Randy Dotinga

Heavy menstrual bleeding is more than an inconvenience in adolescents: It often leads to significant medical complications, in addition to disruptions in quality of life. While measuring the true level of bleeding can be a challenge, hematologists say treatments are helpful and can be as simple — and surprising — as doses of aspirin.

About 90% of adolescents with heavy menstrual bleeding will have low ferritin, and 70% will develop anemia, said benign hematologist Juliana Perez Botero, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, in a presentation at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting. “This is an issue of big magnitude that has public health implications, but it’s also an issue of gender equality and social justice.”

 

Measuring Menstruation: What Counts as Heavy Bleeding?

According to hematologist Allison Wheeler, MD, of the University of Washington in Seattle, normal menstrual bleeding is defined as lasting for about 5 days with 30-50 mL of blood loss.

“Historically, heavy menstrual bleeding was defined as bleeding as > 7 days or > 80 mL of blood loss,” Wheeler said. “It’s pretty hard to measure those mL. So a more modern definition is increased menstrual blood loss that interferes with a female’s physical, social, emotional, or material quality of life.”

Measuring blood loss during menstruation isn’t simple. The alkaline hematin method, which measures blood in feminine hygiene products, is the “gold standard, but that’s all I’m going to say about that,” Wheeler said.

An alternative is the Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart, a visual tool that patients can use to estimate blood loss, she said, although there have been questions about its accuracy. In addition, it only covers pads and tampons even though other products are now available.

Another option is the Adolescent Menstrual Bleeding Questionnaire. “It captures both how much patients are bleeding and a lot of quality-of-life aspects,” she said.

 

Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs), Surprisingly, Can Be Effective Treatments

It seems counterintuitive that NSAIDs can be helpful in patients with heavy bleeding. “We don’t think about them because Cox inhibition ends up leading to decreases in thromboxane A2, which is going to increase bleeding,” Wheeler said. However, she said, the drugs also decrease prostaglandin within the endometrium, which can improve menstrual bleeding.

“In a meta-analysis, when NSAIDs were compared to placebo, there was decreased menstrual bleeding,” she said. “It was pretty similar to estrogen-progesterone formulations together. And when compared to antifibrinolytics, there was a little more menstrual bleeding with the NSAID use.”

Wheeler cautioned that “it’s important to optimize NSAID dosage. You really can’t use lower doses, and you can’t use sporadic doses.”

 

Other Options: Tranexamic Acid, Hormone Management

Tranexamic acid is the most common antifibrinolytic treatment for heavy bleeding, Wheeler said. “This is a lysine analog that’s going to inhibit the conversion from plasminogen to plasmin,” she said. “This is going to strengthen and stabilize blood clots that are already formed.”

Multiple clinical trials have studied the treatment in heavy menstrual bleeding, she said. “There’s no increased risk of venous or arterial thrombosis among participants in these clinical trials, but patients with a history of thrombosis were excluded from the majority of them. So we do need to keep that in mind.”

As for adverse effects, they’re mild and sporadic and include headaches and stomach upset, she said.

Another treatment option is estrogen and progesterone therapy using pill, patch, or vaginal ring, Wheeler said. The treatment leads to a “stable and thin very endometrium,” and typically takes 3-6 months to fully kick in. Studies have suggested the therapy can lead to 35%-80% reduction in menstrual blood loss, she said.

Keep in mind, Wheeler noted, “that there are many contraindications associated with estrogen use. Please take note of this, especially in consideration of discussions with patients shifting over to progesterone-only hormonal therapy” — another option to treat excess bleeding.

In most patients, she added, progesterone-only therapy “is going to result in irregular bleeding when you first start taking it. That irregular bleeding can last from up to 3-6 months. It’s something that’s really important to discuss with patients.”

She also noted that this therapy can be given to patients in forms that do not prevent pregnancy.

Botero had no disclosures. Wheeler reported relationships with Novo Nordisk, Bayer, BioMarin, Bioverativ, CSL Behring, Genentech, HEMA, Octapharma, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, Shire North America, Spark, and Takeda.

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

Heavy menstrual bleeding is more than an inconvenience in adolescents: It often leads to significant medical complications, in addition to disruptions in quality of life. While measuring the true level of bleeding can be a challenge, hematologists say treatments are helpful and can be as simple — and surprising — as doses of aspirin.

About 90% of adolescents with heavy menstrual bleeding will have low ferritin, and 70% will develop anemia, said benign hematologist Juliana Perez Botero, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, in a presentation at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting. “This is an issue of big magnitude that has public health implications, but it’s also an issue of gender equality and social justice.”

 

Measuring Menstruation: What Counts as Heavy Bleeding?

According to hematologist Allison Wheeler, MD, of the University of Washington in Seattle, normal menstrual bleeding is defined as lasting for about 5 days with 30-50 mL of blood loss.

“Historically, heavy menstrual bleeding was defined as bleeding as > 7 days or > 80 mL of blood loss,” Wheeler said. “It’s pretty hard to measure those mL. So a more modern definition is increased menstrual blood loss that interferes with a female’s physical, social, emotional, or material quality of life.”

Measuring blood loss during menstruation isn’t simple. The alkaline hematin method, which measures blood in feminine hygiene products, is the “gold standard, but that’s all I’m going to say about that,” Wheeler said.

An alternative is the Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart, a visual tool that patients can use to estimate blood loss, she said, although there have been questions about its accuracy. In addition, it only covers pads and tampons even though other products are now available.

Another option is the Adolescent Menstrual Bleeding Questionnaire. “It captures both how much patients are bleeding and a lot of quality-of-life aspects,” she said.

 

Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs), Surprisingly, Can Be Effective Treatments

It seems counterintuitive that NSAIDs can be helpful in patients with heavy bleeding. “We don’t think about them because Cox inhibition ends up leading to decreases in thromboxane A2, which is going to increase bleeding,” Wheeler said. However, she said, the drugs also decrease prostaglandin within the endometrium, which can improve menstrual bleeding.

“In a meta-analysis, when NSAIDs were compared to placebo, there was decreased menstrual bleeding,” she said. “It was pretty similar to estrogen-progesterone formulations together. And when compared to antifibrinolytics, there was a little more menstrual bleeding with the NSAID use.”

Wheeler cautioned that “it’s important to optimize NSAID dosage. You really can’t use lower doses, and you can’t use sporadic doses.”

 

Other Options: Tranexamic Acid, Hormone Management

Tranexamic acid is the most common antifibrinolytic treatment for heavy bleeding, Wheeler said. “This is a lysine analog that’s going to inhibit the conversion from plasminogen to plasmin,” she said. “This is going to strengthen and stabilize blood clots that are already formed.”

Multiple clinical trials have studied the treatment in heavy menstrual bleeding, she said. “There’s no increased risk of venous or arterial thrombosis among participants in these clinical trials, but patients with a history of thrombosis were excluded from the majority of them. So we do need to keep that in mind.”

As for adverse effects, they’re mild and sporadic and include headaches and stomach upset, she said.

Another treatment option is estrogen and progesterone therapy using pill, patch, or vaginal ring, Wheeler said. The treatment leads to a “stable and thin very endometrium,” and typically takes 3-6 months to fully kick in. Studies have suggested the therapy can lead to 35%-80% reduction in menstrual blood loss, she said.

Keep in mind, Wheeler noted, “that there are many contraindications associated with estrogen use. Please take note of this, especially in consideration of discussions with patients shifting over to progesterone-only hormonal therapy” — another option to treat excess bleeding.

In most patients, she added, progesterone-only therapy “is going to result in irregular bleeding when you first start taking it. That irregular bleeding can last from up to 3-6 months. It’s something that’s really important to discuss with patients.”

She also noted that this therapy can be given to patients in forms that do not prevent pregnancy.

Botero had no disclosures. Wheeler reported relationships with Novo Nordisk, Bayer, BioMarin, Bioverativ, CSL Behring, Genentech, HEMA, Octapharma, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, Shire North America, Spark, and Takeda.

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

Heavy menstrual bleeding is more than an inconvenience in adolescents: It often leads to significant medical complications, in addition to disruptions in quality of life. While measuring the true level of bleeding can be a challenge, hematologists say treatments are helpful and can be as simple — and surprising — as doses of aspirin.

About 90% of adolescents with heavy menstrual bleeding will have low ferritin, and 70% will develop anemia, said benign hematologist Juliana Perez Botero, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, in a presentation at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting. “This is an issue of big magnitude that has public health implications, but it’s also an issue of gender equality and social justice.”

 

Measuring Menstruation: What Counts as Heavy Bleeding?

According to hematologist Allison Wheeler, MD, of the University of Washington in Seattle, normal menstrual bleeding is defined as lasting for about 5 days with 30-50 mL of blood loss.

“Historically, heavy menstrual bleeding was defined as bleeding as > 7 days or > 80 mL of blood loss,” Wheeler said. “It’s pretty hard to measure those mL. So a more modern definition is increased menstrual blood loss that interferes with a female’s physical, social, emotional, or material quality of life.”

Measuring blood loss during menstruation isn’t simple. The alkaline hematin method, which measures blood in feminine hygiene products, is the “gold standard, but that’s all I’m going to say about that,” Wheeler said.

An alternative is the Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart, a visual tool that patients can use to estimate blood loss, she said, although there have been questions about its accuracy. In addition, it only covers pads and tampons even though other products are now available.

Another option is the Adolescent Menstrual Bleeding Questionnaire. “It captures both how much patients are bleeding and a lot of quality-of-life aspects,” she said.

 

Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs), Surprisingly, Can Be Effective Treatments

It seems counterintuitive that NSAIDs can be helpful in patients with heavy bleeding. “We don’t think about them because Cox inhibition ends up leading to decreases in thromboxane A2, which is going to increase bleeding,” Wheeler said. However, she said, the drugs also decrease prostaglandin within the endometrium, which can improve menstrual bleeding.

“In a meta-analysis, when NSAIDs were compared to placebo, there was decreased menstrual bleeding,” she said. “It was pretty similar to estrogen-progesterone formulations together. And when compared to antifibrinolytics, there was a little more menstrual bleeding with the NSAID use.”

Wheeler cautioned that “it’s important to optimize NSAID dosage. You really can’t use lower doses, and you can’t use sporadic doses.”

 

Other Options: Tranexamic Acid, Hormone Management

Tranexamic acid is the most common antifibrinolytic treatment for heavy bleeding, Wheeler said. “This is a lysine analog that’s going to inhibit the conversion from plasminogen to plasmin,” she said. “This is going to strengthen and stabilize blood clots that are already formed.”

Multiple clinical trials have studied the treatment in heavy menstrual bleeding, she said. “There’s no increased risk of venous or arterial thrombosis among participants in these clinical trials, but patients with a history of thrombosis were excluded from the majority of them. So we do need to keep that in mind.”

As for adverse effects, they’re mild and sporadic and include headaches and stomach upset, she said.

Another treatment option is estrogen and progesterone therapy using pill, patch, or vaginal ring, Wheeler said. The treatment leads to a “stable and thin very endometrium,” and typically takes 3-6 months to fully kick in. Studies have suggested the therapy can lead to 35%-80% reduction in menstrual blood loss, she said.

Keep in mind, Wheeler noted, “that there are many contraindications associated with estrogen use. Please take note of this, especially in consideration of discussions with patients shifting over to progesterone-only hormonal therapy” — another option to treat excess bleeding.

In most patients, she added, progesterone-only therapy “is going to result in irregular bleeding when you first start taking it. That irregular bleeding can last from up to 3-6 months. It’s something that’s really important to discuss with patients.”

She also noted that this therapy can be given to patients in forms that do not prevent pregnancy.

Botero had no disclosures. Wheeler reported relationships with Novo Nordisk, Bayer, BioMarin, Bioverativ, CSL Behring, Genentech, HEMA, Octapharma, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, Shire North America, Spark, and Takeda.

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

SAN DIEGO — Promising early results from an ongoing randomized, open-label, single-arm, phase 3 study could pave the way for a Pfizer product to become the second US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved gene therapy for hemophilia A.

In an efficacy population of 50 patients with hemophilia A, the AFFINE trial found that their mean annualized bleeding rate (ABR) fell from 4.73 pre-infusion with giroctocogene fitelparvovec to 1.24 post-infusion (week 12 to 15 or more months, −3.49, −6.06 to −0.91; P = .004), researchers reported earlier this month at American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting. Sixty-four percent had no bleeding events over a median follow-up of 33.6 months (14.5-44.4).

The ABR for treated bleeds fell from 4.08 to 0.07 (−4.01, −5.57 to −2.45; P < .0001), and 88% had no treated bleeds over the same follow-up period.

“The primary endpoint for this trial was a reduction in total bleeds in patients, and that was achieved,” hematologist and first author Andrew D. Leavitt, MD, of the University of California at San Francisco, said in an interview. “More impressive was the reduction in treated bleeds, a kind of a surrogate marker for bleeds of clinical significance to the individual. And as one would expect or hope to see in a gene therapy trial, there was a significant and marked reduction in the use of factor.”

Moving forward, he said, the message to clinicians is that “there’s every reason to believe that they will have yet another option for their patients.”

Gene Therapy on the Rise in Hemophilia 

Gene therapy has arisen as an approved therapy for hemophilia over just the last few years. Two gene therapies for hemophilia B have been approved by the FDA since 2022, and one was approved for hemophilia A, the more common type, in 2023.

As Leavitt noted, one-time treatment with gene therapy offers an alternative to treatment with blood factor, long the mainstay of hemophilia therapy.

“One of the real pluses of gene therapy is the potential to remove the burden of hemophilia, which is large and, I suspect, underappreciated even by providers,” he said. “You have to sit down with your patients and really get a real good sense of just how difficult it is for them to manage with many products on the market over the last few decades.”

Why is there a need for multiple gene therapy products? “A patient may have neutralizing antibodies against the proteins on the surface of gene therapy product A that prevents its use, but not on gene therapy B, which allows use of product B,” Leavitt said. “We need a few flavors so that we can offer gene therapy to the maximum number of interested patients.”

High Efficacy and an ‘Acceptable’ Safety Profile

For the study, researchers dosed 75 patients (mean age, 32.3 [19-59]; 100% men, 74.7% White and 18.7% Asian,) with hemophilia A with giroctocogene fitelparvovec, a hepatocyte-directed recombinant adeno-associated virus serotype 6 vector encoding a B-domain–deleted variant of human factor VIII. The efficacy population is 50 patients with at least 6 months of follow-up in the lead-in study.

The annualized infusion rate of exogenous FVIII was 124.39 mean annualized infusion rate prior to the treatment infusion vs 0.21 post-infusion, week 12 through at least 15 months (−124.18, −139.47 to −108.89; P < .0001).

Leavitt said the results are similar to other gene therapies for hemophilia in that “it is difficult to predict how high your factor level will become. There’s a broad range of outcomes for individuals, and the duration of expression remains an unknown.”

The study authors described the treatment as “generally well tolerated” with “an acceptable and manageable safety profile.”

Of the 75 subjects, 98.7% had adverse effects (AEs, 740 events) and 90.7% had treatment-related AEs. Common treatment-related AEs included hepatotoxicity (62.7%) and infusion-related reactions (73.3%). No subjects discontinued therapy due to AEs.

Nearly two thirds — 62.7% — of subjects used corticosteroids for a mean 114.6 days (11-296).

Study Findings ‘Look Really Good’

In an interview, Guy Young, MD, director of the Hemostasis and Thrombosis Program at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and professor of pediatrics, Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said that “generally speaking, the new data looks really good.” Young, who didn’t take part in the study, noted that factor levels following treatment were high, and one subject actually had a thrombotic event and needed to be treated with an anticoagulant.

The high factor levels could actually be a sign of lasting benefit vs valoctocogene roxaparvovec (Roctavian), the sole FDA-approved gene therapy for hemophilia A, which is linked to significant drops in factor level after 6 months, he said. “Wouldn’t it be better to start really high?”

Gene therapy for hemophilia is highly expensive, although proponents noted that insurers may save money over the long run if patients don’t require prophylactic treatment or therapy for bleeds.

A Pfizer spokesman declined to comment on the new therapy’s potential cost. In regard to when the therapy may receive FDA approval, he said “Pfizer is discussing this data with regulatory authorities.”

Pfizer funded this study. Leavitt disclosed ties with HEMA, Merck, Catalyst, Genentech, Pfizer, BioMarin, and Sangamo. Other study authors reported relationships with Pfizer. Young disclosed ties with Pfizer and BioMarin.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Promising early results from an ongoing randomized, open-label, single-arm, phase 3 study could pave the way for a Pfizer product to become the second US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved gene therapy for hemophilia A.

In an efficacy population of 50 patients with hemophilia A, the AFFINE trial found that their mean annualized bleeding rate (ABR) fell from 4.73 pre-infusion with giroctocogene fitelparvovec to 1.24 post-infusion (week 12 to 15 or more months, −3.49, −6.06 to −0.91; P = .004), researchers reported earlier this month at American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting. Sixty-four percent had no bleeding events over a median follow-up of 33.6 months (14.5-44.4).

