Liam Davenport

BERLIN — Re-treatment with an antiepidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) agent is effective in patients with chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with RAS and BRAF wild-type tumors confirmed on circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), although the sequencing of therapy does not seem to matter, suggest overall survival results from the crossover trial PARERE.

The findings nevertheless indicate that anti-EGFR rechallenge with panitumumab may prolong progression-free survival (PFS) over the multiple kinase inhibitor regorafenib. This suggests that “the most pragmatic choice” would be to give the anti-EGFR before regorafenib, said study presenter Marco Maria Germani, MD, Department of Translational Research and New Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.

The caveat, however, is in patients who have an anti-EGFR interval since previously receiving the drugs of < 6 months. Those patients appeared to do better if they had regorafenib first and then anti-EGFR rechallenge.

Overall, Germani said that “since [trifluridine/tipiracil] plus bevacizumab is today the third-line standard of care” in this patient population, “anti-EGFR re-treatment might be considered after progression” on that combination.

Germani presented the research on October 18 at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Annual Meeting 2025, which was simultaneously published in the Annals of Oncology.

Michel P. Ducreux, MD, PhD, head of the Digestive Cancer Committee at Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France, and invited discussant for the results, said, despite the study being negative, it is “very important to continue to perform this kind of trial to evaluate the [ideal] sequence in the treatment of our patients.”

He continued that the secondary endpoints in the trial of PFS and objective response and disease control rates were “fairly in favor of the use of rechallenge before regorafenib, and in my opinion, this is really quite convincing.”

Ducreux, who was not involved in PARERE trail, also pointed to the sex difference seen in the study, which suggested that women responded much better to having anti-EGFR retreatment before regorafenib than did men.

Similar findings have been reported in a number of other trials, and previous work has suggested that there are sex differences in the pharmacokinetics of several anticancer drugs. However, while this is “very important,” he said that “we never consider it, because we are not able to really explain [it].”

Overall, he concluded that, on the basis of these results, he would agree with the notion that it is better to propose a rechallenge with anti-EGFR treatment as the fourth-line therapy in this patient population, before administering regorafenib.

Ducreux explained that, after a partial response, tumors acquire resistance to EGFR inhibitors through alterations and mutations that occur during treatment, via nongenetic mechanisms, and through treatment-induced selection for preexisting mutations.

Previous work has shown that mutations, such as in the RAS gene, are detectable early during EGFR inhibitor therapy, but that they then decay exponentially once the drugs are stopped, with the potential that tumors regain their sensitivity to them.

Germani said that this means that ctDNA-guided retreatment with anti-EGFR therapies is a “promising approach” in pretreated patients with RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC, and that the sequencing of the drugs may be important. Indeed, the REVERCE trial showed that giving regorafenib followed by the anti-EGFR drug cetuzximab was associated with longer overall survival than the other way around in anti-EGFR medication-naive patients.

 

Methods and Results

For PARERE, the researchers enrolled patients aged at least 18 years with RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC who were previously treated with a first-line anti-EGFR-containing regimen and had at least a partial response or stable disease for at least 6 months.

The patients were also required to have had at least one intervening anti-EGFR-free line of therapy, and to have previously received treatment with fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and anti-angiogenics. At least 4 months were required to have passed between the end of anti-EGFR administration and screening for the study.

In all, 428 patients were screened between December 2020 and December 2024, with 213 patients with RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC, as detected on ctDNA, enrolled. They were randomized to panitumumab or regorafenib until first progression, followed by regorafenib, if they started on panitumumab, or panitumumab, if they started on regorafenib, until second progression.

The median age of the patients was 61 years among those who started on panitumumab and 64 years among those initially given regorafenib in the trial, and 63% and 57%, respectively, were male. The median number of prior lines of therapy was two in both groups, and 65% and 69%, respectively, had received pantitumumab as their first-line anti-EGFR.

Initial findings from the study presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting indicated that, after a median follow-up of 23.5 months, there was no significant difference in the median first PFS between the two treatment arms.

However, patients who started with panitumumab had a significant improvement in both the objective response and disease control rates (P < .001), as well as a signal for a potentially longer median second PFS, than those who started with regorafenib, particularly on the per-protocol analysis.

Presenting the overall survival results, Germani said that there was no significant difference between the groups on the intention-to-treat analysis, at a stratified hazard ratio of 1.13 (P = .440), or on the per-protocol analysis, at a hazard ratio of 1.07 (P = .730).

“We then ran a subgroup analysis,” he continued, “and we found out that an anti-EGFR-free interval before liquid biopsy shorter than 6 months was associated with less benefit from a panitumumab [first] sequence, which is biologically sound.”

It was also observed that women did significantly better when having panitumumab first, whereas men did not, for which “we do not have a clear biological explanation,” Germani added.

Confining the analysis to so-called “hyperselected” patients, who not only were RAS and BRAF wild type but also had no pathogenic mutations associated with anti-EGFR resistance, did not reveal any significant overall survival differences between the treatment groups.

However, Ducreux took issue with the way in which hyperselection, which is turning up more and more regularly in trials, is defined, as the choice of which mutations to include varies widely. He suggested that a consensus group be assembled to resolve this issue.

Looking more broadly, the researchers were able to show that, in this updated analysis, anti-EGFR re-treatment was superior to regorafenib regardless of the treatment sequence in terms of PFS, at 4.2 months vs 2.4 months (P = .103) when given first in the trial, and 3.9 months vs 2.7 months (P = .019) when given second in the trial, as well as in terms of objective response and disease control rates.

 

Adverse Events

In terms of safety, the results showed that, as expected, acneiform rash, fatigue, and hypomagnesemia were the most common adverse events associated with panitumumb, while those with regorafenib were fatigue, hand-foot skin reactions, and hypertension.

There were no notable differences in the number of patients receiving a post-study treatment nor in the post-study therapeutic choices, between the study arms.

The study was sponsored by GONO Foundation and partially supported by Amgen and Bayer. Germani declared having relationships with MSD and Amgen. Ducreux declared having relationships with Amgen, Bayer, BeiGene, Incyte, Jazz, Merck KGaA, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Servier, Keocyt, AbbVie, Abcely, Arcus, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Scandion, and Zymeworks.

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

BERLIN — Re-treatment with an antiepidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) agent is effective in patients with chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with RAS and BRAF wild-type tumors confirmed on circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), although the sequencing of therapy does not seem to matter, suggest overall survival results from the crossover trial PARERE.

The findings nevertheless indicate that anti-EGFR rechallenge with panitumumab may prolong progression-free survival (PFS) over the multiple kinase inhibitor regorafenib. This suggests that “the most pragmatic choice” would be to give the anti-EGFR before regorafenib, said study presenter Marco Maria Germani, MD, Department of Translational Research and New Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.

The caveat, however, is in patients who have an anti-EGFR interval since previously receiving the drugs of < 6 months. Those patients appeared to do better if they had regorafenib first and then anti-EGFR rechallenge.

Overall, Germani said that “since [trifluridine/tipiracil] plus bevacizumab is today the third-line standard of care” in this patient population, “anti-EGFR re-treatment might be considered after progression” on that combination.

Germani presented the research on October 18 at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Annual Meeting 2025, which was simultaneously published in the Annals of Oncology.

Michel P. Ducreux, MD, PhD, head of the Digestive Cancer Committee at Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France, and invited discussant for the results, said, despite the study being negative, it is “very important to continue to perform this kind of trial to evaluate the [ideal] sequence in the treatment of our patients.”

He continued that the secondary endpoints in the trial of PFS and objective response and disease control rates were “fairly in favor of the use of rechallenge before regorafenib, and in my opinion, this is really quite convincing.”

Ducreux, who was not involved in PARERE trail, also pointed to the sex difference seen in the study, which suggested that women responded much better to having anti-EGFR retreatment before regorafenib than did men.

Similar findings have been reported in a number of other trials, and previous work has suggested that there are sex differences in the pharmacokinetics of several anticancer drugs. However, while this is “very important,” he said that “we never consider it, because we are not able to really explain [it].”

Overall, he concluded that, on the basis of these results, he would agree with the notion that it is better to propose a rechallenge with anti-EGFR treatment as the fourth-line therapy in this patient population, before administering regorafenib.

Ducreux explained that, after a partial response, tumors acquire resistance to EGFR inhibitors through alterations and mutations that occur during treatment, via nongenetic mechanisms, and through treatment-induced selection for preexisting mutations.

Previous work has shown that mutations, such as in the RAS gene, are detectable early during EGFR inhibitor therapy, but that they then decay exponentially once the drugs are stopped, with the potential that tumors regain their sensitivity to them.

Germani said that this means that ctDNA-guided retreatment with anti-EGFR therapies is a “promising approach” in pretreated patients with RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC, and that the sequencing of the drugs may be important. Indeed, the REVERCE trial showed that giving regorafenib followed by the anti-EGFR drug cetuzximab was associated with longer overall survival than the other way around in anti-EGFR medication-naive patients.

 

Methods and Results

For PARERE, the researchers enrolled patients aged at least 18 years with RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC who were previously treated with a first-line anti-EGFR-containing regimen and had at least a partial response or stable disease for at least 6 months.

The patients were also required to have had at least one intervening anti-EGFR-free line of therapy, and to have previously received treatment with fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and anti-angiogenics. At least 4 months were required to have passed between the end of anti-EGFR administration and screening for the study.

In all, 428 patients were screened between December 2020 and December 2024, with 213 patients with RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC, as detected on ctDNA, enrolled. They were randomized to panitumumab or regorafenib until first progression, followed by regorafenib, if they started on panitumumab, or panitumumab, if they started on regorafenib, until second progression.

The median age of the patients was 61 years among those who started on panitumumab and 64 years among those initially given regorafenib in the trial, and 63% and 57%, respectively, were male. The median number of prior lines of therapy was two in both groups, and 65% and 69%, respectively, had received pantitumumab as their first-line anti-EGFR.

Initial findings from the study presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting indicated that, after a median follow-up of 23.5 months, there was no significant difference in the median first PFS between the two treatment arms.

However, patients who started with panitumumab had a significant improvement in both the objective response and disease control rates (P < .001), as well as a signal for a potentially longer median second PFS, than those who started with regorafenib, particularly on the per-protocol analysis.

Presenting the overall survival results, Germani said that there was no significant difference between the groups on the intention-to-treat analysis, at a stratified hazard ratio of 1.13 (P = .440), or on the per-protocol analysis, at a hazard ratio of 1.07 (P = .730).

“We then ran a subgroup analysis,” he continued, “and we found out that an anti-EGFR-free interval before liquid biopsy shorter than 6 months was associated with less benefit from a panitumumab [first] sequence, which is biologically sound.”

It was also observed that women did significantly better when having panitumumab first, whereas men did not, for which “we do not have a clear biological explanation,” Germani added.

Confining the analysis to so-called “hyperselected” patients, who not only were RAS and BRAF wild type but also had no pathogenic mutations associated with anti-EGFR resistance, did not reveal any significant overall survival differences between the treatment groups.

However, Ducreux took issue with the way in which hyperselection, which is turning up more and more regularly in trials, is defined, as the choice of which mutations to include varies widely. He suggested that a consensus group be assembled to resolve this issue.

Looking more broadly, the researchers were able to show that, in this updated analysis, anti-EGFR re-treatment was superior to regorafenib regardless of the treatment sequence in terms of PFS, at 4.2 months vs 2.4 months (P = .103) when given first in the trial, and 3.9 months vs 2.7 months (P = .019) when given second in the trial, as well as in terms of objective response and disease control rates.

 

Adverse Events

In terms of safety, the results showed that, as expected, acneiform rash, fatigue, and hypomagnesemia were the most common adverse events associated with panitumumb, while those with regorafenib were fatigue, hand-foot skin reactions, and hypertension.

There were no notable differences in the number of patients receiving a post-study treatment nor in the post-study therapeutic choices, between the study arms.

The study was sponsored by GONO Foundation and partially supported by Amgen and Bayer. Germani declared having relationships with MSD and Amgen. Ducreux declared having relationships with Amgen, Bayer, BeiGene, Incyte, Jazz, Merck KGaA, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Servier, Keocyt, AbbVie, Abcely, Arcus, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Scandion, and Zymeworks.

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

BERLIN — Re-treatment with an antiepidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) agent is effective in patients with chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with RAS and BRAF wild-type tumors confirmed on circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), although the sequencing of therapy does not seem to matter, suggest overall survival results from the crossover trial PARERE.

The findings nevertheless indicate that anti-EGFR rechallenge with panitumumab may prolong progression-free survival (PFS) over the multiple kinase inhibitor regorafenib. This suggests that “the most pragmatic choice” would be to give the anti-EGFR before regorafenib, said study presenter Marco Maria Germani, MD, Department of Translational Research and New Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.

The caveat, however, is in patients who have an anti-EGFR interval since previously receiving the drugs of < 6 months. Those patients appeared to do better if they had regorafenib first and then anti-EGFR rechallenge.

