Tirzepatide versus Semaglutide Once Weekly in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Tirzepatide is a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist that is under development for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. The efficacy and safety of once-weekly tirzepatide as compared with semaglutide, a selective GLP-1 receptor agonist, are unknown. METHODS: In an open-label, 40-week, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 1879 patients, in a 1:1:1:1 ratio, to receive tirzepatide at a dose of 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg or semaglutide at a dose of 1 mg. At baseline, the mean glycated hemoglobin level was 8.28%, the mean age 56.6 years, and the mean weight 93.7 kg. The primary end point was the change in the glycated hemoglobin level from baseline to 40 weeks. RESULTS: The estimated mean change from baseline in the glycated hemoglobin level was -2.01 percentage points, -2.24 percentage points, and -2.30 percentage points with 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg of tirzepatide, respectively, and -1.86 percentage points with semaglutide; the estimated differences between the 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg tirzepatide groups and the semaglutide group were -0.15 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.28 to -0.03; P = 0.02), -0.39 percentage points (95% CI, -0.51 to -0.26; P<0.001), and -0.45 percentage points (95% CI, -0.57 to -0.32; P<0.001), respectively. Tirzepatide at all doses was noninferior and superior to semaglutide. Reductions in body weight were greater with tirzepatide than with semaglutide (least-squares mean estimated treatment difference, -1.9 kg, -3.6 kg, and -5.5 kg, respectively; P<0.001 for all comparisons). The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal and were primarily mild to moderate in severity in the tirzepatide and semaglutide groups (nausea, 17 to 22% and 18%; diarrhea, 13 to 16% and 12%; and vomiting, 6 to 10% and 8%, respectively). Of the patients who received tirzepatide, hypoglycemia (blood glucose level, <54 mg per deciliter) was reported in 0.6% (5-mg group), 0.2% (10-mg group), and 1.7% (15-mg group); hypoglycemia was reported in 0.4% of those who received semaglutide. Serious adverse events were reported in 5 to 7% of the patients who received tirzepatide and in 3% of those who received semaglutide. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 2 diabetes, tirzepatide was noninferior and superior to semaglutide with respect to the mean change in the glycated hemoglobin level from baseline to 40 weeks. (Funded by Eli Lilly; SURPASS-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03987919.).

Adverse effects associated with favipiravir in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Favipiravir is generally used in treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia in Turkey. OBJECTIVE: To determine the side effects of favipiravir and whether it is a good treatment option. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective study conducted in Atatürk Chest Diseases and Chest Surgery Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey. METHODS: 357 patients who completed favipiravir treatment at the recommended dose were included. 37 patients with drug side effects and 320 patients without drug side effects were examined in two groups. RESULTS: Side effects were observed in 37 (10.36%) out of 357 patients using favipiravir. The most common side effect was liver dysfunction, in 26 (7.28%) of the patients. The following other side effects were also observed: diarrhea (1.4%), nausea (0.84%), abdominal pain (0.28%) and thrombocytopenia (0.28%). One patient (0.28%) presented both increased transaminases and nausea. CONCLUSION: In this study, it was determined that favipiravir may constitute an alternative for treating COVID-19 pneumonia given that its side effects are generally well tolerated and not serious.