The ABR for treated bleeds fell from 4.08 to 0.07 (−4.01, −5.57 to −2.45; P < .0001), and 88% had no treated bleeds over the same follow-up period.

“The primary endpoint for this trial was a reduction in total bleeds in patients, and that was achieved,” hematologist and first author Andrew D. Leavitt, MD, of the University of California at San Francisco, said in an interview. “More impressive was the reduction in treated bleeds, a kind of a surrogate marker for bleeds of clinical significance to the individual. And as one would expect or hope to see in a gene therapy trial, there was a significant and marked reduction in the use of factor.”

Moving forward, he said, the message to clinicians is that “there’s every reason to believe that they will have yet another option for their patients.”

Gene Therapy on the Rise in Hemophilia 

Gene therapy has arisen as an approved therapy for hemophilia over just the last few years. Two gene therapies for hemophilia B have been approved by the FDA since 2022, and one was approved for hemophilia A, the more common type, in 2023.

As Leavitt noted, one-time treatment with gene therapy offers an alternative to treatment with blood factor, long the mainstay of hemophilia therapy.

“One of the real pluses of gene therapy is the potential to remove the burden of hemophilia, which is large and, I suspect, underappreciated even by providers,” he said. “You have to sit down with your patients and really get a real good sense of just how difficult it is for them to manage with many products on the market over the last few decades.”

Why is there a need for multiple gene therapy products? “A patient may have neutralizing antibodies against the proteins on the surface of gene therapy product A that prevents its use, but not on gene therapy B, which allows use of product B,” Leavitt said. “We need a few flavors so that we can offer gene therapy to the maximum number of interested patients.”

High Efficacy and an ‘Acceptable’ Safety Profile

For the study, researchers dosed 75 patients (mean age, 32.3 [19-59]; 100% men, 74.7% White and 18.7% Asian,) with hemophilia A with giroctocogene fitelparvovec, a hepatocyte-directed recombinant adeno-associated virus serotype 6 vector encoding a B-domain–deleted variant of human factor VIII. The efficacy population is 50 patients with at least 6 months of follow-up in the lead-in study.

The annualized infusion rate of exogenous FVIII was 124.39 mean annualized infusion rate prior to the treatment infusion vs 0.21 post-infusion, week 12 through at least 15 months (−124.18, −139.47 to −108.89; P < .0001).

Leavitt said the results are similar to other gene therapies for hemophilia in that “it is difficult to predict how high your factor level will become. There’s a broad range of outcomes for individuals, and the duration of expression remains an unknown.”

The study authors described the treatment as “generally well tolerated” with “an acceptable and manageable safety profile.”

Of the 75 subjects, 98.7% had adverse effects (AEs, 740 events) and 90.7% had treatment-related AEs. Common treatment-related AEs included hepatotoxicity (62.7%) and infusion-related reactions (73.3%). No subjects discontinued therapy due to AEs.

Nearly two thirds — 62.7% — of subjects used corticosteroids for a mean 114.6 days (11-296).

Study Findings ‘Look Really Good’

In an interview, Guy Young, MD, director of the Hemostasis and Thrombosis Program at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and professor of pediatrics, Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said that “generally speaking, the new data looks really good.” Young, who didn’t take part in the study, noted that factor levels following treatment were high, and one subject actually had a thrombotic event and needed to be treated with an anticoagulant.

The high factor levels could actually be a sign of lasting benefit vs valoctocogene roxaparvovec (Roctavian), the sole FDA-approved gene therapy for hemophilia A, which is linked to significant drops in factor level after 6 months, he said. “Wouldn’t it be better to start really high?”

Gene therapy for hemophilia is highly expensive, although proponents noted that insurers may save money over the long run if patients don’t require prophylactic treatment or therapy for bleeds.

A Pfizer spokesman declined to comment on the new therapy’s potential cost. In regard to when the therapy may receive FDA approval, he said “Pfizer is discussing this data with regulatory authorities.”

Pfizer funded this study. Leavitt disclosed ties with HEMA, Merck, Catalyst, Genentech, Pfizer, BioMarin, and Sangamo. Other study authors reported relationships with Pfizer. Young disclosed ties with Pfizer and BioMarin.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Promising early results from an ongoing randomized, open-label, single-arm, phase 3 study could pave the way for a Pfizer product to become the second US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved gene therapy for hemophilia A.

In an efficacy population of 50 patients with hemophilia A, the AFFINE trial found that their mean annualized bleeding rate (ABR) fell from 4.73 pre-infusion with giroctocogene fitelparvovec to 1.24 post-infusion (week 12 to 15 or more months, −3.49, −6.06 to −0.91; P = .004), researchers reported earlier this month at American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting. Sixty-four percent had no bleeding events over a median follow-up of 33.6 months (14.5-44.4).

The ABR for treated bleeds fell from 4.08 to 0.07 (−4.01, −5.57 to −2.45; P < .0001), and 88% had no treated bleeds over the same follow-up period.

“The primary endpoint for this trial was a reduction in total bleeds in patients, and that was achieved,” hematologist and first author Andrew D. Leavitt, MD, of the University of California at San Francisco, said in an interview. “More impressive was the reduction in treated bleeds, a kind of a surrogate marker for bleeds of clinical significance to the individual. And as one would expect or hope to see in a gene therapy trial, there was a significant and marked reduction in the use of factor.”

Moving forward, he said, the message to clinicians is that “there’s every reason to believe that they will have yet another option for their patients.”

Gene Therapy on the Rise in Hemophilia 

Gene therapy has arisen as an approved therapy for hemophilia over just the last few years. Two gene therapies for hemophilia B have been approved by the FDA since 2022, and one was approved for hemophilia A, the more common type, in 2023.

As Leavitt noted, one-time treatment with gene therapy offers an alternative to treatment with blood factor, long the mainstay of hemophilia therapy.

“One of the real pluses of gene therapy is the potential to remove the burden of hemophilia, which is large and, I suspect, underappreciated even by providers,” he said. “You have to sit down with your patients and really get a real good sense of just how difficult it is for them to manage with many products on the market over the last few decades.”

Why is there a need for multiple gene therapy products? “A patient may have neutralizing antibodies against the proteins on the surface of gene therapy product A that prevents its use, but not on gene therapy B, which allows use of product B,” Leavitt said. “We need a few flavors so that we can offer gene therapy to the maximum number of interested patients.”

High Efficacy and an ‘Acceptable’ Safety Profile

For the study, researchers dosed 75 patients (mean age, 32.3 [19-59]; 100% men, 74.7% White and 18.7% Asian,) with hemophilia A with giroctocogene fitelparvovec, a hepatocyte-directed recombinant adeno-associated virus serotype 6 vector encoding a B-domain–deleted variant of human factor VIII. The efficacy population is 50 patients with at least 6 months of follow-up in the lead-in study.

The annualized infusion rate of exogenous FVIII was 124.39 mean annualized infusion rate prior to the treatment infusion vs 0.21 post-infusion, week 12 through at least 15 months (−124.18, −139.47 to −108.89; P < .0001).

Leavitt said the results are similar to other gene therapies for hemophilia in that “it is difficult to predict how high your factor level will become. There’s a broad range of outcomes for individuals, and the duration of expression remains an unknown.”

The study authors described the treatment as “generally well tolerated” with “an acceptable and manageable safety profile.”

Of the 75 subjects, 98.7% had adverse effects (AEs, 740 events) and 90.7% had treatment-related AEs. Common treatment-related AEs included hepatotoxicity (62.7%) and infusion-related reactions (73.3%). No subjects discontinued therapy due to AEs.

Nearly two thirds — 62.7% — of subjects used corticosteroids for a mean 114.6 days (11-296).

Study Findings ‘Look Really Good’

In an interview, Guy Young, MD, director of the Hemostasis and Thrombosis Program at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and professor of pediatrics, Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said that “generally speaking, the new data looks really good.” Young, who didn’t take part in the study, noted that factor levels following treatment were high, and one subject actually had a thrombotic event and needed to be treated with an anticoagulant.

The high factor levels could actually be a sign of lasting benefit vs valoctocogene roxaparvovec (Roctavian), the sole FDA-approved gene therapy for hemophilia A, which is linked to significant drops in factor level after 6 months, he said. “Wouldn’t it be better to start really high?”

Gene therapy for hemophilia is highly expensive, although proponents noted that insurers may save money over the long run if patients don’t require prophylactic treatment or therapy for bleeds.

A Pfizer spokesman declined to comment on the new therapy’s potential cost. In regard to when the therapy may receive FDA approval, he said “Pfizer is discussing this data with regulatory authorities.”

Pfizer funded this study. Leavitt disclosed ties with HEMA, Merck, Catalyst, Genentech, Pfizer, BioMarin, and Sangamo. Other study authors reported relationships with Pfizer. Young disclosed ties with Pfizer and BioMarin.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

While fewer than 10% of US physicians are unionized, the number of official union drives among private-sector doctors have skyrocketed in the last 2 years, compared with 2 decades prior, according to a new study. 

Researchers counted 21 union drives in 2023 and 12 in the first 5 months of 2024, compared with 0-6 drives each year between 2000 and 2022. 

If the 2023 and 2024 drives succeed, unions will represent 3523 new physicians — nearly equal to the 3541 doctors who sought unionization between 2000 and 2022.

“We were able to document a significant uptick in union petitions and success in certification drives,” said corresponding author Hayden Rooke-Ley, JD, of the Center for Advancing Health Policy Through Research, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island. “We were surprised to see such a marked shift in 2023.”

About 72,000 physicians, an estimated 8% of all US doctors, are covered by unions, including some in the public sector. Physicians who are self-employed, now comprising less than a fifth of all doctors, are not eligible to join labor unions.

The study authors launched their research to better understand trends in physician unionization in light of high-profile union drives, especially among residents. Rooke-Ley said: “We suspected that declining morale and increased corporate employment for physicians were leading them to consider unionization.”

The researchers gathered data from the National Labor Relations Board about union drives by potential bargaining units that included physicians. From 2000 to 2022, 44 union petitions were filed. The number jumped to 33 from 2023-2024. 

 

“Tip of the Iceberg”

“This is the tip of the iceberg,” said ethicist Joseph F. Kras, MD, DDS, MA, an associate professor of anesthesiology at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, and corresponding author of a recent Anesthesia & Analgesia report about physician unionization.

“We are independent by nature,” Kras said. “But when you put us in an employed environment and start treating us as widgets, then we will act like employees of Amazon, Starbucks, and other companies and join together to push back against the increasing emphasis on profit over all at the expense of our independent judgment on what’s best for the patient.”

Of the 66 unionization efforts between 2000 and 2024 that were decided, 62% were certified, according to the JAMA study. The drives targeted hospitals (49%), community health centers (38%), and nonhospital corporate owners (13%).

The researchers only analyzed private-sector unionization and did not include physicians who are unionized at public institutions. 

 

What’s Behind Union Drives?

Alyssa Burgart, MD, MA, an ethicist and clinical associate professor of anesthesiology and pediatrics at Stanford University in California, told this news organization that physician unionization “is a big topic with a lot of really strong opinions.” 

Many doctors wrongly assume they can’t unionize because they’re physicians, said Burgart, a coauthor of the Anesthesia & Analgesia report.

Supporters of unionization believe it’s a strategy to be “recognized not as simply as a single physician with a concern,” she said. “When you’re among clinicians who can speak as a more unified group, organizations are more likely to take that seriously.”

A union may also be able to hold employers to account in areas such as the gender wage gap, sexual harassment, and bias in hiring and firing, Burgart said. And union supporters believe they’ll make more money if they collectively bargain. 

Other factors driving interest in unions include “increasing physician burnout, increasing physician exhaustion, and immense frustration with the ways that private equity is influencing how physicians need to work in order to practice,” she said. 

Earlier in 2024, physicians in Delaware’s ChristianaCare health system voted 288-130 to be represented by Doctors Council/Service Employees International, according to the union. 

“We have still not been able to staff up enough to where us physicians can get back to just focusing on taking care of patients,” a unionization leader told WHYY. 

The JAMA study examined news reports regarding most of the 2023-2024 union drives and found that supporters claimed they were motivated by working conditions (85%), lack of voice in management (81%), patient care concerns (54%), and pay (4%).

 

Critics Worry They’ll Lose Pay Because of Unions

Skeptics of unionization worry about whether “I’m going to be required to stand by some union stance that is actually out of alignment with my values as a physician,” Burgart said. And, she said, critics such as highly paid surgeons fear that adjustments to salaries because of union contracts could cause them to lose income.

In regard to compensation, a 2024 study surveyed unionized residents — along with faculty and staff — at general surgery programs and found evidence that unionization didn’t improve resident well-being or benefits, although it “provided a mechanism for resident voice and agency.”

“It is critical to study the outcomes of those who unionized to ensure that the reasons for unionizing were realized over time,” said that study’s coauthor Karl Bilimoria, MD, MS, chair of surgery at Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis. “The unintended consequences of unionization must be examined along with the potential improvements.”

Rooke-Ley discloses consulting fees from the American Economic Liberties Project, National Academy of State Health Policy, and 32BJ Funds. Kras and Burgart disclose previous union membership. Bilimoria has no disclosures.

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

While fewer than 10% of US physicians are unionized, the number of official union drives among private-sector doctors have skyrocketed in the last 2 years, compared with 2 decades prior, according to a new study. 

Researchers counted 21 union drives in 2023 and 12 in the first 5 months of 2024, compared with 0-6 drives each year between 2000 and 2022. 

If the 2023 and 2024 drives succeed, unions will represent 3523 new physicians — nearly equal to the 3541 doctors who sought unionization between 2000 and 2022.

“We were able to document a significant uptick in union petitions and success in certification drives,” said corresponding author Hayden Rooke-Ley, JD, of the Center for Advancing Health Policy Through Research, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island. “We were surprised to see such a marked shift in 2023.”

About 72,000 physicians, an estimated 8% of all US doctors, are covered by unions, including some in the public sector. Physicians who are self-employed, now comprising less than a fifth of all doctors, are not eligible to join labor unions.

The study authors launched their research to better understand trends in physician unionization in light of high-profile union drives, especially among residents. Rooke-Ley said: “We suspected that declining morale and increased corporate employment for physicians were leading them to consider unionization.”

The researchers gathered data from the National Labor Relations Board about union drives by potential bargaining units that included physicians. From 2000 to 2022, 44 union petitions were filed. The number jumped to 33 from 2023-2024. 

 

“Tip of the Iceberg”

“This is the tip of the iceberg,” said ethicist Joseph F. Kras, MD, DDS, MA, an associate professor of anesthesiology at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, and corresponding author of a recent Anesthesia & Analgesia report about physician unionization.

“We are independent by nature,” Kras said. “But when you put us in an employed environment and start treating us as widgets, then we will act like employees of Amazon, Starbucks, and other companies and join together to push back against the increasing emphasis on profit over all at the expense of our independent judgment on what’s best for the patient.”

Of the 66 unionization efforts between 2000 and 2024 that were decided, 62% were certified, according to the JAMA study. The drives targeted hospitals (49%), community health centers (38%), and nonhospital corporate owners (13%).

The researchers only analyzed private-sector unionization and did not include physicians who are unionized at public institutions. 

 

What’s Behind Union Drives?

Alyssa Burgart, MD, MA, an ethicist and clinical associate professor of anesthesiology and pediatrics at Stanford University in California, told this news organization that physician unionization “is a big topic with a lot of really strong opinions.” 

Many doctors wrongly assume they can’t unionize because they’re physicians, said Burgart, a coauthor of the Anesthesia & Analgesia report.

Supporters of unionization believe it’s a strategy to be “recognized not as simply as a single physician with a concern,” she said. “When you’re among clinicians who can speak as a more unified group, organizations are more likely to take that seriously.”

A union may also be able to hold employers to account in areas such as the gender wage gap, sexual harassment, and bias in hiring and firing, Burgart said. And union supporters believe they’ll make more money if they collectively bargain. 

Other factors driving interest in unions include “increasing physician burnout, increasing physician exhaustion, and immense frustration with the ways that private equity is influencing how physicians need to work in order to practice,” she said. 

Earlier in 2024, physicians in Delaware’s ChristianaCare health system voted 288-130 to be represented by Doctors Council/Service Employees International, according to the union. 

“We have still not been able to staff up enough to where us physicians can get back to just focusing on taking care of patients,” a unionization leader told WHYY. 

The JAMA study examined news reports regarding most of the 2023-2024 union drives and found that supporters claimed they were motivated by working conditions (85%), lack of voice in management (81%), patient care concerns (54%), and pay (4%).

 

Critics Worry They’ll Lose Pay Because of Unions

Skeptics of unionization worry about whether “I’m going to be required to stand by some union stance that is actually out of alignment with my values as a physician,” Burgart said. And, she said, critics such as highly paid surgeons fear that adjustments to salaries because of union contracts could cause them to lose income.

