant benefits
Overall mortality in the 109 patients from these subcohorts from SOLSTICE was lower, compared with mortality reported for similar populations treated with conventional therapies used to treat relapsed or refractory (R/R) CMV, according to findings presented in April at the annual meeting of the European Society for Bone and Marrow Transplantation.
“These results, in addition to the superior efficacy in CMV clearance observed for maribavir in SOLSTICE provide supportive evidence of the potential for the long-term benefit of maribavir treatment for post-transplant CMV infection,” Ishan Hirji, of Takeda Development Center Americas, and colleagues reported during a poster session at the meeting.
A retrospective chart review of the 41 hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) patients and 68 solid organ transplant (SOT) patients randomized to receive maribavir showed an overall mortality rate of 15.6% at 52 weeks after initiation of treatment with the antiviral agent. Among the HSCT patients, 14 deaths occurred (34.1%), with 8 occurring during the study periods and 6 occurring during follow-up. Among the SOT patients, three deaths occurred (4.4%), all during follow-up chart review.
Causes of death included underlying disease relapse in four patients, infection other than CMV in six patients, and one case each of CMV-related factors, transplant-related factors, acute lymphoblastic leukemia, and septic shock. Causes of death in the SOT patients included one case each of CMV-related factors, anemia, and renal failure.
“No patients had new graft loss or retransplantation during the chart review period,” the investigators noted.
The findings are notable as CMV infection occurs in 30%-70% of HSCT recipients and 16%-56% of SOT recipients and can lead to complications, including transplant failure and death. Reported 1-year mortality rates following standard therapies for CMV range from 31% to 50%, they explained.
Patients in the SOLSTICE trial received 8 weeks of treatment and were followed for 12 additional weeks. CMV clearance at the end of treatment was 55.7% in the maribavir treatment arm versus 23.9% in a control group of patients treated with investigator choice of therapy. As reported by this news organization, the findings formed the basis for U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of maribavir in November 2021.
The current analysis included a chart review period that started 1 day after the SOLSTICE trial period and continued for 32 additional weeks.
These long-term follow-up data confirm the benefits of maribavir for the treatment of post-transplant CMV, according to the investigators, and findings from a separate study reported at the ESBMT meeting underscore the importance of the durable benefits observed with maribavir treatment.
For that retrospective study, Maria Laura Fox, of Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, and colleagues pooled de-identified data from 250 adult HSCT recipients with R/R CMV who were treated with agents other than maribavir at transplant centers in the United States or Europe. They aimed to “generate real-world evidence on the burden of CMV infection/disease in HSCT recipients who had refractory/resistant CMV or were intolerant to current treatments.”
Nearly 92% of patients received two or more therapies to treat CMV, and 92.2% discontinued treatment or had one or more therapy dose changes or discontinuation, and 42 patients failed to achieve clearance of the CMV index episode.
CMV recurred in 35.2% of patients, and graft failure occurred in 4% of patients, the investigators reported.
All-cause mortality was 56.0%, and mortality at 1 year after identification of R/R disease or treatment intolerance was 45.2%, they noted, adding that the study results “highlight the real-world complexities and high burden of CMV infection for HSCT recipients.”
“With available anti-CMV agents [excluding maribavir], a notable proportion of patients failed to achieve viremia clearance once developing RRI [resistant, refractory, or intolerant] CMV and/or experienced recurrence, and were at risk of adverse outcomes, including myelosuppression and mortality. There is a need for therapies that achieve and maintain CMV clearance with improved safety profiles,” they concluded.
Both studies were funded by Takeda Development Center Americas, the maker of Levtencity. Ms. Hirji is an employee of Takeda and reported stock ownership. Ms. Fox reported relationships with Sierra Oncology, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and AbbVie.
Overall mortality in the 109 patients from these subcohorts from SOLSTICE was lower, compared with mortality reported for similar populations treated with conventional therapies used to treat relapsed or refractory (R/R) CMV, according to findings presented in April at the annual meeting of the European Society for Bone and Marrow Transplantation.
“These results, in addition to the superior efficacy in CMV clearance observed for maribavir in SOLSTICE provide supportive evidence of the potential for the long-term benefit of maribavir treatment for post-transplant CMV infection,” Ishan Hirji, of Takeda Development Center Americas, and colleagues reported during a poster session at the meeting.
A retrospective chart review of the 41 hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) patients and 68 solid organ transplant (SOT) patients randomized to receive maribavir showed an overall mortality rate of 15.6% at 52 weeks after initiation of treatment with the antiviral agent. Among the HSCT patients, 14 deaths occurred (34.1%), with 8 occurring during the study periods and 6 occurring during follow-up. Among the SOT patients, three deaths occurred (4.4%), all during follow-up chart review.
Causes of death included underlying disease relapse in four patients, infection other than CMV in six patients, and one case each of CMV-related factors, transplant-related factors, acute lymphoblastic leukemia, and septic shock. Causes of death in the SOT patients included one case each of CMV-related factors, anemia, and renal failure.
“No patients had new graft loss or retransplantation during the chart review period,” the investigators noted.
The findings are notable as CMV infection occurs in 30%-70% of HSCT recipients and 16%-56% of SOT recipients and can lead to complications, including transplant failure and death. Reported 1-year mortality rates following standard therapies for CMV range from 31% to 50%, they explained.
Patients in the SOLSTICE trial received 8 weeks of treatment and were followed for 12 additional weeks. CMV clearance at the end of treatment was 55.7% in the maribavir treatment arm versus 23.9% in a control group of patients treated with investigator choice of therapy. As reported by this news organization, the findings formed the basis for U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of maribavir in November 2021.
The current analysis included a chart review period that started 1 day after the SOLSTICE trial period and continued for 32 additional weeks.
These long-term follow-up data confirm the benefits of maribavir for the treatment of post-transplant CMV, according to the investigators, and findings from a separate study reported at the ESBMT meeting underscore the importance of the durable benefits observed with maribavir treatment.
For that retrospective study, Maria Laura Fox, of Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, and colleagues pooled de-identified data from 250 adult HSCT recipients with R/R CMV who were treated with agents other than maribavir at transplant centers in the United States or Europe. They aimed to “generate real-world evidence on the burden of CMV infection/disease in HSCT recipients who had refractory/resistant CMV or were intolerant to current treatments.”
Nearly 92% of patients received two or more therapies to treat CMV, and 92.2% discontinued treatment or had one or more therapy dose changes or discontinuation, and 42 patients failed to achieve clearance of the CMV index episode.
CMV recurred in 35.2% of patients, and graft failure occurred in 4% of patients, the investigators reported.
All-cause mortality was 56.0%, and mortality at 1 year after identification of R/R disease or treatment intolerance was 45.2%, they noted, adding that the study results “highlight the real-world complexities and high burden of CMV infection for HSCT recipients.”
“With available anti-CMV agents [excluding maribavir], a notable proportion of patients failed to achieve viremia clearance once developing RRI [resistant, refractory, or intolerant] CMV and/or experienced recurrence, and were at risk of adverse outcomes, including myelosuppression and mortality. There is a need for therapies that achieve and maintain CMV clearance with improved safety profiles,” they concluded.
Both studies were funded by Takeda Development Center Americas, the maker of Levtencity. Ms. Hirji is an employee of Takeda and reported stock ownership. Ms. Fox reported relationships with Sierra Oncology, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and AbbVie.
Overall mortality in the 109 patients from these subcohorts from SOLSTICE was lower, compared with mortality reported for similar populations treated with conventional therapies used to treat relapsed or refractory (R/R) CMV, according to findings presented in April at the annual meeting of the European Society for Bone and Marrow Transplantation.
“These results, in addition to the superior efficacy in CMV clearance observed for maribavir in SOLSTICE provide supportive evidence of the potential for the long-term benefit of maribavir treatment for post-transplant CMV infection,” Ishan Hirji, of Takeda Development Center Americas, and colleagues reported during a poster session at the meeting.
A retrospective chart review of the 41 hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) patients and 68 solid organ transplant (SOT) patients randomized to receive maribavir showed an overall mortality rate of 15.6% at 52 weeks after initiation of treatment with the antiviral agent. Among the HSCT patients, 14 deaths occurred (34.1%), with 8 occurring during the study periods and 6 occurring during follow-up. Among the SOT patients, three deaths occurred (4.4%), all during follow-up chart review.
Causes of death included underlying disease relapse in four patients, infection other than CMV in six patients, and one case each of CMV-related factors, transplant-related factors, acute lymphoblastic leukemia, and septic shock. Causes of death in the SOT patients included one case each of CMV-related factors, anemia, and renal failure.
“No patients had new graft loss or retransplantation during the chart review period,” the investigators noted.