Overall, Germani said that “since [trifluridine/tipiracil] plus bevacizumab is today the third-line standard of care” in this patient population, “anti-EGFR re-treatment might be considered after progression” on that combination.

Germani presented the research on October 18 at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Annual Meeting 2025, which was simultaneously published in the Annals of Oncology.

Michel P. Ducreux, MD, PhD, head of the Digestive Cancer Committee at Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France, and invited discussant for the results, said, despite the study being negative, it is “very important to continue to perform this kind of trial to evaluate the [ideal] sequence in the treatment of our patients.”

He continued that the secondary endpoints in the trial of PFS and objective response and disease control rates were “fairly in favor of the use of rechallenge before regorafenib, and in my opinion, this is really quite convincing.”

Ducreux, who was not involved in PARERE trail, also pointed to the sex difference seen in the study, which suggested that women responded much better to having anti-EGFR retreatment before regorafenib than did men.

Similar findings have been reported in a number of other trials, and previous work has suggested that there are sex differences in the pharmacokinetics of several anticancer drugs. However, while this is “very important,” he said that “we never consider it, because we are not able to really explain [it].”

Overall, he concluded that, on the basis of these results, he would agree with the notion that it is better to propose a rechallenge with anti-EGFR treatment as the fourth-line therapy in this patient population, before administering regorafenib.

Ducreux explained that, after a partial response, tumors acquire resistance to EGFR inhibitors through alterations and mutations that occur during treatment, via nongenetic mechanisms, and through treatment-induced selection for preexisting mutations.

Previous work has shown that mutations, such as in the RAS gene, are detectable early during EGFR inhibitor therapy, but that they then decay exponentially once the drugs are stopped, with the potential that tumors regain their sensitivity to them.

Germani said that this means that ctDNA-guided retreatment with anti-EGFR therapies is a “promising approach” in pretreated patients with RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC, and that the sequencing of the drugs may be important. Indeed, the REVERCE trial showed that giving regorafenib followed by the anti-EGFR drug cetuzximab was associated with longer overall survival than the other way around in anti-EGFR medication-naive patients.

 

Methods and Results

For PARERE, the researchers enrolled patients aged at least 18 years with RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC who were previously treated with a first-line anti-EGFR-containing regimen and had at least a partial response or stable disease for at least 6 months.

The patients were also required to have had at least one intervening anti-EGFR-free line of therapy, and to have previously received treatment with fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and anti-angiogenics. At least 4 months were required to have passed between the end of anti-EGFR administration and screening for the study.

In all, 428 patients were screened between December 2020 and December 2024, with 213 patients with RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC, as detected on ctDNA, enrolled. They were randomized to panitumumab or regorafenib until first progression, followed by regorafenib, if they started on panitumumab, or panitumumab, if they started on regorafenib, until second progression.

The median age of the patients was 61 years among those who started on panitumumab and 64 years among those initially given regorafenib in the trial, and 63% and 57%, respectively, were male. The median number of prior lines of therapy was two in both groups, and 65% and 69%, respectively, had received pantitumumab as their first-line anti-EGFR.

Initial findings from the study presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting indicated that, after a median follow-up of 23.5 months, there was no significant difference in the median first PFS between the two treatment arms.

However, patients who started with panitumumab had a significant improvement in both the objective response and disease control rates (P < .001), as well as a signal for a potentially longer median second PFS, than those who started with regorafenib, particularly on the per-protocol analysis.

Presenting the overall survival results, Germani said that there was no significant difference between the groups on the intention-to-treat analysis, at a stratified hazard ratio of 1.13 (P = .440), or on the per-protocol analysis, at a hazard ratio of 1.07 (P = .730).

“We then ran a subgroup analysis,” he continued, “and we found out that an anti-EGFR-free interval before liquid biopsy shorter than 6 months was associated with less benefit from a panitumumab [first] sequence, which is biologically sound.”

It was also observed that women did significantly better when having panitumumab first, whereas men did not, for which “we do not have a clear biological explanation,” Germani added.

Confining the analysis to so-called “hyperselected” patients, who not only were RAS and BRAF wild type but also had no pathogenic mutations associated with anti-EGFR resistance, did not reveal any significant overall survival differences between the treatment groups.

However, Ducreux took issue with the way in which hyperselection, which is turning up more and more regularly in trials, is defined, as the choice of which mutations to include varies widely. He suggested that a consensus group be assembled to resolve this issue.

Looking more broadly, the researchers were able to show that, in this updated analysis, anti-EGFR re-treatment was superior to regorafenib regardless of the treatment sequence in terms of PFS, at 4.2 months vs 2.4 months (P = .103) when given first in the trial, and 3.9 months vs 2.7 months (P = .019) when given second in the trial, as well as in terms of objective response and disease control rates.

 

Adverse Events

In terms of safety, the results showed that, as expected, acneiform rash, fatigue, and hypomagnesemia were the most common adverse events associated with panitumumb, while those with regorafenib were fatigue, hand-foot skin reactions, and hypertension.

There were no notable differences in the number of patients receiving a post-study treatment nor in the post-study therapeutic choices, between the study arms.

The study was sponsored by GONO Foundation and partially supported by Amgen and Bayer. Germani declared having relationships with MSD and Amgen. Ducreux declared having relationships with Amgen, Bayer, BeiGene, Incyte, Jazz, Merck KGaA, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Servier, Keocyt, AbbVie, Abcely, Arcus, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Scandion, and Zymeworks.

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

BERLIN — Patients with previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) who are not candidates for immunotherapy may experience improved survival outcomes with TROP2-directed antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), suggested two trials presented at European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Annual Meeting 2025 on October 19.

ASCENT-03 compared sacituzumab govitecan with standard of care chemotherapy, finding that the drug was associated with a 38% improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) in this patient population that has, traditionally, a poor prognosis. Overall survival data remain immature.

TROPION-Breast02 studied datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) against investigator’s choice of chemotherapy. The PFS improvement with the ADC was 43%, while patients also experienced a 21% improvement in overall survival. In both cases, the safety profile of the experimental drugs was deemed to be manageable.

Discussant Ana C. Garrido-Castro, MD, director, Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Research, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who was not involved in either study, said that both sacituzumab govitecan and Dato-DXd showed a PFS benefit. The choice between them, leaving aside overall survival until the data are mature, will be largely based on factors such as the safety profile and the patient preference, she continued.

Sacituzumab govitecan is associated with an increase in neutropenia, nausea, and diarrhea, she pointed out, while Dato-DXd has increased rates of ocular surface toxicity, oral mucositis/stomatitis, and requires monitoring for interstitial lung disease.

Dato-DXd has a higher objective response rate than chemotherapy, unlike sacituzumab govitecan, but, crucially, requires one infusion vs 2 for sacituzumab govitecan per 21-day cycle, and has a shorter total infusion time.

There are nevertheless a number of unanswered questions about the drugs, including how the ADCs affect quality of life, and how common patient adherence to the recommended prophylaxis is. Patients with early relapse of < 12 months remain an “urgent unmet need,” Garrido-Castro said, and the role of immunotherapy rechallenge remains to be explored.

ADCs are also being tested in the neo-adjuvant TNBC setting, and the potential impact of that on the use of the drugs in the metastatic setting is currently unclear. In addition, there are questions around access to therapy.

“Ultimately, it will be very important to have a better understanding of the biomarkers of response and resistance and toxicity to these agents, and whether we should be sequencing antibody drug conjugates,” Garrido-Castro said. “All of this will help shape the next wave of treatment strategies for this patient population.”

She concluded: “Today, marks a paradigm shift of metastatic TNBC, in my opinion. ASCENT-03 and TROPION-Breast02 support TROP2 ADC therapy as the new preferred first-line regimen for this patient population.”

 

Method and Results of ASCENT-03

ASCENT-03 study presenter Javier C. Cortés, MD, PhD, International Breast Cancer Center, Pangaea Oncology, Quiron Group, Barcelona, Spain, said there is currently an unmet clinical need in the approximately 60% of patients with previously untreated metastatic TNBC who are not candidates for immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Median PFS in previous first-line studies was < 6 months with chemotherapy — the current standard of care — and Cortés said that around half of the patients who receive that in the first-line do not receive second-line therapy because of clinical deterioration or death.

“The sobering truth is that across studies in the US and Europe, approximately 25% to 30% of patients diagnosed with metastatic TNBC are no longer alive at 6 months from their metastatic diagnosis,” said Garrido-Castro. “So if there is a new drug that is able to significantly improve PFS with an acceptable toxicity profile, this should be sufficient to change the current standard of care in the first-line setting.”

As sacituzumab govitecan is already approved for second-line metastatic TNBC and for pretreated hormone receptor positive/HER2- metastatic breast cancer, the ASCENT-03 researchers studied the drug in patients with previously untreated locally advanced inoperable, or metastatic TNBC.

The patients were deemed not to be candidates for PD-L1 inhibitors through having PD-L1-negative tumors, by having PD-L1-positive tumors that had previously been treated with PD-L1 inhibitors in the curative setting, or by having a comorbidity that precluded PD-L1 inhibitor use.

The patients were required to have finished any prior treatment in the curative setting at least 6 months previously. Previously treated, stable central nervous system metastases were allowed.

They were randomized to sacituzumab govitecan or chemotherapy, comprising paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel, or gemcitabine plus carboplatin, until progression, as verified by blinded independent central review (BICR), or unacceptable toxicity. Patients who progressed on chemotherapy were offered crossover to second-line sacituzumab govitecan.

In all, 558 patients were randomized. The median age was 56 years in the sacituzumab govitecan group vs 54 years in the chemotherapy group. The majority (64% in both groups) of patients were White individuals. The most common metastatic site was the lung (59% vs 61%), and 58% of patients in both groups had previously received a taxane.

Cortés reported that sacituzumab govitecan was associated with a “statistically significant and clinically meaningful” improvement in PFS by BICR, at a median of 9.7 months vs 6.9 months, or a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.62 (P < .0001). This benefit was seen across prespecified subgroups.

The objective response rate was almost identical between the two treatment groups, at 48% with sacituzumab govitecan vs 46% with chemotherapy, although the median duration of response was longer with the ADC, at 12.2 months vs 7.2 months.

Cortés showed the latest results on overall survival. This showed no significant difference between the two treatments, although he underlined that the data are not yet mature.

He also reported that the rates of grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were similar in the two groups, at 66% with sacituzumab govitecan vs 62% with chemotherapy. However, the rates of TEAEs leading to treatment discontinuation (4% vs 12%) or dose reduction (37% vs 45%) were lower with the ADC.

Cortés concluded that the results suggest that sacituzumab govitecan “is a good option for patients with triple negative breast cancer when they develop metastasis and are unable to receive immune checkpoint inhibitors.”

 

TROPION-Breast02 Methods and Results

Presenting TROPION-Breast02, Rebecca A. Dent, MD, MSc, National Cancer Center Singapore and Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, explained that the trial looked at a patient population similar to that of ASCENT-03, here focusing instead on Dato-DXd.

Patients were included if they had histologically or cytologically documented locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic TNBC, no prior chemotherapy or targeted systemic therapy in this setting, and in whom immunotherapy was not an option.

They were randomized to Dato-DXd or the investigator’s choice of chemotherapy, with treatment continued until investigator-assessed progressive disease on RECIST v1.1, unacceptable toxicity, or another criterion for discontinuation was met.

In total, 642 patients were enrolled. The median age was 56 years for those in the Dato-DXd group and 57 years for those in chemotherapy group, and less than half (41% in the Dato-DXd group and 48% in the chemotherapy group) were White individuals. The number of metastatic sites was less than three in 64% and 67% of patients, respectively.

Dent showed that Dato-DXd was associated with a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in BICR-assessed PFS, at a median of 10.8 months vs 5.6 months with chemotherapy, at a HR of 0.57 (P < .0001). The findings were replicated across the prespecified subgroups.

There was a marked overall survival benefit with Dato-DXd, at a median of 23.7 months vs 18.7 months, at a HR of 0.79 (P = .0291). Dent reported that, at 18 months, 61.2% of patients in the Dato-DXd group were still alive vs 51.3% in the chemotherapy group. Again, the benefit was seen across subgroups.

The confirmed objective response rate with Dato-DXd was far higher than that with chemotherapy, at 62.5% vs 29.3%, or an odds ratio of 4.24. The duration of response was also longer, at 12.3 months vs 7.1 months.

Rates of grade ≥ 3 adverse events were comparable, at 33% with Dato-DXd vs 29% with chemotherapy, although there were more events associated with dose reduction (27% vs 18%) and dose interruption (24% vs 19%) with the ADC.

“These results support Dato-DXd as the first new first-line standard of care for patients with locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic TNBC for whom immunotherapy is not an option,” Dent said.

“What’s important is the patients enrolled into this trial are clearly representative of real world patients that we are treating in our clinics every day. These patients are often excluded from our current clinical trials,” she said.

ASCENT-03 was funded by Gilead Sciences.