In regard to compensation, a 2024 study surveyed unionized residents — along with faculty and staff — at general surgery programs and found evidence that unionization didn’t improve resident well-being or benefits, although it “provided a mechanism for resident voice and agency.”

“It is critical to study the outcomes of those who unionized to ensure that the reasons for unionizing were realized over time,” said that study’s coauthor Karl Bilimoria, MD, MS, chair of surgery at Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis. “The unintended consequences of unionization must be examined along with the potential improvements.”

Rooke-Ley discloses consulting fees from the American Economic Liberties Project, National Academy of State Health Policy, and 32BJ Funds. Kras and Burgart disclose previous union membership. Bilimoria has no disclosures.

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

While fewer than 10% of US physicians are unionized, the number of official union drives among private-sector doctors have skyrocketed in the last 2 years, compared with 2 decades prior, according to a new study. 

Researchers counted 21 union drives in 2023 and 12 in the first 5 months of 2024, compared with 0-6 drives each year between 2000 and 2022. 

If the 2023 and 2024 drives succeed, unions will represent 3523 new physicians — nearly equal to the 3541 doctors who sought unionization between 2000 and 2022.

“We were able to document a significant uptick in union petitions and success in certification drives,” said corresponding author Hayden Rooke-Ley, JD, of the Center for Advancing Health Policy Through Research, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island. “We were surprised to see such a marked shift in 2023.”

About 72,000 physicians, an estimated 8% of all US doctors, are covered by unions, including some in the public sector. Physicians who are self-employed, now comprising less than a fifth of all doctors, are not eligible to join labor unions.

The study authors launched their research to better understand trends in physician unionization in light of high-profile union drives, especially among residents. Rooke-Ley said: “We suspected that declining morale and increased corporate employment for physicians were leading them to consider unionization.”

The researchers gathered data from the National Labor Relations Board about union drives by potential bargaining units that included physicians. From 2000 to 2022, 44 union petitions were filed. The number jumped to 33 from 2023-2024. 

 

“Tip of the Iceberg”

“This is the tip of the iceberg,” said ethicist Joseph F. Kras, MD, DDS, MA, an associate professor of anesthesiology at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, and corresponding author of a recent Anesthesia & Analgesia report about physician unionization.

“We are independent by nature,” Kras said. “But when you put us in an employed environment and start treating us as widgets, then we will act like employees of Amazon, Starbucks, and other companies and join together to push back against the increasing emphasis on profit over all at the expense of our independent judgment on what’s best for the patient.”

Of the 66 unionization efforts between 2000 and 2024 that were decided, 62% were certified, according to the JAMA study. The drives targeted hospitals (49%), community health centers (38%), and nonhospital corporate owners (13%).

The researchers only analyzed private-sector unionization and did not include physicians who are unionized at public institutions. 

 

What’s Behind Union Drives?

Alyssa Burgart, MD, MA, an ethicist and clinical associate professor of anesthesiology and pediatrics at Stanford University in California, told this news organization that physician unionization “is a big topic with a lot of really strong opinions.” 

Many doctors wrongly assume they can’t unionize because they’re physicians, said Burgart, a coauthor of the Anesthesia & Analgesia report.

Supporters of unionization believe it’s a strategy to be “recognized not as simply as a single physician with a concern,” she said. “When you’re among clinicians who can speak as a more unified group, organizations are more likely to take that seriously.”

A union may also be able to hold employers to account in areas such as the gender wage gap, sexual harassment, and bias in hiring and firing, Burgart said. And union supporters believe they’ll make more money if they collectively bargain. 

Other factors driving interest in unions include “increasing physician burnout, increasing physician exhaustion, and immense frustration with the ways that private equity is influencing how physicians need to work in order to practice,” she said. 

Earlier in 2024, physicians in Delaware’s ChristianaCare health system voted 288-130 to be represented by Doctors Council/Service Employees International, according to the union. 

“We have still not been able to staff up enough to where us physicians can get back to just focusing on taking care of patients,” a unionization leader told WHYY. 

The JAMA study examined news reports regarding most of the 2023-2024 union drives and found that supporters claimed they were motivated by working conditions (85%), lack of voice in management (81%), patient care concerns (54%), and pay (4%).

 

Critics Worry They’ll Lose Pay Because of Unions

Skeptics of unionization worry about whether “I’m going to be required to stand by some union stance that is actually out of alignment with my values as a physician,” Burgart said. And, she said, critics such as highly paid surgeons fear that adjustments to salaries because of union contracts could cause them to lose income.

In regard to compensation, a 2024 study surveyed unionized residents — along with faculty and staff — at general surgery programs and found evidence that unionization didn’t improve resident well-being or benefits, although it “provided a mechanism for resident voice and agency.”

“It is critical to study the outcomes of those who unionized to ensure that the reasons for unionizing were realized over time,” said that study’s coauthor Karl Bilimoria, MD, MS, chair of surgery at Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis. “The unintended consequences of unionization must be examined along with the potential improvements.”

Rooke-Ley discloses consulting fees from the American Economic Liberties Project, National Academy of State Health Policy, and 32BJ Funds. Kras and Burgart disclose previous union membership. Bilimoria has no disclosures.

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

SAN DIEGO — The multiple myeloma (MM) drug daratumumab (Darzalex), an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, dramatically reduced progression to active MM or death in patients with high-risk smoldering MM (SMM), a landmark randomized, open-label, phase 3 study found.

Among 390 patients with SMM (194 assigned to daratumumab and 196 to active monitoring), progression to active MM or death over a follow-up of 65.2 (0-76.6) months was 51% lower in the daratumumab group vs active monitoring (34.5% vs 50.5%, hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.67; P < .0001), researchers reported at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting and in a simultaneous publication in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Rahul Banerjee, MD, an assistant professor with the University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, both in Seattle, who wasn’t involved with the research, said the study “is a big deal, and I suspect this will ultimately lead to an FDA [Food and Drug Administration] approval for daratumumab in this setting. If using daratumumab up-front can prevent further myeloma and therefore make patients live longer, this would be immediately adopted at many practices.”

As study first author Meletios Athanasios Dimopoulos, MD, of National and Kapodistrian University of Athens and Alexandra General Hospital in Greece, noted at a news briefing, SMM is common, affecting 0.5% of the population aged over 40, per a 2023 Iceland study.

“Standard practice is close follow-up without immediate intervention. However, this oftentimes ends in organ tissue damage, and hypercalcemia, bone lesions, renal impairment, and anemia,” Dimopoulos said.

According to him, researchers launched the AQUILA study in light of indications that daratumumab may benefit patients with intermediate- and high-risk SMM.

For the study, researchers recruited patients from 2017 to 2019 in 23 countries with confirmed high-risk SMM for ≤ 5 years (median age, 64 [31-86] years; 47%-49% men; 83% White).

In the daratumumab group, the drug was administered in 28-day cycles until cycle 39, 36 months, or disease progression, whichever came first (median treatment duration, 38 months [35 months]).

At 5 years, progression-free survival (PFS) — the primary endpoint — was 63.1% (daratumumab) and 40.8% (active monitoring). Researchers estimated 60-month PFS rates at 63.1% and 40.8%, respectively, and overall response rates were 63.4% vs 2.0% (P < .0001), respectively.

The 60-month overall survival rates were 93.0% and 86.9% (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.27-0.98) with 15 deaths in the daratumumab and 26 in the active monitoring group.

“During the follow-up period, there was continuous improvement in favor of the daratumumab arm,” Dimopoulos said. “Even after treatment was discontinued at 3 years, or even at 5 or 6 years, there was a continuous benefit from treatment with daratumumab.”

By clinical cutoff in May 2024, 65% of patients taking daratumumab had finished 39 cycles/3 years of treatment vs 40.8% in the active monitoring group. Progressive disease was the most common reason that patients stopped treatment (21.8% and 41.8% of patients in the groups, respectively).

Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 40.4% (daratumumab) and 30.1% (active monitoring) of patients. The most common was hypertension (5.7% and 4.6%, respectively).

In the daratumumab group, 5.7% discontinued therapy because of TEAEs, which the researchers described as a “low” number, and fatal TEAEs were similar in both groups (1.0% and 2.0%, respectively).

Banerjee said that “one theoretical risk of using daratumumab monotherapy to treat perceived high-risk SMM is that if the patient actually has active multiple myeloma, you are undertreating them. For anyone with HR-SMM, active multiple myeloma must be completely ruled out. I always insist on both a PET-CT and a whole-body MRI to evaluate the bone marrow comprehensively.”

For now, Banerjee said, clinicians should wait for the US Food and Drug Administration approval before prescribing daratumumab for high-risk SMM.

Are there alternatives to reduce the risk for SMM turning into MM? “Generally, I advise close observation in most cases, but we do have clinical trials in this space,” Banerjee said. “Technically, it is possible to consider lenalidomide monotherapy in SMM based on the results of a large phase 3 study. But lenalidomide is expensive and has many side effects. Insurance companies often won’t cover it fully, and patients almost always have at least one side effect.”

Also, he added, “only half of patients saw their high-risk SMM disease burden drop. Lenalidomide also has a clear link to rare, delayed toxicities such as second primary malignancies, which makes us nervous.”

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, the maker of daratumumab, funded the study. Dimopoulos disclosed ties with Sanofi, Regeneron, Menarini, Takeda, GSK, BMS, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, BeiGene, Swixx, AstraZeneca, and Amgen. Banerjee disclosed ties with AbbVie, Adaptive, BMS, Caribou, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Legend, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Pack, Pfizer, Prothena, Sanofi Pasteur, and SparkCures. Some other authors reported various and multiple disclosures, including ties with Janssen Pharmaceuticals.

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

SAN DIEGO — The multiple myeloma (MM) drug daratumumab (Darzalex), an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, dramatically reduced progression to active MM or death in patients with high-risk smoldering MM (SMM), a landmark randomized, open-label, phase 3 study found.

Among 390 patients with SMM (194 assigned to daratumumab and 196 to active monitoring), progression to active MM or death over a follow-up of 65.2 (0-76.6) months was 51% lower in the daratumumab group vs active monitoring (34.5% vs 50.5%, hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.67; P < .0001), researchers reported at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting and in a simultaneous publication in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Rahul Banerjee, MD, an assistant professor with the University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, both in Seattle, who wasn’t involved with the research, said the study “is a big deal, and I suspect this will ultimately lead to an FDA [Food and Drug Administration] approval for daratumumab in this setting. If using daratumumab up-front can prevent further myeloma and therefore make patients live longer, this would be immediately adopted at many practices.”

As study first author Meletios Athanasios Dimopoulos, MD, of National and Kapodistrian University of Athens and Alexandra General Hospital in Greece, noted at a news briefing, SMM is common, affecting 0.5% of the population aged over 40, per a 2023 Iceland study.

“Standard practice is close follow-up without immediate intervention. However, this oftentimes ends in organ tissue damage, and hypercalcemia, bone lesions, renal impairment, and anemia,” Dimopoulos said.

According to him, researchers launched the AQUILA study in light of indications that daratumumab may benefit patients with intermediate- and high-risk SMM.

For the study, researchers recruited patients from 2017 to 2019 in 23 countries with confirmed high-risk SMM for ≤ 5 years (median age, 64 [31-86] years; 47%-49% men; 83% White).

In the daratumumab group, the drug was administered in 28-day cycles until cycle 39, 36 months, or disease progression, whichever came first (median treatment duration, 38 months [35 months]).

At 5 years, progression-free survival (PFS) — the primary endpoint — was 63.1% (daratumumab) and 40.8% (active monitoring). Researchers estimated 60-month PFS rates at 63.1% and 40.8%, respectively, and overall response rates were 63.4% vs 2.0% (P < .0001), respectively.

The 60-month overall survival rates were 93.0% and 86.9% (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.27-0.98) with 15 deaths in the daratumumab and 26 in the active monitoring group.

“During the follow-up period, there was continuous improvement in favor of the daratumumab arm,” Dimopoulos said. “Even after treatment was discontinued at 3 years, or even at 5 or 6 years, there was a continuous benefit from treatment with daratumumab.”

By clinical cutoff in May 2024, 65% of patients taking daratumumab had finished 39 cycles/3 years of treatment vs 40.8% in the active monitoring group. Progressive disease was the most common reason that patients stopped treatment (21.8% and 41.8% of patients in the groups, respectively).

Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 40.4% (daratumumab) and 30.1% (active monitoring) of patients. The most common was hypertension (5.7% and 4.6%, respectively).

In the daratumumab group, 5.7% discontinued therapy because of TEAEs, which the researchers described as a “low” number, and fatal TEAEs were similar in both groups (1.0% and 2.0%, respectively).

Banerjee said that “one theoretical risk of using daratumumab monotherapy to treat perceived high-risk SMM is that if the patient actually has active multiple myeloma, you are undertreating them. For anyone with HR-SMM, active multiple myeloma must be completely ruled out. I always insist on both a PET-CT and a whole-body MRI to evaluate the bone marrow comprehensively.”

For now, Banerjee said, clinicians should wait for the US Food and Drug Administration approval before prescribing daratumumab for high-risk SMM.

Are there alternatives to reduce the risk for SMM turning into MM? “Generally, I advise close observation in most cases, but we do have clinical trials in this space,” Banerjee said. “Technically, it is possible to consider lenalidomide monotherapy in SMM based on the results of a large phase 3 study. But lenalidomide is expensive and has many side effects. Insurance companies often won’t cover it fully, and patients almost always have at least one side effect.”

Also, he added, “only half of patients saw their high-risk SMM disease burden drop. Lenalidomide also has a clear link to rare, delayed toxicities such as second primary malignancies, which makes us nervous.”

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, the maker of daratumumab, funded the study. Dimopoulos disclosed ties with Sanofi, Regeneron, Menarini, Takeda, GSK, BMS, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, BeiGene, Swixx, AstraZeneca, and Amgen. Banerjee disclosed ties with AbbVie, Adaptive, BMS, Caribou, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Legend, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Pack, Pfizer, Prothena, Sanofi Pasteur, and SparkCures. Some other authors reported various and multiple disclosures, including ties with Janssen Pharmaceuticals.

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

SAN DIEGO — The multiple myeloma (MM) drug daratumumab (Darzalex), an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, dramatically reduced progression to active MM or death in patients with high-risk smoldering MM (SMM), a landmark randomized, open-label, phase 3 study found.

Among 390 patients with SMM (194 assigned to daratumumab and 196 to active monitoring), progression to active MM or death over a follow-up of 65.2 (0-76.6) months was 51% lower in the daratumumab group vs active monitoring (34.5% vs 50.5%, hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.67; P < .0001), researchers reported at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting and in a simultaneous publication in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Rahul Banerjee, MD, an assistant professor with the University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, both in Seattle, who wasn’t involved with the research, said the study “is a big deal, and I suspect this will ultimately lead to an FDA [Food and Drug Administration] approval for daratumumab in this setting. If using daratumumab up-front can prevent further myeloma and therefore make patients live longer, this would be immediately adopted at many practices.”

As study first author Meletios Athanasios Dimopoulos, MD, of National and Kapodistrian University of Athens and Alexandra General Hospital in Greece, noted at a news briefing, SMM is common, affecting 0.5% of the population aged over 40, per a 2023 Iceland study.

“Standard practice is close follow-up without immediate intervention. However, this oftentimes ends in organ tissue damage, and hypercalcemia, bone lesions, renal impairment, and anemia,” Dimopoulos said.

According to him, researchers launched the AQUILA study in light of indications that daratumumab may benefit patients with intermediate- and high-risk SMM.

For the study, researchers recruited patients from 2017 to 2019 in 23 countries with confirmed high-risk SMM for ≤ 5 years (median age, 64 [31-86] years; 47%-49% men; 83% White).

In the daratumumab group, the drug was administered in 28-day cycles until cycle 39, 36 months, or disease progression, whichever came first (median treatment duration, 38 months [35 months]).

At 5 years, progression-free survival (PFS) — the primary endpoint — was 63.1% (daratumumab) and 40.8% (active monitoring). Researchers estimated 60-month PFS rates at 63.1% and 40.8%, respectively, and overall response rates were 63.4% vs 2.0% (P < .0001), respectively.

The 60-month overall survival rates were 93.0% and 86.9% (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.27-0.98) with 15 deaths in the daratumumab and 26 in the active monitoring group.

“During the follow-up period, there was continuous improvement in favor of the daratumumab arm,” Dimopoulos said. “Even after treatment was discontinued at 3 years, or even at 5 or 6 years, there was a continuous benefit from treatment with daratumumab.”

By clinical cutoff in May 2024, 65% of patients taking daratumumab had finished 39 cycles/3 years of treatment vs 40.8% in the active monitoring group. Progressive disease was the most common reason that patients stopped treatment (21.8% and 41.8% of patients in the groups, respectively).

Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 40.4% (daratumumab) and 30.1% (active monitoring) of patients. The most common was hypertension (5.7% and 4.6%, respectively).