The findings are notable as CMV infection occurs in 30%-70% of HSCT recipients and 16%-56% of SOT recipients and can lead to complications, including transplant failure and death. Reported 1-year mortality rates following standard therapies for CMV range from 31% to 50%, they explained.
Patients in the SOLSTICE trial received 8 weeks of treatment and were followed for 12 additional weeks. CMV clearance at the end of treatment was 55.7% in the maribavir treatment arm versus 23.9% in a control group of patients treated with investigator choice of therapy. As reported by this news organization, the findings formed the basis for U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of maribavir in November 2021.
The current analysis included a chart review period that started 1 day after the SOLSTICE trial period and continued for 32 additional weeks.
These long-term follow-up data confirm the benefits of maribavir for the treatment of post-transplant CMV, according to the investigators, and findings from a separate study reported at the ESBMT meeting underscore the importance of the durable benefits observed with maribavir treatment.
For that retrospective study, Maria Laura Fox, of Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, and colleagues pooled de-identified data from 250 adult HSCT recipients with R/R CMV who were treated with agents other than maribavir at transplant centers in the United States or Europe. They aimed to “generate real-world evidence on the burden of CMV infection/disease in HSCT recipients who had refractory/resistant CMV or were intolerant to current treatments.”
Nearly 92% of patients received two or more therapies to treat CMV, and 92.2% discontinued treatment or had one or more therapy dose changes or discontinuation, and 42 patients failed to achieve clearance of the CMV index episode.
CMV recurred in 35.2% of patients, and graft failure occurred in 4% of patients, the investigators reported.
All-cause mortality was 56.0%, and mortality at 1 year after identification of R/R disease or treatment intolerance was 45.2%, they noted, adding that the study results “highlight the real-world complexities and high burden of CMV infection for HSCT recipients.”
“With available anti-CMV agents [excluding maribavir], a notable proportion of patients failed to achieve viremia clearance once developing RRI [resistant, refractory, or intolerant] CMV and/or experienced recurrence, and were at risk of adverse outcomes, including myelosuppression and mortality. There is a need for therapies that achieve and maintain CMV clearance with improved safety profiles,” they concluded.
Both studies were funded by Takeda Development Center Americas, the maker of Levtencity. Ms. Hirji is an employee of Takeda and reported stock ownership. Ms. Fox reported relationships with Sierra Oncology, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and AbbVie.
FROM ESBMT 2023
Teriflunomide delays MS symptoms in radiologically isolated syndrome
BOSTON – , according to a double-blind, phase 3 trial presented in the Emerging Science session of the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
“These data add to the evidence that early immunomodulation offers clinical benefit even in the presymptomatic phase of MS,” reported Christine Lebrun-Frenay, MD, PhD, head of inflammatory neurological disorders research unit, University of Nice, France. This is the second study to show a benefit from a disease-modifying therapy in asymptomatic RIS patients. The ARISE study, which was presented at the 2022 European Committee for Treatment and Research in MS and has now been published, compared 240 mg of twice-daily dimethyl fumarate with placebo. Dimethyl fumarate was associated with an 82% (hazard ratio, 0.18; P = .007) reduction in the risk of a first demyelinating event after 96 weeks of follow-up.
TERIS trial data
In the new study, called TERIS, the design and outcomes were similar to the ARISE study. Eighty-nine patients meeting standard criteria for RIS were randomized to 14 mg of once-daily teriflunomide or placebo. The majority (71%) were female, and the mean age was 39.8 years. At the time of RIS diagnosis, the mean age was 38 years. At study entry, standardized MRI studies were performed of the brain and spinal cord.
During 2 years of follow-up, 8 of 28 demyelinating events were observed in the active treatment group. The remaining 20 occurred in the placebo group. This translated to a 63% reduction (HR, 0.37; P = .018) in favor of teriflunomide. When graphed, the curves separated at about 6 months and then widened progressively over time.
Distinct from clinically isolated syndrome (CIS), which describes individuals who have a symptomatic episode consistent with a demyelinating event, RIS is based primarily on an MRI that shows lesions highly suggestive of MS. Neither confirms the MS diagnosis, but both are associated with a high likelihood of eventually meeting MS diagnostic criteria. The ARISE and TERIS studies now support therapy to delay demyelinating events.
“With more and more people having brain scans for various reasons, such as headache or head trauma, more of these cases are being discovered,” Dr. Lebrun-Frenay said.
Caution warranted when interpreting the findings
The data support the theory that treatment should begin early in patients with a high likelihood of developing symptomatic MS on the basis of brain lesions. It is logical to assume that preventing damage to the myelin will reduce or delay permanent symptoms and permanent neurologic impairment, but Dr. Lebrun-Frenay suggested that the available data from ARISE and TERIS are not practice changing even though both were multicenter double-blind trials.
“More data from larger groups of patients are needed to confirm the findings,” she said. She expressed concern about not adhering to strict criteria to diagnosis RIS.
“It is important that medical professionals are cautious,” she said, citing the risk of misdiagnosis of pathology of MRI that leads to treatment of patients with a low risk of developing symptomatic MS.
Teriflunomide and dimethyl fumarate, which have long been available as first-line therapies in relapsing-remitting MS, are generally well tolerated. In the TERIS and ARISE studies, mild or moderate events occurred more commonly in the active treatment than the placebo arms, but there were no serious adverse events. However, both can produce more serious adverse events, which, in the case of teriflunomide, include liver toxicity leading to injury and liver failure.
Challenging the traditional definition of MS
The author of the ARISE study, Darin T. Okuda, MD, a professor of neurology at the UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, indicated that his study, now reinforced by the TERIS study, challenges the definition of MS.
“Both ARISE and TERIS demonstrated a significant reduction in seminal clinical event rates related to inflammatory demyelination,” Dr. Okuda said in an interview. They provide evidence that patients are at high risk of the demyelinating events that characterize MS. Given the potential difficulty for accessing therapies of benefit, “how we define multiple sclerosis is highly important.”
“Individuals of younger age with abnormal spinal cord MRI studies along with other paraclinical features related to risk for a first event may be the most ideal group to treat,” he said. However, he agreed with Dr. Lebrun-Frenay that it is not yet clear which RIS patients are the most appropriate candidates.
“Gaining a more refined sense of who we should treat will require more work,” he said.
These data are likely to change the orientation toward RIS, according to Melina Hosseiny, MD, department of radiology, University of California, Los Angeles, Medical Center. She noted that the relationship between RIS and increased risk of MS has long been recognized, and the risk increases with specific features on imaging.
“Studies have shown that spinal cord lesions are associated with a greater than 50% chance of converting to MS,” said Dr. Hosseiny, who was the lead author of a review article on RIS. “Identifying such imaging findings can help identify patients who may benefit from disease-modifying medications.”
Dr. Lebrun-Frenay reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Okuda has financial relationships with Alexion, Biogen, Celgene, EMD Serono, Genzyme, TG Therapeutics, and VielaBio. Dr. Hosseiny reports no potential conflicts of interest.
BOSTON – , according to a double-blind, phase 3 trial presented in the Emerging Science session of the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
“These data add to the evidence that early immunomodulation offers clinical benefit even in the presymptomatic phase of MS,” reported Christine Lebrun-Frenay, MD, PhD, head of inflammatory neurological disorders research unit, University of Nice, France. This is the second study to show a benefit from a disease-modifying therapy in asymptomatic RIS patients. The ARISE study, which was presented at the 2022 European Committee for Treatment and Research in MS and has now been published, compared 240 mg of twice-daily dimethyl fumarate with placebo. Dimethyl fumarate was associated with an 82% (hazard ratio, 0.18; P = .007) reduction in the risk of a first demyelinating event after 96 weeks of follow-up.
TERIS trial data
In the new study, called TERIS, the design and outcomes were similar to the ARISE study. Eighty-nine patients meeting standard criteria for RIS were randomized to 14 mg of once-daily teriflunomide or placebo. The majority (71%) were female, and the mean age was 39.8 years. At the time of RIS diagnosis, the mean age was 38 years. At study entry, standardized MRI studies were performed of the brain and spinal cord.
During 2 years of follow-up, 8 of 28 demyelinating events were observed in the active treatment group. The remaining 20 occurred in the placebo group. This translated to a 63% reduction (HR, 0.37; P = .018) in favor of teriflunomide. When graphed, the curves separated at about 6 months and then widened progressively over time.
Distinct from clinically isolated syndrome (CIS), which describes individuals who have a symptomatic episode consistent with a demyelinating event, RIS is based primarily on an MRI that shows lesions highly suggestive of MS. Neither confirms the MS diagnosis, but both are associated with a high likelihood of eventually meeting MS diagnostic criteria. The ARISE and TERIS studies now support therapy to delay demyelinating events.
“With more and more people having brain scans for various reasons, such as headache or head trauma, more of these cases are being discovered,” Dr. Lebrun-Frenay said.
