User login
How AI Is Revolutionizing Drug Repurposing for Faster, Broader Impact
Summary:
In this segment, the speaker discusses how AI is revolutionizing the drug repurposing process. Previously, drug repurposing was limited by manual research on individual diseases and drugs. With AI, scientists can now analyze a vast array of drugs and diseases simultaneously, generating a ranking system based on the likelihood of success. The Center for Cytokine Storm Treatment and Laboratory, along with the platform Every Cure, uses AI to score 3000 drugs against 18,000 diseases. This platform dramatically reduces the time and resources required for drug repurposing, enabling predictions that can be tested in a fraction of the time.
Key Takeaways:
AI is accelerating the drug repurposing process, offering faster and more comprehensive analysis of possible drug-disease matches.
The AI-based platform assigns a likelihood score to each potential match, streamlining the process for testing and validation.
Our Editors Also Recommend:
AI’s Drug Revolution, Part 1: Faster Trials and Approvals
From AI to Obesity Drugs to Soaring Costs: Medscape Hot Topics in the Medical Profession Report 2024
AI Voice Analysis for Diabetes Screening Shows Promise
To see the full event recording, click here.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Summary:
In this segment, the speaker discusses how AI is revolutionizing the drug repurposing process. Previously, drug repurposing was limited by manual research on individual diseases and drugs. With AI, scientists can now analyze a vast array of drugs and diseases simultaneously, generating a ranking system based on the likelihood of success. The Center for Cytokine Storm Treatment and Laboratory, along with the platform Every Cure, uses AI to score 3000 drugs against 18,000 diseases. This platform dramatically reduces the time and resources required for drug repurposing, enabling predictions that can be tested in a fraction of the time.
Key Takeaways:
AI is accelerating the drug repurposing process, offering faster and more comprehensive analysis of possible drug-disease matches.
The AI-based platform assigns a likelihood score to each potential match, streamlining the process for testing and validation.
Our Editors Also Recommend:
AI’s Drug Revolution, Part 1: Faster Trials and Approvals
From AI to Obesity Drugs to Soaring Costs: Medscape Hot Topics in the Medical Profession Report 2024
AI Voice Analysis for Diabetes Screening Shows Promise
To see the full event recording, click here.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Summary:
In this segment, the speaker discusses how AI is revolutionizing the drug repurposing process. Previously, drug repurposing was limited by manual research on individual diseases and drugs. With AI, scientists can now analyze a vast array of drugs and diseases simultaneously, generating a ranking system based on the likelihood of success. The Center for Cytokine Storm Treatment and Laboratory, along with the platform Every Cure, uses AI to score 3000 drugs against 18,000 diseases. This platform dramatically reduces the time and resources required for drug repurposing, enabling predictions that can be tested in a fraction of the time.
Key Takeaways:
AI is accelerating the drug repurposing process, offering faster and more comprehensive analysis of possible drug-disease matches.
The AI-based platform assigns a likelihood score to each potential match, streamlining the process for testing and validation.
Our Editors Also Recommend:
AI’s Drug Revolution, Part 1: Faster Trials and Approvals
From AI to Obesity Drugs to Soaring Costs: Medscape Hot Topics in the Medical Profession Report 2024
AI Voice Analysis for Diabetes Screening Shows Promise
To see the full event recording, click here.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Isatuximab Quadruplet Approval Could Change the Landscape for Treating Myeloma
The findings, presented on September 26 at the annual meeting of the International Myeloma Society, support the four-drug combination known as Isa-VRd as a potential new standard of care (SOC) supplanting VRd alone as the SOC in this setting, according to Meletios Dimopoulos, MD, of the University of Athens, Greece.
The IMROZ findings — the first from a phase 3 study of an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody given in combination with VRd — were also reported in May at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.
“The significant progression-free benefit observed with Sarclisa with combination therapy compared to VRd is important and encouraging for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma,” first author Thierry Facon, MD, told this news organization at ASCO.
Dr. Thierry, of the University of Lille, and the French Academy of Medicine in Paris, France, added that Isa-VRd has the potential as “a first-in-class combination to address gaps in care for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma transplant-ineligible patients.”
Isatuximab in combination with VRd was subsequently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for this indication, as reported on September 23 by this news organization.
So, what will this quadruplet mean for the treatment of multiple myeloma? IMROZ study coauthors Meral Beksac, MD, of Istinye University, Istanbul, and Liv Hospital Ankara, Turkey, and Mohamad Mohty, MD, of Sorbonne University, Saint-Antoine Hospital, Paris, France, provided some insights in a recent interview, telling the European Medical Journal (EMJ) Hematology that Isa-VRd is a “welcome addition” to the multiple myeloma armamentarium.
Should Isa-VRd Be Considered the New First-Choice Frontline Treatment for Transplant-Ineligible Patients?
“The short answer is yes,” Dr. Mohty told EMJ. “Based on this trial, quadruplet should become the preferred regimen in the population of patients represented by these inclusion criteria.”
Dr. Beksac agreed that Isa-VRd will play a role in frontline management for transplant-ineligible patients.
However, both noted that despite having a favorable safety profile similar to VRd, Isa-VRd may not be well tolerated in elderly and frail patients. Demonstrably frail patients were excluded from IMROZ, and this is a factor that should be considered in the practice setting, they agreed.
Will Isa-VRd Change How Patients Are Evaluated for Transplant Eligibility?
“The cutoff for transplant eligibility differs from one country to another, and today, we do not have consensus around an agreed-upon age limit,” Dr. Beksac said. “We further rely on frailty and the patient’s performance status, not only at diagnosis but at later stages as well.”
She also noted that “[t]he introduction of very effective systemic regimens with similar efficacy to [hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT)] has seen a shift towards non-transplant regimens, particularly in the USA.”
“In many centers in Europe, these patients [in IMROZ] would be considered transplant eligible. Hence, for this group of patients who are not too old, but not too young, and fit, IMROZ is offering a non-transplant-based treatment with similar efficacy to what can be achieved with HSCT,” Dr. Mohty added.
Patient preference and access are also important considerations, as is cost, he noted.
Younger transplant-eligible patients may prefer transplant over continuous treatment for life, whereas some might prefer long-term treatment over a stem cell protocol that will require months off of work, he and Dr. Beksac explained.
“Based on this trial, we will likely see a decline in the number of transplants,” Dr. Mohty predicted. “With the IMROZ data, we have something valid that we can offer patients without any prejudice to their outcome.”
How Will This Combination Be Integrated Into Daily Clinical Practice?
“My interpretation would be that this protocol will be conceived as an applicable protocol that can be adapted to our daily practice,” Dr. Beksac said.
Dr. Mohty added that the multiple myeloma story is changing and evolving.
“It’s not transplant versus no transplant, it’s who is going to receive quadruplet and who’s going to receive less than a quadruplet, who is fit and who is unfit,” he explained, adding that physicians will likely adapt the Isa-VRd regimen for real-world use based on clinical judgment.
For example, the quadruplet may be combined “in a kind of VRd-light version to start with, and maybe we can adapt later depending on the tolerability of the patient,” Dr. Beksac added.