In the daratumumab group, 5.7% discontinued therapy because of TEAEs, which the researchers described as a “low” number, and fatal TEAEs were similar in both groups (1.0% and 2.0%, respectively).

Banerjee said that “one theoretical risk of using daratumumab monotherapy to treat perceived high-risk SMM is that if the patient actually has active multiple myeloma, you are undertreating them. For anyone with HR-SMM, active multiple myeloma must be completely ruled out. I always insist on both a PET-CT and a whole-body MRI to evaluate the bone marrow comprehensively.”

For now, Banerjee said, clinicians should wait for the US Food and Drug Administration approval before prescribing daratumumab for high-risk SMM.

Are there alternatives to reduce the risk for SMM turning into MM? “Generally, I advise close observation in most cases, but we do have clinical trials in this space,” Banerjee said. “Technically, it is possible to consider lenalidomide monotherapy in SMM based on the results of a large phase 3 study. But lenalidomide is expensive and has many side effects. Insurance companies often won’t cover it fully, and patients almost always have at least one side effect.”

Also, he added, “only half of patients saw their high-risk SMM disease burden drop. Lenalidomide also has a clear link to rare, delayed toxicities such as second primary malignancies, which makes us nervous.”

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, the maker of daratumumab, funded the study. Dimopoulos disclosed ties with Sanofi, Regeneron, Menarini, Takeda, GSK, BMS, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, BeiGene, Swixx, AstraZeneca, and Amgen. Banerjee disclosed ties with AbbVie, Adaptive, BMS, Caribou, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Legend, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Pack, Pfizer, Prothena, Sanofi Pasteur, and SparkCures. Some other authors reported various and multiple disclosures, including ties with Janssen Pharmaceuticals.

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

SAN DIEGO — A new study linked longer duration and deeper intensity of tobacco smoking to more genetic mutations in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDSs), a group of bone marrow cancers that are similar to acute myeloid leukemia.

The prospective National MDS Natural History Study evaluated 1898 patients with recently diagnosed or suspected MDS. An adjusted analysis linked higher number of pack-years to more mutations (P = .006), with those at the 90th percentile with 3.5 times the number of mutations as nonsmokers, researchers reported at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.

The findings “suggest that smoking potentially contributes to the multistep molecular genetic pathogenesis that ultimately results in diagnosis of the cancer,” said corresponding author Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, of the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Health System in Florida, at a news briefing. “The more you smoke, the more likely you are to acquire more mutations and even develop a higher risk of myelodysplastic syndromes. [More smoking] was also associated with progression and survival.”

While numbers are uncertain, an estimated 10,000 or more people in the United States each year are diagnosed with MDS, also known as preleukemia, according to the American Cancer Society. Median survival ranges from 1 to 10.6 years based on risk group, although the cancer society says the statistics are dated and mainly from Europe.

Multiple studies have linked smoking to MDS. The new study aims to understand the possible effects of smoking on genetic mutations.

The research analyzed 1898 patients enrolled from 2016 to 2023 (52% who had ever smoked; 18% current smokers; mean smoking years, 29.8 ± 16.9 years). The patients had diagnoses of MDSs, MDS/myeloproliferative neoplasm overlap, or precursor conditions such as clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance (CCUS).

Smokers were more likely than nonsmokers to be men (68% vs 54%; P < .001) and aged 70-79 years (45% vs 34%; P < .001).

After adjustment for confounders, smokers had more average mutations linked to MDS than nonsmokers (2.0 vs 1.4; P = .04). Those at the 75th percentile of pack-years had 1.8 times as many MDS-linked mutations as nonsmokers.

The 5-year cumulative incidence of disease progression was higher in long-term smokers than in nonsmokers and those with shorter smoking history (mean proportion progressed, 20+ years vs < 20 years smoking/nonsmoking, 27% [19%-36%] vs 18% [13%-24%]; P < .05, respectively).

Also, overall survival was lower in smokers than in nonsmokers for patients with CCUS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.91; 95% CI, 1.03-3.55; P = .04) but not for those with MDS (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.53-1.30; P = .41).

“The data suggests that a patient with a new diagnosis of MDS who also smokes should be counseled to stop smoking,” Sekeres said.

This may seem counterintuitive to patients, he acknowledged. When Sekeres was a medical student, he counseled a female patient with advanced lung cancer to quit smoking. “The patient looked at me like I had three heads and she said: ‘Why should I stop smoking? The cats are already out of the bag. I have lung cancer.’ ”

But the new study points to a possible benefit from quitting smoking while sick. “It appears that smoking contributes to the acquisition of new genetic mutations that can lead to worsening of the myelodysplastic syndromes and even evolution of the cancer into acute myeloid leukemia,” Sekeres said.

He added: “One thing to understand about these cancers of the bone marrow is they can take years or decades to develop. They’re not one-hit wonders. Smoking caused very specific genetic mutations. The cool part of this is that they’re the same genetic mutations smoking has been shown to cause in cancers like lung cancer, so we’re seeing consistency across cancers.”

Sekeres said he himself will counsel patients with MDS or acute myeloid leukemia to stop smoking. “If there’s anything we can do to intervene to prevent myelodysplastic syndrome from evolving into acute leukemia, my word, I sure I’m going to try it.”

In an interview, Peter Greenberg, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford Cancer Center in California, who’s familiar with the study but didn’t take part in the research, said the study suggests that smoking in MDS isn’t just related to exposure to fumes “but appears to be a much more widespread problem” related to its impact on generating hematologic stem cell mutations.

Most clinicians don’t warn patients with MDS about the dangers of smoking because they’re not aware of tobacco’s connection to the disease, Greenberg said. But there’s another reason to bring up smoking, he said: It boosts the risk for cardiovascular disease, which may be partially responsible for decreased survival in smokers.

Sekeres disclosed ties with Kurome, Schrödinger, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Other authors reported multiple and various relationships with industry. Greenberg had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — A new study linked longer duration and deeper intensity of tobacco smoking to more genetic mutations in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDSs), a group of bone marrow cancers that are similar to acute myeloid leukemia.

The prospective National MDS Natural History Study evaluated 1898 patients with recently diagnosed or suspected MDS. An adjusted analysis linked higher number of pack-years to more mutations (P = .006), with those at the 90th percentile with 3.5 times the number of mutations as nonsmokers, researchers reported at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.

The findings “suggest that smoking potentially contributes to the multistep molecular genetic pathogenesis that ultimately results in diagnosis of the cancer,” said corresponding author Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, of the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Health System in Florida, at a news briefing. “The more you smoke, the more likely you are to acquire more mutations and even develop a higher risk of myelodysplastic syndromes. [More smoking] was also associated with progression and survival.”

While numbers are uncertain, an estimated 10,000 or more people in the United States each year are diagnosed with MDS, also known as preleukemia, according to the American Cancer Society. Median survival ranges from 1 to 10.6 years based on risk group, although the cancer society says the statistics are dated and mainly from Europe.

Multiple studies have linked smoking to MDS. The new study aims to understand the possible effects of smoking on genetic mutations.

The research analyzed 1898 patients enrolled from 2016 to 2023 (52% who had ever smoked; 18% current smokers; mean smoking years, 29.8 ± 16.9 years). The patients had diagnoses of MDSs, MDS/myeloproliferative neoplasm overlap, or precursor conditions such as clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance (CCUS).

Smokers were more likely than nonsmokers to be men (68% vs 54%; P < .001) and aged 70-79 years (45% vs 34%; P < .001).

After adjustment for confounders, smokers had more average mutations linked to MDS than nonsmokers (2.0 vs 1.4; P = .04). Those at the 75th percentile of pack-years had 1.8 times as many MDS-linked mutations as nonsmokers.

The 5-year cumulative incidence of disease progression was higher in long-term smokers than in nonsmokers and those with shorter smoking history (mean proportion progressed, 20+ years vs < 20 years smoking/nonsmoking, 27% [19%-36%] vs 18% [13%-24%]; P < .05, respectively).

Also, overall survival was lower in smokers than in nonsmokers for patients with CCUS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.91; 95% CI, 1.03-3.55; P = .04) but not for those with MDS (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.53-1.30; P = .41).

“The data suggests that a patient with a new diagnosis of MDS who also smokes should be counseled to stop smoking,” Sekeres said.

This may seem counterintuitive to patients, he acknowledged. When Sekeres was a medical student, he counseled a female patient with advanced lung cancer to quit smoking. “The patient looked at me like I had three heads and she said: ‘Why should I stop smoking? The cats are already out of the bag. I have lung cancer.’ ”

But the new study points to a possible benefit from quitting smoking while sick. “It appears that smoking contributes to the acquisition of new genetic mutations that can lead to worsening of the myelodysplastic syndromes and even evolution of the cancer into acute myeloid leukemia,” Sekeres said.

He added: “One thing to understand about these cancers of the bone marrow is they can take years or decades to develop. They’re not one-hit wonders. Smoking caused very specific genetic mutations. The cool part of this is that they’re the same genetic mutations smoking has been shown to cause in cancers like lung cancer, so we’re seeing consistency across cancers.”

Sekeres said he himself will counsel patients with MDS or acute myeloid leukemia to stop smoking. “If there’s anything we can do to intervene to prevent myelodysplastic syndrome from evolving into acute leukemia, my word, I sure I’m going to try it.”

In an interview, Peter Greenberg, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford Cancer Center in California, who’s familiar with the study but didn’t take part in the research, said the study suggests that smoking in MDS isn’t just related to exposure to fumes “but appears to be a much more widespread problem” related to its impact on generating hematologic stem cell mutations.

Most clinicians don’t warn patients with MDS about the dangers of smoking because they’re not aware of tobacco’s connection to the disease, Greenberg said. But there’s another reason to bring up smoking, he said: It boosts the risk for cardiovascular disease, which may be partially responsible for decreased survival in smokers.

Sekeres disclosed ties with Kurome, Schrödinger, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Other authors reported multiple and various relationships with industry. Greenberg had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — A new study linked longer duration and deeper intensity of tobacco smoking to more genetic mutations in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDSs), a group of bone marrow cancers that are similar to acute myeloid leukemia.

The prospective National MDS Natural History Study evaluated 1898 patients with recently diagnosed or suspected MDS. An adjusted analysis linked higher number of pack-years to more mutations (P = .006), with those at the 90th percentile with 3.5 times the number of mutations as nonsmokers, researchers reported at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.

The findings “suggest that smoking potentially contributes to the multistep molecular genetic pathogenesis that ultimately results in diagnosis of the cancer,” said corresponding author Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, of the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Health System in Florida, at a news briefing. “The more you smoke, the more likely you are to acquire more mutations and even develop a higher risk of myelodysplastic syndromes. [More smoking] was also associated with progression and survival.”

While numbers are uncertain, an estimated 10,000 or more people in the United States each year are diagnosed with MDS, also known as preleukemia, according to the American Cancer Society. Median survival ranges from 1 to 10.6 years based on risk group, although the cancer society says the statistics are dated and mainly from Europe.

Multiple studies have linked smoking to MDS. The new study aims to understand the possible effects of smoking on genetic mutations.

The research analyzed 1898 patients enrolled from 2016 to 2023 (52% who had ever smoked; 18% current smokers; mean smoking years, 29.8 ± 16.9 years). The patients had diagnoses of MDSs, MDS/myeloproliferative neoplasm overlap, or precursor conditions such as clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance (CCUS).

Smokers were more likely than nonsmokers to be men (68% vs 54%; P < .001) and aged 70-79 years (45% vs 34%; P < .001).

After adjustment for confounders, smokers had more average mutations linked to MDS than nonsmokers (2.0 vs 1.4; P = .04). Those at the 75th percentile of pack-years had 1.8 times as many MDS-linked mutations as nonsmokers.

The 5-year cumulative incidence of disease progression was higher in long-term smokers than in nonsmokers and those with shorter smoking history (mean proportion progressed, 20+ years vs < 20 years smoking/nonsmoking, 27% [19%-36%] vs 18% [13%-24%]; P < .05, respectively).

Also, overall survival was lower in smokers than in nonsmokers for patients with CCUS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.91; 95% CI, 1.03-3.55; P = .04) but not for those with MDS (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.53-1.30; P = .41).

“The data suggests that a patient with a new diagnosis of MDS who also smokes should be counseled to stop smoking,” Sekeres said.

This may seem counterintuitive to patients, he acknowledged. When Sekeres was a medical student, he counseled a female patient with advanced lung cancer to quit smoking. “The patient looked at me like I had three heads and she said: ‘Why should I stop smoking? The cats are already out of the bag. I have lung cancer.’ ”

But the new study points to a possible benefit from quitting smoking while sick. “It appears that smoking contributes to the acquisition of new genetic mutations that can lead to worsening of the myelodysplastic syndromes and even evolution of the cancer into acute myeloid leukemia,” Sekeres said.

He added: “One thing to understand about these cancers of the bone marrow is they can take years or decades to develop. They’re not one-hit wonders. Smoking caused very specific genetic mutations. The cool part of this is that they’re the same genetic mutations smoking has been shown to cause in cancers like lung cancer, so we’re seeing consistency across cancers.”

Sekeres said he himself will counsel patients with MDS or acute myeloid leukemia to stop smoking. “If there’s anything we can do to intervene to prevent myelodysplastic syndrome from evolving into acute leukemia, my word, I sure I’m going to try it.”

In an interview, Peter Greenberg, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford Cancer Center in California, who’s familiar with the study but didn’t take part in the research, said the study suggests that smoking in MDS isn’t just related to exposure to fumes “but appears to be a much more widespread problem” related to its impact on generating hematologic stem cell mutations.

Most clinicians don’t warn patients with MDS about the dangers of smoking because they’re not aware of tobacco’s connection to the disease, Greenberg said. But there’s another reason to bring up smoking, he said: It boosts the risk for cardiovascular disease, which may be partially responsible for decreased survival in smokers.

Sekeres disclosed ties with Kurome, Schrödinger, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Other authors reported multiple and various relationships with industry. Greenberg had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Significant complications were common in female patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) who underwent fertility preservation (FP) procedures, and 13% required multiple retrieval cycles, a five-center retrospective study found.

Of 46 patients with SCD, complications occurred in 25 of 55 controlled ovarian hyperstimulation cycles, including 29 vaso-occlusive episodes (VOEs), researchers reported at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.

Of 21 post-retrieval VOEs, 19 required emergency department care or hospitalization.

“Baseline sickle cell disease severity is most likely associated with a patient’s risk of complications from an egg retrieval cycle,” study co-author Sarah Cromack, MD, a reproductive endocrinology and infertility fellow at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.

“Both hematologists and reproductive endocrinologists can use this information to plan ahead and anticipate possible issues, check blood counts prior to and after egg retrieval to see if transfusion is needed, and plan close follow-up during stimulation and immediately after egg retrieval to evaluate and treat pain.”

 

SCD Accelerates Decline in Ovarian Reserve

Pediatric hematologist Lydia H. Pecker, MD, MS, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, the study’s corresponding author, said in an interview that SCD is “a disease of accelerated aging” that leads to accelerated decline in ovarian reserve. “The common indication for fertility preservation in SCD is before bone marrow transplant or gene therapy,” she said, although FP can also be offered to other patients with SCD.

According to Cromack, researchers launched the study to expand information about SCD and FP in light of sparse data about outcomes.

All the 46 patients had hemoglobin SS (HbSS, 93%) and HbSβ0-thalassemia (7%) and a median age of 23.7 (18-28) years. Almost all (44 patients) underwent FP prior to curative treatments, and all had at least one SCD-related complication, mainly cerebrovascular disease (16), acute chest syndrome (23), and more than two VOEs per year (31).

Median anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) level (2.1 ng/mL), a measurement of ovarian reserve, was lower than the expected level of 2.8-3.4 ng/mL among women in the age range of the patients, the researchers reported. “This is consistent with previous studies showing lower AMH for age in women with sickle cell disease,” Pecker said.

 

Complications in 45% of Retrieval Cycles

“In terms of success of oocyte cryopreservation, the median number of mature eggs frozen was 11,” said co-author and reproductive endocrinologist Jessica Walter, MD, of Northwestern University, in an interview. “Given the average age of 24 years in the cohort, this would give each patient about a 70% estimated probability of at least one live birth from their cohort of frozen eggs. Thus, patients hoping for more than one child may want to consider more than one cycle of egg freezing.”

The rate of complications was “fairly high” at 45% of all cycles, Walter said. “These were mostly complications from underlying sickle cell disease, including unplanned transfusions and admissions for vaso-occlusive crises. Surprisingly, there were very few cases of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in this young patient group, which may be due to a combination of underlying vascular disease, lower peak estradiol levels, and slightly less eggs retrieved then would be expected compared to an age-matched healthy controls.”

Any FP complication was associated with more than three VOEs in the year before controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (mean of three VOEs per patient without complications vs six per patient with complications; P = .036).