Caution warranted when interpreting the findings
The data support the theory that treatment should begin early in patients with a high likelihood of developing symptomatic MS on the basis of brain lesions. It is logical to assume that preventing damage to the myelin will reduce or delay permanent symptoms and permanent neurologic impairment, but Dr. Lebrun-Frenay suggested that the available data from ARISE and TERIS are not practice changing even though both were multicenter double-blind trials.
“More data from larger groups of patients are needed to confirm the findings,” she said. She expressed concern about not adhering to strict criteria to diagnosis RIS.
“It is important that medical professionals are cautious,” she said, citing the risk of misdiagnosis of pathology of MRI that leads to treatment of patients with a low risk of developing symptomatic MS.
Teriflunomide and dimethyl fumarate, which have long been available as first-line therapies in relapsing-remitting MS, are generally well tolerated. In the TERIS and ARISE studies, mild or moderate events occurred more commonly in the active treatment than the placebo arms, but there were no serious adverse events. However, both can produce more serious adverse events, which, in the case of teriflunomide, include liver toxicity leading to injury and liver failure.
Challenging the traditional definition of MS
The author of the ARISE study, Darin T. Okuda, MD, a professor of neurology at the UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, indicated that his study, now reinforced by the TERIS study, challenges the definition of MS.
“Both ARISE and TERIS demonstrated a significant reduction in seminal clinical event rates related to inflammatory demyelination,” Dr. Okuda said in an interview. They provide evidence that patients are at high risk of the demyelinating events that characterize MS. Given the potential difficulty for accessing therapies of benefit, “how we define multiple sclerosis is highly important.”
“Individuals of younger age with abnormal spinal cord MRI studies along with other paraclinical features related to risk for a first event may be the most ideal group to treat,” he said. However, he agreed with Dr. Lebrun-Frenay that it is not yet clear which RIS patients are the most appropriate candidates.
“Gaining a more refined sense of who we should treat will require more work,” he said.
These data are likely to change the orientation toward RIS, according to Melina Hosseiny, MD, department of radiology, University of California, Los Angeles, Medical Center. She noted that the relationship between RIS and increased risk of MS has long been recognized, and the risk increases with specific features on imaging.
“Studies have shown that spinal cord lesions are associated with a greater than 50% chance of converting to MS,” said Dr. Hosseiny, who was the lead author of a review article on RIS. “Identifying such imaging findings can help identify patients who may benefit from disease-modifying medications.”
Dr. Lebrun-Frenay reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Okuda has financial relationships with Alexion, Biogen, Celgene, EMD Serono, Genzyme, TG Therapeutics, and VielaBio. Dr. Hosseiny reports no potential conflicts of interest.
BOSTON – , according to a double-blind, phase 3 trial presented in the Emerging Science session of the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
“These data add to the evidence that early immunomodulation offers clinical benefit even in the presymptomatic phase of MS,” reported Christine Lebrun-Frenay, MD, PhD, head of inflammatory neurological disorders research unit, University of Nice, France. This is the second study to show a benefit from a disease-modifying therapy in asymptomatic RIS patients. The ARISE study, which was presented at the 2022 European Committee for Treatment and Research in MS and has now been published, compared 240 mg of twice-daily dimethyl fumarate with placebo. Dimethyl fumarate was associated with an 82% (hazard ratio, 0.18; P = .007) reduction in the risk of a first demyelinating event after 96 weeks of follow-up.
TERIS trial data
In the new study, called TERIS, the design and outcomes were similar to the ARISE study. Eighty-nine patients meeting standard criteria for RIS were randomized to 14 mg of once-daily teriflunomide or placebo. The majority (71%) were female, and the mean age was 39.8 years. At the time of RIS diagnosis, the mean age was 38 years. At study entry, standardized MRI studies were performed of the brain and spinal cord.
During 2 years of follow-up, 8 of 28 demyelinating events were observed in the active treatment group. The remaining 20 occurred in the placebo group. This translated to a 63% reduction (HR, 0.37; P = .018) in favor of teriflunomide. When graphed, the curves separated at about 6 months and then widened progressively over time.
Distinct from clinically isolated syndrome (CIS), which describes individuals who have a symptomatic episode consistent with a demyelinating event, RIS is based primarily on an MRI that shows lesions highly suggestive of MS. Neither confirms the MS diagnosis, but both are associated with a high likelihood of eventually meeting MS diagnostic criteria. The ARISE and TERIS studies now support therapy to delay demyelinating events.
“With more and more people having brain scans for various reasons, such as headache or head trauma, more of these cases are being discovered,” Dr. Lebrun-Frenay said.
Caution warranted when interpreting the findings
The data support the theory that treatment should begin early in patients with a high likelihood of developing symptomatic MS on the basis of brain lesions. It is logical to assume that preventing damage to the myelin will reduce or delay permanent symptoms and permanent neurologic impairment, but Dr. Lebrun-Frenay suggested that the available data from ARISE and TERIS are not practice changing even though both were multicenter double-blind trials.
“More data from larger groups of patients are needed to confirm the findings,” she said. She expressed concern about not adhering to strict criteria to diagnosis RIS.
“It is important that medical professionals are cautious,” she said, citing the risk of misdiagnosis of pathology of MRI that leads to treatment of patients with a low risk of developing symptomatic MS.
Teriflunomide and dimethyl fumarate, which have long been available as first-line therapies in relapsing-remitting MS, are generally well tolerated. In the TERIS and ARISE studies, mild or moderate events occurred more commonly in the active treatment than the placebo arms, but there were no serious adverse events. However, both can produce more serious adverse events, which, in the case of teriflunomide, include liver toxicity leading to injury and liver failure.
Challenging the traditional definition of MS
The author of the ARISE study, Darin T. Okuda, MD, a professor of neurology at the UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, indicated that his study, now reinforced by the TERIS study, challenges the definition of MS.
“Both ARISE and TERIS demonstrated a significant reduction in seminal clinical event rates related to inflammatory demyelination,” Dr. Okuda said in an interview. They provide evidence that patients are at high risk of the demyelinating events that characterize MS. Given the potential difficulty for accessing therapies of benefit, “how we define multiple sclerosis is highly important.”
“Individuals of younger age with abnormal spinal cord MRI studies along with other paraclinical features related to risk for a first event may be the most ideal group to treat,” he said. However, he agreed with Dr. Lebrun-Frenay that it is not yet clear which RIS patients are the most appropriate candidates.
“Gaining a more refined sense of who we should treat will require more work,” he said.
These data are likely to change the orientation toward RIS, according to Melina Hosseiny, MD, department of radiology, University of California, Los Angeles, Medical Center. She noted that the relationship between RIS and increased risk of MS has long been recognized, and the risk increases with specific features on imaging.
“Studies have shown that spinal cord lesions are associated with a greater than 50% chance of converting to MS,” said Dr. Hosseiny, who was the lead author of a review article on RIS. “Identifying such imaging findings can help identify patients who may benefit from disease-modifying medications.”
Dr. Lebrun-Frenay reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Okuda has financial relationships with Alexion, Biogen, Celgene, EMD Serono, Genzyme, TG Therapeutics, and VielaBio. Dr. Hosseiny reports no potential conflicts of interest.
AT AAN 2023
New drugs in primary care: Lessons learned from COVID-19
SAN DIEGO – – plus it has helped keep many patients out of the hospital, according to a presenter at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.
Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was granted emergency use authorization by the FDA late in 2021 to prevent progression to severe disease when COVID-19 cases and deaths were surging, and the Delta and Omicron variants started to spread.
Gerald Smetana, MD, an internist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, discussed nirmatrelvir-ritonavir as an example of how new drugs relevant to primary care can have a profound impact on public health.
Understanding the mechanism of action
Nirmatrelvir is the active agent of this combination and inhibits the SARS-CoV-2 main protease (Mpro), which is required for viral replication. In contrast to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, Mpro is highly conserved in coronaviruses and rarely acquires mutations. Therefore, unlike monoclonal antibodies targeting the spike protein, nirmatrelvir is active against known Omicron variants and is predicted to remain active against new variants that may emerge. The HIV1 protease inhibitor ritonavir has no activity against SARS-CoV-2. It can help increase the serum concentration of nirmatrelvir by inhibiting its metabolization.
“Although the details are not important for prescribing internists, having a basic understanding of the mechanism of action can help [doctors] better understand for which patients the drugs are indicated,” said Dr. Smetana, also a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. This is particularly important for newly approved drugs with a lot of new information to digest.
“Knowing the mechanisms of action of new drugs can help us predict their efficacy and potential side effects,” said Hubertus Kiefl, MD, an internist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and a lecturer at Harvard Medical School, during an interview after the session.
Understanding how drugs work also can help clinicians make better decisions, such as avoiding the use of a monoclonal antibody during a surge of a new variant with mutations in surface proteins or carefully managing the use of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in patients who take certain medications that would cause potentially serious drug-drug interactions, Dr. Kiefl added.
Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir reduces the risk of hospitalization – but only in high-risk patients.
Dr. Smetana presented published data from the EPIC-HR study, a pivotal phase 2-3 clinical trial in 2,246 adult patients with COVID-19, all of whom were unvaccinated. Additionally, all patients had at least one risk factor for progression to severe disease.
When initiated 5 days after symptom onset or earlier, treatment with 300 mg nirmatrelvir plus 100 mg ritonavir twice a day for 5 days led to an 89% relative risk reduction in COVID-19–related hospitalization or death through day 28, compared with placebo.
Subgroup analyses showed that some patients benefited more than others. The highest risk reduction after treatment with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was observed in patients at least 65 years old.
“It is important to remember that all the patients of this study were unvaccinated and [had] not had prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. This study population isn’t representative of most patients we are seeing today,” said Dr. Smetana.
Unpublished data from a study of standard-risk patients showed a nonsignificant reduction in the risk of hospitalization or death, he said. The study was stopped because of the low rates of hospitalization and death.
Effective in real world, but less so than in clinical trials
The fact that the patient cohort in the EPIC-HR trial was different from the patients internists see today makes real-world data critical for determining the usefulness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in everyday practice, Dr. Smetana said.
A real-world study from Israel conducted during the first Omicron wave (January to March 2022) showed that treatment with nirmatrelvir alone substantially reduced the relative risk of hospitalization in adults older than 65, with no evidence of benefit in adults aged 40-65. Dr. Smetana highlighted that, unlike the EPIC-HR cohort, most patients in the Israeli study had prior immunity due to vaccination or prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Many drug-drug interactions, but they can be managed
Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir interacts with many drugs, some of which are commonly used by primary care patients.
To help internists identify drug-drug interactions, Dr. Smetana proposed the use of the Liverpool COVID-19 Drug Interactions Checker, an intuitive tool that can help prescribers identify potential drug-drug interactions, categorize them based on severity, and identify management strategies.
This tool is specific to COVID-19 drugs. The Liverpool group also offers online drug interaction checkers for HIV, hepatitis, and cancer. “We need more tools like this to help improve the safe use of new drugs,” Dr. Smetana said.
To manage drug interactions, according to Dr. Smetana, U.S. treatment guidelines offer the following three options:
- Prescribe an alternative COVID therapy.
- Temporarily withhold concomitant medication if clinically appropriate.
- Adjust the dose of concomitant medication and monitor for adverse effects.
Medication doses that are withheld or modified should be continued through 3 days after completing nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, he added.
Important considerations
Commenting on things to consider for patients with COVID-19, Dr. Smetana said that there is a short window after symptom onset when nirmatrelvir-ritonavir can be prescribed, and safety in pregnancy is not known. There is also uncertainty regarding funding of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir prescriptions after the state of emergency is lifted. He reminded attendees that, although nirmatrelvir-ritonavir is the preferred first-line treatment for high-risk patients, another antiviral agent, molnupiravir, is also available and might be more appropriate for some patients.
He also cautioned about prescribing new drugs off label for indications that are not yet FDA-approved. “We are often stewards of limited resources when new drugs first become available but are not yet in sufficient supply to meet demand. Limiting our prescribing to FDA-approved indications helps to ensure equitable access,” he said.
Dr. Smetana and Dr. Kiefl reported no disclosures.
SAN DIEGO – – plus it has helped keep many patients out of the hospital, according to a presenter at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.
Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was granted emergency use authorization by the FDA late in 2021 to prevent progression to severe disease when COVID-19 cases and deaths were surging, and the Delta and Omicron variants started to spread.
Gerald Smetana, MD, an internist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, discussed nirmatrelvir-ritonavir as an example of how new drugs relevant to primary care can have a profound impact on public health.
Understanding the mechanism of action
Nirmatrelvir is the active agent of this combination and inhibits the SARS-CoV-2 main protease (Mpro), which is required for viral replication. In contrast to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, Mpro is highly conserved in coronaviruses and rarely acquires mutations. Therefore, unlike monoclonal antibodies targeting the spike protein, nirmatrelvir is active against known Omicron variants and is predicted to remain active against new variants that may emerge. The HIV1 protease inhibitor ritonavir has no activity against SARS-CoV-2. It can help increase the serum concentration of nirmatrelvir by inhibiting its metabolization.
“Although the details are not important for prescribing internists, having a basic understanding of the mechanism of action can help [doctors] better understand for which patients the drugs are indicated,” said Dr. Smetana, also a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. This is particularly important for newly approved drugs with a lot of new information to digest.
“Knowing the mechanisms of action of new drugs can help us predict their efficacy and potential side effects,” said Hubertus Kiefl, MD, an internist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and a lecturer at Harvard Medical School, during an interview after the session.
Understanding how drugs work also can help clinicians make better decisions, such as avoiding the use of a monoclonal antibody during a surge of a new variant with mutations in surface proteins or carefully managing the use of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in patients who take certain medications that would cause potentially serious drug-drug interactions, Dr. Kiefl added.
Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir reduces the risk of hospitalization – but only in high-risk patients.
Dr. Smetana presented published data from the EPIC-HR study, a pivotal phase 2-3 clinical trial in 2,246 adult patients with COVID-19, all of whom were unvaccinated. Additionally, all patients had at least one risk factor for progression to severe disease.
When initiated 5 days after symptom onset or earlier, treatment with 300 mg nirmatrelvir plus 100 mg ritonavir twice a day for 5 days led to an 89% relative risk reduction in COVID-19–related hospitalization or death through day 28, compared with placebo.
Subgroup analyses showed that some patients benefited more than others. The highest risk reduction after treatment with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was observed in patients at least 65 years old.
“It is important to remember that all the patients of this study were unvaccinated and [had] not had prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. This study population isn’t representative of most patients we are seeing today,” said Dr. Smetana.
Unpublished data from a study of standard-risk patients showed a nonsignificant reduction in the risk of hospitalization or death, he said. The study was stopped because of the low rates of hospitalization and death.
Effective in real world, but less so than in clinical trials
The fact that the patient cohort in the EPIC-HR trial was different from the patients internists see today makes real-world data critical for determining the usefulness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in everyday practice, Dr. Smetana said.
A real-world study from Israel conducted during the first Omicron wave (January to March 2022) showed that treatment with nirmatrelvir alone substantially reduced the relative risk of hospitalization in adults older than 65, with no evidence of benefit in adults aged 40-65. Dr. Smetana highlighted that, unlike the EPIC-HR cohort, most patients in the Israeli study had prior immunity due to vaccination or prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Many drug-drug interactions, but they can be managed
Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir interacts with many drugs, some of which are commonly used by primary care patients.
To help internists identify drug-drug interactions, Dr. Smetana proposed the use of the Liverpool COVID-19 Drug Interactions Checker, an intuitive tool that can help prescribers identify potential drug-drug interactions, categorize them based on severity, and identify management strategies.
This tool is specific to COVID-19 drugs. The Liverpool group also offers online drug interaction checkers for HIV, hepatitis, and cancer. “We need more tools like this to help improve the safe use of new drugs,” Dr. Smetana said.
To manage drug interactions, according to Dr. Smetana, U.S. treatment guidelines offer the following three options:
- Prescribe an alternative COVID therapy.
- Temporarily withhold concomitant medication if clinically appropriate.
- Adjust the dose of concomitant medication and monitor for adverse effects.
Medication doses that are withheld or modified should be continued through 3 days after completing nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, he added.
Important considerations
Commenting on things to consider for patients with COVID-19, Dr. Smetana said that there is a short window after symptom onset when nirmatrelvir-ritonavir can be prescribed, and safety in pregnancy is not known. There is also uncertainty regarding funding of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir prescriptions after the state of emergency is lifted. He reminded attendees that, although nirmatrelvir-ritonavir is the preferred first-line treatment for high-risk patients, another antiviral agent, molnupiravir, is also available and might be more appropriate for some patients.
He also cautioned about prescribing new drugs off label for indications that are not yet FDA-approved. “We are often stewards of limited resources when new drugs first become available but are not yet in sufficient supply to meet demand. Limiting our prescribing to FDA-approved indications helps to ensure equitable access,” he said.
Dr. Smetana and Dr. Kiefl reported no disclosures.
SAN DIEGO – – plus it has helped keep many patients out of the hospital, according to a presenter at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.
Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was granted emergency use authorization by the FDA late in 2021 to prevent progression to severe disease when COVID-19 cases and deaths were surging, and the Delta and Omicron variants started to spread.
Gerald Smetana, MD, an internist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, discussed nirmatrelvir-ritonavir as an example of how new drugs relevant to primary care can have a profound impact on public health.