“Until recently, we thought that transplant is the gold standard for everybody whenever possible. Now, we have a more nuanced answer, offering a regimen that actually is as effective, and may even be better, than transplant,” Dr. Mohty said. “So, it’s a most welcome addition to what we do.”
Both the IMROZ study and the EMJ article were funded by Sanofi.
Dr. Dimopoulos reported ties with Amgen, BeiGene, BMS, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda. Dr. Beksac disclosed relationships with Amgen, BMS, GSK, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda. Dr. Mohty reported ties with Adaptive Biotechnologies, Amgen, Astellas Pharma, BMS, GSK, Janssen-Cilag, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and others.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The findings, presented on September 26 at the annual meeting of the International Myeloma Society, support the four-drug combination known as Isa-VRd as a potential new standard of care (SOC) supplanting VRd alone as the SOC in this setting, according to Meletios Dimopoulos, MD, of the University of Athens, Greece.
The IMROZ findings — the first from a phase 3 study of an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody given in combination with VRd — were also reported in May at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.
“The significant progression-free benefit observed with Sarclisa with combination therapy compared to VRd is important and encouraging for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma,” first author Thierry Facon, MD, told this news organization at ASCO.
Dr. Thierry, of the University of Lille, and the French Academy of Medicine in Paris, France, added that Isa-VRd has the potential as “a first-in-class combination to address gaps in care for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma transplant-ineligible patients.”
Isatuximab in combination with VRd was subsequently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for this indication, as reported on September 23 by this news organization.
So, what will this quadruplet mean for the treatment of multiple myeloma? IMROZ study coauthors Meral Beksac, MD, of Istinye University, Istanbul, and Liv Hospital Ankara, Turkey, and Mohamad Mohty, MD, of Sorbonne University, Saint-Antoine Hospital, Paris, France, provided some insights in a recent interview, telling the European Medical Journal (EMJ) Hematology that Isa-VRd is a “welcome addition” to the multiple myeloma armamentarium.
Should Isa-VRd Be Considered the New First-Choice Frontline Treatment for Transplant-Ineligible Patients?
“The short answer is yes,” Dr. Mohty told EMJ. “Based on this trial, quadruplet should become the preferred regimen in the population of patients represented by these inclusion criteria.”
Dr. Beksac agreed that Isa-VRd will play a role in frontline management for transplant-ineligible patients.
However, both noted that despite having a favorable safety profile similar to VRd, Isa-VRd may not be well tolerated in elderly and frail patients. Demonstrably frail patients were excluded from IMROZ, and this is a factor that should be considered in the practice setting, they agreed.
Will Isa-VRd Change How Patients Are Evaluated for Transplant Eligibility?
“The cutoff for transplant eligibility differs from one country to another, and today, we do not have consensus around an agreed-upon age limit,” Dr. Beksac said. “We further rely on frailty and the patient’s performance status, not only at diagnosis but at later stages as well.”
She also noted that “[t]he introduction of very effective systemic regimens with similar efficacy to [hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT)] has seen a shift towards non-transplant regimens, particularly in the USA.”
“In many centers in Europe, these patients [in IMROZ] would be considered transplant eligible. Hence, for this group of patients who are not too old, but not too young, and fit, IMROZ is offering a non-transplant-based treatment with similar efficacy to what can be achieved with HSCT,” Dr. Mohty added.
Patient preference and access are also important considerations, as is cost, he noted.
Younger transplant-eligible patients may prefer transplant over continuous treatment for life, whereas some might prefer long-term treatment over a stem cell protocol that will require months off of work, he and Dr. Beksac explained.
“Based on this trial, we will likely see a decline in the number of transplants,” Dr. Mohty predicted. “With the IMROZ data, we have something valid that we can offer patients without any prejudice to their outcome.”
How Will This Combination Be Integrated Into Daily Clinical Practice?
“My interpretation would be that this protocol will be conceived as an applicable protocol that can be adapted to our daily practice,” Dr. Beksac said.
Dr. Mohty added that the multiple myeloma story is changing and evolving.
“It’s not transplant versus no transplant, it’s who is going to receive quadruplet and who’s going to receive less than a quadruplet, who is fit and who is unfit,” he explained, adding that physicians will likely adapt the Isa-VRd regimen for real-world use based on clinical judgment.
For example, the quadruplet may be combined “in a kind of VRd-light version to start with, and maybe we can adapt later depending on the tolerability of the patient,” Dr. Beksac added.
“Until recently, we thought that transplant is the gold standard for everybody whenever possible. Now, we have a more nuanced answer, offering a regimen that actually is as effective, and may even be better, than transplant,” Dr. Mohty said. “So, it’s a most welcome addition to what we do.”
Both the IMROZ study and the EMJ article were funded by Sanofi.
Dr. Dimopoulos reported ties with Amgen, BeiGene, BMS, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda. Dr. Beksac disclosed relationships with Amgen, BMS, GSK, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda. Dr. Mohty reported ties with Adaptive Biotechnologies, Amgen, Astellas Pharma, BMS, GSK, Janssen-Cilag, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and others.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The findings, presented on September 26 at the annual meeting of the International Myeloma Society, support the four-drug combination known as Isa-VRd as a potential new standard of care (SOC) supplanting VRd alone as the SOC in this setting, according to Meletios Dimopoulos, MD, of the University of Athens, Greece.
The IMROZ findings — the first from a phase 3 study of an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody given in combination with VRd — were also reported in May at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.
“The significant progression-free benefit observed with Sarclisa with combination therapy compared to VRd is important and encouraging for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma,” first author Thierry Facon, MD, told this news organization at ASCO.
Dr. Thierry, of the University of Lille, and the French Academy of Medicine in Paris, France, added that Isa-VRd has the potential as “a first-in-class combination to address gaps in care for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma transplant-ineligible patients.”
Isatuximab in combination with VRd was subsequently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for this indication, as reported on September 23 by this news organization.
So, what will this quadruplet mean for the treatment of multiple myeloma? IMROZ study coauthors Meral Beksac, MD, of Istinye University, Istanbul, and Liv Hospital Ankara, Turkey, and Mohamad Mohty, MD, of Sorbonne University, Saint-Antoine Hospital, Paris, France, provided some insights in a recent interview, telling the European Medical Journal (EMJ) Hematology that Isa-VRd is a “welcome addition” to the multiple myeloma armamentarium.
Should Isa-VRd Be Considered the New First-Choice Frontline Treatment for Transplant-Ineligible Patients?
“The short answer is yes,” Dr. Mohty told EMJ. “Based on this trial, quadruplet should become the preferred regimen in the population of patients represented by these inclusion criteria.”
Dr. Beksac agreed that Isa-VRd will play a role in frontline management for transplant-ineligible patients.
However, both noted that despite having a favorable safety profile similar to VRd, Isa-VRd may not be well tolerated in elderly and frail patients. Demonstrably frail patients were excluded from IMROZ, and this is a factor that should be considered in the practice setting, they agreed.
Will Isa-VRd Change How Patients Are Evaluated for Transplant Eligibility?