 

Higher Than Normal Need for Multiple Cycles

Reproductive endocrinologist H. Irene Su, MD, professor and co-director of the Center for OB/GYN Research Innovations at Moores Cancer Center, University of California San Diego, praised the study as “an important report” in an interview.

Su, who wasn’t involved in the research, said the percentage of patients requiring more than one cycle due to cancellation or low oocyte yield — 13% — is “higher than expected, given the young age of this cohort.”

This could reflect the hypothesis that “sickle cell crises and hypoxia adversely affect the finite number of oocytes in the ovary,” she said.

As for the study findings regarding complications, she said the rate “is very high compared to the general infertility or fertility preservation population. It would be good to learn predictors of these outcomes so that fertility and hematology clinicians can work together to stratify risk and supportive services around FP cycles. It would also be good to know if the post-retrieval VOE were unexpected given the patient’s disease activity prior to FP.”

 

Message: FP in SCD Is Feasible, Acceptable

A.D. Mishkin, MD, MPH, associate professor of psychiatry and liaison to the Blood and Marrow Transplantation Program at NewYork–Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City, said in an interview that the study “establishes the feasibility and acceptability of oocyte harvest and preservation in a population of patients with active ongoing symptoms from SCD. It also indicates their interest in pursuing fertility preservation in the setting of frequent crises and the potential for management of ensuing complications.”

Mishkin, who didn’t take part in the research, highlighted the finding that half the patients got access to FP via public insurance or research funding. “Even in this population where most women had multiple complications in the year prior to FP, and even among patients who needed multiple retrievals, these patients wanted to go through that risk to preserve their fertility,” Mishkin said. “This is an important finding given the very limited access many individuals have to FP due to its high cost and limited insurance coverage, which is also largely state-dependent.”

There’s another factor to consider regarding SCD and FP: The potential danger of pregnancy.

Corresponding author Pecker noted that “pregnancy is high risk for people with sickle cell disease. There are very high rates of severe maternal mortality and morbidity even in high-income countries. However, some of this is modifiable with routine use of chronic transfusions during pregnancy and with high-quality and integrated expert SCD and expert maternal fetal medicine care during pregnancy.”

The National Institutes of Health supported the research. Pecker reported receiving research funding from Alexion, Novartis, and Aummune and consulting for Novo Nordisk. Other authors reported no disclosures. Su and Mishkin reported no disclosures.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Significant complications were common in female patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) who underwent fertility preservation (FP) procedures, and 13% required multiple retrieval cycles, a five-center retrospective study found.

Of 46 patients with SCD, complications occurred in 25 of 55 controlled ovarian hyperstimulation cycles, including 29 vaso-occlusive episodes (VOEs), researchers reported at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.

Of 21 post-retrieval VOEs, 19 required emergency department care or hospitalization.

“Baseline sickle cell disease severity is most likely associated with a patient’s risk of complications from an egg retrieval cycle,” study co-author Sarah Cromack, MD, a reproductive endocrinology and infertility fellow at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.

“Both hematologists and reproductive endocrinologists can use this information to plan ahead and anticipate possible issues, check blood counts prior to and after egg retrieval to see if transfusion is needed, and plan close follow-up during stimulation and immediately after egg retrieval to evaluate and treat pain.”

 

SCD Accelerates Decline in Ovarian Reserve

Pediatric hematologist Lydia H. Pecker, MD, MS, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, the study’s corresponding author, said in an interview that SCD is “a disease of accelerated aging” that leads to accelerated decline in ovarian reserve. “The common indication for fertility preservation in SCD is before bone marrow transplant or gene therapy,” she said, although FP can also be offered to other patients with SCD.

According to Cromack, researchers launched the study to expand information about SCD and FP in light of sparse data about outcomes.

All the 46 patients had hemoglobin SS (HbSS, 93%) and HbSβ0-thalassemia (7%) and a median age of 23.7 (18-28) years. Almost all (44 patients) underwent FP prior to curative treatments, and all had at least one SCD-related complication, mainly cerebrovascular disease (16), acute chest syndrome (23), and more than two VOEs per year (31).

Median anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) level (2.1 ng/mL), a measurement of ovarian reserve, was lower than the expected level of 2.8-3.4 ng/mL among women in the age range of the patients, the researchers reported. “This is consistent with previous studies showing lower AMH for age in women with sickle cell disease,” Pecker said.

 

Complications in 45% of Retrieval Cycles

“In terms of success of oocyte cryopreservation, the median number of mature eggs frozen was 11,” said co-author and reproductive endocrinologist Jessica Walter, MD, of Northwestern University, in an interview. “Given the average age of 24 years in the cohort, this would give each patient about a 70% estimated probability of at least one live birth from their cohort of frozen eggs. Thus, patients hoping for more than one child may want to consider more than one cycle of egg freezing.”

The rate of complications was “fairly high” at 45% of all cycles, Walter said. “These were mostly complications from underlying sickle cell disease, including unplanned transfusions and admissions for vaso-occlusive crises. Surprisingly, there were very few cases of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in this young patient group, which may be due to a combination of underlying vascular disease, lower peak estradiol levels, and slightly less eggs retrieved then would be expected compared to an age-matched healthy controls.”

Any FP complication was associated with more than three VOEs in the year before controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (mean of three VOEs per patient without complications vs six per patient with complications; P = .036).

 

Higher Than Normal Need for Multiple Cycles

Reproductive endocrinologist H. Irene Su, MD, professor and co-director of the Center for OB/GYN Research Innovations at Moores Cancer Center, University of California San Diego, praised the study as “an important report” in an interview.

Su, who wasn’t involved in the research, said the percentage of patients requiring more than one cycle due to cancellation or low oocyte yield — 13% — is “higher than expected, given the young age of this cohort.”

This could reflect the hypothesis that “sickle cell crises and hypoxia adversely affect the finite number of oocytes in the ovary,” she said.

As for the study findings regarding complications, she said the rate “is very high compared to the general infertility or fertility preservation population. It would be good to learn predictors of these outcomes so that fertility and hematology clinicians can work together to stratify risk and supportive services around FP cycles. It would also be good to know if the post-retrieval VOE were unexpected given the patient’s disease activity prior to FP.”

 

Message: FP in SCD Is Feasible, Acceptable

A.D. Mishkin, MD, MPH, associate professor of psychiatry and liaison to the Blood and Marrow Transplantation Program at NewYork–Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City, said in an interview that the study “establishes the feasibility and acceptability of oocyte harvest and preservation in a population of patients with active ongoing symptoms from SCD. It also indicates their interest in pursuing fertility preservation in the setting of frequent crises and the potential for management of ensuing complications.”

Mishkin, who didn’t take part in the research, highlighted the finding that half the patients got access to FP via public insurance or research funding. “Even in this population where most women had multiple complications in the year prior to FP, and even among patients who needed multiple retrievals, these patients wanted to go through that risk to preserve their fertility,” Mishkin said. “This is an important finding given the very limited access many individuals have to FP due to its high cost and limited insurance coverage, which is also largely state-dependent.”

There’s another factor to consider regarding SCD and FP: The potential danger of pregnancy.

Corresponding author Pecker noted that “pregnancy is high risk for people with sickle cell disease. There are very high rates of severe maternal mortality and morbidity even in high-income countries. However, some of this is modifiable with routine use of chronic transfusions during pregnancy and with high-quality and integrated expert SCD and expert maternal fetal medicine care during pregnancy.”

The National Institutes of Health supported the research. Pecker reported receiving research funding from Alexion, Novartis, and Aummune and consulting for Novo Nordisk. Other authors reported no disclosures. Su and Mishkin reported no disclosures.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Significant complications were common in female patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) who underwent fertility preservation (FP) procedures, and 13% required multiple retrieval cycles, a five-center retrospective study found.

Of 46 patients with SCD, complications occurred in 25 of 55 controlled ovarian hyperstimulation cycles, including 29 vaso-occlusive episodes (VOEs), researchers reported at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.

Of 21 post-retrieval VOEs, 19 required emergency department care or hospitalization.

“Baseline sickle cell disease severity is most likely associated with a patient’s risk of complications from an egg retrieval cycle,” study co-author Sarah Cromack, MD, a reproductive endocrinology and infertility fellow at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.

“Both hematologists and reproductive endocrinologists can use this information to plan ahead and anticipate possible issues, check blood counts prior to and after egg retrieval to see if transfusion is needed, and plan close follow-up during stimulation and immediately after egg retrieval to evaluate and treat pain.”

 

SCD Accelerates Decline in Ovarian Reserve

Pediatric hematologist Lydia H. Pecker, MD, MS, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, the study’s corresponding author, said in an interview that SCD is “a disease of accelerated aging” that leads to accelerated decline in ovarian reserve. “The common indication for fertility preservation in SCD is before bone marrow transplant or gene therapy,” she said, although FP can also be offered to other patients with SCD.

According to Cromack, researchers launched the study to expand information about SCD and FP in light of sparse data about outcomes.

All the 46 patients had hemoglobin SS (HbSS, 93%) and HbSβ0-thalassemia (7%) and a median age of 23.7 (18-28) years. Almost all (44 patients) underwent FP prior to curative treatments, and all had at least one SCD-related complication, mainly cerebrovascular disease (16), acute chest syndrome (23), and more than two VOEs per year (31).

Median anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) level (2.1 ng/mL), a measurement of ovarian reserve, was lower than the expected level of 2.8-3.4 ng/mL among women in the age range of the patients, the researchers reported. “This is consistent with previous studies showing lower AMH for age in women with sickle cell disease,” Pecker said.

 

Complications in 45% of Retrieval Cycles

“In terms of success of oocyte cryopreservation, the median number of mature eggs frozen was 11,” said co-author and reproductive endocrinologist Jessica Walter, MD, of Northwestern University, in an interview. “Given the average age of 24 years in the cohort, this would give each patient about a 70% estimated probability of at least one live birth from their cohort of frozen eggs. Thus, patients hoping for more than one child may want to consider more than one cycle of egg freezing.”

The rate of complications was “fairly high” at 45% of all cycles, Walter said. “These were mostly complications from underlying sickle cell disease, including unplanned transfusions and admissions for vaso-occlusive crises. Surprisingly, there were very few cases of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in this young patient group, which may be due to a combination of underlying vascular disease, lower peak estradiol levels, and slightly less eggs retrieved then would be expected compared to an age-matched healthy controls.”

Any FP complication was associated with more than three VOEs in the year before controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (mean of three VOEs per patient without complications vs six per patient with complications; P = .036).

 

Higher Than Normal Need for Multiple Cycles

Reproductive endocrinologist H. Irene Su, MD, professor and co-director of the Center for OB/GYN Research Innovations at Moores Cancer Center, University of California San Diego, praised the study as “an important report” in an interview.

Su, who wasn’t involved in the research, said the percentage of patients requiring more than one cycle due to cancellation or low oocyte yield — 13% — is “higher than expected, given the young age of this cohort.”

This could reflect the hypothesis that “sickle cell crises and hypoxia adversely affect the finite number of oocytes in the ovary,” she said.

As for the study findings regarding complications, she said the rate “is very high compared to the general infertility or fertility preservation population. It would be good to learn predictors of these outcomes so that fertility and hematology clinicians can work together to stratify risk and supportive services around FP cycles. It would also be good to know if the post-retrieval VOE were unexpected given the patient’s disease activity prior to FP.”

 

Message: FP in SCD Is Feasible, Acceptable

A.D. Mishkin, MD, MPH, associate professor of psychiatry and liaison to the Blood and Marrow Transplantation Program at NewYork–Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City, said in an interview that the study “establishes the feasibility and acceptability of oocyte harvest and preservation in a population of patients with active ongoing symptoms from SCD. It also indicates their interest in pursuing fertility preservation in the setting of frequent crises and the potential for management of ensuing complications.”

Mishkin, who didn’t take part in the research, highlighted the finding that half the patients got access to FP via public insurance or research funding. “Even in this population where most women had multiple complications in the year prior to FP, and even among patients who needed multiple retrievals, these patients wanted to go through that risk to preserve their fertility,” Mishkin said. “This is an important finding given the very limited access many individuals have to FP due to its high cost and limited insurance coverage, which is also largely state-dependent.”

There’s another factor to consider regarding SCD and FP: The potential danger of pregnancy.

Corresponding author Pecker noted that “pregnancy is high risk for people with sickle cell disease. There are very high rates of severe maternal mortality and morbidity even in high-income countries. However, some of this is modifiable with routine use of chronic transfusions during pregnancy and with high-quality and integrated expert SCD and expert maternal fetal medicine care during pregnancy.”

The National Institutes of Health supported the research. Pecker reported receiving research funding from Alexion, Novartis, and Aummune and consulting for Novo Nordisk. Other authors reported no disclosures. Su and Mishkin reported no disclosures.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — The addition of the bispecific T-cell engager blinatumomab (Blincyto) to chemotherapy greatly boosted 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) in younger pediatric patients with newly diagnosed, standard-risk B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL), in a phase 3 randomized trial. 

Among pediatric patients with B-ALL followed for a mean of 2.5 years (1.6-3.2 years), 718 patients in the blinatumomab-plus-chemotherapy group had a 3-year DFS of 96.0 ± 1.2%, compared with 87.9 ± 2.1% of the 722 patients in the chemotherapy-only group, researchers reported at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.

“Our results demonstrate that blinatumomab added to chemotherapy represents a new treatment standard for most patients with NCI [National Cancer Institute] standard-risk [B-ALL],” said first author Rachel E. Rau, MD, Seattle Children’s Hospital, University of Washington, during a news briefing.

As Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, chief of the Translational Stem Cell Biology Branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, noted in a news briefing: “B-cell ALL is the most common childhood cancer and one of the most treatable. However, some children still relapse following standard chemotherapy treatments and then have a much grimmer outcome.”

The AALL1731 study was initiated in 2019 with a recruitment goal of 2245 participants. The patients were over age 1 and less than 10 years, with an initial white blood cell count of < 50,000/μL and were considered to be standard risk–high or standard risk–average. 

The control group received standard-intensity chemotherapy (standard risk–average patients) or augmented Berlin-Frankfurt-Münster–based chemotherapy (standard risk–high patients). In addition, the blinatumomab groups received two cycles of the drug. 

Randomization was terminated in 2024 at 1440 patients because of the positive results. Patients had a median age of 4.3 years (2.8-6.4), 52.6% were boys, 26% were Hispanic, and 5% were non-Hispanic Black. 

The addition of blinatumomab improved DFS by 61% (hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.24-0.64; P < .0001). 

In the group of standard risk–average patients, 3-year DFS was 97.5±1.3% in the blinatumomab group vs 90.2±2.3% in the control group (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.15-0.69). For standard risk–high patients, 3-year DFS was 94.1 ± 2.5% and 84.8 ± 3.8%, respectively. 

Six deaths occurred in remission, all in standard risk–high patients and none during blinatumomab cycles. Out of first courses of blinatumomab, 0.3% were associated with Grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome and 0.7% with seizures.

“We did note higher rates of subsequent sepsis and catheter-related infections in our standard risk–average patients who received blinatumomab,” Rau said. 

“The improvement in disease survival was secondary to significant reduction in bone marrow relapse,” Rau added. “We did not see a similar reduction in the more rare event of an isolated central nervous system relapse. This finding was not surprising given blinatumomab’s known limited activity in the central nervous system.”

Rau noted that there are two challenges in terms of access to blinatumomab: its cost, at about $225,000 per a 2023 report, and its administration. The drug is administered via 4-week-long infusions. “The delivery method is very cumbersome,” she said. 

“These are big problems that are going to take the combined efforts of pediatric oncologist cancer consortia and pharmaceutical industry partners as well as government agencies,” she said. Fortunately, she said, in June 2024 the Food and Drug Administration approved blinatumomab for adult and pediatric patients 1 month and older with CD19-positive Philadelphia chromosome–negative B-ALL in the consolidation phase of multiphase chemotherapy. 

“So it’s relatively easy, at least, to prescribe blinatumomab in the United States for our patients that we feel would benefit from it,” she said. 

As for method of delivery, Rau said easier-to-deliver formulations are in development. 

Rau has disclosed spousal employment (AbbVie), serving on advisory boards (Servier, Jazz), consulting, and receiving honoraria (Jazz). Other study authors report various disclosures including ties with Amgen, the maker of blinatumomab. Dunbar has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

SAN DIEGO — The addition of the bispecific T-cell engager blinatumomab (Blincyto) to chemotherapy greatly boosted 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) in younger pediatric patients with newly diagnosed, standard-risk B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL), in a phase 3 randomized trial. 

Among pediatric patients with B-ALL followed for a mean of 2.5 years (1.6-3.2 years), 718 patients in the blinatumomab-plus-chemotherapy group had a 3-year DFS of 96.0 ± 1.2%, compared with 87.9 ± 2.1% of the 722 patients in the chemotherapy-only group, researchers reported at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.