TROPION-Breast02 was funded by AstraZeneca.Cortés declared relationships with Roche, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Leuko, Bioasis, Clovis oncology, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ellipses, HiberCell, BioInvent, GEMoaB, Gilead, Menarini, Zymeworks, Reveal Genomics, Expres2ion Biotechnologies, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, Scorpion Therapeutics, Bridgebio, Biocon, Biontech, Circle Pharma, Delcath Systems, Hexagon Bio, Novartis, Eisai, Pfizer, Stemline Therapeutics, MAJ3 Capital, Leuko, Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Baxalta GmbH/Servier Affaires, Bayer healthcare, Guardant Health, and PIQUR Therapeutics.

Dent declared relationships with AstraZeneca, MSD, Pfizer, Eisai, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Roche, and Gilead Sciences.

Garrido-Castro declared relationships with AstraZeneca, MSD, Pfizer, Eisai, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Roche, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, TD Cowen, and Roche/Genentech.

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

BERLIN — Patients with previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) who are not candidates for immunotherapy may experience improved survival outcomes with TROP2-directed antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), suggested two trials presented at European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Annual Meeting 2025 on October 19.

ASCENT-03 compared sacituzumab govitecan with standard of care chemotherapy, finding that the drug was associated with a 38% improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) in this patient population that has, traditionally, a poor prognosis. Overall survival data remain immature.

TROPION-Breast02 studied datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) against investigator’s choice of chemotherapy. The PFS improvement with the ADC was 43%, while patients also experienced a 21% improvement in overall survival. In both cases, the safety profile of the experimental drugs was deemed to be manageable.

Discussant Ana C. Garrido-Castro, MD, director, Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Research, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who was not involved in either study, said that both sacituzumab govitecan and Dato-DXd showed a PFS benefit. The choice between them, leaving aside overall survival until the data are mature, will be largely based on factors such as the safety profile and the patient preference, she continued.

Sacituzumab govitecan is associated with an increase in neutropenia, nausea, and diarrhea, she pointed out, while Dato-DXd has increased rates of ocular surface toxicity, oral mucositis/stomatitis, and requires monitoring for interstitial lung disease.

Dato-DXd has a higher objective response rate than chemotherapy, unlike sacituzumab govitecan, but, crucially, requires one infusion vs 2 for sacituzumab govitecan per 21-day cycle, and has a shorter total infusion time.

There are nevertheless a number of unanswered questions about the drugs, including how the ADCs affect quality of life, and how common patient adherence to the recommended prophylaxis is. Patients with early relapse of < 12 months remain an “urgent unmet need,” Garrido-Castro said, and the role of immunotherapy rechallenge remains to be explored.

ADCs are also being tested in the neo-adjuvant TNBC setting, and the potential impact of that on the use of the drugs in the metastatic setting is currently unclear. In addition, there are questions around access to therapy.

“Ultimately, it will be very important to have a better understanding of the biomarkers of response and resistance and toxicity to these agents, and whether we should be sequencing antibody drug conjugates,” Garrido-Castro said. “All of this will help shape the next wave of treatment strategies for this patient population.”

She concluded: “Today, marks a paradigm shift of metastatic TNBC, in my opinion. ASCENT-03 and TROPION-Breast02 support TROP2 ADC therapy as the new preferred first-line regimen for this patient population.”

 

Method and Results of ASCENT-03

ASCENT-03 study presenter Javier C. Cortés, MD, PhD, International Breast Cancer Center, Pangaea Oncology, Quiron Group, Barcelona, Spain, said there is currently an unmet clinical need in the approximately 60% of patients with previously untreated metastatic TNBC who are not candidates for immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Median PFS in previous first-line studies was < 6 months with chemotherapy — the current standard of care — and Cortés said that around half of the patients who receive that in the first-line do not receive second-line therapy because of clinical deterioration or death.

“The sobering truth is that across studies in the US and Europe, approximately 25% to 30% of patients diagnosed with metastatic TNBC are no longer alive at 6 months from their metastatic diagnosis,” said Garrido-Castro. “So if there is a new drug that is able to significantly improve PFS with an acceptable toxicity profile, this should be sufficient to change the current standard of care in the first-line setting.”

As sacituzumab govitecan is already approved for second-line metastatic TNBC and for pretreated hormone receptor positive/HER2- metastatic breast cancer, the ASCENT-03 researchers studied the drug in patients with previously untreated locally advanced inoperable, or metastatic TNBC.

The patients were deemed not to be candidates for PD-L1 inhibitors through having PD-L1-negative tumors, by having PD-L1-positive tumors that had previously been treated with PD-L1 inhibitors in the curative setting, or by having a comorbidity that precluded PD-L1 inhibitor use.

The patients were required to have finished any prior treatment in the curative setting at least 6 months previously. Previously treated, stable central nervous system metastases were allowed.

They were randomized to sacituzumab govitecan or chemotherapy, comprising paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel, or gemcitabine plus carboplatin, until progression, as verified by blinded independent central review (BICR), or unacceptable toxicity. Patients who progressed on chemotherapy were offered crossover to second-line sacituzumab govitecan.

In all, 558 patients were randomized. The median age was 56 years in the sacituzumab govitecan group vs 54 years in the chemotherapy group. The majority (64% in both groups) of patients were White individuals. The most common metastatic site was the lung (59% vs 61%), and 58% of patients in both groups had previously received a taxane.

Cortés reported that sacituzumab govitecan was associated with a “statistically significant and clinically meaningful” improvement in PFS by BICR, at a median of 9.7 months vs 6.9 months, or a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.62 (P < .0001). This benefit was seen across prespecified subgroups.

The objective response rate was almost identical between the two treatment groups, at 48% with sacituzumab govitecan vs 46% with chemotherapy, although the median duration of response was longer with the ADC, at 12.2 months vs 7.2 months.

Cortés showed the latest results on overall survival. This showed no significant difference between the two treatments, although he underlined that the data are not yet mature.

He also reported that the rates of grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were similar in the two groups, at 66% with sacituzumab govitecan vs 62% with chemotherapy. However, the rates of TEAEs leading to treatment discontinuation (4% vs 12%) or dose reduction (37% vs 45%) were lower with the ADC.

Cortés concluded that the results suggest that sacituzumab govitecan “is a good option for patients with triple negative breast cancer when they develop metastasis and are unable to receive immune checkpoint inhibitors.”

 

TROPION-Breast02 Methods and Results

Presenting TROPION-Breast02, Rebecca A. Dent, MD, MSc, National Cancer Center Singapore and Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, explained that the trial looked at a patient population similar to that of ASCENT-03, here focusing instead on Dato-DXd.

Patients were included if they had histologically or cytologically documented locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic TNBC, no prior chemotherapy or targeted systemic therapy in this setting, and in whom immunotherapy was not an option.

They were randomized to Dato-DXd or the investigator’s choice of chemotherapy, with treatment continued until investigator-assessed progressive disease on RECIST v1.1, unacceptable toxicity, or another criterion for discontinuation was met.

In total, 642 patients were enrolled. The median age was 56 years for those in the Dato-DXd group and 57 years for those in chemotherapy group, and less than half (41% in the Dato-DXd group and 48% in the chemotherapy group) were White individuals. The number of metastatic sites was less than three in 64% and 67% of patients, respectively.

Dent showed that Dato-DXd was associated with a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in BICR-assessed PFS, at a median of 10.8 months vs 5.6 months with chemotherapy, at a HR of 0.57 (P < .0001). The findings were replicated across the prespecified subgroups.

There was a marked overall survival benefit with Dato-DXd, at a median of 23.7 months vs 18.7 months, at a HR of 0.79 (P = .0291). Dent reported that, at 18 months, 61.2% of patients in the Dato-DXd group were still alive vs 51.3% in the chemotherapy group. Again, the benefit was seen across subgroups.

The confirmed objective response rate with Dato-DXd was far higher than that with chemotherapy, at 62.5% vs 29.3%, or an odds ratio of 4.24. The duration of response was also longer, at 12.3 months vs 7.1 months.

Rates of grade ≥ 3 adverse events were comparable, at 33% with Dato-DXd vs 29% with chemotherapy, although there were more events associated with dose reduction (27% vs 18%) and dose interruption (24% vs 19%) with the ADC.

“These results support Dato-DXd as the first new first-line standard of care for patients with locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic TNBC for whom immunotherapy is not an option,” Dent said.

“What’s important is the patients enrolled into this trial are clearly representative of real world patients that we are treating in our clinics every day. These patients are often excluded from our current clinical trials,” she said.

ASCENT-03 was funded by Gilead Sciences.

TROPION-Breast02 was funded by AstraZeneca.Cortés declared relationships with Roche, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Leuko, Bioasis, Clovis oncology, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ellipses, HiberCell, BioInvent, GEMoaB, Gilead, Menarini, Zymeworks, Reveal Genomics, Expres2ion Biotechnologies, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, Scorpion Therapeutics, Bridgebio, Biocon, Biontech, Circle Pharma, Delcath Systems, Hexagon Bio, Novartis, Eisai, Pfizer, Stemline Therapeutics, MAJ3 Capital, Leuko, Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Baxalta GmbH/Servier Affaires, Bayer healthcare, Guardant Health, and PIQUR Therapeutics.

Dent declared relationships with AstraZeneca, MSD, Pfizer, Eisai, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Roche, and Gilead Sciences.

Garrido-Castro declared relationships with AstraZeneca, MSD, Pfizer, Eisai, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Roche, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, TD Cowen, and Roche/Genentech.

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

BERLIN — Patients with previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) who are not candidates for immunotherapy may experience improved survival outcomes with TROP2-directed antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), suggested two trials presented at European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Annual Meeting 2025 on October 19.

ASCENT-03 compared sacituzumab govitecan with standard of care chemotherapy, finding that the drug was associated with a 38% improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) in this patient population that has, traditionally, a poor prognosis. Overall survival data remain immature.

TROPION-Breast02 studied datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) against investigator’s choice of chemotherapy. The PFS improvement with the ADC was 43%, while patients also experienced a 21% improvement in overall survival. In both cases, the safety profile of the experimental drugs was deemed to be manageable.

Discussant Ana C. Garrido-Castro, MD, director, Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Research, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who was not involved in either study, said that both sacituzumab govitecan and Dato-DXd showed a PFS benefit. The choice between them, leaving aside overall survival until the data are mature, will be largely based on factors such as the safety profile and the patient preference, she continued.

Sacituzumab govitecan is associated with an increase in neutropenia, nausea, and diarrhea, she pointed out, while Dato-DXd has increased rates of ocular surface toxicity, oral mucositis/stomatitis, and requires monitoring for interstitial lung disease.

Dato-DXd has a higher objective response rate than chemotherapy, unlike sacituzumab govitecan, but, crucially, requires one infusion vs 2 for sacituzumab govitecan per 21-day cycle, and has a shorter total infusion time.

There are nevertheless a number of unanswered questions about the drugs, including how the ADCs affect quality of life, and how common patient adherence to the recommended prophylaxis is. Patients with early relapse of < 12 months remain an “urgent unmet need,” Garrido-Castro said, and the role of immunotherapy rechallenge remains to be explored.

ADCs are also being tested in the neo-adjuvant TNBC setting, and the potential impact of that on the use of the drugs in the metastatic setting is currently unclear. In addition, there are questions around access to therapy.

“Ultimately, it will be very important to have a better understanding of the biomarkers of response and resistance and toxicity to these agents, and whether we should be sequencing antibody drug conjugates,” Garrido-Castro said. “All of this will help shape the next wave of treatment strategies for this patient population.”

She concluded: “Today, marks a paradigm shift of metastatic TNBC, in my opinion. ASCENT-03 and TROPION-Breast02 support TROP2 ADC therapy as the new preferred first-line regimen for this patient population.”

 

Method and Results of ASCENT-03

ASCENT-03 study presenter Javier C. Cortés, MD, PhD, International Breast Cancer Center, Pangaea Oncology, Quiron Group, Barcelona, Spain, said there is currently an unmet clinical need in the approximately 60% of patients with previously untreated metastatic TNBC who are not candidates for immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Median PFS in previous first-line studies was < 6 months with chemotherapy — the current standard of care — and Cortés said that around half of the patients who receive that in the first-line do not receive second-line therapy because of clinical deterioration or death.

“The sobering truth is that across studies in the US and Europe, approximately 25% to 30% of patients diagnosed with metastatic TNBC are no longer alive at 6 months from their metastatic diagnosis,” said Garrido-Castro. “So if there is a new drug that is able to significantly improve PFS with an acceptable toxicity profile, this should be sufficient to change the current standard of care in the first-line setting.”

As sacituzumab govitecan is already approved for second-line metastatic TNBC and for pretreated hormone receptor positive/HER2- metastatic breast cancer, the ASCENT-03 researchers studied the drug in patients with previously untreated locally advanced inoperable, or metastatic TNBC.

The patients were deemed not to be candidates for PD-L1 inhibitors through having PD-L1-negative tumors, by having PD-L1-positive tumors that had previously been treated with PD-L1 inhibitors in the curative setting, or by having a comorbidity that precluded PD-L1 inhibitor use.

The patients were required to have finished any prior treatment in the curative setting at least 6 months previously. Previously treated, stable central nervous system metastases were allowed.

