There is a lot of press about a study just published in the New England Journal of Medicine that shows that adding tiotropium (Spiriva) to an inhaled steroid might have benefit in asthmatic patients. This study is creating a lot of buzz due to recent concerns of ICS/LABA safety and might prompt doctors and patients to start switching (some already have before this study came out). However, this would be a HUGE mistake.
The study was a small study of 210 patients that compared the addition of tiotropium (Spiriva) which is a a long-acting anticholinergic inhaler currently only used in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), and compared this to
doubling of the dose of the ICS or adding the long-acting beta agonist (LABA) salmeterol.
The primary endpoint of the study was improvement in morning peak flow, which they found that adding tiotropium increased by 25.8 liters per minute (P<0.001) as compared to doubling the dose of the ICS. There was also improvement in secondary outcomes such as lung function as measured by FEV1, which showed an improvement of 0.10 liters (P = 0.004). In addition, when comparing additng tiotropium or salmeterol to ICS (the study was designed to show tiotropium was no worse), they found tiotropium slighlty better than salmeterol in terms of morning peak flow (6.4 liters per minute (P<0.001)) and not significanlty different in lung function (FEV1 difference of 0.11 liters).
With some safety concerns regarding the use of LABA's, (I have blogged about this before and the bottom line is that if taking with an ICS, there seems to be no problems with LABA's) the New England Journal article might tempt doctors to use tiotropium instead of a LABA in asthmatic patients, if the evidence suggests that the benefit is similar between Spiriva and Salmeterol. However, making this leap would be dangerous for several reasons.
1. Almost all the data supports the use of LABAs. This is an intriguing but small study. Clearly more studies are warranted. However, the question of adding LABA's vs doubling the ICS dose has been extensively well studied. The best source is the unbiased Cohrane Review. Their review included 48 studies (15,155 participants including 1155 children and 14,000 adults). In looking at the morning PEF (the New England Journal article's main end point), the Cochrane group found that adding LABA to an ICS (compared to doubling the ICS dose) showed a 16.30 L/min improvement from baseline. This is similar to what was found in the New England Journal study. In looking at FEV1, the Cochrance group found an improvement of 0.08 (CI 0.03 to 0.13), which is closer to what was found with Spriva and much higher than what was seen in the New England Journal study. In other words, in looking at 48 studies with thousands of patients, ICS + LABA performs a little better than it did in the New England Journal study, although it does not clearly beat the numbers of tiotropium.
2. There is no data on outcomes such as exacerbations. A small bump in peak flow or lung function is meaningless if patients are still getting sick. The main goal of asthma treatment is to prevent exacerbations. The New England Journal study was too small to show this. However, the Cochrane review clearly shows that adding a LABA to and ICS, compared to doubling the dose of the ICS clearly prevents exacerbations. They showed a statistically significantly lower risk of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids in patients treated with LABA and ICS (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.98, 27 studies, N = 10,578) from 11.45% to 10%, with a number needed to treat of 73.
3. There is no ICS/tiotropium combination inhaler (yet). One of the advantages to ICS/LABA combination inhalers is that both medications come in a single inhaler. This is critical. As mentioned, the LABA safety issues seems to occur when patients take LABA's without an ICS. This makes sense because even though the bronchodilator might make patients feel better, not treating the disease (inflammation) can lead to serious problems down the line. Because of this, the FDA recently recommned that children who take ICS and LABA's together only take them in the same inhaler. The worrry is that if the two inhalers are used separately, patients are at risk of only taking the brochodilator. Because the bronchodilator makes patients feel better, they are more likely to be adherenct to this inhaler than an ICS, which has effects that patients don't immediately notice. This same concern would be true of tiotropium, which is also a bronchodilator. However, ICS/anticholergic combination inhalers should be available soon. Studies will be now needed not only in COPD, but also in asthma to see which regimen produces the best benefit.