“Our results demonstrate that blinatumomab added to chemotherapy represents a new treatment standard for most patients with NCI [National Cancer Institute] standard-risk [B-ALL],” said first author Rachel E. Rau, MD, Seattle Children’s Hospital, University of Washington, during a news briefing.

As Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, chief of the Translational Stem Cell Biology Branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, noted in a news briefing: “B-cell ALL is the most common childhood cancer and one of the most treatable. However, some children still relapse following standard chemotherapy treatments and then have a much grimmer outcome.”

The AALL1731 study was initiated in 2019 with a recruitment goal of 2245 participants. The patients were over age 1 and less than 10 years, with an initial white blood cell count of < 50,000/μL and were considered to be standard risk–high or standard risk–average. 

The control group received standard-intensity chemotherapy (standard risk–average patients) or augmented Berlin-Frankfurt-Münster–based chemotherapy (standard risk–high patients). In addition, the blinatumomab groups received two cycles of the drug. 

Randomization was terminated in 2024 at 1440 patients because of the positive results. Patients had a median age of 4.3 years (2.8-6.4), 52.6% were boys, 26% were Hispanic, and 5% were non-Hispanic Black. 

The addition of blinatumomab improved DFS by 61% (hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.24-0.64; P < .0001). 

In the group of standard risk–average patients, 3-year DFS was 97.5±1.3% in the blinatumomab group vs 90.2±2.3% in the control group (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.15-0.69). For standard risk–high patients, 3-year DFS was 94.1 ± 2.5% and 84.8 ± 3.8%, respectively. 

Six deaths occurred in remission, all in standard risk–high patients and none during blinatumomab cycles. Out of first courses of blinatumomab, 0.3% were associated with Grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome and 0.7% with seizures.

“We did note higher rates of subsequent sepsis and catheter-related infections in our standard risk–average patients who received blinatumomab,” Rau said. 

“The improvement in disease survival was secondary to significant reduction in bone marrow relapse,” Rau added. “We did not see a similar reduction in the more rare event of an isolated central nervous system relapse. This finding was not surprising given blinatumomab’s known limited activity in the central nervous system.”

Rau noted that there are two challenges in terms of access to blinatumomab: its cost, at about $225,000 per a 2023 report, and its administration. The drug is administered via 4-week-long infusions. “The delivery method is very cumbersome,” she said. 

“These are big problems that are going to take the combined efforts of pediatric oncologist cancer consortia and pharmaceutical industry partners as well as government agencies,” she said. Fortunately, she said, in June 2024 the Food and Drug Administration approved blinatumomab for adult and pediatric patients 1 month and older with CD19-positive Philadelphia chromosome–negative B-ALL in the consolidation phase of multiphase chemotherapy. 

“So it’s relatively easy, at least, to prescribe blinatumomab in the United States for our patients that we feel would benefit from it,” she said. 

As for method of delivery, Rau said easier-to-deliver formulations are in development. 

Rau has disclosed spousal employment (AbbVie), serving on advisory boards (Servier, Jazz), consulting, and receiving honoraria (Jazz). Other study authors report various disclosures including ties with Amgen, the maker of blinatumomab. Dunbar has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

SAN DIEGO — The addition of the bispecific T-cell engager blinatumomab (Blincyto) to chemotherapy greatly boosted 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) in younger pediatric patients with newly diagnosed, standard-risk B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL), in a phase 3 randomized trial. 

Among pediatric patients with B-ALL followed for a mean of 2.5 years (1.6-3.2 years), 718 patients in the blinatumomab-plus-chemotherapy group had a 3-year DFS of 96.0 ± 1.2%, compared with 87.9 ± 2.1% of the 722 patients in the chemotherapy-only group, researchers reported at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.

“Our results demonstrate that blinatumomab added to chemotherapy represents a new treatment standard for most patients with NCI [National Cancer Institute] standard-risk [B-ALL],” said first author Rachel E. Rau, MD, Seattle Children’s Hospital, University of Washington, during a news briefing.

As Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, chief of the Translational Stem Cell Biology Branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, noted in a news briefing: “B-cell ALL is the most common childhood cancer and one of the most treatable. However, some children still relapse following standard chemotherapy treatments and then have a much grimmer outcome.”

The AALL1731 study was initiated in 2019 with a recruitment goal of 2245 participants. The patients were over age 1 and less than 10 years, with an initial white blood cell count of < 50,000/μL and were considered to be standard risk–high or standard risk–average. 

The control group received standard-intensity chemotherapy (standard risk–average patients) or augmented Berlin-Frankfurt-Münster–based chemotherapy (standard risk–high patients). In addition, the blinatumomab groups received two cycles of the drug. 

Randomization was terminated in 2024 at 1440 patients because of the positive results. Patients had a median age of 4.3 years (2.8-6.4), 52.6% were boys, 26% were Hispanic, and 5% were non-Hispanic Black. 

The addition of blinatumomab improved DFS by 61% (hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.24-0.64; P < .0001). 

In the group of standard risk–average patients, 3-year DFS was 97.5±1.3% in the blinatumomab group vs 90.2±2.3% in the control group (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.15-0.69). For standard risk–high patients, 3-year DFS was 94.1 ± 2.5% and 84.8 ± 3.8%, respectively. 

Six deaths occurred in remission, all in standard risk–high patients and none during blinatumomab cycles. Out of first courses of blinatumomab, 0.3% were associated with Grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome and 0.7% with seizures.

“We did note higher rates of subsequent sepsis and catheter-related infections in our standard risk–average patients who received blinatumomab,” Rau said. 

“The improvement in disease survival was secondary to significant reduction in bone marrow relapse,” Rau added. “We did not see a similar reduction in the more rare event of an isolated central nervous system relapse. This finding was not surprising given blinatumomab’s known limited activity in the central nervous system.”

Rau noted that there are two challenges in terms of access to blinatumomab: its cost, at about $225,000 per a 2023 report, and its administration. The drug is administered via 4-week-long infusions. “The delivery method is very cumbersome,” she said. 

“These are big problems that are going to take the combined efforts of pediatric oncologist cancer consortia and pharmaceutical industry partners as well as government agencies,” she said. Fortunately, she said, in June 2024 the Food and Drug Administration approved blinatumomab for adult and pediatric patients 1 month and older with CD19-positive Philadelphia chromosome–negative B-ALL in the consolidation phase of multiphase chemotherapy. 

“So it’s relatively easy, at least, to prescribe blinatumomab in the United States for our patients that we feel would benefit from it,” she said. 

As for method of delivery, Rau said easier-to-deliver formulations are in development. 

Rau has disclosed spousal employment (AbbVie), serving on advisory boards (Servier, Jazz), consulting, and receiving honoraria (Jazz). Other study authors report various disclosures including ties with Amgen, the maker of blinatumomab. Dunbar has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

SAN DIEGO — Compared with clinical trials, a real-world retrospective analysis has linked the bispecific antibodies epcoritamab (Epkinly) and glofitamab (Columvi) to somewhat poorer outcomes in relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL).

In a presentation at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting, researchers reported that of 172 patients treated with the drugs who had evaluable responses over a median follow-up of 5 months, median progression-free survival was 2.7 months (95% CI, 2.0-3.9) and median overall survival was 7.2 months (95% CI, 6.1–not reached). 

It’s important to consider the real-world nature of the study’s patient population, said first author Taylor R. Brooks, MD, of Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, in an interview. “Compared to pivotal trials, our cohort was enriched for patients with high-risk features, with almost three quarters having some comorbidity that would’ve excluded them from one of the [earlier] studies.”

He added that “though individuals eligible to receive these medicines may be more sick with high-risk disease, a sizable fraction will respond, and some will maintain remissions.’”

According to Brooks, about one third of patients with diffuse LBCL relapse after standard front-line R-CHOP therapy. “The prognosis is poor for patients who are not candidates for aggressive salvage chemotherapy and for those who relapse after two or more lines,” Brooks said. “T cell–engaging bispecific antibodies have emerged as a promising option for patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma, given their favorable rates and duration of responses as well as their manageable rates of toxicities.”

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval for epcoritamab and glofitamab in 2023. 

“With increasing uptake into clinical practice following the FDA approvals, there is increasing interest in assessing the efficacy and safety of these drugs in real-world, nontrial settings,” Brooks said. “The goal of our study was to investigate outcomes and identify clinical factors associated with outcomes.”

The multicenter, retrospective, observational REALBiTE study tracked 209 patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse LBCL at 19 US centers (epcoritamab, n = 139; glofitamab, n = 70; median age at start of treatment, 67 years [58-76]; 62.2% male; 74.2% diffuse LBCL). The median number of lines of therapy was three (range, 1-12).

“Patients who received epcoritamab tended to be slightly older, were more likely to have a history of indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma prior to their diagnosis of aggressive B-cell lymphoma and were more likely to have an elevated International Prognostic Index score at the start of bispecific therapy, suggesting that these patients may have been slightly older with higher-risk disease compared to those who received glofitamab,” Brooks said.

In total, 172 patients were response-evaluable. The overall response rate was 50.6% (complete response, 23.8%; partial response, 26.7%; stable disease, 5.8%; progressive disease, 43.6%). 

The overall and complete response rates were “somewhat lower that what has been published in the pivotal trials of these medicines,” Brooks said. The low progression-free and overall survival rates “highlight the difficulty in managing this group of patients.” 

Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) of any grade occurred in 39.2% of patients: 51% in the epcoritamab group and 28.6% in the glofitamab group. Grade ≥3 CRS occurred in 4.3% of patients, who were all taking epcoritamab.

“For epcoritamab, CRS was almost entirely of low grade, and most CRS events occurred around administration of the first full dose of the drug on day 15,” Brooks said. “Similarly, the CRS events for glofitamab were mostly of low grade, though events were observed to occur throughout the step-up dosing. Tocilizumab was administered in about one fifth of the patients.”

In addition, Brooks said, “we found that, among the 19 individuals with paired biopsy samples before and after bispecific therapy, nearly all — 89% — were found to have lost CD20 expression. We expected some patients to experience loss of this important target, but the rate at which we found this to be the case was surprisingly high.”

Brooks added that “clinicians should be acquainted with CRS, ICANS [immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome], and mitigation strategies if they are prescribing these medicines. Appropriate and timely management using tocilizumab, steroids, and other adjunctive measures can effectively manage these complications and hopefully allow for the continued delivery of therapy.”

In an interview, Matthew Lunning, DO, associate professor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center/Fred & Pamela Buffett Cancer Center, Omaha, who didn’t take part in the new study, said the findings aren’t bad news. Instead, they’re “practical news,” because they offer insight into how the drugs work. 

“The big lesson from this and other trials is the importance of assessing for CD20 expression prior to taking a bispecific off the shelf, “ he said. “These are learnings that often come after approval.” 

He added that it’s clear that, “in more heavily pretreated patients, more disease led to less optimal results and higher risk for toxicities.”

Lunning also noted that both epcoritamab and glofitamab “entered into a crowded and chaotic relapsed/refractory LBCL space based high complete response rates with the opportunity for durability in those complete responses.” 

Academic institutions were especially interested, as they can manage CRS and ICANS, but “significantly less enthusiasm has been seen in community practices that expect CRS/ICANS to be in the rear-view mirror if they are going to deliver any bispecific,” he said. “It is not that they don’t have the clinical acumen to manage CRS/ICANS. I believe it is the perception of the lack of supportive infrastructure necessary to manage these toxicities.”

There was no study funding. Brooks has reported no disclosures. Other authors have reported various disclosures including relationships with Novartis, AbbVie, Genentech, Genmab, Biogen, Amgen, and others. Lunning has disclosed ties with AbbVie, Genmab, Kite, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Regeneron, and ADC Therapeutics.

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

SAN DIEGO — Compared with clinical trials, a real-world retrospective analysis has linked the bispecific antibodies epcoritamab (Epkinly) and glofitamab (Columvi) to somewhat poorer outcomes in relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL).

In a presentation at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting, researchers reported that of 172 patients treated with the drugs who had evaluable responses over a median follow-up of 5 months, median progression-free survival was 2.7 months (95% CI, 2.0-3.9) and median overall survival was 7.2 months (95% CI, 6.1–not reached). 

It’s important to consider the real-world nature of the study’s patient population, said first author Taylor R. Brooks, MD, of Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, in an interview. “Compared to pivotal trials, our cohort was enriched for patients with high-risk features, with almost three quarters having some comorbidity that would’ve excluded them from one of the [earlier] studies.”

He added that “though individuals eligible to receive these medicines may be more sick with high-risk disease, a sizable fraction will respond, and some will maintain remissions.’”

According to Brooks, about one third of patients with diffuse LBCL relapse after standard front-line R-CHOP therapy. “The prognosis is poor for patients who are not candidates for aggressive salvage chemotherapy and for those who relapse after two or more lines,” Brooks said. “T cell–engaging bispecific antibodies have emerged as a promising option for patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma, given their favorable rates and duration of responses as well as their manageable rates of toxicities.”

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval for epcoritamab and glofitamab in 2023. 

“With increasing uptake into clinical practice following the FDA approvals, there is increasing interest in assessing the efficacy and safety of these drugs in real-world, nontrial settings,” Brooks said. “The goal of our study was to investigate outcomes and identify clinical factors associated with outcomes.”

The multicenter, retrospective, observational REALBiTE study tracked 209 patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse LBCL at 19 US centers (epcoritamab, n = 139; glofitamab, n = 70; median age at start of treatment, 67 years [58-76]; 62.2% male; 74.2% diffuse LBCL). The median number of lines of therapy was three (range, 1-12).

“Patients who received epcoritamab tended to be slightly older, were more likely to have a history of indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma prior to their diagnosis of aggressive B-cell lymphoma and were more likely to have an elevated International Prognostic Index score at the start of bispecific therapy, suggesting that these patients may have been slightly older with higher-risk disease compared to those who received glofitamab,” Brooks said.

In total, 172 patients were response-evaluable. The overall response rate was 50.6% (complete response, 23.8%; partial response, 26.7%; stable disease, 5.8%; progressive disease, 43.6%). 

The overall and complete response rates were “somewhat lower that what has been published in the pivotal trials of these medicines,” Brooks said. The low progression-free and overall survival rates “highlight the difficulty in managing this group of patients.” 

Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) of any grade occurred in 39.2% of patients: 51% in the epcoritamab group and 28.6% in the glofitamab group. Grade ≥3 CRS occurred in 4.3% of patients, who were all taking epcoritamab.

“For epcoritamab, CRS was almost entirely of low grade, and most CRS events occurred around administration of the first full dose of the drug on day 15,” Brooks said. “Similarly, the CRS events for glofitamab were mostly of low grade, though events were observed to occur throughout the step-up dosing. Tocilizumab was administered in about one fifth of the patients.”

In addition, Brooks said, “we found that, among the 19 individuals with paired biopsy samples before and after bispecific therapy, nearly all — 89% — were found to have lost CD20 expression. We expected some patients to experience loss of this important target, but the rate at which we found this to be the case was surprisingly high.”

Brooks added that “clinicians should be acquainted with CRS, ICANS [immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome], and mitigation strategies if they are prescribing these medicines. Appropriate and timely management using tocilizumab, steroids, and other adjunctive measures can effectively manage these complications and hopefully allow for the continued delivery of therapy.”

In an interview, Matthew Lunning, DO, associate professor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center/Fred & Pamela Buffett Cancer Center, Omaha, who didn’t take part in the new study, said the findings aren’t bad news. Instead, they’re “practical news,” because they offer insight into how the drugs work. 

“The big lesson from this and other trials is the importance of assessing for CD20 expression prior to taking a bispecific off the shelf, “ he said. “These are learnings that often come after approval.” 

He added that it’s clear that, “in more heavily pretreated patients, more disease led to less optimal results and higher risk for toxicities.”

Lunning also noted that both epcoritamab and glofitamab “entered into a crowded and chaotic relapsed/refractory LBCL space based high complete response rates with the opportunity for durability in those complete responses.” 

Academic institutions were especially interested, as they can manage CRS and ICANS, but “significantly less enthusiasm has been seen in community practices that expect CRS/ICANS to be in the rear-view mirror if they are going to deliver any bispecific,” he said. “It is not that they don’t have the clinical acumen to manage CRS/ICANS. I believe it is the perception of the lack of supportive infrastructure necessary to manage these toxicities.”

There was no study funding. Brooks has reported no disclosures. Other authors have reported various disclosures including relationships with Novartis, AbbVie, Genentech, Genmab, Biogen, Amgen, and others. Lunning has disclosed ties with AbbVie, Genmab, Kite, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Regeneron, and ADC Therapeutics.

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

SAN DIEGO — Compared with clinical trials, a real-world retrospective analysis has linked the bispecific antibodies epcoritamab (Epkinly) and glofitamab (Columvi) to somewhat poorer outcomes in relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL).

In a presentation at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting, researchers reported that of 172 patients treated with the drugs who had evaluable responses over a median follow-up of 5 months, median progression-free survival was 2.7 months (95% CI, 2.0-3.9) and median overall survival was 7.2 months (95% CI, 6.1–not reached). 