“The cutoff for transplant eligibility differs from one country to another, and today, we do not have consensus around an agreed-upon age limit,” Dr. Beksac said. “We further rely on frailty and the patient’s performance status, not only at diagnosis but at later stages as well.”
She also noted that “[t]he introduction of very effective systemic regimens with similar efficacy to [hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT)] has seen a shift towards non-transplant regimens, particularly in the USA.”
“In many centers in Europe, these patients [in IMROZ] would be considered transplant eligible. Hence, for this group of patients who are not too old, but not too young, and fit, IMROZ is offering a non-transplant-based treatment with similar efficacy to what can be achieved with HSCT,” Dr. Mohty added.
Patient preference and access are also important considerations, as is cost, he noted.
Younger transplant-eligible patients may prefer transplant over continuous treatment for life, whereas some might prefer long-term treatment over a stem cell protocol that will require months off of work, he and Dr. Beksac explained.
“Based on this trial, we will likely see a decline in the number of transplants,” Dr. Mohty predicted. “With the IMROZ data, we have something valid that we can offer patients without any prejudice to their outcome.”
How Will This Combination Be Integrated Into Daily Clinical Practice?
“My interpretation would be that this protocol will be conceived as an applicable protocol that can be adapted to our daily practice,” Dr. Beksac said.
Dr. Mohty added that the multiple myeloma story is changing and evolving.
“It’s not transplant versus no transplant, it’s who is going to receive quadruplet and who’s going to receive less than a quadruplet, who is fit and who is unfit,” he explained, adding that physicians will likely adapt the Isa-VRd regimen for real-world use based on clinical judgment.
For example, the quadruplet may be combined “in a kind of VRd-light version to start with, and maybe we can adapt later depending on the tolerability of the patient,” Dr. Beksac added.
“Until recently, we thought that transplant is the gold standard for everybody whenever possible. Now, we have a more nuanced answer, offering a regimen that actually is as effective, and may even be better, than transplant,” Dr. Mohty said. “So, it’s a most welcome addition to what we do.”
Both the IMROZ study and the EMJ article were funded by Sanofi.
Dr. Dimopoulos reported ties with Amgen, BeiGene, BMS, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda. Dr. Beksac disclosed relationships with Amgen, BMS, GSK, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda. Dr. Mohty reported ties with Adaptive Biotechnologies, Amgen, Astellas Pharma, BMS, GSK, Janssen-Cilag, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and others.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM IMS 2024
Two Soliris Biosimilars Approved for PNH in the US
The first, Bkemv (eculizumab-aeeb, Amgen), was approved in May, and the second, Epysqli (eculizumab-aagh, Samsung Bioepis), was approved on July 22.
Soliris (eculizumab, Alexion) is an intravenous agent indicated for the treatment of PNH and atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome, as well as generalized myasthenia gravis and neuromyelitis optical spectrum disorder.
Both Bkemv and Epysqli are monoclonal antibodies that bind to complement protein C5 and have been approved previously in Europe. Availability for Bkemv in the United States will be delayed until March 1, 2025, under a patent settlement agreement between Alexion and Amgen.
The FDA approval for Bkemv was based on findings from the double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 DAHLIA study showing similar efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity to Soliris in adults with PNH. The agents reduce the loss of red blood cells and, thus, the need for blood transfusion in patients with PNH.
The DAHLIA study included 42 adults with PNH who had previously received Soliris for at least 6 months. These patients were then randomized to receive Soliris or Bkemv in one of two sequences delivered across two treatment periods. For study period 1 (weeks 1-53), patients were randomized to either 900 mg of intravenous (IV) Bkemv or Soliris every 14 days for 52 weeks, and for study period 2, the patients crossed over to the other treatment for 26 weeks.
Comparable efficacy was observed in both the parallel and crossover comparisons, with geometric mean values for trough total and unbound concentrations of Bkemv and Soliris similar between the treatment groups at all time points tested. Control of intravascular hemolysis was measured by lactate dehydrogenase at week 27 for the parallel comparison and by time-adjusted area under the effect curve of lactate dehydrogenase from weeks 13 to 27, from weeks 39 to 53, and from weeks 65 to 79 for the crossover comparison.
The approval for Epysqli was on the basis of phase 3 trial findings, in which 50 patients with PNH were randomized to Epysqli or Soliris through week 26, after which the treatment was switched and provided until week 50. The findings showed a mean difference in lactate dehydrogenase level at week 26 between Epysqli and Soliris was 34.48 U/L, which fell within the predefined equivalence margin. The ratio of time-adjusted area under the effect curve of lactate dehydrogenase between the two was 1.08 — also within the predefined equivalence margin — indicating bioequivalence between the biosimilar and reference product.
Similar to Soliris, the prescribing information for Bkemv and Epysqli includes a boxed warning associated with an increased risk for serious meningococcal infections. Because of this risk, both biosimilars are only available under a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy program that prescribers are required to enroll in.
According to drugs.com, Soliris (10 mg/mL) IV solution comes to about $6878 for a supply of 30 milliliters; cost information for the biosimilars is not available yet.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The first, Bkemv (eculizumab-aeeb, Amgen), was approved in May, and the second, Epysqli (eculizumab-aagh, Samsung Bioepis), was approved on July 22.
Soliris (eculizumab, Alexion) is an intravenous agent indicated for the treatment of PNH and atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome, as well as generalized myasthenia gravis and neuromyelitis optical spectrum disorder.
Both Bkemv and Epysqli are monoclonal antibodies that bind to complement protein C5 and have been approved previously in Europe. Availability for Bkemv in the United States will be delayed until March 1, 2025, under a patent settlement agreement between Alexion and Amgen.
The FDA approval for Bkemv was based on findings from the double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 DAHLIA study showing similar efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity to Soliris in adults with PNH. The agents reduce the loss of red blood cells and, thus, the need for blood transfusion in patients with PNH.
The DAHLIA study included 42 adults with PNH who had previously received Soliris for at least 6 months. These patients were then randomized to receive Soliris or Bkemv in one of two sequences delivered across two treatment periods. For study period 1 (weeks 1-53), patients were randomized to either 900 mg of intravenous (IV) Bkemv or Soliris every 14 days for 52 weeks, and for study period 2, the patients crossed over to the other treatment for 26 weeks.
Comparable efficacy was observed in both the parallel and crossover comparisons, with geometric mean values for trough total and unbound concentrations of Bkemv and Soliris similar between the treatment groups at all time points tested. Control of intravascular hemolysis was measured by lactate dehydrogenase at week 27 for the parallel comparison and by time-adjusted area under the effect curve of lactate dehydrogenase from weeks 13 to 27, from weeks 39 to 53, and from weeks 65 to 79 for the crossover comparison.
The approval for Epysqli was on the basis of phase 3 trial findings, in which 50 patients with PNH were randomized to Epysqli or Soliris through week 26, after which the treatment was switched and provided until week 50. The findings showed a mean difference in lactate dehydrogenase level at week 26 between Epysqli and Soliris was 34.48 U/L, which fell within the predefined equivalence margin. The ratio of time-adjusted area under the effect curve of lactate dehydrogenase between the two was 1.08 — also within the predefined equivalence margin — indicating bioequivalence between the biosimilar and reference product.