Understanding the mechanism of action
Nirmatrelvir is the active agent of this combination and inhibits the SARS-CoV-2 main protease (Mpro), which is required for viral replication. In contrast to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, Mpro is highly conserved in coronaviruses and rarely acquires mutations. Therefore, unlike monoclonal antibodies targeting the spike protein, nirmatrelvir is active against known Omicron variants and is predicted to remain active against new variants that may emerge. The HIV1 protease inhibitor ritonavir has no activity against SARS-CoV-2. It can help increase the serum concentration of nirmatrelvir by inhibiting its metabolization.
“Although the details are not important for prescribing internists, having a basic understanding of the mechanism of action can help [doctors] better understand for which patients the drugs are indicated,” said Dr. Smetana, also a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. This is particularly important for newly approved drugs with a lot of new information to digest.
“Knowing the mechanisms of action of new drugs can help us predict their efficacy and potential side effects,” said Hubertus Kiefl, MD, an internist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and a lecturer at Harvard Medical School, during an interview after the session.
Understanding how drugs work also can help clinicians make better decisions, such as avoiding the use of a monoclonal antibody during a surge of a new variant with mutations in surface proteins or carefully managing the use of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in patients who take certain medications that would cause potentially serious drug-drug interactions, Dr. Kiefl added.
Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir reduces the risk of hospitalization – but only in high-risk patients.
Dr. Smetana presented published data from the EPIC-HR study, a pivotal phase 2-3 clinical trial in 2,246 adult patients with COVID-19, all of whom were unvaccinated. Additionally, all patients had at least one risk factor for progression to severe disease.
When initiated 5 days after symptom onset or earlier, treatment with 300 mg nirmatrelvir plus 100 mg ritonavir twice a day for 5 days led to an 89% relative risk reduction in COVID-19–related hospitalization or death through day 28, compared with placebo.
Subgroup analyses showed that some patients benefited more than others. The highest risk reduction after treatment with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was observed in patients at least 65 years old.
“It is important to remember that all the patients of this study were unvaccinated and [had] not had prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. This study population isn’t representative of most patients we are seeing today,” said Dr. Smetana.
Unpublished data from a study of standard-risk patients showed a nonsignificant reduction in the risk of hospitalization or death, he said. The study was stopped because of the low rates of hospitalization and death.
Effective in real world, but less so than in clinical trials
The fact that the patient cohort in the EPIC-HR trial was different from the patients internists see today makes real-world data critical for determining the usefulness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in everyday practice, Dr. Smetana said.
A real-world study from Israel conducted during the first Omicron wave (January to March 2022) showed that treatment with nirmatrelvir alone substantially reduced the relative risk of hospitalization in adults older than 65, with no evidence of benefit in adults aged 40-65. Dr. Smetana highlighted that, unlike the EPIC-HR cohort, most patients in the Israeli study had prior immunity due to vaccination or prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Many drug-drug interactions, but they can be managed
Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir interacts with many drugs, some of which are commonly used by primary care patients.
To help internists identify drug-drug interactions, Dr. Smetana proposed the use of the Liverpool COVID-19 Drug Interactions Checker, an intuitive tool that can help prescribers identify potential drug-drug interactions, categorize them based on severity, and identify management strategies.
This tool is specific to COVID-19 drugs. The Liverpool group also offers online drug interaction checkers for HIV, hepatitis, and cancer. “We need more tools like this to help improve the safe use of new drugs,” Dr. Smetana said.
To manage drug interactions, according to Dr. Smetana, U.S. treatment guidelines offer the following three options:
- Prescribe an alternative COVID therapy.
- Temporarily withhold concomitant medication if clinically appropriate.
- Adjust the dose of concomitant medication and monitor for adverse effects.
Medication doses that are withheld or modified should be continued through 3 days after completing nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, he added.
Important considerations
Commenting on things to consider for patients with COVID-19, Dr. Smetana said that there is a short window after symptom onset when nirmatrelvir-ritonavir can be prescribed, and safety in pregnancy is not known. There is also uncertainty regarding funding of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir prescriptions after the state of emergency is lifted. He reminded attendees that, although nirmatrelvir-ritonavir is the preferred first-line treatment for high-risk patients, another antiviral agent, molnupiravir, is also available and might be more appropriate for some patients.
He also cautioned about prescribing new drugs off label for indications that are not yet FDA-approved. “We are often stewards of limited resources when new drugs first become available but are not yet in sufficient supply to meet demand. Limiting our prescribing to FDA-approved indications helps to ensure equitable access,” he said.
Dr. Smetana and Dr. Kiefl reported no disclosures.
AT INTERNAL MEDICINE 2023
“Terrific progress”: Adding blinatumomab for infant leukemia
.
Two-year disease-free and overall survival measures, as well as the percentage of children who had complete minimal residual disease (MRD) responses, were substantially higher among the 30 infants in the study than in historical controls treated with the same chemotherapy backbone in an earlier trial, Interfant-06.
“These outcome data are very promising, given the poor survival and lack of improvements in outcomes among infants with KMT2A-rearranged ALL in recent decades,” said the investigators, led by Inge M. van der Sluis, MD, PhD, a hematologist-oncologist at Princess Maxima Center for Pediatric Oncology in Utrecht, the Netherlands.
“The low incidence of relapse after treatment with blinatumomab is remarkable, given that in historical controls relapses occur frequently and early during therapy,” the investigators stated. Although the “follow-up time was relatively short” in the study, “it included the period historically defined” as being at high risk of relapse, they said.
The team suggested that future research should assess whether infants benefit from multiple courses of blinatumomab, rather than the one course used in the study, and whether blinatumomab plus chemotherapy can replace stem cell transplants for high-risk infants.
Pediatric community responds
There was excitement on Twitter about the results; a number of pediatric blood cancer specialists were impressed and posted the study on that platform. Comments included, “Wow! After years of stagnation, a huge step forward for infant leukemia” and “great news for infant lymphoblastic leukemia.”
Akshay Sharma, MBBS, a pediatric bone marrow transplant and cellular therapy specialist at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, also posted. He said in an interview that the findings are “very exciting.”
The “outcomes of children diagnosed with leukemia in their infancy, particularly if they have a KMT2A rearrangement, have been dismal. This is terrific progress and a testament to the role that immunotherapy and novel agents will be playing in treatment of several malignant diseases in the decade to come,” he said.
Another poster, Pratik “Tik” Patel, MD, a pediatric hematology/oncology fellow at Emory University in Atlanta, told this news organization that the study “is welcome news to pediatric oncologists” and highlights “the success in incorporating newer immune-based therapeutics upfront in treatment rather than in relapsed/refractory settings.”
The National Cancer Institute–funded Children’s Oncology Group is thinking the same way. The group is launching a large, randomized trial to test if adding blinatumomab to chemotherapy upfront for B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia and lymphoblastic lymphoma improves outcomes in children and young adults aged 1-31 years. Results are due after 2029.
Study details
Blinatumomab is an expensive “T-cell engager” that helps cytotoxic CD3+T cells link to and destroy leukemic CD19+ B cells. Past studies have shown that it’s safe and works in older children and adults with B-lineage ALL after intensive chemotherapy, but until now the approach hadn’t been tested in infants, the investigators said.
The 30 subjects in the study were under a year old and newly diagnosed with KMT2A-rearranged ALL. They were treated with the Interfant-06 chemotherapy regimen – cytosine arabinoside and other agents – plus one postinduction course of blinatumomab at 15 micrograms/m2 per day as a 4-week continuous infusion. Eight of nine high-risk patients had allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants.
Overall survival was 93.3% over a median follow up of 26.3 months, substantially higher than the 65.8% in the Interfant-06 trial. Two-year disease-free survival was 81.6% versus 49.4% in Interfant-06.
Sixteen patients (53%) were MRD negative after blinatumomab infusion and 12 (40%) had low levels of MRD. All of the children who continued chemotherapy went on to become MRD negative.
There were no permanent blinatumomab discontinuations and no treatment related deaths. Serious toxic effects were consistent with those in older patients and included four fevers, four infections, and one case each of hypertension and vomiting.
There were no cases of severe cytokine release syndrome (CRS) because of the low tumor burden of the subjects. Likewise, there were no obvious neurologic adverse events – like CRS, a particular concern with blinatumomab – but “we cannot rule out underreporting of mild neurologic symptoms that may have been unrecognized in infants,” the investigators said.
Patients who relapsed in the study had CNS involvement at relapse. “This underscores the need for adequate intrathecal chemotherapy during the blinatumomab infusion, because the efficacy of blinatumomab for the treatment of CNS leukemia may be limited,” they said.
The work was supported by Amgen, the maker of blinatumomab, as well as the Princess Maxima Center Foundation, the Danish Childhood Cancer Foundation, and others. Dr. Sluis is a consultant and researcher for Amgen. Five other authors were also consultants/advisers/researchers for the company. Dr. Sharma and Dr. Patel didn’t have any relevant disclosures.