Bottom Line: This is an exciting study. By showing tiotropium has potential benefit in asthmatic patients, it may give clinicians and patients an additional tool to treat this disease. The study shows that use of tiotropium in asthma clearly warrants more research. However, doctors and patients should not start taking ICS and tiotropium over ICS/LABA, since the data (especially regarding exacerbations) is just not there.
Showing posts with label benefit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label benefit. Show all posts
Monday, September 20, 2010
Monday, May 18, 2009
Prescription Drugs: Risk vs. Benefit vs Cost- The Chantix Example
When a physician prescribes a medication, a patient generally wants the most effective medication, with the least amount of side effects, that won't cost a lot of money. Unfortunately, this is often not the case. When determining which medication is right for you, all things need to be balanced. Obviously, for people with good prescription coverage and/or substantial wealth, cost likely does not play into the picture. However, for most patients, decisions need to be made. Should a patient take a generic medication that might not work as well or have potentially more side effects, but will cost substantially less than the branded medication? The choice is not always easy.
The Chantix example
I have posted several times about Chantix here, here, here, and here. The main reasons for these postings was due to the fact that the media (and some organizations) in my opinion were blowing out of proportion the risk of side effects of a very useful medication for the single leading preventable cause of death in our country.
Now, we have data in that seems to confirm that Chantix is the most effective agent available in the United States for smoking cessation. For those of you not familiar with the Cochrane group, they are international and free of any commercial bias. They review all data available in a systematic way, and are considered by most as some of the most unbiased and highest level of evidence available for therapeutics. The Cochrane review for Chantix (varenicline) is now in, and states that compared to placebo, nicotine replacement or bupropion (Wellbutrin, Zyban), that Chantix is the most effective agent, essentially doubling to tripling your chances of successfully quitting cigarettes.
Soon after Chantix had been on the market, reports of worsening of neuropsychiatric symptoms (depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation) surfaced, and the FDA took notice. Unfortunately, they went very public with this and the media had a field day scaring a lot of patients. In the original studies, patients with underlying depression and anxiety were purposefully excluded. Yet, patients with mental health disorders are much more likely to be smokers. We also know that stopping smoking, even without medication, can cause a worsening of these symptoms. In their final analysis, the FDA stated that it was not entirely clear whether Chantix was responsible for some of these adverse events. They appropriately added language to the drug information (package insert) to warn doctors and patients to look out for these side effects. This is a good thing, because even if Chantix is not the causative agent, it serves as a reminder that stopping smoking can cause worsening of neuropsychiatric symptoms.
Thus, the issue becomes efficacy vs. safety. Should you take a medication that is the most effective agent to help you stop smoking and risk a potential side effect that you could become depressed or even suicidal? One also has to consider the risks of NOT taking the drug. If I don't take Chantix, for example, and continue smoking, I am at risk for a lot of major problems! Given that it is unclear that Chantix has any more or less risk than other agents or no agents at all, in my opinion, since smoking increases risks for things like cancer, heart attack and stroke; in this case risk is outweighed by benefit.
Probably more troublesome is efficacy vs. cost. Chantix trumped bupropion (wellbutrin, zyban) and nicotine replacement (patch, gum, etc.). However, bupropion is generic and for most patients with prescription coverage, a relatively low out of pocket expense. Nicotine replacement is not covered by insurance, and thus the patch, gum or lozenge is a high out of pocket expense. Finally, many insurances still do not cover Chantix, and when covered the co-pay can be high. Thus, do you take the medicine is that is likely to be the most effective, but pay more, or do you try the generic which will likely work, though possibly not as well?
It would be great if all medicines were covered and at low costs to patients, worked incredibly well with virtually no side effects. However, in general this is just not the case. Many generics work just as well if not better than newer more expensive drugs. However, this is not always the situation. Furthermore, sometimes more effective drugs come to market but with increased risk. Doctors and patients must weigh cost, benefit, and risk with each prescription. Every patient's situation will be different. Thus, when being prescribed a new drug you need to take all of these into account.