They were randomized to sacituzumab govitecan or chemotherapy, comprising paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel, or gemcitabine plus carboplatin, until progression, as verified by blinded independent central review (BICR), or unacceptable toxicity. Patients who progressed on chemotherapy were offered crossover to second-line sacituzumab govitecan.

In all, 558 patients were randomized. The median age was 56 years in the sacituzumab govitecan group vs 54 years in the chemotherapy group. The majority (64% in both groups) of patients were White individuals. The most common metastatic site was the lung (59% vs 61%), and 58% of patients in both groups had previously received a taxane.

Cortés reported that sacituzumab govitecan was associated with a “statistically significant and clinically meaningful” improvement in PFS by BICR, at a median of 9.7 months vs 6.9 months, or a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.62 (P < .0001). This benefit was seen across prespecified subgroups.

The objective response rate was almost identical between the two treatment groups, at 48% with sacituzumab govitecan vs 46% with chemotherapy, although the median duration of response was longer with the ADC, at 12.2 months vs 7.2 months.

Cortés showed the latest results on overall survival. This showed no significant difference between the two treatments, although he underlined that the data are not yet mature.

He also reported that the rates of grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were similar in the two groups, at 66% with sacituzumab govitecan vs 62% with chemotherapy. However, the rates of TEAEs leading to treatment discontinuation (4% vs 12%) or dose reduction (37% vs 45%) were lower with the ADC.

Cortés concluded that the results suggest that sacituzumab govitecan “is a good option for patients with triple negative breast cancer when they develop metastasis and are unable to receive immune checkpoint inhibitors.”

 

TROPION-Breast02 Methods and Results

Presenting TROPION-Breast02, Rebecca A. Dent, MD, MSc, National Cancer Center Singapore and Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, explained that the trial looked at a patient population similar to that of ASCENT-03, here focusing instead on Dato-DXd.

Patients were included if they had histologically or cytologically documented locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic TNBC, no prior chemotherapy or targeted systemic therapy in this setting, and in whom immunotherapy was not an option.

They were randomized to Dato-DXd or the investigator’s choice of chemotherapy, with treatment continued until investigator-assessed progressive disease on RECIST v1.1, unacceptable toxicity, or another criterion for discontinuation was met.

In total, 642 patients were enrolled. The median age was 56 years for those in the Dato-DXd group and 57 years for those in chemotherapy group, and less than half (41% in the Dato-DXd group and 48% in the chemotherapy group) were White individuals. The number of metastatic sites was less than three in 64% and 67% of patients, respectively.

Dent showed that Dato-DXd was associated with a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in BICR-assessed PFS, at a median of 10.8 months vs 5.6 months with chemotherapy, at a HR of 0.57 (P < .0001). The findings were replicated across the prespecified subgroups.

There was a marked overall survival benefit with Dato-DXd, at a median of 23.7 months vs 18.7 months, at a HR of 0.79 (P = .0291). Dent reported that, at 18 months, 61.2% of patients in the Dato-DXd group were still alive vs 51.3% in the chemotherapy group. Again, the benefit was seen across subgroups.

The confirmed objective response rate with Dato-DXd was far higher than that with chemotherapy, at 62.5% vs 29.3%, or an odds ratio of 4.24. The duration of response was also longer, at 12.3 months vs 7.1 months.

Rates of grade ≥ 3 adverse events were comparable, at 33% with Dato-DXd vs 29% with chemotherapy, although there were more events associated with dose reduction (27% vs 18%) and dose interruption (24% vs 19%) with the ADC.

“These results support Dato-DXd as the first new first-line standard of care for patients with locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic TNBC for whom immunotherapy is not an option,” Dent said.

“What’s important is the patients enrolled into this trial are clearly representative of real world patients that we are treating in our clinics every day. These patients are often excluded from our current clinical trials,” she said.

ASCENT-03 was funded by Gilead Sciences.

TROPION-Breast02 was funded by AstraZeneca.Cortés declared relationships with Roche, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Leuko, Bioasis, Clovis oncology, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ellipses, HiberCell, BioInvent, GEMoaB, Gilead, Menarini, Zymeworks, Reveal Genomics, Expres2ion Biotechnologies, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, Scorpion Therapeutics, Bridgebio, Biocon, Biontech, Circle Pharma, Delcath Systems, Hexagon Bio, Novartis, Eisai, Pfizer, Stemline Therapeutics, MAJ3 Capital, Leuko, Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Baxalta GmbH/Servier Affaires, Bayer healthcare, Guardant Health, and PIQUR Therapeutics.

Dent declared relationships with AstraZeneca, MSD, Pfizer, Eisai, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Roche, and Gilead Sciences.

Garrido-Castro declared relationships with AstraZeneca, MSD, Pfizer, Eisai, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Roche, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, TD Cowen, and Roche/Genentech.

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

Despite being a targeted therapy, antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) can cause significant off-target toxicity to the eyes of patients being treated for advanced multiple myeloma or cervical cancer, yet the risks remain relatively unknown, according to oncologists and ophthalmologists.

Such experts called for greater collaboration between oncologists and ophthalmologists, in interviews with Medscape Medical News.

ADCs combine a monoclonal antibody targeted at an antigen overexpressed on cancer cells with a toxic chemotherapy payload — the aim being to maximize the effectiveness of the drug against the tumor while minimizing the damage to healthy tissues and reducing systemic toxicity.

Yet trastuzumab duocarmazine (T-Duo), a third-generation human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–targeted ADC designed to treat HER2-positive breast cancer, was recently found to have a notable adverse effect in the TULIP trial of 437 patients.

As reported by Medscape Medical News, the drug was associated with a significant increase in progression-free survival over physician’s choice of therapy. However, 78% of patients in the ADC group experienced at least one treatment-emergent ocular toxicity adverse event vs 29.2% of those in the control group.

Moreover, grade 3 or high ocular toxicity events were reported by 21% of patients in the experimental group compared with none of those who received physician’s choice.

 

Ocular Toxicities Seen on Ocular Surface

Ocular toxicities with these drugs are “not necessarily a new thing,” said Joann J. Kang, MD, director, Cornea and Refractive Surgery, and associate professor of ophthalmology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York.

“But what we’re seeing with certain ADCs is a lot of ocular toxicity, especially on the ocular surface,” with the degree toxicity varying depending on the ADC in question. “It’s definitely a real concern.”

Kang noted that separate from T-Duo, certain ADCs already come with black box warnings for ocular toxicity, including:

• Belantamab mafodotin (Blenrep) — approved for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma and carries a warning specifically for keratopathy.
• Tisotumab vedotin (Tivdak) — indicated for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer and can cause changes in the corneal epithelium and conjunctiva.
• Mirvetuximab soravtansine (Elahere) — used to treat folate receptor (FR) alpha–positive ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancers and can lead to keratopathy, blurred vision, and dry eyes.

Indeed, the American Academy of Ophthalmology 2024 annual meeting saw research presented indicating that mirvetuximab was associated with moderate or severe corneal toxicity in 47% of patients treated for primary gynecologic malignancies.

As reported by Medscape Medical News, the study, by researchers at Byers Eye Institute of Stanford University in Stanford, California, was a retrospective analysis of 36 eyes of 18 women who received mirvetuximab for FR alpha–positive, platinum-resistant primary ovarian cancer.

 

What Are the Causes?

But why would a drug that is targeted specifically to a cancer tumor, thanks to the presence of a monoclonal antibody, cause off-target effects such as ocular toxicity?

Kathy D. Miller, MD, professor of oncology and medicine at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, pointed out that they are targeted in a relative and not absolute sense, meaning that the antigen target may not be truly limited to the tumor cells.

There can also be “a lot of ways that you could get systemic toxicities,” she said.

For example, if the linker connecting the antibody and the chemotherapy payload breaks prematurely or is not stable, or if the drug leaches out into the tumor microenvironment and then is “picked up into the circulation, that can give you systemic toxicity,” she said.

In addition, the drug may, once it is in the tumor cells, be metabolized to an active metabolite that could, again, result in systemic exposure.

 

Side Effects Are Underappreciated and Distressing

Ocular toxicity remains underappreciated among oncologists prescribing these drugs. One reason is that it “did not get enough attention” in the initial clinical trial reports, Miller said she suspects.

Another potential reason for this is that “we’re not used to thinking about it because it’s not particularly common among the drugs that oncologists use frequently,” she added. Additionally, it tends to come up later during treatment, “so people have to be on therapy for some time before you start to see it.”

Nevertheless, Miller underlined that ocular toxicity “can be particularly distressing for patients, as it’s uncomfortable [and] can lead to scarring, so some of the vision issues can be permanent.”

“We often see in these situations that there are different types of ocular toxicities that present in different patients,” said Jane L. Meisel, MD, co-director, Breast Medical Oncology, Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta.

“Corneal damage is pretty common, and patients can present with blurry vision, or dry eyes, or light sensitivity. And unlike some side effects, these are things that really impact people at every waking moment of their day.”

“So they’re pretty clinically significant side effects, even if they’re not life-threatening,” Meisel emphasized.

Miller suspects that more heavily pretreated patients may be more likely to experience ocular toxicity, as “there’s a much higher incidence of dry eyes in our patients than we recognize.”

She added: “We don’t usually ask about it, and we certainly don’t routinely do Schirmer’s tests,” which determine whether the eye produces enough tears to keep it moist.

 

Preventive Measures

For patients receiving tisotumab or mirvetuximab who experience ocular toxicity, Kang said the recommendation is to use steroid eye drops before, during, and after treatment with the ADC.

However, she noted that steroids have not been found to be useful in patients given belantamab, so clinicians have tried vasoconstrictor eye drops immediately prior to the infusion, as well as ocular cooling masks, which “are thought to help by reducing blood supply to the ocular areas.”

Other approaches to minimize ocular toxicity have included longer infusion times, so it’s “not so much of a hefty dose at one time,” Kang added.

She underlined that grade 2 and 3 ocular toxicities can lead to dose delays or dose modifications, and “usually by the time you get a grade 4 event, then you may need to discontinue the medication.”

This can have consequences for the patients because they are often “very sick, and this may be their third agent that they’re trying,” or it may be that their tumor is responding to a new treatment, but it has to be withheld because of an ocular toxicity.

“It can be incredibly frustrating for patients, and also for oncologists, and then for ophthalmologists,” Kang said.

 

Closer Collaboration Between Specialists Needed

What’s known about ocular side effects in patients taking ADCs underlines that there is a need for closer collaboration between oncologists and ophthalmologists.

“In oncology, especially as immunotherapies came to the forefront, our relationships with our endocrinology colleagues have become stronger because we’ve needed them to help us manage things like thyroid toxicity and pituitary issues related to immunotherapy,” Meisel said.

With toxicities that may be “very impactful for patient quality of life, like ocular toxicity, we will need to learn more about them and develop protocols for management, along with our ophthalmology colleagues, so that we can keep patients as comfortable as possible, while maximizing the efficacy of these drugs.”

Miller agreed, saying oncologists need to have “a conversation with a local ophthalmologist,” although she conceded that, in many areas, such specialists “are in short supply.”

The oncologist “not only needs to be aware” of and looking for ocular toxicity when using these ADCs but also needs to be thinking: “If I run into trouble here, who’s my ophthalmology backup? Are they familiar with this drug? And do we have a plan for the multispecialty management of patients who run into this toxicity?”

 

Setting Counts When Assessing Toxicities

But do all these considerations mean that ADCs’ potential ocular toxicity should give clinicians pause when considering whether to use these drugs?

“What my patients most want are drugs that work; that are effective in controlling their tumors,” Miller said.

“Every drug we use has potential toxicities, and which toxicities are most physically troublesome [or] are the greatest concern may vary from patient to patient, and it may vary a lot from patients with metastatic disease to those in the curative setting.”

She explained that “toxicities that might not be prohibitive at all in the metastatic setting [may] have to be a much bigger part of our considerations” when moving drugs into the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting.

This, Miller underlined, is where the ocular toxicity with these ADCs “may be much more prohibitive.”

TULIP was funded by Byondis BV.

Turner declared relationships with Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Lilly, Repare Therapeutics, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead Sciences, Inivata, Guardant Health, Exact Sciences, and Relay Therapeutics.

Meisel declared relationships with Novartis, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Seagen, Olema Oncology, GE Healthcare, Pfizer, Stemline, and Sermonix Pharmaceuticals.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Despite being a targeted therapy, antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) can cause significant off-target toxicity to the eyes of patients being treated for advanced multiple myeloma or cervical cancer, yet the risks remain relatively unknown, according to oncologists and ophthalmologists.

Such experts called for greater collaboration between oncologists and ophthalmologists, in interviews with Medscape Medical News.

ADCs combine a monoclonal antibody targeted at an antigen overexpressed on cancer cells with a toxic chemotherapy payload — the aim being to maximize the effectiveness of the drug against the tumor while minimizing the damage to healthy tissues and reducing systemic toxicity.