.
Two-year disease-free and overall survival measures, as well as the percentage of children who had complete minimal residual disease (MRD) responses, were substantially higher among the 30 infants in the study than in historical controls treated with the same chemotherapy backbone in an earlier trial, Interfant-06.
“These outcome data are very promising, given the poor survival and lack of improvements in outcomes among infants with KMT2A-rearranged ALL in recent decades,” said the investigators, led by Inge M. van der Sluis, MD, PhD, a hematologist-oncologist at Princess Maxima Center for Pediatric Oncology in Utrecht, the Netherlands.
“The low incidence of relapse after treatment with blinatumomab is remarkable, given that in historical controls relapses occur frequently and early during therapy,” the investigators stated. Although the “follow-up time was relatively short” in the study, “it included the period historically defined” as being at high risk of relapse, they said.
The team suggested that future research should assess whether infants benefit from multiple courses of blinatumomab, rather than the one course used in the study, and whether blinatumomab plus chemotherapy can replace stem cell transplants for high-risk infants.
Pediatric community responds
There was excitement on Twitter about the results; a number of pediatric blood cancer specialists were impressed and posted the study on that platform. Comments included, “Wow! After years of stagnation, a huge step forward for infant leukemia” and “great news for infant lymphoblastic leukemia.”
Akshay Sharma, MBBS, a pediatric bone marrow transplant and cellular therapy specialist at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, also posted. He said in an interview that the findings are “very exciting.”
The “outcomes of children diagnosed with leukemia in their infancy, particularly if they have a KMT2A rearrangement, have been dismal. This is terrific progress and a testament to the role that immunotherapy and novel agents will be playing in treatment of several malignant diseases in the decade to come,” he said.
Another poster, Pratik “Tik” Patel, MD, a pediatric hematology/oncology fellow at Emory University in Atlanta, told this news organization that the study “is welcome news to pediatric oncologists” and highlights “the success in incorporating newer immune-based therapeutics upfront in treatment rather than in relapsed/refractory settings.”
The National Cancer Institute–funded Children’s Oncology Group is thinking the same way. The group is launching a large, randomized trial to test if adding blinatumomab to chemotherapy upfront for B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia and lymphoblastic lymphoma improves outcomes in children and young adults aged 1-31 years. Results are due after 2029.
Study details
Blinatumomab is an expensive “T-cell engager” that helps cytotoxic CD3+T cells link to and destroy leukemic CD19+ B cells. Past studies have shown that it’s safe and works in older children and adults with B-lineage ALL after intensive chemotherapy, but until now the approach hadn’t been tested in infants, the investigators said.
The 30 subjects in the study were under a year old and newly diagnosed with KMT2A-rearranged ALL. They were treated with the Interfant-06 chemotherapy regimen – cytosine arabinoside and other agents – plus one postinduction course of blinatumomab at 15 micrograms/m2 per day as a 4-week continuous infusion. Eight of nine high-risk patients had allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants.
Overall survival was 93.3% over a median follow up of 26.3 months, substantially higher than the 65.8% in the Interfant-06 trial. Two-year disease-free survival was 81.6% versus 49.4% in Interfant-06.
Sixteen patients (53%) were MRD negative after blinatumomab infusion and 12 (40%) had low levels of MRD. All of the children who continued chemotherapy went on to become MRD negative.
There were no permanent blinatumomab discontinuations and no treatment related deaths. Serious toxic effects were consistent with those in older patients and included four fevers, four infections, and one case each of hypertension and vomiting.
There were no cases of severe cytokine release syndrome (CRS) because of the low tumor burden of the subjects. Likewise, there were no obvious neurologic adverse events – like CRS, a particular concern with blinatumomab – but “we cannot rule out underreporting of mild neurologic symptoms that may have been unrecognized in infants,” the investigators said.
Patients who relapsed in the study had CNS involvement at relapse. “This underscores the need for adequate intrathecal chemotherapy during the blinatumomab infusion, because the efficacy of blinatumomab for the treatment of CNS leukemia may be limited,” they said.
The work was supported by Amgen, the maker of blinatumomab, as well as the Princess Maxima Center Foundation, the Danish Childhood Cancer Foundation, and others. Dr. Sluis is a consultant and researcher for Amgen. Five other authors were also consultants/advisers/researchers for the company. Dr. Sharma and Dr. Patel didn’t have any relevant disclosures.
.
Two-year disease-free and overall survival measures, as well as the percentage of children who had complete minimal residual disease (MRD) responses, were substantially higher among the 30 infants in the study than in historical controls treated with the same chemotherapy backbone in an earlier trial, Interfant-06.
“These outcome data are very promising, given the poor survival and lack of improvements in outcomes among infants with KMT2A-rearranged ALL in recent decades,” said the investigators, led by Inge M. van der Sluis, MD, PhD, a hematologist-oncologist at Princess Maxima Center for Pediatric Oncology in Utrecht, the Netherlands.
“The low incidence of relapse after treatment with blinatumomab is remarkable, given that in historical controls relapses occur frequently and early during therapy,” the investigators stated. Although the “follow-up time was relatively short” in the study, “it included the period historically defined” as being at high risk of relapse, they said.
The team suggested that future research should assess whether infants benefit from multiple courses of blinatumomab, rather than the one course used in the study, and whether blinatumomab plus chemotherapy can replace stem cell transplants for high-risk infants.
Pediatric community responds
There was excitement on Twitter about the results; a number of pediatric blood cancer specialists were impressed and posted the study on that platform. Comments included, “Wow! After years of stagnation, a huge step forward for infant leukemia” and “great news for infant lymphoblastic leukemia.”
Akshay Sharma, MBBS, a pediatric bone marrow transplant and cellular therapy specialist at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, also posted. He said in an interview that the findings are “very exciting.”
The “outcomes of children diagnosed with leukemia in their infancy, particularly if they have a KMT2A rearrangement, have been dismal. This is terrific progress and a testament to the role that immunotherapy and novel agents will be playing in treatment of several malignant diseases in the decade to come,” he said.
Another poster, Pratik “Tik” Patel, MD, a pediatric hematology/oncology fellow at Emory University in Atlanta, told this news organization that the study “is welcome news to pediatric oncologists” and highlights “the success in incorporating newer immune-based therapeutics upfront in treatment rather than in relapsed/refractory settings.”
The National Cancer Institute–funded Children’s Oncology Group is thinking the same way. The group is launching a large, randomized trial to test if adding blinatumomab to chemotherapy upfront for B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia and lymphoblastic lymphoma improves outcomes in children and young adults aged 1-31 years. Results are due after 2029.
Study details
Blinatumomab is an expensive “T-cell engager” that helps cytotoxic CD3+T cells link to and destroy leukemic CD19+ B cells. Past studies have shown that it’s safe and works in older children and adults with B-lineage ALL after intensive chemotherapy, but until now the approach hadn’t been tested in infants, the investigators said.
The 30 subjects in the study were under a year old and newly diagnosed with KMT2A-rearranged ALL. They were treated with the Interfant-06 chemotherapy regimen – cytosine arabinoside and other agents – plus one postinduction course of blinatumomab at 15 micrograms/m2 per day as a 4-week continuous infusion. Eight of nine high-risk patients had allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants.
Overall survival was 93.3% over a median follow up of 26.3 months, substantially higher than the 65.8% in the Interfant-06 trial. Two-year disease-free survival was 81.6% versus 49.4% in Interfant-06.
Sixteen patients (53%) were MRD negative after blinatumomab infusion and 12 (40%) had low levels of MRD. All of the children who continued chemotherapy went on to become MRD negative.
There were no permanent blinatumomab discontinuations and no treatment related deaths. Serious toxic effects were consistent with those in older patients and included four fevers, four infections, and one case each of hypertension and vomiting.
There were no cases of severe cytokine release syndrome (CRS) because of the low tumor burden of the subjects. Likewise, there were no obvious neurologic adverse events – like CRS, a particular concern with blinatumomab – but “we cannot rule out underreporting of mild neurologic symptoms that may have been unrecognized in infants,” the investigators said.
Patients who relapsed in the study had CNS involvement at relapse. “This underscores the need for adequate intrathecal chemotherapy during the blinatumomab infusion, because the efficacy of blinatumomab for the treatment of CNS leukemia may be limited,” they said.
The work was supported by Amgen, the maker of blinatumomab, as well as the Princess Maxima Center Foundation, the Danish Childhood Cancer Foundation, and others. Dr. Sluis is a consultant and researcher for Amgen. Five other authors were also consultants/advisers/researchers for the company. Dr. Sharma and Dr. Patel didn’t have any relevant disclosures.