Here are some questions to ask:
1. What are the side effects of the drug, and what is the chance that I will get these side effects?
2. What are the benefits of this drug, and how much and how likely will I benefit if I take this drug?
3. What are the risks if I don't take this drug, and how likely am I to get these consequences?
4. Are there alternatives available for this drug? If so, what would my out of pocket costs be for each one?
5. What are the differences in risk and benefits between all my options, including not taking any medication?
The Chantix example
I have posted several times about Chantix here, here, here, and here. The main reasons for these postings was due to the fact that the media (and some organizations) in my opinion were blowing out of proportion the risk of side effects of a very useful medication for the single leading preventable cause of death in our country.
Now, we have data in that seems to confirm that Chantix is the most effective agent available in the United States for smoking cessation. For those of you not familiar with the Cochrane group, they are international and free of any commercial bias. They review all data available in a systematic way, and are considered by most as some of the most unbiased and highest level of evidence available for therapeutics. The Cochrane review for Chantix (varenicline) is now in, and states that compared to placebo, nicotine replacement or bupropion (Wellbutrin, Zyban), that Chantix is the most effective agent, essentially doubling to tripling your chances of successfully quitting cigarettes.
Soon after Chantix had been on the market, reports of worsening of neuropsychiatric symptoms (depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation) surfaced, and the FDA took notice. Unfortunately, they went very public with this and the media had a field day scaring a lot of patients. In the original studies, patients with underlying depression and anxiety were purposefully excluded. Yet, patients with mental health disorders are much more likely to be smokers. We also know that stopping smoking, even without medication, can cause a worsening of these symptoms. In their final analysis, the FDA stated that it was not entirely clear whether Chantix was responsible for some of these adverse events. They appropriately added language to the drug information (package insert) to warn doctors and patients to look out for these side effects. This is a good thing, because even if Chantix is not the causative agent, it serves as a reminder that stopping smoking can cause worsening of neuropsychiatric symptoms.
Thus, the issue becomes efficacy vs. safety. Should you take a medication that is the most effective agent to help you stop smoking and risk a potential side effect that you could become depressed or even suicidal? One also has to consider the risks of NOT taking the drug. If I don't take Chantix, for example, and continue smoking, I am at risk for a lot of major problems! Given that it is unclear that Chantix has any more or less risk than other agents or no agents at all, in my opinion, since smoking increases risks for things like cancer, heart attack and stroke; in this case risk is outweighed by benefit.
Probably more troublesome is efficacy vs. cost. Chantix trumped bupropion (wellbutrin, zyban) and nicotine replacement (patch, gum, etc.). However, bupropion is generic and for most patients with prescription coverage, a relatively low out of pocket expense. Nicotine replacement is not covered by insurance, and thus the patch, gum or lozenge is a high out of pocket expense. Finally, many insurances still do not cover Chantix, and when covered the co-pay can be high. Thus, do you take the medicine is that is likely to be the most effective, but pay more, or do you try the generic which will likely work, though possibly not as well?
It would be great if all medicines were covered and at low costs to patients, worked incredibly well with virtually no side effects. However, in general this is just not the case. Many generics work just as well if not better than newer more expensive drugs. However, this is not always the situation. Furthermore, sometimes more effective drugs come to market but with increased risk. Doctors and patients must weigh cost, benefit, and risk with each prescription. Every patient's situation will be different. Thus, when being prescribed a new drug you need to take all of these into account.
Here are some questions to ask:
1. What are the side effects of the drug, and what is the chance that I will get these side effects?
2. What are the benefits of this drug, and how much and how likely will I benefit if I take this drug?
3. What are the risks if I don't take this drug, and how likely am I to get these consequences?
4. Are there alternatives available for this drug? If so, what would my out of pocket costs be for each one?
5. What are the differences in risk and benefits between all my options, including not taking any medication?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