Add-on effect of Chinese herbal medicine in the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has emerged as a global pandemic since its outbreak in Wuhan, China. It is an urgent task to prevent and treat COVID-19 effectively early. In China's experience combating the COVID-19 pandemic, Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) has played an indispensable role. A large number of epidemiological investigations have shown that mild to moderate COVID-19 accounts for the largest proportion of cases. It is of great importance to treat such COVID-19 cases, which can help control epidemic progression. Many trials have shown that CHM combined with conventional therapy in the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 was superior to conventional therapy alone. This review was designed to evaluate the add-on effect of CHM in the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19. METHODS: Eight electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Clinical Trials.gov website, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), Wanfang Database and China Biology Medicine (CBM) were searched from December 2019 to March 2021 without language restrictions. Two reviewers searched and selected studies, and extracted data according to inclusion and exclusion criteria independently. Cochrane Risk of Bias (ROB) tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the included RCTs. Review Manager 5.3.0 software was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Twelve eligible RCTs including 1393 participants were included in this meta-analysis. Our meta-analyses found that lung CT parameters [RR = 1.26, 95% CI (1.15, 1.38), P<0.00001] and the clinical cure rate [RR = 1.26, 95%CI (1.16, 1.38), P<0.00001] of CHM combined with conventional therapy in the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 were better than those of conventional therapy. The rate of conversion to severe cases [RR = 0.48, 95%CI (0.32, 0.73), P = 0.0005], TCM symptom score of fever [MD = -0.62, 95%CI (-0.79, -0.45), P<0.00001], cough cases [RR = 1.43, 95%CI (1.16, 1.75), P = 0.0006], TCM symptom score of cough[MD = -1.07, 95%CI (-1.29, -0.85), P<0.00001], TCM symptom score of fatigue[MD = -0.66, 95%CI (-1.05, -0.28), P = 0.0007], and CRP[MD = -5.46, 95%CI (-8.19, -2.72), P<0.0001] of combination therapy was significantly lower than that of conventional therapy. The WBC count was significantly higher than that of conventional therapy[MD = 0.38, 95%CI (0.31, 0.44), P<0.00001]. Our meta-analysis results were robust through sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: Chinese herbal medicine combined with conventional therapy may be effective and safe in the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19. More high-quality RCTs are needed in the future.

Atogepant for the Preventive Treatment of Migraine.

BACKGROUND: Atogepant is an oral, small-molecule, calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist that is being investigated for the preventive treatment of migraine. METHODS: In a phase 3, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned adults with 4 to 14 migraine days per month in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive a once-daily dose of oral atogepant (10 mg, 30 mg, or 60 mg) or placebo for 12 weeks. The primary end point was the change from baseline in the mean number of migraine days per month across the 12 weeks. Secondary end points included headache days per month, a reduction from baseline of at least 50% in the 3-month average of migraine days per month, quality of life, and scores on the Activity Impairment in Migraine-Diary (AIM-D). RESULTS: A total of 2270 participants were screened, 910 were enrolled, and 873 were included in the efficacy analysis; 214 were assigned to the 10-mg atogepant group, 223 to the 30-mg atogepant group, 222 to the 60-mg atogepant group, and 214 to the placebo group. The mean number of migraine days per month at baseline ranged from 7.5 to 7.9 in the four groups. The changes from baseline across 12 weeks were -3.7 days with 10-mg atogepant, -3.9 days with 30-mg atogepant, -4.2 days with 60-mg atogepant, and -2.5 days with placebo. The mean differences from placebo in the change from baseline were -1.2 days with 10-mg atogepant (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.8 to -0.6), -1.4 days with 30-mg atogepant (95% CI, -1.9 to -0.8), and -1.7 days with 60-mg atogepant (95% CI, -2.3 to -1.2) (P<0.001 for all comparisons with placebo). Results for the secondary end points favored atogepant over placebo with the exceptions of the AIM-D Performance of Daily Activities score and the AIM-D Physical Impairment score for the 10-mg dose. The most common adverse events were constipation (6.9 to 7.7% across atogepant doses) and nausea (4.4 to 6.1% across atogepant doses). Serious adverse events included one case each of asthma and optic neuritis in the 10-mg atogepant group. CONCLUSIONS: Oral atogepant once daily was effective in reducing the number of migraine days and headache days over a period of 12 weeks. Adverse events included constipation and nausea. Longer and larger trials are needed to determine the effect and safety of atogepant for migraine prevention. (Funded by Allergan; ADVANCE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03777059.).

Integrated Safety Analysis of Abrocitinib for the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis From the Phase II and Phase III Clinical Trial Program.