Yet trastuzumab duocarmazine (T-Duo), a third-generation human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–targeted ADC designed to treat HER2-positive breast cancer, was recently found to have a notable adverse effect in the TULIP trial of 437 patients.

As reported by Medscape Medical News, the drug was associated with a significant increase in progression-free survival over physician’s choice of therapy. However, 78% of patients in the ADC group experienced at least one treatment-emergent ocular toxicity adverse event vs 29.2% of those in the control group.

Moreover, grade 3 or high ocular toxicity events were reported by 21% of patients in the experimental group compared with none of those who received physician’s choice.

 

Ocular Toxicities Seen on Ocular Surface

Ocular toxicities with these drugs are “not necessarily a new thing,” said Joann J. Kang, MD, director, Cornea and Refractive Surgery, and associate professor of ophthalmology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York.

“But what we’re seeing with certain ADCs is a lot of ocular toxicity, especially on the ocular surface,” with the degree toxicity varying depending on the ADC in question. “It’s definitely a real concern.”

Kang noted that separate from T-Duo, certain ADCs already come with black box warnings for ocular toxicity, including:

• Belantamab mafodotin (Blenrep) — approved for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma and carries a warning specifically for keratopathy.
• Tisotumab vedotin (Tivdak) — indicated for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer and can cause changes in the corneal epithelium and conjunctiva.
• Mirvetuximab soravtansine (Elahere) — used to treat folate receptor (FR) alpha–positive ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancers and can lead to keratopathy, blurred vision, and dry eyes.

Indeed, the American Academy of Ophthalmology 2024 annual meeting saw research presented indicating that mirvetuximab was associated with moderate or severe corneal toxicity in 47% of patients treated for primary gynecologic malignancies.

As reported by Medscape Medical News, the study, by researchers at Byers Eye Institute of Stanford University in Stanford, California, was a retrospective analysis of 36 eyes of 18 women who received mirvetuximab for FR alpha–positive, platinum-resistant primary ovarian cancer.

 

What Are the Causes?

But why would a drug that is targeted specifically to a cancer tumor, thanks to the presence of a monoclonal antibody, cause off-target effects such as ocular toxicity?

Kathy D. Miller, MD, professor of oncology and medicine at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, pointed out that they are targeted in a relative and not absolute sense, meaning that the antigen target may not be truly limited to the tumor cells.

There can also be “a lot of ways that you could get systemic toxicities,” she said.

For example, if the linker connecting the antibody and the chemotherapy payload breaks prematurely or is not stable, or if the drug leaches out into the tumor microenvironment and then is “picked up into the circulation, that can give you systemic toxicity,” she said.

In addition, the drug may, once it is in the tumor cells, be metabolized to an active metabolite that could, again, result in systemic exposure.

 

Side Effects Are Underappreciated and Distressing

Ocular toxicity remains underappreciated among oncologists prescribing these drugs. One reason is that it “did not get enough attention” in the initial clinical trial reports, Miller said she suspects.

Another potential reason for this is that “we’re not used to thinking about it because it’s not particularly common among the drugs that oncologists use frequently,” she added. Additionally, it tends to come up later during treatment, “so people have to be on therapy for some time before you start to see it.”

Nevertheless, Miller underlined that ocular toxicity “can be particularly distressing for patients, as it’s uncomfortable [and] can lead to scarring, so some of the vision issues can be permanent.”

“We often see in these situations that there are different types of ocular toxicities that present in different patients,” said Jane L. Meisel, MD, co-director, Breast Medical Oncology, Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta.

“Corneal damage is pretty common, and patients can present with blurry vision, or dry eyes, or light sensitivity. And unlike some side effects, these are things that really impact people at every waking moment of their day.”

“So they’re pretty clinically significant side effects, even if they’re not life-threatening,” Meisel emphasized.

Miller suspects that more heavily pretreated patients may be more likely to experience ocular toxicity, as “there’s a much higher incidence of dry eyes in our patients than we recognize.”

She added: “We don’t usually ask about it, and we certainly don’t routinely do Schirmer’s tests,” which determine whether the eye produces enough tears to keep it moist.

 

Preventive Measures

For patients receiving tisotumab or mirvetuximab who experience ocular toxicity, Kang said the recommendation is to use steroid eye drops before, during, and after treatment with the ADC.

However, she noted that steroids have not been found to be useful in patients given belantamab, so clinicians have tried vasoconstrictor eye drops immediately prior to the infusion, as well as ocular cooling masks, which “are thought to help by reducing blood supply to the ocular areas.”

Other approaches to minimize ocular toxicity have included longer infusion times, so it’s “not so much of a hefty dose at one time,” Kang added.

She underlined that grade 2 and 3 ocular toxicities can lead to dose delays or dose modifications, and “usually by the time you get a grade 4 event, then you may need to discontinue the medication.”

This can have consequences for the patients because they are often “very sick, and this may be their third agent that they’re trying,” or it may be that their tumor is responding to a new treatment, but it has to be withheld because of an ocular toxicity.

“It can be incredibly frustrating for patients, and also for oncologists, and then for ophthalmologists,” Kang said.

 

Closer Collaboration Between Specialists Needed

What’s known about ocular side effects in patients taking ADCs underlines that there is a need for closer collaboration between oncologists and ophthalmologists.

“In oncology, especially as immunotherapies came to the forefront, our relationships with our endocrinology colleagues have become stronger because we’ve needed them to help us manage things like thyroid toxicity and pituitary issues related to immunotherapy,” Meisel said.

With toxicities that may be “very impactful for patient quality of life, like ocular toxicity, we will need to learn more about them and develop protocols for management, along with our ophthalmology colleagues, so that we can keep patients as comfortable as possible, while maximizing the efficacy of these drugs.”

Miller agreed, saying oncologists need to have “a conversation with a local ophthalmologist,” although she conceded that, in many areas, such specialists “are in short supply.”

The oncologist “not only needs to be aware” of and looking for ocular toxicity when using these ADCs but also needs to be thinking: “If I run into trouble here, who’s my ophthalmology backup? Are they familiar with this drug? And do we have a plan for the multispecialty management of patients who run into this toxicity?”

 

Setting Counts When Assessing Toxicities

But do all these considerations mean that ADCs’ potential ocular toxicity should give clinicians pause when considering whether to use these drugs?

“What my patients most want are drugs that work; that are effective in controlling their tumors,” Miller said.

“Every drug we use has potential toxicities, and which toxicities are most physically troublesome [or] are the greatest concern may vary from patient to patient, and it may vary a lot from patients with metastatic disease to those in the curative setting.”

She explained that “toxicities that might not be prohibitive at all in the metastatic setting [may] have to be a much bigger part of our considerations” when moving drugs into the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting.

This, Miller underlined, is where the ocular toxicity with these ADCs “may be much more prohibitive.”

TULIP was funded by Byondis BV.

Turner declared relationships with Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Lilly, Repare Therapeutics, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead Sciences, Inivata, Guardant Health, Exact Sciences, and Relay Therapeutics.

Meisel declared relationships with Novartis, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Seagen, Olema Oncology, GE Healthcare, Pfizer, Stemline, and Sermonix Pharmaceuticals.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Despite being a targeted therapy, antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) can cause significant off-target toxicity to the eyes of patients being treated for advanced multiple myeloma or cervical cancer, yet the risks remain relatively unknown, according to oncologists and ophthalmologists.

Such experts called for greater collaboration between oncologists and ophthalmologists, in interviews with Medscape Medical News.

ADCs combine a monoclonal antibody targeted at an antigen overexpressed on cancer cells with a toxic chemotherapy payload — the aim being to maximize the effectiveness of the drug against the tumor while minimizing the damage to healthy tissues and reducing systemic toxicity.

Yet trastuzumab duocarmazine (T-Duo), a third-generation human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–targeted ADC designed to treat HER2-positive breast cancer, was recently found to have a notable adverse effect in the TULIP trial of 437 patients.

As reported by Medscape Medical News, the drug was associated with a significant increase in progression-free survival over physician’s choice of therapy. However, 78% of patients in the ADC group experienced at least one treatment-emergent ocular toxicity adverse event vs 29.2% of those in the control group.

Moreover, grade 3 or high ocular toxicity events were reported by 21% of patients in the experimental group compared with none of those who received physician’s choice.

 

Ocular Toxicities Seen on Ocular Surface

Ocular toxicities with these drugs are “not necessarily a new thing,” said Joann J. Kang, MD, director, Cornea and Refractive Surgery, and associate professor of ophthalmology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York.

“But what we’re seeing with certain ADCs is a lot of ocular toxicity, especially on the ocular surface,” with the degree toxicity varying depending on the ADC in question. “It’s definitely a real concern.”

Kang noted that separate from T-Duo, certain ADCs already come with black box warnings for ocular toxicity, including:

• Belantamab mafodotin (Blenrep) — approved for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma and carries a warning specifically for keratopathy.
• Tisotumab vedotin (Tivdak) — indicated for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer and can cause changes in the corneal epithelium and conjunctiva.
• Mirvetuximab soravtansine (Elahere) — used to treat folate receptor (FR) alpha–positive ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancers and can lead to keratopathy, blurred vision, and dry eyes.

Indeed, the American Academy of Ophthalmology 2024 annual meeting saw research presented indicating that mirvetuximab was associated with moderate or severe corneal toxicity in 47% of patients treated for primary gynecologic malignancies.

As reported by Medscape Medical News, the study, by researchers at Byers Eye Institute of Stanford University in Stanford, California, was a retrospective analysis of 36 eyes of 18 women who received mirvetuximab for FR alpha–positive, platinum-resistant primary ovarian cancer.

 

What Are the Causes?

But why would a drug that is targeted specifically to a cancer tumor, thanks to the presence of a monoclonal antibody, cause off-target effects such as ocular toxicity?

Kathy D. Miller, MD, professor of oncology and medicine at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, pointed out that they are targeted in a relative and not absolute sense, meaning that the antigen target may not be truly limited to the tumor cells.

There can also be “a lot of ways that you could get systemic toxicities,” she said.

For example, if the linker connecting the antibody and the chemotherapy payload breaks prematurely or is not stable, or if the drug leaches out into the tumor microenvironment and then is “picked up into the circulation, that can give you systemic toxicity,” she said.

In addition, the drug may, once it is in the tumor cells, be metabolized to an active metabolite that could, again, result in systemic exposure.

 

Side Effects Are Underappreciated and Distressing

Ocular toxicity remains underappreciated among oncologists prescribing these drugs. One reason is that it “did not get enough attention” in the initial clinical trial reports, Miller said she suspects.

Another potential reason for this is that “we’re not used to thinking about it because it’s not particularly common among the drugs that oncologists use frequently,” she added. Additionally, it tends to come up later during treatment, “so people have to be on therapy for some time before you start to see it.”

Nevertheless, Miller underlined that ocular toxicity “can be particularly distressing for patients, as it’s uncomfortable [and] can lead to scarring, so some of the vision issues can be permanent.”

“We often see in these situations that there are different types of ocular toxicities that present in different patients,” said Jane L. Meisel, MD, co-director, Breast Medical Oncology, Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta.

“Corneal damage is pretty common, and patients can present with blurry vision, or dry eyes, or light sensitivity. And unlike some side effects, these are things that really impact people at every waking moment of their day.”

“So they’re pretty clinically significant side effects, even if they’re not life-threatening,” Meisel emphasized.

Miller suspects that more heavily pretreated patients may be more likely to experience ocular toxicity, as “there’s a much higher incidence of dry eyes in our patients than we recognize.”

She added: “We don’t usually ask about it, and we certainly don’t routinely do Schirmer’s tests,” which determine whether the eye produces enough tears to keep it moist.

 

Preventive Measures

For patients receiving tisotumab or mirvetuximab who experience ocular toxicity, Kang said the recommendation is to use steroid eye drops before, during, and after treatment with the ADC.

However, she noted that steroids have not been found to be useful in patients given belantamab, so clinicians have tried vasoconstrictor eye drops immediately prior to the infusion, as well as ocular cooling masks, which “are thought to help by reducing blood supply to the ocular areas.”

Other approaches to minimize ocular toxicity have included longer infusion times, so it’s “not so much of a hefty dose at one time,” Kang added.

She underlined that grade 2 and 3 ocular toxicities can lead to dose delays or dose modifications, and “usually by the time you get a grade 4 event, then you may need to discontinue the medication.”

This can have consequences for the patients because they are often “very sick, and this may be their third agent that they’re trying,” or it may be that their tumor is responding to a new treatment, but it has to be withheld because of an ocular toxicity.

“It can be incredibly frustrating for patients, and also for oncologists, and then for ophthalmologists,” Kang said.

 

Closer Collaboration Between Specialists Needed

What’s known about ocular side effects in patients taking ADCs underlines that there is a need for closer collaboration between oncologists and ophthalmologists.

“In oncology, especially as immunotherapies came to the forefront, our relationships with our endocrinology colleagues have become stronger because we’ve needed them to help us manage things like thyroid toxicity and pituitary issues related to immunotherapy,” Meisel said.