Similar to Soliris, the prescribing information for Bkemv and Epysqli includes a boxed warning associated with an increased risk for serious meningococcal infections. Because of this risk, both biosimilars are only available under a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy program that prescribers are required to enroll in.
According to drugs.com, Soliris (10 mg/mL) IV solution comes to about $6878 for a supply of 30 milliliters; cost information for the biosimilars is not available yet.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The first, Bkemv (eculizumab-aeeb, Amgen), was approved in May, and the second, Epysqli (eculizumab-aagh, Samsung Bioepis), was approved on July 22.
Soliris (eculizumab, Alexion) is an intravenous agent indicated for the treatment of PNH and atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome, as well as generalized myasthenia gravis and neuromyelitis optical spectrum disorder.
Both Bkemv and Epysqli are monoclonal antibodies that bind to complement protein C5 and have been approved previously in Europe. Availability for Bkemv in the United States will be delayed until March 1, 2025, under a patent settlement agreement between Alexion and Amgen.
The FDA approval for Bkemv was based on findings from the double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 DAHLIA study showing similar efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity to Soliris in adults with PNH. The agents reduce the loss of red blood cells and, thus, the need for blood transfusion in patients with PNH.
The DAHLIA study included 42 adults with PNH who had previously received Soliris for at least 6 months. These patients were then randomized to receive Soliris or Bkemv in one of two sequences delivered across two treatment periods. For study period 1 (weeks 1-53), patients were randomized to either 900 mg of intravenous (IV) Bkemv or Soliris every 14 days for 52 weeks, and for study period 2, the patients crossed over to the other treatment for 26 weeks.
Comparable efficacy was observed in both the parallel and crossover comparisons, with geometric mean values for trough total and unbound concentrations of Bkemv and Soliris similar between the treatment groups at all time points tested. Control of intravascular hemolysis was measured by lactate dehydrogenase at week 27 for the parallel comparison and by time-adjusted area under the effect curve of lactate dehydrogenase from weeks 13 to 27, from weeks 39 to 53, and from weeks 65 to 79 for the crossover comparison.
The approval for Epysqli was on the basis of phase 3 trial findings, in which 50 patients with PNH were randomized to Epysqli or Soliris through week 26, after which the treatment was switched and provided until week 50. The findings showed a mean difference in lactate dehydrogenase level at week 26 between Epysqli and Soliris was 34.48 U/L, which fell within the predefined equivalence margin. The ratio of time-adjusted area under the effect curve of lactate dehydrogenase between the two was 1.08 — also within the predefined equivalence margin — indicating bioequivalence between the biosimilar and reference product.
Similar to Soliris, the prescribing information for Bkemv and Epysqli includes a boxed warning associated with an increased risk for serious meningococcal infections. Because of this risk, both biosimilars are only available under a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy program that prescribers are required to enroll in.
According to drugs.com, Soliris (10 mg/mL) IV solution comes to about $6878 for a supply of 30 milliliters; cost information for the biosimilars is not available yet.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
ALL: What Prompts A Post-Childhood ‘Survival Cliff’?
In a session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology in December, clinicians defined the extent of the problem — which one described as a “survival cliff” — and they discussed potential strategies to turn things around.
Cleveland Clinic hematologist John Molina, MD, EdM, highlighted a 2022 study that revealed “the 5-year overall survival for younger pediatric patients is quite phenomenal at 93%. But as you start shifting even to 15-19 patients, that shifts to an overall survival of 74%.”
In the rest of the young adult population, from age 20 to 39, the overall survival rate dips down to 59%. What’s going on?
As Dr. Molina noted, a 2008 study revealed that outcomes in ALL for those aged 16-20 “historically depended on which door you walked into”: the pediatric setting or the adult setting. Patients fared better on pediatric regimens.
Currently, he explained, those who begin treatment in adult oncology clinics will start with either a pediatric-inspired treatment called CALGB 10403 or HyperCVAD (cyclophosphamide, vincristine sulfate, doxorubicin hydrochloride, and dexamethasone plus methotrexate and cytarabine).
CALGB 10403 was developed based on a pediatric backbone of COG AALL0232, Dr. Molina said, and has higher doses of major myelosuppressive agents vs. HyperCVAD. A 2019 study determined that it was feasible to treat adolescents and young adults up to age 40 “with low treatment-related mortality and marked improvement in outcomes. OS [overall survival] at 3 years was 73%.”
However, Dr. Molina observed that only 39% of patients completed the treatment per protocol.
Which is better, CALGB 10403 or HyperCVAD? Dr. Molina said the risk of infertility and other long-term adverse effects is higher in HyperCVAD, but it has a lower risk of hepatic, pancreatic and thrombotic complications. And the CALGB 10403 regimen is more complicated to deliver, which is a potential obstacle in clinics without large numbers of patients.
As for outcomes, some research suggests they improve with pediatric-inspired regimens like CALGB 10403, he said, noting that “the debate continues.”
However, even with better regimens, Dr. Molina added, older ALL patients are still faring worse.
Also at the ASH presentation, Emory University/Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta pediatric cancer specialist Tamara Miller, MD, explored possible reasons that could explain the difference in outcomes based on age.
Cancer biology, response to chemotherapy, toxicities, psychosocial challenges, and low enrollment in clinical trials are all potential factors, she said. Specifically, aging into adulthood can lower tolerance of chemotherapy, and older patients are more prone to obesity, which is associated with worse outcomes, she said.
As for psychosocial challenges, it can be hard for older patients to manage their own medications, and they may lack insurance coverage, she said. Some patients may have worries about fertility, she added, and some may rebel against the requirements of treatment. Adherence is crucial to reducing risk of relapse, she added.
University of Cincinnati leukemia specialist Emily Curran, MD, told the ASH audience that researchers are exploring various avenues to improve outcomes.
Philadelphia chromosome-like (Ph-like) ALL, a subset of B-ALL, is associated with worse outcomes, she said, but it has multiple targetable pathways. An ongoing trial is exploring ruxolitinib (Jakafi) and chemotherapy in patients aged 18-39 with Ph-like ALL, Dr. Curran said.
Researchers are also wondering if up-front immunotherapy can help overcome disease biology, she said. Another potential therapy, she added, is CAR-T therapy for T-ALL.
Beyond cancer biology, “psychosocial factors are an even more challenging area in which we have fewer ongoing and less solutions,” Dr. Curran said.
Dr. Molina disclosed honoraria and consulting relationships with Autolus. Dr. Curran reported ties with Kite, Amgen, Incyte, Pfizer, Jazz, and Servier. Dr. Miller has no disclosures.
In a session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology in December, clinicians defined the extent of the problem — which one described as a “survival cliff” — and they discussed potential strategies to turn things around.
Cleveland Clinic hematologist John Molina, MD, EdM, highlighted a 2022 study that revealed “the 5-year overall survival for younger pediatric patients is quite phenomenal at 93%. But as you start shifting even to 15-19 patients, that shifts to an overall survival of 74%.”
In the rest of the young adult population, from age 20 to 39, the overall survival rate dips down to 59%. What’s going on?