It’s important to consider the real-world nature of the study’s patient population, said first author Taylor R. Brooks, MD, of Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, in an interview. “Compared to pivotal trials, our cohort was enriched for patients with high-risk features, with almost three quarters having some comorbidity that would’ve excluded them from one of the [earlier] studies.”

He added that “though individuals eligible to receive these medicines may be more sick with high-risk disease, a sizable fraction will respond, and some will maintain remissions.’”

According to Brooks, about one third of patients with diffuse LBCL relapse after standard front-line R-CHOP therapy. “The prognosis is poor for patients who are not candidates for aggressive salvage chemotherapy and for those who relapse after two or more lines,” Brooks said. “T cell–engaging bispecific antibodies have emerged as a promising option for patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma, given their favorable rates and duration of responses as well as their manageable rates of toxicities.”

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval for epcoritamab and glofitamab in 2023. 

“With increasing uptake into clinical practice following the FDA approvals, there is increasing interest in assessing the efficacy and safety of these drugs in real-world, nontrial settings,” Brooks said. “The goal of our study was to investigate outcomes and identify clinical factors associated with outcomes.”

The multicenter, retrospective, observational REALBiTE study tracked 209 patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse LBCL at 19 US centers (epcoritamab, n = 139; glofitamab, n = 70; median age at start of treatment, 67 years [58-76]; 62.2% male; 74.2% diffuse LBCL). The median number of lines of therapy was three (range, 1-12).

“Patients who received epcoritamab tended to be slightly older, were more likely to have a history of indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma prior to their diagnosis of aggressive B-cell lymphoma and were more likely to have an elevated International Prognostic Index score at the start of bispecific therapy, suggesting that these patients may have been slightly older with higher-risk disease compared to those who received glofitamab,” Brooks said.

In total, 172 patients were response-evaluable. The overall response rate was 50.6% (complete response, 23.8%; partial response, 26.7%; stable disease, 5.8%; progressive disease, 43.6%). 

The overall and complete response rates were “somewhat lower that what has been published in the pivotal trials of these medicines,” Brooks said. The low progression-free and overall survival rates “highlight the difficulty in managing this group of patients.” 

Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) of any grade occurred in 39.2% of patients: 51% in the epcoritamab group and 28.6% in the glofitamab group. Grade ≥3 CRS occurred in 4.3% of patients, who were all taking epcoritamab.

“For epcoritamab, CRS was almost entirely of low grade, and most CRS events occurred around administration of the first full dose of the drug on day 15,” Brooks said. “Similarly, the CRS events for glofitamab were mostly of low grade, though events were observed to occur throughout the step-up dosing. Tocilizumab was administered in about one fifth of the patients.”

In addition, Brooks said, “we found that, among the 19 individuals with paired biopsy samples before and after bispecific therapy, nearly all — 89% — were found to have lost CD20 expression. We expected some patients to experience loss of this important target, but the rate at which we found this to be the case was surprisingly high.”

Brooks added that “clinicians should be acquainted with CRS, ICANS [immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome], and mitigation strategies if they are prescribing these medicines. Appropriate and timely management using tocilizumab, steroids, and other adjunctive measures can effectively manage these complications and hopefully allow for the continued delivery of therapy.”

In an interview, Matthew Lunning, DO, associate professor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center/Fred & Pamela Buffett Cancer Center, Omaha, who didn’t take part in the new study, said the findings aren’t bad news. Instead, they’re “practical news,” because they offer insight into how the drugs work. 

“The big lesson from this and other trials is the importance of assessing for CD20 expression prior to taking a bispecific off the shelf, “ he said. “These are learnings that often come after approval.” 

He added that it’s clear that, “in more heavily pretreated patients, more disease led to less optimal results and higher risk for toxicities.”

Lunning also noted that both epcoritamab and glofitamab “entered into a crowded and chaotic relapsed/refractory LBCL space based high complete response rates with the opportunity for durability in those complete responses.” 

Academic institutions were especially interested, as they can manage CRS and ICANS, but “significantly less enthusiasm has been seen in community practices that expect CRS/ICANS to be in the rear-view mirror if they are going to deliver any bispecific,” he said. “It is not that they don’t have the clinical acumen to manage CRS/ICANS. I believe it is the perception of the lack of supportive infrastructure necessary to manage these toxicities.”

There was no study funding. Brooks has reported no disclosures. Other authors have reported various disclosures including relationships with Novartis, AbbVie, Genentech, Genmab, Biogen, Amgen, and others. Lunning has disclosed ties with AbbVie, Genmab, Kite, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Regeneron, and ADC Therapeutics.

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

SAN DIEGO — Groundbreaking studies into leukemia treatments and the effects of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) inhibitors on venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk will be presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting, according to association leaders who spoke in a media preview session. Here’s a closer look at some of the highlighted research.

Children’s Disorders: Major Progress in B-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (B-ALL), Immune Thrombocytopenic Purpura (ITP)

While B-ALL is the most common childhood cancer and one of the most treatable, some patients face grim outcomes after they relapse following chemotherapy, said Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, chief of the Translational Stem Cell Biology Branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

A new study reports that adding the targeted cancer drug blinatumomab (Blincyto) to chemotherapy boosted disease-free survival in standard-risk pediatric patients. “They definitively demonstrate a benefit with the addition of this immunotherapeutic drug, achieving 97% disease-free survival at 3 years on the blinatumomab plus chemotherapy arm compared to 90% for the control arm with standard therapies alone,” Dunbar said. “This trial will establish the addition of blinatumomab for childhood B-ALL as standard of care.”

A reporter asked Dunbar about the risk for severe immune activation syndrome. “These immune cell engagers can result in cytokine release syndrome and other severe immune activation consequences,” she said. “However, it appears that children seem to be less susceptible to those, at least in terms of severity, than adults. In this study, the complications that occurred didn’t result in mortality and were easily treatable. So that was not a major drawback to the addition of this drug.”

The blinatumomab study is sponsored by Children’s Oncology Group.

In ITP, thrombopoietin (TPO) agonists such as eltrombopag (Promacta) are a mainstay of second- or third-line treatment in children and adults with severe cases, Dunbar said. “However, TPO agonists are generally only given after months to years of failures of corticosteroids, IVIG [intravenous immunoglobulin], or splenectomy.”

In the phase 3, randomized, controlled PINES trial, researchers explored whether the drug could improve outcomes in children with untreated or very recent-onset severe ITP vs standard of care.

“The children treated with eltrombopag had double the response rate with a much lower need for rescue therapies,” Dunbar said. The percentage of patients who received rescue therapy was 19% in the eltrombopag arm (15/78) vs 46% in the control arm (18/39, P = .002).

“Given the potential short- and long-term consequences of corticosteroids and other standard treatments in children, this study is encouraging and will likely result in a change in the standard of care for pediatric ITP,” Dunbar said.

The eltrombopag study is sponsored by the ITP Consortium of North America and funded by Novartis.

 

Fewer Blood Clots: Another Big Benefit for Weight Loss Drugs?

Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, of the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami in Florida, highlighted an analysis of whether GLP-1 receptor agonists, initially approved as type 2 diabetes treatments, affect the risk for VTE.

Researchers tracked patients with type 2 diabetes — 366,369 who received the drugs and 290,219 who took dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors. The patients who took GLP-1 agonists “had lower rates of venous thromboembolic events after 1 year,” Sekeres said. “The risk reduction was actually pretty substantial.”

In these patients, the risk for VTE was 18% lower (hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.77-0.88), and there were 22% and 15% reductions in pulmonary embolisms and deep venous thrombosis, respectively (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.71-0.86 and HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.92).

 

Drug Regimen Improves Outcomes in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)

An interim analysis of an open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial of patients with untreated CLL “demonstrated superior progression-free survival with acalabrutinib and venetoclax versus what we consider more classic chemotherapy of fludarabine, Cytoxan [cyclophosphamide], and rituximab or bendamustine and rituximab,” Sekeres said. “Similar findings were seen with acalabrutinib, venetoclax, and obinutuzumab vs that classic chemotherapy.”

Overall response rates were 93% for both the acalabrutinib/venetoclax regimens vs 75% for bendamustine/rituximab, Sekeres noted, and overall survival was higher for acalabrutinib/venetoclax vs the two classic chemotherapy regimens (HR, 0.33; P < .0001).

However, Sekeres questioned the value of comparing acalabrutinib/venetoclax with classical chemotherapy regimens. “A lot of times we have a lot of new, really good, really effective therapy to offer to patients that isn’t as toxic as previous chemotherapy.”

In contrast, fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab are “your grandmother’s or your grandfather’s chemotherapy. It’s pretty toxic stuff,” he said.

Sekeres said it would have been better to compare acalabrutinib/venetoclax with a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor–based regimen.

The German CLL Study Group is listed as the trial’s sponsor, and AstraZeneca is a collaborator. Dunbar disclosed research funding from Novartis. Sekeres had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Groundbreaking studies into leukemia treatments and the effects of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) inhibitors on venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk will be presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting, according to association leaders who spoke in a media preview session. Here’s a closer look at some of the highlighted research.

Children’s Disorders: Major Progress in B-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (B-ALL), Immune Thrombocytopenic Purpura (ITP)

While B-ALL is the most common childhood cancer and one of the most treatable, some patients face grim outcomes after they relapse following chemotherapy, said Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, chief of the Translational Stem Cell Biology Branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

A new study reports that adding the targeted cancer drug blinatumomab (Blincyto) to chemotherapy boosted disease-free survival in standard-risk pediatric patients. “They definitively demonstrate a benefit with the addition of this immunotherapeutic drug, achieving 97% disease-free survival at 3 years on the blinatumomab plus chemotherapy arm compared to 90% for the control arm with standard therapies alone,” Dunbar said. “This trial will establish the addition of blinatumomab for childhood B-ALL as standard of care.”

A reporter asked Dunbar about the risk for severe immune activation syndrome. “These immune cell engagers can result in cytokine release syndrome and other severe immune activation consequences,” she said. “However, it appears that children seem to be less susceptible to those, at least in terms of severity, than adults. In this study, the complications that occurred didn’t result in mortality and were easily treatable. So that was not a major drawback to the addition of this drug.”

The blinatumomab study is sponsored by Children’s Oncology Group.

In ITP, thrombopoietin (TPO) agonists such as eltrombopag (Promacta) are a mainstay of second- or third-line treatment in children and adults with severe cases, Dunbar said. “However, TPO agonists are generally only given after months to years of failures of corticosteroids, IVIG [intravenous immunoglobulin], or splenectomy.”

In the phase 3, randomized, controlled PINES trial, researchers explored whether the drug could improve outcomes in children with untreated or very recent-onset severe ITP vs standard of care.

“The children treated with eltrombopag had double the response rate with a much lower need for rescue therapies,” Dunbar said. The percentage of patients who received rescue therapy was 19% in the eltrombopag arm (15/78) vs 46% in the control arm (18/39, P = .002).

“Given the potential short- and long-term consequences of corticosteroids and other standard treatments in children, this study is encouraging and will likely result in a change in the standard of care for pediatric ITP,” Dunbar said.

The eltrombopag study is sponsored by the ITP Consortium of North America and funded by Novartis.

 

Fewer Blood Clots: Another Big Benefit for Weight Loss Drugs?

Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, of the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami in Florida, highlighted an analysis of whether GLP-1 receptor agonists, initially approved as type 2 diabetes treatments, affect the risk for VTE.

Researchers tracked patients with type 2 diabetes — 366,369 who received the drugs and 290,219 who took dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors. The patients who took GLP-1 agonists “had lower rates of venous thromboembolic events after 1 year,” Sekeres said. “The risk reduction was actually pretty substantial.”

In these patients, the risk for VTE was 18% lower (hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.77-0.88), and there were 22% and 15% reductions in pulmonary embolisms and deep venous thrombosis, respectively (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.71-0.86 and HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.92).

 

Drug Regimen Improves Outcomes in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)

An interim analysis of an open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial of patients with untreated CLL “demonstrated superior progression-free survival with acalabrutinib and venetoclax versus what we consider more classic chemotherapy of fludarabine, Cytoxan [cyclophosphamide], and rituximab or bendamustine and rituximab,” Sekeres said. “Similar findings were seen with acalabrutinib, venetoclax, and obinutuzumab vs that classic chemotherapy.”

Overall response rates were 93% for both the acalabrutinib/venetoclax regimens vs 75% for bendamustine/rituximab, Sekeres noted, and overall survival was higher for acalabrutinib/venetoclax vs the two classic chemotherapy regimens (HR, 0.33; P < .0001).

However, Sekeres questioned the value of comparing acalabrutinib/venetoclax with classical chemotherapy regimens. “A lot of times we have a lot of new, really good, really effective therapy to offer to patients that isn’t as toxic as previous chemotherapy.”

In contrast, fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab are “your grandmother’s or your grandfather’s chemotherapy. It’s pretty toxic stuff,” he said.

Sekeres said it would have been better to compare acalabrutinib/venetoclax with a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor–based regimen.

The German CLL Study Group is listed as the trial’s sponsor, and AstraZeneca is a collaborator. Dunbar disclosed research funding from Novartis. Sekeres had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Groundbreaking studies into leukemia treatments and the effects of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) inhibitors on venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk will be presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting, according to association leaders who spoke in a media preview session. Here’s a closer look at some of the highlighted research.

Children’s Disorders: Major Progress in B-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (B-ALL), Immune Thrombocytopenic Purpura (ITP)

While B-ALL is the most common childhood cancer and one of the most treatable, some patients face grim outcomes after they relapse following chemotherapy, said Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, chief of the Translational Stem Cell Biology Branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

A new study reports that adding the targeted cancer drug blinatumomab (Blincyto) to chemotherapy boosted disease-free survival in standard-risk pediatric patients. “They definitively demonstrate a benefit with the addition of this immunotherapeutic drug, achieving 97% disease-free survival at 3 years on the blinatumomab plus chemotherapy arm compared to 90% for the control arm with standard therapies alone,” Dunbar said. “This trial will establish the addition of blinatumomab for childhood B-ALL as standard of care.”

A reporter asked Dunbar about the risk for severe immune activation syndrome. “These immune cell engagers can result in cytokine release syndrome and other severe immune activation consequences,” she said. “However, it appears that children seem to be less susceptible to those, at least in terms of severity, than adults. In this study, the complications that occurred didn’t result in mortality and were easily treatable. So that was not a major drawback to the addition of this drug.”

The blinatumomab study is sponsored by Children’s Oncology Group.

In ITP, thrombopoietin (TPO) agonists such as eltrombopag (Promacta) are a mainstay of second- or third-line treatment in children and adults with severe cases, Dunbar said. “However, TPO agonists are generally only given after months to years of failures of corticosteroids, IVIG [intravenous immunoglobulin], or splenectomy.”

In the phase 3, randomized, controlled PINES trial, researchers explored whether the drug could improve outcomes in children with untreated or very recent-onset severe ITP vs standard of care.

“The children treated with eltrombopag had double the response rate with a much lower need for rescue therapies,” Dunbar said. The percentage of patients who received rescue therapy was 19% in the eltrombopag arm (15/78) vs 46% in the control arm (18/39, P = .002).

“Given the potential short- and long-term consequences of corticosteroids and other standard treatments in children, this study is encouraging and will likely result in a change in the standard of care for pediatric ITP,” Dunbar said.

The eltrombopag study is sponsored by the ITP Consortium of North America and funded by Novartis.

 

Fewer Blood Clots: Another Big Benefit for Weight Loss Drugs?

Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, of the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami in Florida, highlighted an analysis of whether GLP-1 receptor agonists, initially approved as type 2 diabetes treatments, affect the risk for VTE.

Researchers tracked patients with type 2 diabetes — 366,369 who received the drugs and 290,219 who took dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors. The patients who took GLP-1 agonists “had lower rates of venous thromboembolic events after 1 year,” Sekeres said. “The risk reduction was actually pretty substantial.”

In these patients, the risk for VTE was 18% lower (hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.77-0.88), and there were 22% and 15% reductions in pulmonary embolisms and deep venous thrombosis, respectively (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.71-0.86 and HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.92).

 

Drug Regimen Improves Outcomes in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)

An interim analysis of an open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial of patients with untreated CLL “demonstrated superior progression-free survival with acalabrutinib and venetoclax versus what we consider more classic chemotherapy of fludarabine, Cytoxan [cyclophosphamide], and rituximab or bendamustine and rituximab,” Sekeres said. “Similar findings were seen with acalabrutinib, venetoclax, and obinutuzumab vs that classic chemotherapy.”

Overall response rates were 93% for both the acalabrutinib/venetoclax regimens vs 75% for bendamustine/rituximab, Sekeres noted, and overall survival was higher for acalabrutinib/venetoclax vs the two classic chemotherapy regimens (HR, 0.33; P < .0001).