BACKGROUND: Pivotal phase III studies demonstrated that abrocitinib, an oral, once-daily, JAK1-selective inhibitor, is effective treatment for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) as monotherapy and in combination with topical therapy. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term safety of abrocitinib 200 mg and 100 mg in an integrated analysis of a phase IIb study, four phase III studies, and one long-term extension study. METHODS: Two cohorts were analyzed: a placebo-controlled cohort from 12- to 16-week studies and an all-abrocitinib cohort including patients who received one or more abrocitinib doses. Adverse events (AEs) of interest and laboratory data are reported. RESULTS: Total exposure in the all-abrocitinib cohort (n = 2856) was 1614 patient-years (PY); exposure was ≥ 24 weeks in 1248 patients and ≥ 48 weeks in 606 (maximum 108 weeks). In the placebo-controlled cohort (n = 1540), dose-related AEs (200 mg, 100 mg, placebo) were nausea (14.6%, 6.1%, 2.0%), headache (7.8%, 5.9%, 3.5%), and acne (4.7%, 1.6%, 0%). Platelet count was reduced transiently in a dose-dependent manner; 2/2718 patients (200-mg group) had confirmed platelet counts of < 50 × 103/mm3 at week 4. Incidence rates (IRs) were 2.33/100PY and 2.65/100 PY for serious infection, 4.34/100PY and 2.04/100PY for herpes zoster, and 11.83/100PY and 8.73/100PY for herpes simplex in the 200-mg and 100-mg groups, respectively. IRs for nonmelanoma skin cancer, other malignancies, and major adverse cardiovascular events were < 0.5/100PY for both doses. Five venous thromboembolism events occurred (IR 0.30/100PY), all in the 200-mg group. There were three deaths due to gastric carcinoma (diagnosed at day 43), sudden death, and COVID-19. CONCLUSION: Abrocitinib, with proper patient and dose selection, has a manageable tolerability and longer-term safety profile appropriate for long-term use in patients with moderate-to-severe AD. TRIAL REGISTRIES: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02780167, NCT03349060, NCT03575871, NCT03720470, NCT03627767, NCT03422822.

Emergency Department Utilization by In-hospital Healthcare Workers after COVID-19 Vaccination.

BACKGROUND: This is an observational study to analyze an emergency department (ED) utilization pattern of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccinated in-hospital healthcare workers (HCWs). METHODS: We included 4,703 HCWs who were administered the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine between March 4 and April 2, 2021, in a tertiary hospital in Korea where fast-track and post-vaccination cohort zone (PVCZ) were introduced in ED. We analyzed data of participants' age, sex, occupation, date and type of vaccination, and their clinical information using SPSS v25.0. RESULTS: The sample comprised HCWs, who received either the ChAdOx1 (n = 4,458) or the BNT162B2 (n = 245) vaccines; most participants were female (73.5%), and 81.1% were under 50 years old. Further, 153 (3.3%) visited the ED and reported experiencing fever (66.9%) and myalgia (56.1%). Additionally, 91 (59.5%) of them were in their 20s, and 106 (67.5%) were assigned to the PVCZ. Lastly, 107 (68.2%) of the patients received parenteral management. No patient required hospitalization. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, vaccinated HCWs who visited the ED with adverse events had a high incidence of fever and a low likelihood of developing serious illnesses. As the COVID-19 vaccination program for Korean citizens continues to expand, strategies to minimize unnecessary ED overcrowding should be put into effect.

Once-Weekly Semaglutide in Adults with Overweight or Obesity.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a global health challenge with few pharmacologic options. Whether adults with obesity can achieve weight loss with once-weekly semaglutide at a dose of 2.4 mg as an adjunct to lifestyle intervention has not been confirmed. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we enrolled 1961 adults with a body-mass index (the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters) of 30 or greater (≥27 in persons with ≥1 weight-related coexisting condition), who did not have diabetes, and randomly assigned them, in a 2:1 ratio, to 68 weeks of treatment with once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide (at a dose of 2.4 mg) or placebo, plus lifestyle intervention. The coprimary end points were the percentage change in body weight and weight reduction of at least 5%. The primary estimand (a precise description of the treatment effect reflecting the objective of the clinical trial) assessed effects regardless of treatment discontinuation or rescue interventions. RESULTS: The mean change in body weight from baseline to week 68 was -14.9% in the semaglutide group as compared with -2.4% with placebo, for an estimated treatment difference of -12.4 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], -13.4 to -11.5; P<0.001). More participants in the semaglutide group than in the placebo group achieved weight reductions of 5% or more (1047 participants [86.4%] vs. 182 [31.5%]), 10% or more (838 [69.1%] vs. 69 [12.0%]), and 15% or more (612 [50.5%] vs. 28 [4.9%]) at week 68 (P<0.001 for all three comparisons of odds). The change in body weight from baseline to week 68 was -15.3 kg in the semaglutide group as compared with -2.6 kg in the placebo group (estimated treatment difference, -12.7 kg; 95% CI, -13.7 to -11.7). Participants who received semaglutide had a greater improvement with respect to cardiometabolic risk factors and a greater increase in participant-reported physical functioning from baseline than those who received placebo. Nausea and diarrhea were the most common adverse events with semaglutide; they were typically transient and mild-to-moderate in severity and subsided with time. More participants in the semaglutide group than in the placebo group discontinued treatment owing to gastrointestinal events (59 [4.5%] vs. 5 [0.8%]). CONCLUSIONS: In participants with overweight or obesity, 2.4 mg of semaglutide once weekly plus lifestyle intervention was associated with sustained, clinically relevant reduction in body weight. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; STEP 1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03548935).