As Dr. Molina noted, a 2008 study revealed that outcomes in ALL for those aged 16-20 “historically depended on which door you walked into”: the pediatric setting or the adult setting. Patients fared better on pediatric regimens.
Currently, he explained, those who begin treatment in adult oncology clinics will start with either a pediatric-inspired treatment called CALGB 10403 or HyperCVAD (cyclophosphamide, vincristine sulfate, doxorubicin hydrochloride, and dexamethasone plus methotrexate and cytarabine).
CALGB 10403 was developed based on a pediatric backbone of COG AALL0232, Dr. Molina said, and has higher doses of major myelosuppressive agents vs. HyperCVAD. A 2019 study determined that it was feasible to treat adolescents and young adults up to age 40 “with low treatment-related mortality and marked improvement in outcomes. OS [overall survival] at 3 years was 73%.”
However, Dr. Molina observed that only 39% of patients completed the treatment per protocol.
Which is better, CALGB 10403 or HyperCVAD? Dr. Molina said the risk of infertility and other long-term adverse effects is higher in HyperCVAD, but it has a lower risk of hepatic, pancreatic and thrombotic complications. And the CALGB 10403 regimen is more complicated to deliver, which is a potential obstacle in clinics without large numbers of patients.
As for outcomes, some research suggests they improve with pediatric-inspired regimens like CALGB 10403, he said, noting that “the debate continues.”
However, even with better regimens, Dr. Molina added, older ALL patients are still faring worse.
Also at the ASH presentation, Emory University/Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta pediatric cancer specialist Tamara Miller, MD, explored possible reasons that could explain the difference in outcomes based on age.
Cancer biology, response to chemotherapy, toxicities, psychosocial challenges, and low enrollment in clinical trials are all potential factors, she said. Specifically, aging into adulthood can lower tolerance of chemotherapy, and older patients are more prone to obesity, which is associated with worse outcomes, she said.
As for psychosocial challenges, it can be hard for older patients to manage their own medications, and they may lack insurance coverage, she said. Some patients may have worries about fertility, she added, and some may rebel against the requirements of treatment. Adherence is crucial to reducing risk of relapse, she added.
University of Cincinnati leukemia specialist Emily Curran, MD, told the ASH audience that researchers are exploring various avenues to improve outcomes.
Philadelphia chromosome-like (Ph-like) ALL, a subset of B-ALL, is associated with worse outcomes, she said, but it has multiple targetable pathways. An ongoing trial is exploring ruxolitinib (Jakafi) and chemotherapy in patients aged 18-39 with Ph-like ALL, Dr. Curran said.
Researchers are also wondering if up-front immunotherapy can help overcome disease biology, she said. Another potential therapy, she added, is CAR-T therapy for T-ALL.
Beyond cancer biology, “psychosocial factors are an even more challenging area in which we have fewer ongoing and less solutions,” Dr. Curran said.
Dr. Molina disclosed honoraria and consulting relationships with Autolus. Dr. Curran reported ties with Kite, Amgen, Incyte, Pfizer, Jazz, and Servier. Dr. Miller has no disclosures.
In a session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology in December, clinicians defined the extent of the problem — which one described as a “survival cliff” — and they discussed potential strategies to turn things around.
Cleveland Clinic hematologist John Molina, MD, EdM, highlighted a 2022 study that revealed “the 5-year overall survival for younger pediatric patients is quite phenomenal at 93%. But as you start shifting even to 15-19 patients, that shifts to an overall survival of 74%.”
In the rest of the young adult population, from age 20 to 39, the overall survival rate dips down to 59%. What’s going on?
As Dr. Molina noted, a 2008 study revealed that outcomes in ALL for those aged 16-20 “historically depended on which door you walked into”: the pediatric setting or the adult setting. Patients fared better on pediatric regimens.
Currently, he explained, those who begin treatment in adult oncology clinics will start with either a pediatric-inspired treatment called CALGB 10403 or HyperCVAD (cyclophosphamide, vincristine sulfate, doxorubicin hydrochloride, and dexamethasone plus methotrexate and cytarabine).
CALGB 10403 was developed based on a pediatric backbone of COG AALL0232, Dr. Molina said, and has higher doses of major myelosuppressive agents vs. HyperCVAD. A 2019 study determined that it was feasible to treat adolescents and young adults up to age 40 “with low treatment-related mortality and marked improvement in outcomes. OS [overall survival] at 3 years was 73%.”
However, Dr. Molina observed that only 39% of patients completed the treatment per protocol.
Which is better, CALGB 10403 or HyperCVAD? Dr. Molina said the risk of infertility and other long-term adverse effects is higher in HyperCVAD, but it has a lower risk of hepatic, pancreatic and thrombotic complications. And the CALGB 10403 regimen is more complicated to deliver, which is a potential obstacle in clinics without large numbers of patients.
As for outcomes, some research suggests they improve with pediatric-inspired regimens like CALGB 10403, he said, noting that “the debate continues.”
However, even with better regimens, Dr. Molina added, older ALL patients are still faring worse.
Also at the ASH presentation, Emory University/Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta pediatric cancer specialist Tamara Miller, MD, explored possible reasons that could explain the difference in outcomes based on age.
Cancer biology, response to chemotherapy, toxicities, psychosocial challenges, and low enrollment in clinical trials are all potential factors, she said. Specifically, aging into adulthood can lower tolerance of chemotherapy, and older patients are more prone to obesity, which is associated with worse outcomes, she said.
As for psychosocial challenges, it can be hard for older patients to manage their own medications, and they may lack insurance coverage, she said. Some patients may have worries about fertility, she added, and some may rebel against the requirements of treatment. Adherence is crucial to reducing risk of relapse, she added.
University of Cincinnati leukemia specialist Emily Curran, MD, told the ASH audience that researchers are exploring various avenues to improve outcomes.
Philadelphia chromosome-like (Ph-like) ALL, a subset of B-ALL, is associated with worse outcomes, she said, but it has multiple targetable pathways. An ongoing trial is exploring ruxolitinib (Jakafi) and chemotherapy in patients aged 18-39 with Ph-like ALL, Dr. Curran said.
Researchers are also wondering if up-front immunotherapy can help overcome disease biology, she said. Another potential therapy, she added, is CAR-T therapy for T-ALL.
Beyond cancer biology, “psychosocial factors are an even more challenging area in which we have fewer ongoing and less solutions,” Dr. Curran said.
Dr. Molina disclosed honoraria and consulting relationships with Autolus. Dr. Curran reported ties with Kite, Amgen, Incyte, Pfizer, Jazz, and Servier. Dr. Miller has no disclosures.
FROM ASH 2023
ALL: Asparaginase Tx Boosts Survival in AYA Patients
“These findings of a large cohort of adolescents and young adults treated at a variety of U.S. centers confirm the findings of the clinical trial and also provide confidence that patients remaining on this regimen have very excellent 3-year outcomes,” senior author Lori S. Muffly, MD, associate professor of medicine at Stanford University in the Division of Blood and Marrow Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, in Stanford, California, said in an interview.