However, Sekeres questioned the value of comparing acalabrutinib/venetoclax with classical chemotherapy regimens. “A lot of times we have a lot of new, really good, really effective therapy to offer to patients that isn’t as toxic as previous chemotherapy.”

In contrast, fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab are “your grandmother’s or your grandfather’s chemotherapy. It’s pretty toxic stuff,” he said.

Sekeres said it would have been better to compare acalabrutinib/venetoclax with a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor–based regimen.

The German CLL Study Group is listed as the trial’s sponsor, and AstraZeneca is a collaborator. Dunbar disclosed research funding from Novartis. Sekeres had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Even before the presidential election, the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) national ban on noncompete clauses faced a tough battle for survival in the courts. 

Now, legal specialists forecast a grim prognosis for the ban under Donald Trump’s return to the White House.

In April 2024, a divided FTC board approved a rule that would ban most noncompete agreements, which are the bane of many physicians in the states where they’re allowed. 

But a federal district’s court ruling put the ban on hold, and the Trump administration isn’t expected to support lifting the ban. 

“It is likely that the Trump administration will decline to defend the rule and may not even appeal the district court’s ruling, which means that the ban on noncompetes will not go into effect,” Steven Lubet, JD, a professor emeritus at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, Chicago, Illinois, said in an interview.

 

What’s in a Noncompete Clause?

Noncompete clauses in employee contracts typically restrict when and where workers can take future jobs. In medicine, supporters argue that the clauses are fair. Hospitals and practices provide a base of patients to physicians, they say, in return for their agreement not to go work for a competitor. 

But those opposed to these clauses argue that the restrictions harm careers and hurt patients by unfairly preventing physicians from moving to new jobs where they’re needed. 

At an April meeting, the FTC board voted 3 to 2 to ban noncompete clauses; some nonprofit organizations and senior executives were expected to be exempt. The FTC estimated that the move would save the healthcare system alone as much as $194 billion over 10 years. 

“A pandemic killed a million people in this country, and there are doctors who cannot work because of a noncompete,” declared FTC Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya. 

Hospitals protested the move. In a statement, the general counsel for the American Hospital Association called it “bad law, bad policy, and a clear sign of an agency run amok” and said the FTC ignored “mountains of contrary legal precedent and evidence about its adverse impacts on the health care markets.”

Although the American Medical Association does not support a total ban, its House of Delegates adopted policies in 2023 to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for physicians employed by for-profit and nonprofit hospitals, hospital systems, or staffing companies. 

 

Texas Federal Judge Intervenes to Halt Ban

The ban was supposed to take effect on Sept. 4, 2024. But Texas federal judge Ada E. Brown struck down the ban in an Aug. 20 decision. She ruled that the FTC went beyond its authority.

“The district court based its ruling on a very dubious distinction between ‘unfair practices,’ which the FTC may prohibit, and ‘unfair competition,’ which, according to the court, it may not,” said Lubet. 

In fact, the ban should stand, he said. “This is a classic case of the government intervening on behalf of consumers/patients by prohibiting an unfair and harmful employment practice,” Lubet said. 

Amanda Hill, an attorney in Austin, Texas, who trains physicians about how to negotiate contracts, has a different take. “The Federal Trade Commission came down hard, and honestly, it really overstepped,” she said in an interview. “Congress needs to write laws, not regulatory bodies. I think all the lawyers went: ‘Good try, but you’re not going to get anywhere with that.’ ”

She noted that physicians themselves are divided over the value of noncompete clauses. “I would say 80% of my clients can’t stand noncompetes.” But another 20% own their own practices and hate the idea of losing their physicians to competitors, she said. 

 

Trump Isn’t Seen as Likely to Support Ban

While the Biden administration firmly supported a ban on noncompete clauses, there isn’t a strict Democratic-Republican divide over whether the agreements are a good idea. Some red states have embraced bans, and Hill said this can make sense from a Republican point of view: “We don’t want to run doctors out of town and out of the state because they think they’re going to be bound by big hospitals and corporate interests.”

In fact, former Florida congressman Matt Gaetz, a Republican briefly tapped as President-elect Trump’s nominee for attorney general, supports noncompete clauses. He filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the Texas judge that supported the FTC’s ruling, saying it is a “vindication of economic freedom and free enterprise.” 

But Republicans generally “believe that federal agencies are going too far and beyond the power granted to them by Congress,” Atlanta, Georgia, attorney Benjamin Fink, Esq., said in an interview.

And Trump is no fan of the FTC and its chair, Lina Khan, who may step down. Observers don’t expect that the Trump administration or a newly constituted FTC board will support an appeal of the Texas judge’s ruling.

“I don’t think anybody else — another agency or a private party — could step in place of the FTC if the FTC declines to defend the ban,” Atlanta attorney Neal F. Weinrich, Esq., said in an interview. In that case, “I think it ends.”

Attorneys Weinrich and Fink work at the same firm, which handles noncompete agreements for physicians. 

 

Noncompete Ban Advocates Turn to States 

Even if Kamala Harris had won the presidency, a national ban on noncompete clauses would have faced an uphill battle at the Supreme Court. 

“The Supreme Court majority has been unsympathetic to administrative agencies, interpreting their authority very narrowly,” said Lubet.

So what happens to noncompete clauses now? While bipartisan bills in Congress have tried to ban them, legislation is unlikely to pass now that Republicans will control both the House and Senate, Fink said. 

According to a recent article, 12 states prohibit noncompete clauses for physicians: Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and South Dakota. 

The remaining states allow noncompetes in some form, often excluding them for employees earning below a certain threshold. For example, in Oregon, noncompete agreements may apply to employees earning more than $113,241. Most states have provisions to adjust the threshold annually. The District of Columbia permits 2-year noncompetes for “medical specialists” earning over $250,000 annually. 

Indiana employers can no longer enter into noncompete agreements with primary care providers. Other specialties may be subject to the clauses, except when the physician terminates the contract for cause or when an employer terminates the contract without cause. 

“I definitely think states are going to continue to restrict the use of noncompetes,” Fink said. 

Lubet has no disclosures. Hill, Fink, and Weinrich represent physicians in contract negotiations.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Even before the presidential election, the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) national ban on noncompete clauses faced a tough battle for survival in the courts. 

Now, legal specialists forecast a grim prognosis for the ban under Donald Trump’s return to the White House.

In April 2024, a divided FTC board approved a rule that would ban most noncompete agreements, which are the bane of many physicians in the states where they’re allowed. 

But a federal district’s court ruling put the ban on hold, and the Trump administration isn’t expected to support lifting the ban. 

“It is likely that the Trump administration will decline to defend the rule and may not even appeal the district court’s ruling, which means that the ban on noncompetes will not go into effect,” Steven Lubet, JD, a professor emeritus at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, Chicago, Illinois, said in an interview.

 

What’s in a Noncompete Clause?

Noncompete clauses in employee contracts typically restrict when and where workers can take future jobs. In medicine, supporters argue that the clauses are fair. Hospitals and practices provide a base of patients to physicians, they say, in return for their agreement not to go work for a competitor. 

But those opposed to these clauses argue that the restrictions harm careers and hurt patients by unfairly preventing physicians from moving to new jobs where they’re needed. 

At an April meeting, the FTC board voted 3 to 2 to ban noncompete clauses; some nonprofit organizations and senior executives were expected to be exempt. The FTC estimated that the move would save the healthcare system alone as much as $194 billion over 10 years. 

“A pandemic killed a million people in this country, and there are doctors who cannot work because of a noncompete,” declared FTC Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya. 

Hospitals protested the move. In a statement, the general counsel for the American Hospital Association called it “bad law, bad policy, and a clear sign of an agency run amok” and said the FTC ignored “mountains of contrary legal precedent and evidence about its adverse impacts on the health care markets.”

Although the American Medical Association does not support a total ban, its House of Delegates adopted policies in 2023 to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for physicians employed by for-profit and nonprofit hospitals, hospital systems, or staffing companies. 

 

Texas Federal Judge Intervenes to Halt Ban

The ban was supposed to take effect on Sept. 4, 2024. But Texas federal judge Ada E. Brown struck down the ban in an Aug. 20 decision. She ruled that the FTC went beyond its authority.

“The district court based its ruling on a very dubious distinction between ‘unfair practices,’ which the FTC may prohibit, and ‘unfair competition,’ which, according to the court, it may not,” said Lubet. 

In fact, the ban should stand, he said. “This is a classic case of the government intervening on behalf of consumers/patients by prohibiting an unfair and harmful employment practice,” Lubet said. 

Amanda Hill, an attorney in Austin, Texas, who trains physicians about how to negotiate contracts, has a different take. “The Federal Trade Commission came down hard, and honestly, it really overstepped,” she said in an interview. “Congress needs to write laws, not regulatory bodies. I think all the lawyers went: ‘Good try, but you’re not going to get anywhere with that.’ ”

She noted that physicians themselves are divided over the value of noncompete clauses. “I would say 80% of my clients can’t stand noncompetes.” But another 20% own their own practices and hate the idea of losing their physicians to competitors, she said. 

 

Trump Isn’t Seen as Likely to Support Ban

While the Biden administration firmly supported a ban on noncompete clauses, there isn’t a strict Democratic-Republican divide over whether the agreements are a good idea. Some red states have embraced bans, and Hill said this can make sense from a Republican point of view: “We don’t want to run doctors out of town and out of the state because they think they’re going to be bound by big hospitals and corporate interests.”

In fact, former Florida congressman Matt Gaetz, a Republican briefly tapped as President-elect Trump’s nominee for attorney general, supports noncompete clauses. He filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the Texas judge that supported the FTC’s ruling, saying it is a “vindication of economic freedom and free enterprise.” 

But Republicans generally “believe that federal agencies are going too far and beyond the power granted to them by Congress,” Atlanta, Georgia, attorney Benjamin Fink, Esq., said in an interview.

And Trump is no fan of the FTC and its chair, Lina Khan, who may step down. Observers don’t expect that the Trump administration or a newly constituted FTC board will support an appeal of the Texas judge’s ruling.

“I don’t think anybody else — another agency or a private party — could step in place of the FTC if the FTC declines to defend the ban,” Atlanta attorney Neal F. Weinrich, Esq., said in an interview. In that case, “I think it ends.”

Attorneys Weinrich and Fink work at the same firm, which handles noncompete agreements for physicians. 

 

Noncompete Ban Advocates Turn to States 

Even if Kamala Harris had won the presidency, a national ban on noncompete clauses would have faced an uphill battle at the Supreme Court. 

“The Supreme Court majority has been unsympathetic to administrative agencies, interpreting their authority very narrowly,” said Lubet.

So what happens to noncompete clauses now? While bipartisan bills in Congress have tried to ban them, legislation is unlikely to pass now that Republicans will control both the House and Senate, Fink said. 

According to a recent article, 12 states prohibit noncompete clauses for physicians: Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and South Dakota. 

The remaining states allow noncompetes in some form, often excluding them for employees earning below a certain threshold. For example, in Oregon, noncompete agreements may apply to employees earning more than $113,241. Most states have provisions to adjust the threshold annually. The District of Columbia permits 2-year noncompetes for “medical specialists” earning over $250,000 annually. 

Indiana employers can no longer enter into noncompete agreements with primary care providers. Other specialties may be subject to the clauses, except when the physician terminates the contract for cause or when an employer terminates the contract without cause. 

“I definitely think states are going to continue to restrict the use of noncompetes,” Fink said. 

Lubet has no disclosures. Hill, Fink, and Weinrich represent physicians in contract negotiations.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Even before the presidential election, the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) national ban on noncompete clauses faced a tough battle for survival in the courts. 

Now, legal specialists forecast a grim prognosis for the ban under Donald Trump’s return to the White House.

In April 2024, a divided FTC board approved a rule that would ban most noncompete agreements, which are the bane of many physicians in the states where they’re allowed. 

But a federal district’s court ruling put the ban on hold, and the Trump administration isn’t expected to support lifting the ban. 

“It is likely that the Trump administration will decline to defend the rule and may not even appeal the district court’s ruling, which means that the ban on noncompetes will not go into effect,” Steven Lubet, JD, a professor emeritus at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, Chicago, Illinois, said in an interview.

 

What’s in a Noncompete Clause?

Noncompete clauses in employee contracts typically restrict when and where workers can take future jobs. In medicine, supporters argue that the clauses are fair. Hospitals and practices provide a base of patients to physicians, they say, in return for their agreement not to go work for a competitor. 

But those opposed to these clauses argue that the restrictions harm careers and hurt patients by unfairly preventing physicians from moving to new jobs where they’re needed. 

At an April meeting, the FTC board voted 3 to 2 to ban noncompete clauses; some nonprofit organizations and senior executives were expected to be exempt. The FTC estimated that the move would save the healthcare system alone as much as $194 billion over 10 years. 

“A pandemic killed a million people in this country, and there are doctors who cannot work because of a noncompete,” declared FTC Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya. 

Hospitals protested the move. In a statement, the general counsel for the American Hospital Association called it “bad law, bad policy, and a clear sign of an agency run amok” and said the FTC ignored “mountains of contrary legal precedent and evidence about its adverse impacts on the health care markets.”

Although the American Medical Association does not support a total ban, its House of Delegates adopted policies in 2023 to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for physicians employed by for-profit and nonprofit hospitals, hospital systems, or staffing companies. 

 

Texas Federal Judge Intervenes to Halt Ban

The ban was supposed to take effect on Sept. 4, 2024. But Texas federal judge Ada E. Brown struck down the ban in an Aug. 20 decision. She ruled that the FTC went beyond its authority.

“The district court based its ruling on a very dubious distinction between ‘unfair practices,’ which the FTC may prohibit, and ‘unfair competition,’ which, according to the court, it may not,” said Lubet. 

In fact, the ban should stand, he said. “This is a classic case of the government intervening on behalf of consumers/patients by prohibiting an unfair and harmful employment practice,” Lubet said. 

Amanda Hill, an attorney in Austin, Texas, who trains physicians about how to negotiate contracts, has a different take. “The Federal Trade Commission came down hard, and honestly, it really overstepped,” she said in an interview. “Congress needs to write laws, not regulatory bodies. I think all the lawyers went: ‘Good try, but you’re not going to get anywhere with that.’ ”

She noted that physicians themselves are divided over the value of noncompete clauses. “I would say 80% of my clients can’t stand noncompetes.” But another 20% own their own practices and hate the idea of losing their physicians to competitors, she said. 

 

Trump Isn’t Seen as Likely to Support Ban

While the Biden administration firmly supported a ban on noncompete clauses, there isn’t a strict Democratic-Republican divide over whether the agreements are a good idea. Some red states have embraced bans, and Hill said this can make sense from a Republican point of view: “We don’t want to run doctors out of town and out of the state because they think they’re going to be bound by big hospitals and corporate interests.”

In fact, former Florida congressman Matt Gaetz, a Republican briefly tapped as President-elect Trump’s nominee for attorney general, supports noncompete clauses. He filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the Texas judge that supported the FTC’s ruling, saying it is a “vindication of economic freedom and free enterprise.” 

But Republicans generally “believe that federal agencies are going too far and beyond the power granted to them by Congress,” Atlanta, Georgia, attorney Benjamin Fink, Esq., said in an interview.

And Trump is no fan of the FTC and its chair, Lina Khan, who may step down. Observers don’t expect that the Trump administration or a newly constituted FTC board will support an appeal of the Texas judge’s ruling.

“I don’t think anybody else — another agency or a private party — could step in place of the FTC if the FTC declines to defend the ban,” Atlanta attorney Neal F. Weinrich, Esq., said in an interview. In that case, “I think it ends.”

Attorneys Weinrich and Fink work at the same firm, which handles noncompete agreements for physicians. 

 

Noncompete Ban Advocates Turn to States 

Even if Kamala Harris had won the presidency, a national ban on noncompete clauses would have faced an uphill battle at the Supreme Court. 

“The Supreme Court majority has been unsympathetic to administrative agencies, interpreting their authority very narrowly,” said Lubet.

So what happens to noncompete clauses now? While bipartisan bills in Congress have tried to ban them, legislation is unlikely to pass now that Republicans will control both the House and Senate, Fink said. 

According to a recent article, 12 states prohibit noncompete clauses for physicians: Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and South Dakota. 

The remaining states allow noncompetes in some form, often excluding them for employees earning below a certain threshold. For example, in Oregon, noncompete agreements may apply to employees earning more than $113,241. Most states have provisions to adjust the threshold annually. The District of Columbia permits 2-year noncompetes for “medical specialists” earning over $250,000 annually. 

Indiana employers can no longer enter into noncompete agreements with primary care providers. Other specialties may be subject to the clauses, except when the physician terminates the contract for cause or when an employer terminates the contract without cause. 

“I definitely think states are going to continue to restrict the use of noncompetes,” Fink said. 

Lubet has no disclosures. Hill, Fink, and Weinrich represent physicians in contract negotiations.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.