With toxicities that may be “very impactful for patient quality of life, like ocular toxicity, we will need to learn more about them and develop protocols for management, along with our ophthalmology colleagues, so that we can keep patients as comfortable as possible, while maximizing the efficacy of these drugs.”

Miller agreed, saying oncologists need to have “a conversation with a local ophthalmologist,” although she conceded that, in many areas, such specialists “are in short supply.”

The oncologist “not only needs to be aware” of and looking for ocular toxicity when using these ADCs but also needs to be thinking: “If I run into trouble here, who’s my ophthalmology backup? Are they familiar with this drug? And do we have a plan for the multispecialty management of patients who run into this toxicity?”

 

Setting Counts When Assessing Toxicities

But do all these considerations mean that ADCs’ potential ocular toxicity should give clinicians pause when considering whether to use these drugs?

“What my patients most want are drugs that work; that are effective in controlling their tumors,” Miller said.

“Every drug we use has potential toxicities, and which toxicities are most physically troublesome [or] are the greatest concern may vary from patient to patient, and it may vary a lot from patients with metastatic disease to those in the curative setting.”

She explained that “toxicities that might not be prohibitive at all in the metastatic setting [may] have to be a much bigger part of our considerations” when moving drugs into the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting.

This, Miller underlined, is where the ocular toxicity with these ADCs “may be much more prohibitive.”

TULIP was funded by Byondis BV.

Turner declared relationships with Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Lilly, Repare Therapeutics, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead Sciences, Inivata, Guardant Health, Exact Sciences, and Relay Therapeutics.

Meisel declared relationships with Novartis, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Seagen, Olema Oncology, GE Healthcare, Pfizer, Stemline, and Sermonix Pharmaceuticals.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The story of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs), particularly in tackling antibiotic resistance, has been one of false dawns and unfulfilled promises. But perhaps a new generation of “smarter” compounds could see them find a wider role in clinical practice, said experts.

AMPs may be small molecules, consisting of short chains of amino acids, but these naturally occurring compounds have an important function: They are the “frontline defense” against invasive bacteria, said Henrik Franzyk, MSc Engineering, associate professor in the Department of Drug Design and Pharmacology at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark.

 

Multifunction Line of Defense

AMPs are cationic, meaning they are positively charged. “The reason why nature has maintained these molecules is that all the microbes out there have a negative surface charge,” explained Hans-Georg Sahl, PhD, emeritus professor of pharmaceutical microbiology at the University of Bonn in Germany.

While AMPs are also hydrophobic, they are often amphipathic, with both hydrophobic and hydrophilic regions that allow them to target cell membranes and cause them to rupture similarly to how detergent acts. 

“Thus, the content of a cell gets released, and it destroys the pathogen,” explained Paulina Szymczak, a PhD candidate in the Institute of AI for Health at Helmholtz Munich, Neuherberg, Germany.

“There are variations of that theme,” said Eefjan Breukink, PhD, professor of microbial membranes and antibiotics at Utrecht University in the Netherlands. “And then it depends on the sequence of the particular peptide,” as some can cross the cell membrane and damage the bacterium internally.

Szymczak explained that AMPs can, in this way, target the cell DNA, as both the membrane and the DNA are negatively charged. “That’s also what makes them so powerful because they don’t have just one mechanism of action, as opposed to conventional antibiotics.” 

 

Indiscriminate Killers

But they also have another crucial function. They activate the innate immune system via so-called resident immune cells that are “sitting in the tissues and waiting for bacteria to turn up,” explained Franzyk.

“The problem with antibodies is that they typically need to replicate,” he continued, which takes between 4 and 7 days — a timeline that is much better suited to tackling a viral infection. Bacteria, on the other hand, have a replication cycle of just 30 minutes.

Another big problem is that AMPs kill cells indiscriminately, including our own.

“But the human body is clever in that it only produces these antimicrobial peptides where the bacteria are, so they are not circulating in the blood,” said Franzyk. If a small part of tissue becomes infected, the innate immune cells start producing AMPs, which may kill the bacteria, or call on other immune cells to help.

As part of this process, “they will also kill part of our own tissue, but that’s the price we have to pay,” he said.

 

Local Applications

It is this aspect that has, so far, limited the use of AMPs in clinical practice, certainly as a replacement for conventional antibiotics limited by bacterial resistance. The trials conducted so far have been, by and large, negative, which has dampened enthusiasm and led to the perception that the risk they pose is too great for large-scale investment.

AMPs “are not made for what we need from antibiotics in the first place,” explained Sahl. “That is, a nice, easy distribution in the body, going into abscesses” and throughout the tissues.

He continued that AMPs are “more about controlling the flora in our bodies,” and they are “really not made for being used systemically.” 

Szymczak and colleagues are now working on designing active peptides with a strong antibacterial profile but limited toxicity for systematic use.

However, the “downside with these peptides is that they are not orally available, so you can’t take a pill,” Breukink said, but instead they need to be administered intravenously.

There are, nevertheless, some antibiotics in clinical use that have the same molecular features as AMPs. These include colistin, a last-resort treatment for multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacteria, and daptomycin, which is used in the treatment of systemic infections caused by gram-positive species.

Szymczak added that there have been successes in using AMPs in a more targeted way, such as using a topical cream. Another potentially promising avenue is lung infections, which are being studied in mouse models.

 

Less Prone to Resistance

Crucially, AMPs are markedly less prone to bacterial resistance than conventional antibiotics, partly because of their typical target: the cell membrane.

“Biologically and evolutionarily, it is a very costly operation to rebuild the membrane and change its charge,” Szymczak explained. “It’s quite hard for bacteria to learn this because it’s not a single protein that you have to mutate but the whole membrane.”

This is seen in the laboratory, where it takes around five generations, or passages, for bacteria to develop resistance when grown in the presence of antibiotics, but up to 40 passages when cultured with an AMP.

The limits of the ability of AMPs to withstand the development of bacterial resistance have been tested in the real world.

Colistin has been used widely in Asia as a growth promoter, especially in pig farming. Franzyk explained that farmers have used enormous quantities of this AMP-based antibiotic, which has indeed led to the development of resistance, including contamination of meat for human consumption, leading to resistance spreading to other parts of the world.

“The bad thing about this is it’s not something each individual bacteria needs to acquire,” he said. Because resistance is stored on small, cyclic DNA called plasmids, it “can be transferred from one bacterial species to another.”

 

Novel Avenues

Franzyk suggested that AMPs could nevertheless be used in combination with, or to modify, existing antibiotics to revitalize those for which there is already bacterial resistance, or to allow antibiotics that ordinarily target only gram-positive bacteria to also treat gram-negative infections, for example.

Szymczak and her colleagues are using artificial intelligence to design novel AMP candidates. Instead of manually going through compounds and checking their activity profiles in the lab, those steps are carried out computationally “so that, in the end, you synthesize as few candidates as possible” and can proceed to a mouse model “as fast as possible.”

She personally is looking at the issue of strain-specific activity to design a compound that would target, for example, only multidrug-resistant strains. “What we can do now is something that will target everything, so a kind of last resort peptide. But we are trying to make them smarter in their targets.”

Szymczak also pointed out that cancer cells are “negatively charged, similarly to bacterial cells, as opposed to mammalian cells, which are neutral.”

“So in theory, maybe we could design something that will target cancer cells but not our host cells, and that would be extremely exciting.” However, she underlined that, first, they are trying to tackle antimicrobial resistance before looking at other spaces.

Finally, Breukink is screening for small antibacterial compounds in fungi that are around half the size of a normal peptide and more hydrophobic, meaning there is a much greater chance of them being orally available.

But “you first have to test, of course,” he said, as “if you don’t have specific targets, then you will get problems with toxicity, or other issues that you do not foresee.” 

No funding was declared. No relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

The story of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs), particularly in tackling antibiotic resistance, has been one of false dawns and unfulfilled promises. But perhaps a new generation of “smarter” compounds could see them find a wider role in clinical practice, said experts.

AMPs may be small molecules, consisting of short chains of amino acids, but these naturally occurring compounds have an important function: They are the “frontline defense” against invasive bacteria, said Henrik Franzyk, MSc Engineering, associate professor in the Department of Drug Design and Pharmacology at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark.

 

Multifunction Line of Defense

AMPs are cationic, meaning they are positively charged. “The reason why nature has maintained these molecules is that all the microbes out there have a negative surface charge,” explained Hans-Georg Sahl, PhD, emeritus professor of pharmaceutical microbiology at the University of Bonn in Germany.

While AMPs are also hydrophobic, they are often amphipathic, with both hydrophobic and hydrophilic regions that allow them to target cell membranes and cause them to rupture similarly to how detergent acts. 

“Thus, the content of a cell gets released, and it destroys the pathogen,” explained Paulina Szymczak, a PhD candidate in the Institute of AI for Health at Helmholtz Munich, Neuherberg, Germany.

“There are variations of that theme,” said Eefjan Breukink, PhD, professor of microbial membranes and antibiotics at Utrecht University in the Netherlands. “And then it depends on the sequence of the particular peptide,” as some can cross the cell membrane and damage the bacterium internally.

Szymczak explained that AMPs can, in this way, target the cell DNA, as both the membrane and the DNA are negatively charged. “That’s also what makes them so powerful because they don’t have just one mechanism of action, as opposed to conventional antibiotics.” 

 

Indiscriminate Killers

But they also have another crucial function. They activate the innate immune system via so-called resident immune cells that are “sitting in the tissues and waiting for bacteria to turn up,” explained Franzyk.

“The problem with antibodies is that they typically need to replicate,” he continued, which takes between 4 and 7 days — a timeline that is much better suited to tackling a viral infection. Bacteria, on the other hand, have a replication cycle of just 30 minutes.

Another big problem is that AMPs kill cells indiscriminately, including our own.

“But the human body is clever in that it only produces these antimicrobial peptides where the bacteria are, so they are not circulating in the blood,” said Franzyk. If a small part of tissue becomes infected, the innate immune cells start producing AMPs, which may kill the bacteria, or call on other immune cells to help.

As part of this process, “they will also kill part of our own tissue, but that’s the price we have to pay,” he said.

 

Local Applications

It is this aspect that has, so far, limited the use of AMPs in clinical practice, certainly as a replacement for conventional antibiotics limited by bacterial resistance. The trials conducted so far have been, by and large, negative, which has dampened enthusiasm and led to the perception that the risk they pose is too great for large-scale investment.

AMPs “are not made for what we need from antibiotics in the first place,” explained Sahl. “That is, a nice, easy distribution in the body, going into abscesses” and throughout the tissues.

He continued that AMPs are “more about controlling the flora in our bodies,” and they are “really not made for being used systemically.” 

Szymczak and colleagues are now working on designing active peptides with a strong antibacterial profile but limited toxicity for systematic use.

However, the “downside with these peptides is that they are not orally available, so you can’t take a pill,” Breukink said, but instead they need to be administered intravenously.

There are, nevertheless, some antibiotics in clinical use that have the same molecular features as AMPs. These include colistin, a last-resort treatment for multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacteria, and daptomycin, which is used in the treatment of systemic infections caused by gram-positive species.

Szymczak added that there have been successes in using AMPs in a more targeted way, such as using a topical cream. Another potentially promising avenue is lung infections, which are being studied in mouse models.

 

Less Prone to Resistance

Crucially, AMPs are markedly less prone to bacterial resistance than conventional antibiotics, partly because of their typical target: the cell membrane.

“Biologically and evolutionarily, it is a very costly operation to rebuild the membrane and change its charge,” Szymczak explained. “It’s quite hard for bacteria to learn this because it’s not a single protein that you have to mutate but the whole membrane.”

This is seen in the laboratory, where it takes around five generations, or passages, for bacteria to develop resistance when grown in the presence of antibiotics, but up to 40 passages when cultured with an AMP.

The limits of the ability of AMPs to withstand the development of bacterial resistance have been tested in the real world.

Colistin has been used widely in Asia as a growth promoter, especially in pig farming. Franzyk explained that farmers have used enormous quantities of this AMP-based antibiotic, which has indeed led to the development of resistance, including contamination of meat for human consumption, leading to resistance spreading to other parts of the world.

“The bad thing about this is it’s not something each individual bacteria needs to acquire,” he said. Because resistance is stored on small, cyclic DNA called plasmids, it “can be transferred from one bacterial species to another.”

 

Novel Avenues

Franzyk suggested that AMPs could nevertheless be used in combination with, or to modify, existing antibiotics to revitalize those for which there is already bacterial resistance, or to allow antibiotics that ordinarily target only gram-positive bacteria to also treat gram-negative infections, for example.

Szymczak and her colleagues are using artificial intelligence to design novel AMP candidates. Instead of manually going through compounds and checking their activity profiles in the lab, those steps are carried out computationally “so that, in the end, you synthesize as few candidates as possible” and can proceed to a mouse model “as fast as possible.”

She personally is looking at the issue of strain-specific activity to design a compound that would target, for example, only multidrug-resistant strains. “What we can do now is something that will target everything, so a kind of last resort peptide. But we are trying to make them smarter in their targets.”