The study was presented at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting. In the Cancer and Leukemia Group B 10403 trial, the intensive asparaginase pediatric regimen, used in the adult oncology treatment setting, showed benefits in the adolescent and young adult population, with a 3-year event-free survival (EFS) rate of 59% and an overall survival rate of 73%.
Based on the results, the regimen has gained widespread utilization in the United States. However, evidence of the therapy’s safety and efficacy in real-world practice, outside of the controlled clinical trial setting, has been lacking.
To investigate, first author Dr. Muffly, along with coauthor Brandon DaSilva, MD, and colleagues at Stanford University School of Medicine conducted a retrospective analysis of 101 adolescent and young adult patients aged 17 to 40 with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome (Ph)-negative B-cell ALL (B-ALL) or T-cell ALL (T-ALL).
The patients had been treated with the C10403 regimen off-trial at five U.S. centers between October 2012 and July 2020.
The study excluded Ph-positive or Burkitt-type ALL patients, in addition to those who were previously treated, with the exception of treatment with hydroxyurea, steroids, one dose of single-agent therapy, or rituximab for CD20-positive B-ALL. Of the patients, about half, 54%, were between the ages of 20 and 29; 69% were male and 55% were White. Most patients (70%) had B-cell immunophenotype, and among them, 49% had CD20 expression.
Forty percent of patients had normal karyotype; 3% were hypodiploid, 7% were KMT2a-rearranged, and 30% of the 27 patients assessed had Ph-like ALL. CNS involvement was present at diagnosis among 20% (9% with CNS2, 11% with CNS3) and 14% of patients had a mediastinal mass.
Of 71 patients with B-ALL, 16 (23%) received at least one dose of rituximab.
Among the 101 patients who started induction with C10403, 72 (71%) completed induction and continued to consolidation; 51 (50%) continued beyond consolidation, while only 31 (31%) completed the entire C10403 regimen through the end of maintenance.
For the primary outcomes, overall, the rate of induction response, defined as achieving <5% blasts on bone marrow by the end of induction or extended induction, was 91% of whom 54% were measurable residual disease [MRD]-negative (threshold of at least 10–4).
The co-primary endpoint of 3-year event-free survival was 65% and 3-year overall survival was 82.7%.
Two deaths occurred (2%) among patients who were in remission and still receiving treatment.
Overall, 44 patients (44%) were taken off C10403 while in complete remission, including 20 (20%) to receive an allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT), 23 (23%) to receive non-HCT alternative treatments including Hyper-CVAD or blinatumomab, and 1 (1%) for patient preference.
Dr. Muffly noted that the 31% of treatment completion is about the same as that seen on the original C10403 trial.
“In clinical practice, there are a variety of reasons that these patients came off therapy — probably the most common reason is for MRD-directed therapy, such as with blinatumomab.”
“We are currently analyzing the results of the patients who came off therapy relative to those who stayed on therapy which will be interesting.”
The slightly higher real-world 3-year EFS and OS (65% and 82.7%, respectively) compared with the outcomes in the clinical trial (59% and 73%, respectively), were “very encouraging,” Dr. Muffly noted.
“A lot has changed and improved in B-ALL for adolescent/young adults since this trial closed to enrollment over 10 years ago,” she explained.
“We have better MRD methods, MRD-directed therapies, and a variety of targeted immunotherapies being used in a variety of ways,” Dr. Muffly said. “The overall outcomes for adolescent/young adult ALL patients are improving and we can see that in this data set.”
Commenting on the study, Catherine Bollard, MD, a pediatric oncologist at Children’s National Hospital in Washington, DC, noted that the study’s retrospective nature is “definitely a major caveat that needs to be considered when evaluating the impact of the data.”
Regarding the relatively low rate of regimen completion, Dr. Bollard said, “I do think the pros still outweigh the cons. But getting patients into a deep complete remission and then evaluating their outcomes after consolidation with HCT or alternative therapy is certainly an important consideration and needs to be studied further in a larger cohort.”
Overall, however, “this ‘real world’ experience validates the use of this regimen outside of the clinical trial setting,” she said.
Dr. Muffly and Dr. Bollard had no disclosures to report. Dr. Bollard is the editor-in-chief of ASH’s journal, Blood Advances.
“These findings of a large cohort of adolescents and young adults treated at a variety of U.S. centers confirm the findings of the clinical trial and also provide confidence that patients remaining on this regimen have very excellent 3-year outcomes,” senior author Lori S. Muffly, MD, associate professor of medicine at Stanford University in the Division of Blood and Marrow Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, in Stanford, California, said in an interview.
The study was presented at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting. In the Cancer and Leukemia Group B 10403 trial, the intensive asparaginase pediatric regimen, used in the adult oncology treatment setting, showed benefits in the adolescent and young adult population, with a 3-year event-free survival (EFS) rate of 59% and an overall survival rate of 73%.
Based on the results, the regimen has gained widespread utilization in the United States. However, evidence of the therapy’s safety and efficacy in real-world practice, outside of the controlled clinical trial setting, has been lacking.
To investigate, first author Dr. Muffly, along with coauthor Brandon DaSilva, MD, and colleagues at Stanford University School of Medicine conducted a retrospective analysis of 101 adolescent and young adult patients aged 17 to 40 with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome (Ph)-negative B-cell ALL (B-ALL) or T-cell ALL (T-ALL).
The patients had been treated with the C10403 regimen off-trial at five U.S. centers between October 2012 and July 2020.
The study excluded Ph-positive or Burkitt-type ALL patients, in addition to those who were previously treated, with the exception of treatment with hydroxyurea, steroids, one dose of single-agent therapy, or rituximab for CD20-positive B-ALL. Of the patients, about half, 54%, were between the ages of 20 and 29; 69% were male and 55% were White. Most patients (70%) had B-cell immunophenotype, and among them, 49% had CD20 expression.
Forty percent of patients had normal karyotype; 3% were hypodiploid, 7% were KMT2a-rearranged, and 30% of the 27 patients assessed had Ph-like ALL. CNS involvement was present at diagnosis among 20% (9% with CNS2, 11% with CNS3) and 14% of patients had a mediastinal mass.
Of 71 patients with B-ALL, 16 (23%) received at least one dose of rituximab.
Among the 101 patients who started induction with C10403, 72 (71%) completed induction and continued to consolidation; 51 (50%) continued beyond consolidation, while only 31 (31%) completed the entire C10403 regimen through the end of maintenance.
For the primary outcomes, overall, the rate of induction response, defined as achieving <5% blasts on bone marrow by the end of induction or extended induction, was 91% of whom 54% were measurable residual disease [MRD]-negative (threshold of at least 10–4).
The co-primary endpoint of 3-year event-free survival was 65% and 3-year overall survival was 82.7%.
Two deaths occurred (2%) among patients who were in remission and still receiving treatment.
Overall, 44 patients (44%) were taken off C10403 while in complete remission, including 20 (20%) to receive an allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT), 23 (23%) to receive non-HCT alternative treatments including Hyper-CVAD or blinatumomab, and 1 (1%) for patient preference.
Dr. Muffly noted that the 31% of treatment completion is about the same as that seen on the original C10403 trial.
“In clinical practice, there are a variety of reasons that these patients came off therapy — probably the most common reason is for MRD-directed therapy, such as with blinatumomab.”