FROM THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
FDA puts partial hold on investigational alopecia areata drug deuruxolitinib
The in a press release on May 2.
The announcement came after a pulmonary embolism occurred with the 12-mg twice-daily dose in one of the long-term open-label extension (OLE) studies, the company, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, said.
The company stated that the FDA has placed the Investigational New Drug testing for deuruxolitinib on partial clinical hold, and the agency is requiring that study participants who are currently on the 12-mg twice-daily dose in the OLE studies stop taking that dose. The hold covers only the 12-mg dose.
No hold on 8-mg dose
“There have been no thrombotic events reported to date for the 8-mg b.i.d. dose and U.S. FDA has not placed the 8-mg b.i.d. dose on hold,” the company said in the statement.
The statement added, “We are taking immediate steps to transition the patients in the OLE studies to the 8-mg b.i.d. dose arm in the ongoing studies.”
The company said that no thromboembolic events were observed in the phase 2 or phase 3 trials and said that it will work closely with the FDA to address its concerns. A formal letter detailing the FDA’s concerns is expected within 30 days.
Deuruxolitinib is an investigational oral selective inhibitor of Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) and JAK2 enzymes.
The FDA has granted deuruxolitinib breakthrough therapy designation for the treatment of adult patients with moderate to severe alopecia areata as well as fast-track designation for the treatment of alopecia areata.
In March, this news organization reported from the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology that, based on phase 3 studies that demonstrate robust hair growth in about one-third of patients, deuruxolitinib has the potential to become the second JAK inhibitor available for the treatment of alopecia areata. If approved, it will join baricitinib (Olumiant), which received FDA approval almost 1 year ago.
Also at the AAD annual meeting, this news organization reported that principal investigator Brett A. King, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in his presentation on the results of THRIVE-AA2, one of the two phase 3 trials of deuruxolitinib, displayed several before-and-after photos and said, “The photos tell the whole story. This is why there is so much excitement about these drugs.” Dr King also was a principal investigator in studies of baricitinib.
With one exception, labeling for baricitinib and other JAK inhibitors with dermatologic indications includes a boxed warning listing serious adverse events including the risk for major adverse cardiac events and thrombosis, including pulmonary embolism, based on the risks in a rheumatoid arthritis study.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The in a press release on May 2.
The announcement came after a pulmonary embolism occurred with the 12-mg twice-daily dose in one of the long-term open-label extension (OLE) studies, the company, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, said.
The company stated that the FDA has placed the Investigational New Drug testing for deuruxolitinib on partial clinical hold, and the agency is requiring that study participants who are currently on the 12-mg twice-daily dose in the OLE studies stop taking that dose. The hold covers only the 12-mg dose.
No hold on 8-mg dose
“There have been no thrombotic events reported to date for the 8-mg b.i.d. dose and U.S. FDA has not placed the 8-mg b.i.d. dose on hold,” the company said in the statement.
The statement added, “We are taking immediate steps to transition the patients in the OLE studies to the 8-mg b.i.d. dose arm in the ongoing studies.”
The company said that no thromboembolic events were observed in the phase 2 or phase 3 trials and said that it will work closely with the FDA to address its concerns. A formal letter detailing the FDA’s concerns is expected within 30 days.
Deuruxolitinib is an investigational oral selective inhibitor of Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) and JAK2 enzymes.
The FDA has granted deuruxolitinib breakthrough therapy designation for the treatment of adult patients with moderate to severe alopecia areata as well as fast-track designation for the treatment of alopecia areata.
In March, this news organization reported from the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology that, based on phase 3 studies that demonstrate robust hair growth in about one-third of patients, deuruxolitinib has the potential to become the second JAK inhibitor available for the treatment of alopecia areata. If approved, it will join baricitinib (Olumiant), which received FDA approval almost 1 year ago.
Also at the AAD annual meeting, this news organization reported that principal investigator Brett A. King, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in his presentation on the results of THRIVE-AA2, one of the two phase 3 trials of deuruxolitinib, displayed several before-and-after photos and said, “The photos tell the whole story. This is why there is so much excitement about these drugs.” Dr King also was a principal investigator in studies of baricitinib.
With one exception, labeling for baricitinib and other JAK inhibitors with dermatologic indications includes a boxed warning listing serious adverse events including the risk for major adverse cardiac events and thrombosis, including pulmonary embolism, based on the risks in a rheumatoid arthritis study.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The in a press release on May 2.
The announcement came after a pulmonary embolism occurred with the 12-mg twice-daily dose in one of the long-term open-label extension (OLE) studies, the company, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, said.
The company stated that the FDA has placed the Investigational New Drug testing for deuruxolitinib on partial clinical hold, and the agency is requiring that study participants who are currently on the 12-mg twice-daily dose in the OLE studies stop taking that dose. The hold covers only the 12-mg dose.
No hold on 8-mg dose
“There have been no thrombotic events reported to date for the 8-mg b.i.d. dose and U.S. FDA has not placed the 8-mg b.i.d. dose on hold,” the company said in the statement.
The statement added, “We are taking immediate steps to transition the patients in the OLE studies to the 8-mg b.i.d. dose arm in the ongoing studies.”
The company said that no thromboembolic events were observed in the phase 2 or phase 3 trials and said that it will work closely with the FDA to address its concerns. A formal letter detailing the FDA’s concerns is expected within 30 days.
Deuruxolitinib is an investigational oral selective inhibitor of Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) and JAK2 enzymes.
The FDA has granted deuruxolitinib breakthrough therapy designation for the treatment of adult patients with moderate to severe alopecia areata as well as fast-track designation for the treatment of alopecia areata.
In March, this news organization reported from the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology that, based on phase 3 studies that demonstrate robust hair growth in about one-third of patients, deuruxolitinib has the potential to become the second JAK inhibitor available for the treatment of alopecia areata. If approved, it will join baricitinib (Olumiant), which received FDA approval almost 1 year ago.
Also at the AAD annual meeting, this news organization reported that principal investigator Brett A. King, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in his presentation on the results of THRIVE-AA2, one of the two phase 3 trials of deuruxolitinib, displayed several before-and-after photos and said, “The photos tell the whole story. This is why there is so much excitement about these drugs.” Dr King also was a principal investigator in studies of baricitinib.
With one exception, labeling for baricitinib and other JAK inhibitors with dermatologic indications includes a boxed warning listing serious adverse events including the risk for major adverse cardiac events and thrombosis, including pulmonary embolism, based on the risks in a rheumatoid arthritis study.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Statins tied to lower stroke risk in atrial fibrillation
Among patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib), initiation of statins soon after diagnosis was protective against stroke and related vascular events, and longer duration of use was associated with greater protection, a new cohort study shows.
Statin use was associated with lower risks of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, hemorrhagic stroke, and transient ischemic attack (TIA), regardless of whether patients were also taking anticoagulant medications.
Lead author Jiayi Huang, a PhD student at Hong Kong University at Shenzhen (China) Hospital, concluded that the study’s findings support the use of statins to prevent stroke for patients with new-onset AFib.
“The findings have important clinical implications, particularly given that in atrial fibrillation, patients’ ischemic strokes are often fatal or disabling and have a high risk of recurrence,” she said.
The results were presented in a moderated poster session at the European Heart Rhythm Association 2023 Congress.
Widely prescribed
Anticoagulant drugs are prescribed to lower the fivefold increased risk of stroke among individuals with AFib, compared with those without AFib, but the therapy does not eliminate the higher risk, Ms. Huang explained. And although statins are widely prescribed to reduce the likelihood of myocardial infarction and stroke, “the benefit of statins for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation has been unclear.”
Ms. Huang and colleagues analyzed data from 51,472 patients newly diagnosed with AFib between 2010 and 2018. The population was divided into statin users (n = 11,866), defined as patients who had taken statins for at least 19 consecutive days in the first year after AFib diagnosis, and statin nonusers (n = 39,606), based on whether they were prescribed statin therapy after their first diagnosis of AFib.
The median age of the cohort was 74.9 years, and 47.7% were women. The investigators used statistical methods to balance baseline covariates between the two groups.
The primary outcomes were ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, hemorrhagic stroke, and TIA. Median follow-up was 5.1 years.
Statin use was associated with a significantly lower risk of all outcomes, compared with nonuse. Statin users had a 17% reduced risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, a 7% reduced risk of hemorrhagic stroke, and a 15% rate of reduced risk of TIA, Ms. Huang reported.
“We also found long-term statin use was associated with greater protection than short-term use,” she said. For statin use of 6 years or longer, in comparison with use of 3 months to 2 years, the risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism was lowered by 43%; for hemorrhagic stroke, it was lowered by 44%, and for TIA, it was lowered by 42%.
These associations were consistent regardless of whether patients used anticoagulant medications or the type of anticoagulant.