Szymczak also pointed out that cancer cells are “negatively charged, similarly to bacterial cells, as opposed to mammalian cells, which are neutral.”

“So in theory, maybe we could design something that will target cancer cells but not our host cells, and that would be extremely exciting.” However, she underlined that, first, they are trying to tackle antimicrobial resistance before looking at other spaces.

Finally, Breukink is screening for small antibacterial compounds in fungi that are around half the size of a normal peptide and more hydrophobic, meaning there is a much greater chance of them being orally available.

But “you first have to test, of course,” he said, as “if you don’t have specific targets, then you will get problems with toxicity, or other issues that you do not foresee.” 

No funding was declared. No relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

The story of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs), particularly in tackling antibiotic resistance, has been one of false dawns and unfulfilled promises. But perhaps a new generation of “smarter” compounds could see them find a wider role in clinical practice, said experts.

AMPs may be small molecules, consisting of short chains of amino acids, but these naturally occurring compounds have an important function: They are the “frontline defense” against invasive bacteria, said Henrik Franzyk, MSc Engineering, associate professor in the Department of Drug Design and Pharmacology at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark.

 

Multifunction Line of Defense

AMPs are cationic, meaning they are positively charged. “The reason why nature has maintained these molecules is that all the microbes out there have a negative surface charge,” explained Hans-Georg Sahl, PhD, emeritus professor of pharmaceutical microbiology at the University of Bonn in Germany.

While AMPs are also hydrophobic, they are often amphipathic, with both hydrophobic and hydrophilic regions that allow them to target cell membranes and cause them to rupture similarly to how detergent acts. 

“Thus, the content of a cell gets released, and it destroys the pathogen,” explained Paulina Szymczak, a PhD candidate in the Institute of AI for Health at Helmholtz Munich, Neuherberg, Germany.

“There are variations of that theme,” said Eefjan Breukink, PhD, professor of microbial membranes and antibiotics at Utrecht University in the Netherlands. “And then it depends on the sequence of the particular peptide,” as some can cross the cell membrane and damage the bacterium internally.

Szymczak explained that AMPs can, in this way, target the cell DNA, as both the membrane and the DNA are negatively charged. “That’s also what makes them so powerful because they don’t have just one mechanism of action, as opposed to conventional antibiotics.” 

 

Indiscriminate Killers

But they also have another crucial function. They activate the innate immune system via so-called resident immune cells that are “sitting in the tissues and waiting for bacteria to turn up,” explained Franzyk.

“The problem with antibodies is that they typically need to replicate,” he continued, which takes between 4 and 7 days — a timeline that is much better suited to tackling a viral infection. Bacteria, on the other hand, have a replication cycle of just 30 minutes.

Another big problem is that AMPs kill cells indiscriminately, including our own.

“But the human body is clever in that it only produces these antimicrobial peptides where the bacteria are, so they are not circulating in the blood,” said Franzyk. If a small part of tissue becomes infected, the innate immune cells start producing AMPs, which may kill the bacteria, or call on other immune cells to help.

As part of this process, “they will also kill part of our own tissue, but that’s the price we have to pay,” he said.

 

Local Applications

It is this aspect that has, so far, limited the use of AMPs in clinical practice, certainly as a replacement for conventional antibiotics limited by bacterial resistance. The trials conducted so far have been, by and large, negative, which has dampened enthusiasm and led to the perception that the risk they pose is too great for large-scale investment.

AMPs “are not made for what we need from antibiotics in the first place,” explained Sahl. “That is, a nice, easy distribution in the body, going into abscesses” and throughout the tissues.

He continued that AMPs are “more about controlling the flora in our bodies,” and they are “really not made for being used systemically.” 

Szymczak and colleagues are now working on designing active peptides with a strong antibacterial profile but limited toxicity for systematic use.

However, the “downside with these peptides is that they are not orally available, so you can’t take a pill,” Breukink said, but instead they need to be administered intravenously.

There are, nevertheless, some antibiotics in clinical use that have the same molecular features as AMPs. These include colistin, a last-resort treatment for multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacteria, and daptomycin, which is used in the treatment of systemic infections caused by gram-positive species.

Szymczak added that there have been successes in using AMPs in a more targeted way, such as using a topical cream. Another potentially promising avenue is lung infections, which are being studied in mouse models.

 

Less Prone to Resistance

Crucially, AMPs are markedly less prone to bacterial resistance than conventional antibiotics, partly because of their typical target: the cell membrane.

“Biologically and evolutionarily, it is a very costly operation to rebuild the membrane and change its charge,” Szymczak explained. “It’s quite hard for bacteria to learn this because it’s not a single protein that you have to mutate but the whole membrane.”

This is seen in the laboratory, where it takes around five generations, or passages, for bacteria to develop resistance when grown in the presence of antibiotics, but up to 40 passages when cultured with an AMP.

The limits of the ability of AMPs to withstand the development of bacterial resistance have been tested in the real world.

Colistin has been used widely in Asia as a growth promoter, especially in pig farming. Franzyk explained that farmers have used enormous quantities of this AMP-based antibiotic, which has indeed led to the development of resistance, including contamination of meat for human consumption, leading to resistance spreading to other parts of the world.

“The bad thing about this is it’s not something each individual bacteria needs to acquire,” he said. Because resistance is stored on small, cyclic DNA called plasmids, it “can be transferred from one bacterial species to another.”

 

Novel Avenues

Franzyk suggested that AMPs could nevertheless be used in combination with, or to modify, existing antibiotics to revitalize those for which there is already bacterial resistance, or to allow antibiotics that ordinarily target only gram-positive bacteria to also treat gram-negative infections, for example.

Szymczak and her colleagues are using artificial intelligence to design novel AMP candidates. Instead of manually going through compounds and checking their activity profiles in the lab, those steps are carried out computationally “so that, in the end, you synthesize as few candidates as possible” and can proceed to a mouse model “as fast as possible.”

She personally is looking at the issue of strain-specific activity to design a compound that would target, for example, only multidrug-resistant strains. “What we can do now is something that will target everything, so a kind of last resort peptide. But we are trying to make them smarter in their targets.”

Szymczak also pointed out that cancer cells are “negatively charged, similarly to bacterial cells, as opposed to mammalian cells, which are neutral.”

“So in theory, maybe we could design something that will target cancer cells but not our host cells, and that would be extremely exciting.” However, she underlined that, first, they are trying to tackle antimicrobial resistance before looking at other spaces.

Finally, Breukink is screening for small antibacterial compounds in fungi that are around half the size of a normal peptide and more hydrophobic, meaning there is a much greater chance of them being orally available.

But “you first have to test, of course,” he said, as “if you don’t have specific targets, then you will get problems with toxicity, or other issues that you do not foresee.” 

No funding was declared. No relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) caused a stir when they recommended in their latest atrial fibrillation (AF) management guideline that gender no longer be included in the decision to initiate oral anticoagulation therapy.

The move aims to level the playing field between men and women and follows a more nuanced understanding of stroke risk in patients with AF, said experts. It also acknowledges the lack of evidence in people receiving cross-sex hormone therapy.

In any case, the guidelines, developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery and published by the European Heart Journal on August 30, simply follow 2023’s US recommendations, they added.

 

One Size Does Not Fit All

So, what to the ESC guidelines actually say?

They underline that, if left untreated, the risk for ischemic stroke is increased fivefold in patients with AF, and the “default approach should therefore be to provide oral anticoagulation to all eligible AF patients, except those at low risk for incident stroke or thromboembolism.”

However, the authors note that there is a lack of strong evidence on how to apply the current risk scores to help inform that decision in real-world patients.

Dipak Kotecha, MBChB, PhD, Professor of Cardiology at the University of Birmingham and University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, England, and senior author of the ESC guidelines, said in an interview that “the available scores have a relatively poor ability to accurately predict which patients will have a stroke or thromboembolic event.”

Instead, he said “a much better approach is for healthcare professionals to look at each patient’s individual risk factors, using the risk scores to identify those patients that might not benefit from oral anticoagulant therapy.”

For these guidelines, the authors therefore wanted to “move away from a one-size-fits-all” approach, Kotecha said, and instead ensure that more patients can benefit from the new range of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) that are easier to take and with much lower chance of side effects or major bleeding.

To achieve this, they separated their clinical recommendations from any particular risk score, and instead focused on the practicalities of implementation.

 

Risk Modifier Vs Risk Factor

To explain their decision the authors highlight that “the most popular risk score” is the CHA2DS2–VASc, which gives a point for female sex, alongside factors such as congestive heart failure, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus, and a sliding scale of points for increasing age.

Kotecha pointed out the score was developed before the DOACs were available and may not account for how risk factors have changed in recent decades.

The result is that CHA2DS2–VASc gives the same number of points to an individual with heart failure or prior transient ischemic attack as to a woman aged less than 65 years, “but the magnitude of increased risk is not the same,” Usha Beth Tedrow, MD, Associate Professor of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, said in an interview.

As far back as 2018, it was known that “female sex is a risk modifier, rather than a risk factor for stroke in atrial fibrillation,” noted Jose Joglar, MD, lead author of the 2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation said in an interview.

A Danish national registry study involving 239,671 AF patients treated between 1997 and 2015, nearly half of whom were women, showed that, at a CHA2DS2–VASc score of 0, the “risk of stroke between men and women is absolutely the same,” he said.

“It is not until after a CHA2DS2–VASc score of 2 that the curves start to separate,” Joglar, Program Director, Clinical Cardiac Electrophysiology Fellowship Program, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, continued, “but by then you have already made the decision to anticoagulate.”

More recently, Kotecha and colleagues conducted a population cohort study of the electronic healthcare records of UK primary care patients treated between 2005 and 2020, and identified 78,852 with AF; more than a third were women.

Their analysis, published on September 1, showed that women had a lower adjusted rate of the primary composite outcome of all-cause mortality, ischemic stroke, or arterial thromboembolism, driven by a reduced mortality rate.

“Removal of gender from clinical risk scoring could simplify the approach to which patients with AF should be offered oral anticoagulation,” Kotecha and colleagues concluded.

Joglar clarified that “women are at increased risk for stroke than men” overall, but by the time that risk “becomes manifest, other risk factors have come into play, and they have already met the criteria for anticoagulation.”

The authors of the latest ESC guideline therefore concluded that the “inclusion of gender complicates clinical practice both for healthcare professionals and patients.” Their solution was to remove the question of gender for decisions over initiating oral anticoagulant therapy in clinical practice altogether.

This includes individuals who identify as transgender or are undergoing sex hormone therapy, as all the experts interviewed by Medscape Medical News agreed that there is currently insufficient evidence to know if that affects stroke risk.

Instead, guidelines state that the drugs are “recommended in those with a CHA2DS2-VA score of 2 or more and should be considered in those with a CHA2DS2-VA score of 1, following a patient-centered and shared care approach.”

“Dropping the gender part of the risk score is not really a substantial change” from previous ESC or other guidelines, as different points were required in the past to recommend anticoagulants for women and men, Kotecha said, adding that “making the approach easier for clinicians may avoid penalizing women as well as nonbinary and transgender patients.”

Anne B. Curtis, MD, SUNY Distinguished Professor, Department of Medicine, Jacobs School of Medicine & Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo in New York, agreed.

Putting aside the question of female sex, she said that there are not a lot of people under the age of 65 years with “absolutely no risk factors,” and so, “if the only reason you would anticoagulate” someone of that age is because they are a woman that “doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.”

The ESC guidelines are “trying to say, ‘look at the other risk factors, and if anything is there, go ahead and anticoagulate,” Curtis said in an interview.

“It’s actually a very thoughtful decision,” Tedrow said, and not “intended to discount risk in women.” Rather, it’s a statement that acknowledges the problem of recommending anticoagulation therapy in women “for whom it is not appropriate.”

Joglar pointed out that that recommendation, although not characterized in the same way, was in fact included in the 2023 US guidelines.

“We wanted to use a more nuanced approach,” he said, and move away from using CHA2DS2–VASc as the prime determinant of whether to start oral anticoagulation and towards a magnitude risk assessment, in which female sex is seen as a risk modifier.

“The Europeans and the Americans are looking at the same data, so we often reach the same conclusions,” Joglar said, although “we sometimes use different wordings.”

Overall, Kotecha expressed the hope that the move “will lead to better implementation of guidelines, at the end of the day.”

“That’s all we can hope for: Patients will be offered a more individualized approach, leading to more appropriate use of treatment in the right patients.”

The newer direct oral anticoagulation is “a much simpler therapy,” he added. “There is very little monitoring, a similar risk of bleeding as aspirin, and yet the ability to largely prevent the high rate of stroke and thromboembolism associated with atrial fibrillation.”

“So, it’s a big ticket item for our communities and public health, particularly as atrial fibrillation is expected to double in prevalence in the next few decades and evidence is building that it can lead to vascular dementia in the long-term.”