Sex Differences in Reported Adverse Drug Reactions to COVID-19 Drugs in a Global Database of Individual Case Safety Reports.

INTRODUCTION: In late 2019, a new coronavirus-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-was discovered in Wuhan, China, and the World Health Organization later declared coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) a pandemic. Numerous drugs have been repurposed and investigated for therapeutic effectiveness in the disease, including those from "Solidarity," an international clinical trial (azithromycin, chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, the fixed combination lopinavir/ritonavir, and remdesivir). OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting for drugs when used in the treatment of COVID-19 compared with use for other indications, specifically focussing on sex differences. METHOD: We extracted reports on COVID-19-specific treatments from the global ADR database, VigiBase, using an algorithm developed to identify reports that listed COVID-19 as the indication. The Solidarity trial drugs were included, as were any drugs reported ≥ 100 times. We performed a descriptive comparison of reports for the same drugs used in non-COVID-19 indications. The data lock point date was 7 June 2020. RESULTS: In total, 2573 reports were identified for drugs used in the treatment of COVID-19. In order of frequency, the most reported ADRs were electrocardiogram QT-prolonged, diarrhoea, nausea, hepatitis, and vomiting in males and diarrhoea, electrocardiogram QT-prolonged, nausea, vomiting, and upper abdominal pain in females. Other hepatic and kidney-related events were included in the top ten ADRs in males, whereas no hepatic or renal terms were reported for females. COVID-19-related reporting patterns differed from non-pandemic reporting for these drugs. CONCLUSION: Review of a global database of suspected ADR reports revealed sex differences in the reporting patterns for drugs used in the treatment of COVID-19. Patterns of ADR sex differences need further elucidation.

Reducing dexamethasone antiemetic prophylaxis during the COVID-19 pandemic: recommendations from Ontario, Canada.

PURPOSE: People with cancer face an elevated risk of infection and severe sequelae from COVID-19. Dexamethasone is commonly used for antiemetic prophylaxis with systemic therapy for cancer. However, dexamethasone is associated with increased risk of viral and respiratory infections, and causes lymphopenia, which is associated with worse outcomes during COVID-19 infections. Our purpose was to minimize dexamethasone exposure during antiemetic prophylaxis for systemic therapy for solid tumors during the COVID-19 pandemic, while maintaining control of nausea and emesis. METHODS: We convened an expert panel to systematically review the literature and formulate consensus recommendations. RESULTS: No studies considered the impact of dexamethasone-based antiemetic regimens on the risk and severity of COVID-19 infection. Expert consensus recommended modifications to the 2019 Cancer Care Ontario Antiemetic Recommendations. CONCLUSION: Clinicians should prescribe the minimally effective dose of dexamethasone for antiemetic prophylaxis. Single-day dexamethasone dosing is recommended over multi-day dosing for regimens with high emetogenic risk excluding high-dose cisplatin, preferably in combination with palonosetron, netupitant, and olanzapine. For regimens with low emetogenic risk, 5-HT3 antagonists are recommended over dexamethasone.