“We are currently analyzing the results of the patients who came off therapy relative to those who stayed on therapy which will be interesting.”
The slightly higher real-world 3-year EFS and OS (65% and 82.7%, respectively) compared with the outcomes in the clinical trial (59% and 73%, respectively), were “very encouraging,” Dr. Muffly noted.
“A lot has changed and improved in B-ALL for adolescent/young adults since this trial closed to enrollment over 10 years ago,” she explained.
“We have better MRD methods, MRD-directed therapies, and a variety of targeted immunotherapies being used in a variety of ways,” Dr. Muffly said. “The overall outcomes for adolescent/young adult ALL patients are improving and we can see that in this data set.”
Commenting on the study, Catherine Bollard, MD, a pediatric oncologist at Children’s National Hospital in Washington, DC, noted that the study’s retrospective nature is “definitely a major caveat that needs to be considered when evaluating the impact of the data.”
Regarding the relatively low rate of regimen completion, Dr. Bollard said, “I do think the pros still outweigh the cons. But getting patients into a deep complete remission and then evaluating their outcomes after consolidation with HCT or alternative therapy is certainly an important consideration and needs to be studied further in a larger cohort.”
Overall, however, “this ‘real world’ experience validates the use of this regimen outside of the clinical trial setting,” she said.
Dr. Muffly and Dr. Bollard had no disclosures to report. Dr. Bollard is the editor-in-chief of ASH’s journal, Blood Advances.
“These findings of a large cohort of adolescents and young adults treated at a variety of U.S. centers confirm the findings of the clinical trial and also provide confidence that patients remaining on this regimen have very excellent 3-year outcomes,” senior author Lori S. Muffly, MD, associate professor of medicine at Stanford University in the Division of Blood and Marrow Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, in Stanford, California, said in an interview.
The study was presented at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting. In the Cancer and Leukemia Group B 10403 trial, the intensive asparaginase pediatric regimen, used in the adult oncology treatment setting, showed benefits in the adolescent and young adult population, with a 3-year event-free survival (EFS) rate of 59% and an overall survival rate of 73%.
Based on the results, the regimen has gained widespread utilization in the United States. However, evidence of the therapy’s safety and efficacy in real-world practice, outside of the controlled clinical trial setting, has been lacking.
To investigate, first author Dr. Muffly, along with coauthor Brandon DaSilva, MD, and colleagues at Stanford University School of Medicine conducted a retrospective analysis of 101 adolescent and young adult patients aged 17 to 40 with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome (Ph)-negative B-cell ALL (B-ALL) or T-cell ALL (T-ALL).
The patients had been treated with the C10403 regimen off-trial at five U.S. centers between October 2012 and July 2020.
The study excluded Ph-positive or Burkitt-type ALL patients, in addition to those who were previously treated, with the exception of treatment with hydroxyurea, steroids, one dose of single-agent therapy, or rituximab for CD20-positive B-ALL. Of the patients, about half, 54%, were between the ages of 20 and 29; 69% were male and 55% were White. Most patients (70%) had B-cell immunophenotype, and among them, 49% had CD20 expression.
Forty percent of patients had normal karyotype; 3% were hypodiploid, 7% were KMT2a-rearranged, and 30% of the 27 patients assessed had Ph-like ALL. CNS involvement was present at diagnosis among 20% (9% with CNS2, 11% with CNS3) and 14% of patients had a mediastinal mass.
Of 71 patients with B-ALL, 16 (23%) received at least one dose of rituximab.
Among the 101 patients who started induction with C10403, 72 (71%) completed induction and continued to consolidation; 51 (50%) continued beyond consolidation, while only 31 (31%) completed the entire C10403 regimen through the end of maintenance.
For the primary outcomes, overall, the rate of induction response, defined as achieving <5% blasts on bone marrow by the end of induction or extended induction, was 91% of whom 54% were measurable residual disease [MRD]-negative (threshold of at least 10–4).
The co-primary endpoint of 3-year event-free survival was 65% and 3-year overall survival was 82.7%.
Two deaths occurred (2%) among patients who were in remission and still receiving treatment.
Overall, 44 patients (44%) were taken off C10403 while in complete remission, including 20 (20%) to receive an allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT), 23 (23%) to receive non-HCT alternative treatments including Hyper-CVAD or blinatumomab, and 1 (1%) for patient preference.
Dr. Muffly noted that the 31% of treatment completion is about the same as that seen on the original C10403 trial.
“In clinical practice, there are a variety of reasons that these patients came off therapy — probably the most common reason is for MRD-directed therapy, such as with blinatumomab.”
“We are currently analyzing the results of the patients who came off therapy relative to those who stayed on therapy which will be interesting.”
The slightly higher real-world 3-year EFS and OS (65% and 82.7%, respectively) compared with the outcomes in the clinical trial (59% and 73%, respectively), were “very encouraging,” Dr. Muffly noted.
“A lot has changed and improved in B-ALL for adolescent/young adults since this trial closed to enrollment over 10 years ago,” she explained.
“We have better MRD methods, MRD-directed therapies, and a variety of targeted immunotherapies being used in a variety of ways,” Dr. Muffly said. “The overall outcomes for adolescent/young adult ALL patients are improving and we can see that in this data set.”
Commenting on the study, Catherine Bollard, MD, a pediatric oncologist at Children’s National Hospital in Washington, DC, noted that the study’s retrospective nature is “definitely a major caveat that needs to be considered when evaluating the impact of the data.”
Regarding the relatively low rate of regimen completion, Dr. Bollard said, “I do think the pros still outweigh the cons. But getting patients into a deep complete remission and then evaluating their outcomes after consolidation with HCT or alternative therapy is certainly an important consideration and needs to be studied further in a larger cohort.”
Overall, however, “this ‘real world’ experience validates the use of this regimen outside of the clinical trial setting,” she said.
Dr. Muffly and Dr. Bollard had no disclosures to report. Dr. Bollard is the editor-in-chief of ASH’s journal, Blood Advances.
FROM ASH 2023
FDA’s Project Optimus aims to transform early cancer research
SAN DIEGO –
The goal is “to better identify and characterize optimized doses” in early stages of research and move away from the default of the traditional maximum tolerated dose strategy, hematologist-oncologist Marc R. Theoret, MD, deputy director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, said in a presentation at the 2023 Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer annual meeting.
Earlier this year, the FDA released a draft guidance regarding the changes it hopes to see. The agency supported randomized, parallel dose-response trials when feasible, and “strong rationale for choice of dosage should be provided before initiating a registration trial(s) to support a subsequent indication and usage.”
The goal of controlling toxicity is “very highly important” in hematology research since blood cancer drugs can cause significant adverse effects in areas such as the lungs and heart, said Cecilia Yeung, MD, who led the SITC session about Project Optimus. Dr. Yeung is a clinical pathologist who works on investigational trials at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.
In an interview, Dr. Yeung, who has a subspecialty in hematopathology, explained why the foundations of cancer research are changing and what hematologist-oncologists can expect to see on the horizon.
Q: Project Optimus aims to move beyond the traditional dose-escalation approach to the development of cancer drugs. How does that strategy work?