No funding was declared. Kotecha declares relationships with Bayer, Protherics Medicines Development, Boston Scientific, Daiichi Sankyo, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS-Pfizer Alliance, Amomed, MyoKardia. Curtis declared relationships with Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, Abbott. Joglar declared no relevant relationships. Tedrow declared no relevant relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) caused a stir when they recommended in their latest atrial fibrillation (AF) management guideline that gender no longer be included in the decision to initiate oral anticoagulation therapy.

The move aims to level the playing field between men and women and follows a more nuanced understanding of stroke risk in patients with AF, said experts. It also acknowledges the lack of evidence in people receiving cross-sex hormone therapy.

In any case, the guidelines, developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery and published by the European Heart Journal on August 30, simply follow 2023’s US recommendations, they added.

 

One Size Does Not Fit All

So, what to the ESC guidelines actually say?

They underline that, if left untreated, the risk for ischemic stroke is increased fivefold in patients with AF, and the “default approach should therefore be to provide oral anticoagulation to all eligible AF patients, except those at low risk for incident stroke or thromboembolism.”

However, the authors note that there is a lack of strong evidence on how to apply the current risk scores to help inform that decision in real-world patients.

Dipak Kotecha, MBChB, PhD, Professor of Cardiology at the University of Birmingham and University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, England, and senior author of the ESC guidelines, said in an interview that “the available scores have a relatively poor ability to accurately predict which patients will have a stroke or thromboembolic event.”

Instead, he said “a much better approach is for healthcare professionals to look at each patient’s individual risk factors, using the risk scores to identify those patients that might not benefit from oral anticoagulant therapy.”

For these guidelines, the authors therefore wanted to “move away from a one-size-fits-all” approach, Kotecha said, and instead ensure that more patients can benefit from the new range of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) that are easier to take and with much lower chance of side effects or major bleeding.

To achieve this, they separated their clinical recommendations from any particular risk score, and instead focused on the practicalities of implementation.

 

Risk Modifier Vs Risk Factor

To explain their decision the authors highlight that “the most popular risk score” is the CHA2DS2–VASc, which gives a point for female sex, alongside factors such as congestive heart failure, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus, and a sliding scale of points for increasing age.

Kotecha pointed out the score was developed before the DOACs were available and may not account for how risk factors have changed in recent decades.

The result is that CHA2DS2–VASc gives the same number of points to an individual with heart failure or prior transient ischemic attack as to a woman aged less than 65 years, “but the magnitude of increased risk is not the same,” Usha Beth Tedrow, MD, Associate Professor of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, said in an interview.

As far back as 2018, it was known that “female sex is a risk modifier, rather than a risk factor for stroke in atrial fibrillation,” noted Jose Joglar, MD, lead author of the 2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation said in an interview.

A Danish national registry study involving 239,671 AF patients treated between 1997 and 2015, nearly half of whom were women, showed that, at a CHA2DS2–VASc score of 0, the “risk of stroke between men and women is absolutely the same,” he said.

“It is not until after a CHA2DS2–VASc score of 2 that the curves start to separate,” Joglar, Program Director, Clinical Cardiac Electrophysiology Fellowship Program, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, continued, “but by then you have already made the decision to anticoagulate.”

More recently, Kotecha and colleagues conducted a population cohort study of the electronic healthcare records of UK primary care patients treated between 2005 and 2020, and identified 78,852 with AF; more than a third were women.

Their analysis, published on September 1, showed that women had a lower adjusted rate of the primary composite outcome of all-cause mortality, ischemic stroke, or arterial thromboembolism, driven by a reduced mortality rate.

“Removal of gender from clinical risk scoring could simplify the approach to which patients with AF should be offered oral anticoagulation,” Kotecha and colleagues concluded.

Joglar clarified that “women are at increased risk for stroke than men” overall, but by the time that risk “becomes manifest, other risk factors have come into play, and they have already met the criteria for anticoagulation.”

The authors of the latest ESC guideline therefore concluded that the “inclusion of gender complicates clinical practice both for healthcare professionals and patients.” Their solution was to remove the question of gender for decisions over initiating oral anticoagulant therapy in clinical practice altogether.

This includes individuals who identify as transgender or are undergoing sex hormone therapy, as all the experts interviewed by Medscape Medical News agreed that there is currently insufficient evidence to know if that affects stroke risk.

Instead, guidelines state that the drugs are “recommended in those with a CHA2DS2-VA score of 2 or more and should be considered in those with a CHA2DS2-VA score of 1, following a patient-centered and shared care approach.”

“Dropping the gender part of the risk score is not really a substantial change” from previous ESC or other guidelines, as different points were required in the past to recommend anticoagulants for women and men, Kotecha said, adding that “making the approach easier for clinicians may avoid penalizing women as well as nonbinary and transgender patients.”

Anne B. Curtis, MD, SUNY Distinguished Professor, Department of Medicine, Jacobs School of Medicine & Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo in New York, agreed.

Putting aside the question of female sex, she said that there are not a lot of people under the age of 65 years with “absolutely no risk factors,” and so, “if the only reason you would anticoagulate” someone of that age is because they are a woman that “doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.”

The ESC guidelines are “trying to say, ‘look at the other risk factors, and if anything is there, go ahead and anticoagulate,” Curtis said in an interview.

“It’s actually a very thoughtful decision,” Tedrow said, and not “intended to discount risk in women.” Rather, it’s a statement that acknowledges the problem of recommending anticoagulation therapy in women “for whom it is not appropriate.”

Joglar pointed out that that recommendation, although not characterized in the same way, was in fact included in the 2023 US guidelines.

“We wanted to use a more nuanced approach,” he said, and move away from using CHA2DS2–VASc as the prime determinant of whether to start oral anticoagulation and towards a magnitude risk assessment, in which female sex is seen as a risk modifier.

“The Europeans and the Americans are looking at the same data, so we often reach the same conclusions,” Joglar said, although “we sometimes use different wordings.”

Overall, Kotecha expressed the hope that the move “will lead to better implementation of guidelines, at the end of the day.”

“That’s all we can hope for: Patients will be offered a more individualized approach, leading to more appropriate use of treatment in the right patients.”

The newer direct oral anticoagulation is “a much simpler therapy,” he added. “There is very little monitoring, a similar risk of bleeding as aspirin, and yet the ability to largely prevent the high rate of stroke and thromboembolism associated with atrial fibrillation.”

“So, it’s a big ticket item for our communities and public health, particularly as atrial fibrillation is expected to double in prevalence in the next few decades and evidence is building that it can lead to vascular dementia in the long-term.”

No funding was declared. Kotecha declares relationships with Bayer, Protherics Medicines Development, Boston Scientific, Daiichi Sankyo, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS-Pfizer Alliance, Amomed, MyoKardia. Curtis declared relationships with Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, Abbott. Joglar declared no relevant relationships. Tedrow declared no relevant relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) caused a stir when they recommended in their latest atrial fibrillation (AF) management guideline that gender no longer be included in the decision to initiate oral anticoagulation therapy.

The move aims to level the playing field between men and women and follows a more nuanced understanding of stroke risk in patients with AF, said experts. It also acknowledges the lack of evidence in people receiving cross-sex hormone therapy.

In any case, the guidelines, developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery and published by the European Heart Journal on August 30, simply follow 2023’s US recommendations, they added.

 

One Size Does Not Fit All

So, what to the ESC guidelines actually say?

They underline that, if left untreated, the risk for ischemic stroke is increased fivefold in patients with AF, and the “default approach should therefore be to provide oral anticoagulation to all eligible AF patients, except those at low risk for incident stroke or thromboembolism.”

However, the authors note that there is a lack of strong evidence on how to apply the current risk scores to help inform that decision in real-world patients.

Dipak Kotecha, MBChB, PhD, Professor of Cardiology at the University of Birmingham and University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, England, and senior author of the ESC guidelines, said in an interview that “the available scores have a relatively poor ability to accurately predict which patients will have a stroke or thromboembolic event.”

Instead, he said “a much better approach is for healthcare professionals to look at each patient’s individual risk factors, using the risk scores to identify those patients that might not benefit from oral anticoagulant therapy.”

For these guidelines, the authors therefore wanted to “move away from a one-size-fits-all” approach, Kotecha said, and instead ensure that more patients can benefit from the new range of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) that are easier to take and with much lower chance of side effects or major bleeding.

To achieve this, they separated their clinical recommendations from any particular risk score, and instead focused on the practicalities of implementation.

 

Risk Modifier Vs Risk Factor

To explain their decision the authors highlight that “the most popular risk score” is the CHA2DS2–VASc, which gives a point for female sex, alongside factors such as congestive heart failure, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus, and a sliding scale of points for increasing age.

Kotecha pointed out the score was developed before the DOACs were available and may not account for how risk factors have changed in recent decades.

The result is that CHA2DS2–VASc gives the same number of points to an individual with heart failure or prior transient ischemic attack as to a woman aged less than 65 years, “but the magnitude of increased risk is not the same,” Usha Beth Tedrow, MD, Associate Professor of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, said in an interview.

As far back as 2018, it was known that “female sex is a risk modifier, rather than a risk factor for stroke in atrial fibrillation,” noted Jose Joglar, MD, lead author of the 2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation said in an interview.

A Danish national registry study involving 239,671 AF patients treated between 1997 and 2015, nearly half of whom were women, showed that, at a CHA2DS2–VASc score of 0, the “risk of stroke between men and women is absolutely the same,” he said.

“It is not until after a CHA2DS2–VASc score of 2 that the curves start to separate,” Joglar, Program Director, Clinical Cardiac Electrophysiology Fellowship Program, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, continued, “but by then you have already made the decision to anticoagulate.”

More recently, Kotecha and colleagues conducted a population cohort study of the electronic healthcare records of UK primary care patients treated between 2005 and 2020, and identified 78,852 with AF; more than a third were women.

Their analysis, published on September 1, showed that women had a lower adjusted rate of the primary composite outcome of all-cause mortality, ischemic stroke, or arterial thromboembolism, driven by a reduced mortality rate.

“Removal of gender from clinical risk scoring could simplify the approach to which patients with AF should be offered oral anticoagulation,” Kotecha and colleagues concluded.

Joglar clarified that “women are at increased risk for stroke than men” overall, but by the time that risk “becomes manifest, other risk factors have come into play, and they have already met the criteria for anticoagulation.”

The authors of the latest ESC guideline therefore concluded that the “inclusion of gender complicates clinical practice both for healthcare professionals and patients.” Their solution was to remove the question of gender for decisions over initiating oral anticoagulant therapy in clinical practice altogether.

This includes individuals who identify as transgender or are undergoing sex hormone therapy, as all the experts interviewed by Medscape Medical News agreed that there is currently insufficient evidence to know if that affects stroke risk.

Instead, guidelines state that the drugs are “recommended in those with a CHA2DS2-VA score of 2 or more and should be considered in those with a CHA2DS2-VA score of 1, following a patient-centered and shared care approach.”

“Dropping the gender part of the risk score is not really a substantial change” from previous ESC or other guidelines, as different points were required in the past to recommend anticoagulants for women and men, Kotecha said, adding that “making the approach easier for clinicians may avoid penalizing women as well as nonbinary and transgender patients.”

Anne B. Curtis, MD, SUNY Distinguished Professor, Department of Medicine, Jacobs School of Medicine & Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo in New York, agreed.

Putting aside the question of female sex, she said that there are not a lot of people under the age of 65 years with “absolutely no risk factors,” and so, “if the only reason you would anticoagulate” someone of that age is because they are a woman that “doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.”

The ESC guidelines are “trying to say, ‘look at the other risk factors, and if anything is there, go ahead and anticoagulate,” Curtis said in an interview.

“It’s actually a very thoughtful decision,” Tedrow said, and not “intended to discount risk in women.” Rather, it’s a statement that acknowledges the problem of recommending anticoagulation therapy in women “for whom it is not appropriate.”

Joglar pointed out that that recommendation, although not characterized in the same way, was in fact included in the 2023 US guidelines.

“We wanted to use a more nuanced approach,” he said, and move away from using CHA2DS2–VASc as the prime determinant of whether to start oral anticoagulation and towards a magnitude risk assessment, in which female sex is seen as a risk modifier.

“The Europeans and the Americans are looking at the same data, so we often reach the same conclusions,” Joglar said, although “we sometimes use different wordings.”

Overall, Kotecha expressed the hope that the move “will lead to better implementation of guidelines, at the end of the day.”

“That’s all we can hope for: Patients will be offered a more individualized approach, leading to more appropriate use of treatment in the right patients.”

The newer direct oral anticoagulation is “a much simpler therapy,” he added. “There is very little monitoring, a similar risk of bleeding as aspirin, and yet the ability to largely prevent the high rate of stroke and thromboembolism associated with atrial fibrillation.”

“So, it’s a big ticket item for our communities and public health, particularly as atrial fibrillation is expected to double in prevalence in the next few decades and evidence is building that it can lead to vascular dementia in the long-term.”

No funding was declared. Kotecha declares relationships with Bayer, Protherics Medicines Development, Boston Scientific, Daiichi Sankyo, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS-Pfizer Alliance, Amomed, MyoKardia. Curtis declared relationships with Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, Abbott. Joglar declared no relevant relationships. Tedrow declared no relevant relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.