Oussama Wazni, MD, MBA, section head of cardiac electrophysiology and pacing at the Cleveland Clinic, was a moderator of the poster session at which Ms. Huang presented her study. In an interview, he called the study “very important.”
“The message should be that all patients who have atrial fibrillation should be checked for cholesterol levels, and we should consider placing them on statins,” he said. “Is there an opportunity? Probably there is, and that’s why we’re seeing this effect in this group of patients.”
When asked about a possible mechanism by which statins produced the effects seen in the study, he pointed to LDL cholesterol lowering and possibly an effect on inflammation. “If a patient had a carotid atheroma, for example, maybe it helped with that,” he said. Previous work has shown that inflammation is related to or is associated with higher risk of thrombogenic effects, including MI or stroke.
It may be a bit less clear how statins reduced the incidence of hemorrhagic strokes, but Dr. Wazni proposed that some strokes could have started as an ischemic stroke “and then had hemorrhagic conversion, so we don’t have the granularity in here to know whether that was the case or not.”
Given the fact that the effect was stronger the longer a patient had been taking a statin, Dr. Wazni said that if a patient is tolerating the drug well, there should be no reason to discontinue it, regardless of age.
He said the study provides “welcome data and evidence because it’s pointing in the right direction,” but prospective studies would be useful “so that we can see what is driving what. Otherwise, this is just an association.”
The study was supported by Sanming Project Shenzhen. Ms. Huang and Dr. Wazni disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Among patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib), initiation of statins soon after diagnosis was protective against stroke and related vascular events, and longer duration of use was associated with greater protection, a new cohort study shows.
Statin use was associated with lower risks of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, hemorrhagic stroke, and transient ischemic attack (TIA), regardless of whether patients were also taking anticoagulant medications.
Lead author Jiayi Huang, a PhD student at Hong Kong University at Shenzhen (China) Hospital, concluded that the study’s findings support the use of statins to prevent stroke for patients with new-onset AFib.
“The findings have important clinical implications, particularly given that in atrial fibrillation, patients’ ischemic strokes are often fatal or disabling and have a high risk of recurrence,” she said.
The results were presented in a moderated poster session at the European Heart Rhythm Association 2023 Congress.
Widely prescribed
Anticoagulant drugs are prescribed to lower the fivefold increased risk of stroke among individuals with AFib, compared with those without AFib, but the therapy does not eliminate the higher risk, Ms. Huang explained. And although statins are widely prescribed to reduce the likelihood of myocardial infarction and stroke, “the benefit of statins for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation has been unclear.”
Ms. Huang and colleagues analyzed data from 51,472 patients newly diagnosed with AFib between 2010 and 2018. The population was divided into statin users (n = 11,866), defined as patients who had taken statins for at least 19 consecutive days in the first year after AFib diagnosis, and statin nonusers (n = 39,606), based on whether they were prescribed statin therapy after their first diagnosis of AFib.
The median age of the cohort was 74.9 years, and 47.7% were women. The investigators used statistical methods to balance baseline covariates between the two groups.
The primary outcomes were ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, hemorrhagic stroke, and TIA. Median follow-up was 5.1 years.
Statin use was associated with a significantly lower risk of all outcomes, compared with nonuse. Statin users had a 17% reduced risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, a 7% reduced risk of hemorrhagic stroke, and a 15% rate of reduced risk of TIA, Ms. Huang reported.
“We also found long-term statin use was associated with greater protection than short-term use,” she said. For statin use of 6 years or longer, in comparison with use of 3 months to 2 years, the risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism was lowered by 43%; for hemorrhagic stroke, it was lowered by 44%, and for TIA, it was lowered by 42%.
These associations were consistent regardless of whether patients used anticoagulant medications or the type of anticoagulant.
Oussama Wazni, MD, MBA, section head of cardiac electrophysiology and pacing at the Cleveland Clinic, was a moderator of the poster session at which Ms. Huang presented her study. In an interview, he called the study “very important.”
“The message should be that all patients who have atrial fibrillation should be checked for cholesterol levels, and we should consider placing them on statins,” he said. “Is there an opportunity? Probably there is, and that’s why we’re seeing this effect in this group of patients.”
When asked about a possible mechanism by which statins produced the effects seen in the study, he pointed to LDL cholesterol lowering and possibly an effect on inflammation. “If a patient had a carotid atheroma, for example, maybe it helped with that,” he said. Previous work has shown that inflammation is related to or is associated with higher risk of thrombogenic effects, including MI or stroke.
It may be a bit less clear how statins reduced the incidence of hemorrhagic strokes, but Dr. Wazni proposed that some strokes could have started as an ischemic stroke “and then had hemorrhagic conversion, so we don’t have the granularity in here to know whether that was the case or not.”
Given the fact that the effect was stronger the longer a patient had been taking a statin, Dr. Wazni said that if a patient is tolerating the drug well, there should be no reason to discontinue it, regardless of age.
He said the study provides “welcome data and evidence because it’s pointing in the right direction,” but prospective studies would be useful “so that we can see what is driving what. Otherwise, this is just an association.”
The study was supported by Sanming Project Shenzhen. Ms. Huang and Dr. Wazni disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Among patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib), initiation of statins soon after diagnosis was protective against stroke and related vascular events, and longer duration of use was associated with greater protection, a new cohort study shows.
Statin use was associated with lower risks of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, hemorrhagic stroke, and transient ischemic attack (TIA), regardless of whether patients were also taking anticoagulant medications.
Lead author Jiayi Huang, a PhD student at Hong Kong University at Shenzhen (China) Hospital, concluded that the study’s findings support the use of statins to prevent stroke for patients with new-onset AFib.
“The findings have important clinical implications, particularly given that in atrial fibrillation, patients’ ischemic strokes are often fatal or disabling and have a high risk of recurrence,” she said.
The results were presented in a moderated poster session at the European Heart Rhythm Association 2023 Congress.
Widely prescribed
Anticoagulant drugs are prescribed to lower the fivefold increased risk of stroke among individuals with AFib, compared with those without AFib, but the therapy does not eliminate the higher risk, Ms. Huang explained. And although statins are widely prescribed to reduce the likelihood of myocardial infarction and stroke, “the benefit of statins for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation has been unclear.”
Ms. Huang and colleagues analyzed data from 51,472 patients newly diagnosed with AFib between 2010 and 2018. The population was divided into statin users (n = 11,866), defined as patients who had taken statins for at least 19 consecutive days in the first year after AFib diagnosis, and statin nonusers (n = 39,606), based on whether they were prescribed statin therapy after their first diagnosis of AFib.
The median age of the cohort was 74.9 years, and 47.7% were women. The investigators used statistical methods to balance baseline covariates between the two groups.
The primary outcomes were ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, hemorrhagic stroke, and TIA. Median follow-up was 5.1 years.
Statin use was associated with a significantly lower risk of all outcomes, compared with nonuse. Statin users had a 17% reduced risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, a 7% reduced risk of hemorrhagic stroke, and a 15% rate of reduced risk of TIA, Ms. Huang reported.
“We also found long-term statin use was associated with greater protection than short-term use,” she said. For statin use of 6 years or longer, in comparison with use of 3 months to 2 years, the risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism was lowered by 43%; for hemorrhagic stroke, it was lowered by 44%, and for TIA, it was lowered by 42%.
These associations were consistent regardless of whether patients used anticoagulant medications or the type of anticoagulant.
Oussama Wazni, MD, MBA, section head of cardiac electrophysiology and pacing at the Cleveland Clinic, was a moderator of the poster session at which Ms. Huang presented her study. In an interview, he called the study “very important.”
“The message should be that all patients who have atrial fibrillation should be checked for cholesterol levels, and we should consider placing them on statins,” he said. “Is there an opportunity? Probably there is, and that’s why we’re seeing this effect in this group of patients.”
When asked about a possible mechanism by which statins produced the effects seen in the study, he pointed to LDL cholesterol lowering and possibly an effect on inflammation. “If a patient had a carotid atheroma, for example, maybe it helped with that,” he said. Previous work has shown that inflammation is related to or is associated with higher risk of thrombogenic effects, including MI or stroke.
It may be a bit less clear how statins reduced the incidence of hemorrhagic strokes, but Dr. Wazni proposed that some strokes could have started as an ischemic stroke “and then had hemorrhagic conversion, so we don’t have the granularity in here to know whether that was the case or not.”
Given the fact that the effect was stronger the longer a patient had been taking a statin, Dr. Wazni said that if a patient is tolerating the drug well, there should be no reason to discontinue it, regardless of age.
He said the study provides “welcome data and evidence because it’s pointing in the right direction,” but prospective studies would be useful “so that we can see what is driving what. Otherwise, this is just an association.”
The study was supported by Sanming Project Shenzhen. Ms. Huang and Dr. Wazni disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM EHRA 2023