Dr. Yeung: Prior to Project Optimus, they’d use a 3+3 strategy in phase 1 trials: They’d give a dose to three fairly healthy patients, then they’d go up by escalating doses in more patients. They’d keep going up until two-thirds of patients at a specific dose suffered from bad side effects, then they’d back off to the last dose.
Q: This approach, which aims to identify the “maximum tolerated dose,” seemed to work well over decades of research into chemotherapy drugs. But worries arose as targeted therapies appeared in oncology areas such as blood cancer. Why did things change?
Dr. Yeung: With 3+3, you could tell pretty quickly how toxic chemotherapy was. But in targeted therapy, we were finding that these studies are not representative of actual toxicity. You’re not treating these patients for a very long time in phase 1, while patients on targeted therapy may be on these drugs for years. Concerns actually started with the first targeted drugs to treat leukemias and lymphomas. They were shown to have unexpected toxicity. A 2016 study found that drug developers had to reduce the original phase 1 dose in 45% of phase 3 trials [of small molecule and monoclonal antibody targeted agents] approved by the FDA over 12 years because of toxicity.
Q: What is FDA’s goal for Project Optimus?
Dr. Yeung: They want to have a second piece, to balance that maximum tolerated dose with a safe and tolerable dose for most people.
Q: What kind of resistance is the FDA getting from drug companies?
Dr. Yeung: The FDA makes a good argument that the system wasn’t working. But drug companies say this will drive up the cost of clinical trials and won’t allow them to treat patients with the maximal doses they could give them. I see arguments from both sides. There has to be a balance between the two.
Q: How will all this affect drug development?
Dr. Yeung: Drugs may become more expensive because much more testing will happen during clinical trials.
Q: Could this reduce the number of investigational drugs?
Dr. Yeung: Hopefully not, but this is huge endeavor for smaller companies that are strapped for funding.
Q: What do you think the future holds?
Dr. Yeung: Ultimately, this is a good thing because if everything works out, we’ll have fewer toxic side effects. But we’re going to have to go through a period of growing pains.
SAN DIEGO –
The goal is “to better identify and characterize optimized doses” in early stages of research and move away from the default of the traditional maximum tolerated dose strategy, hematologist-oncologist Marc R. Theoret, MD, deputy director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, said in a presentation at the 2023 Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer annual meeting.
Earlier this year, the FDA released a draft guidance regarding the changes it hopes to see. The agency supported randomized, parallel dose-response trials when feasible, and “strong rationale for choice of dosage should be provided before initiating a registration trial(s) to support a subsequent indication and usage.”
The goal of controlling toxicity is “very highly important” in hematology research since blood cancer drugs can cause significant adverse effects in areas such as the lungs and heart, said Cecilia Yeung, MD, who led the SITC session about Project Optimus. Dr. Yeung is a clinical pathologist who works on investigational trials at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.
In an interview, Dr. Yeung, who has a subspecialty in hematopathology, explained why the foundations of cancer research are changing and what hematologist-oncologists can expect to see on the horizon.
Q: Project Optimus aims to move beyond the traditional dose-escalation approach to the development of cancer drugs. How does that strategy work?
Dr. Yeung: Prior to Project Optimus, they’d use a 3+3 strategy in phase 1 trials: They’d give a dose to three fairly healthy patients, then they’d go up by escalating doses in more patients. They’d keep going up until two-thirds of patients at a specific dose suffered from bad side effects, then they’d back off to the last dose.
Q: This approach, which aims to identify the “maximum tolerated dose,” seemed to work well over decades of research into chemotherapy drugs. But worries arose as targeted therapies appeared in oncology areas such as blood cancer. Why did things change?
Dr. Yeung: With 3+3, you could tell pretty quickly how toxic chemotherapy was. But in targeted therapy, we were finding that these studies are not representative of actual toxicity. You’re not treating these patients for a very long time in phase 1, while patients on targeted therapy may be on these drugs for years. Concerns actually started with the first targeted drugs to treat leukemias and lymphomas. They were shown to have unexpected toxicity. A 2016 study found that drug developers had to reduce the original phase 1 dose in 45% of phase 3 trials [of small molecule and monoclonal antibody targeted agents] approved by the FDA over 12 years because of toxicity.
Q: What is FDA’s goal for Project Optimus?
Dr. Yeung: They want to have a second piece, to balance that maximum tolerated dose with a safe and tolerable dose for most people.
Q: What kind of resistance is the FDA getting from drug companies?
Dr. Yeung: The FDA makes a good argument that the system wasn’t working. But drug companies say this will drive up the cost of clinical trials and won’t allow them to treat patients with the maximal doses they could give them. I see arguments from both sides. There has to be a balance between the two.
Q: How will all this affect drug development?
Dr. Yeung: Drugs may become more expensive because much more testing will happen during clinical trials.
Q: Could this reduce the number of investigational drugs?
Dr. Yeung: Hopefully not, but this is huge endeavor for smaller companies that are strapped for funding.
Q: What do you think the future holds?
Dr. Yeung: Ultimately, this is a good thing because if everything works out, we’ll have fewer toxic side effects. But we’re going to have to go through a period of growing pains.
SAN DIEGO –
The goal is “to better identify and characterize optimized doses” in early stages of research and move away from the default of the traditional maximum tolerated dose strategy, hematologist-oncologist Marc R. Theoret, MD, deputy director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, said in a presentation at the 2023 Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer annual meeting.
Earlier this year, the FDA released a draft guidance regarding the changes it hopes to see. The agency supported randomized, parallel dose-response trials when feasible, and “strong rationale for choice of dosage should be provided before initiating a registration trial(s) to support a subsequent indication and usage.”
The goal of controlling toxicity is “very highly important” in hematology research since blood cancer drugs can cause significant adverse effects in areas such as the lungs and heart, said Cecilia Yeung, MD, who led the SITC session about Project Optimus. Dr. Yeung is a clinical pathologist who works on investigational trials at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.
In an interview, Dr. Yeung, who has a subspecialty in hematopathology, explained why the foundations of cancer research are changing and what hematologist-oncologists can expect to see on the horizon.
Q: Project Optimus aims to move beyond the traditional dose-escalation approach to the development of cancer drugs. How does that strategy work?
Dr. Yeung: Prior to Project Optimus, they’d use a 3+3 strategy in phase 1 trials: They’d give a dose to three fairly healthy patients, then they’d go up by escalating doses in more patients. They’d keep going up until two-thirds of patients at a specific dose suffered from bad side effects, then they’d back off to the last dose.
Q: This approach, which aims to identify the “maximum tolerated dose,” seemed to work well over decades of research into chemotherapy drugs. But worries arose as targeted therapies appeared in oncology areas such as blood cancer. Why did things change?
Dr. Yeung: With 3+3, you could tell pretty quickly how toxic chemotherapy was. But in targeted therapy, we were finding that these studies are not representative of actual toxicity. You’re not treating these patients for a very long time in phase 1, while patients on targeted therapy may be on these drugs for years. Concerns actually started with the first targeted drugs to treat leukemias and lymphomas. They were shown to have unexpected toxicity. A 2016 study found that drug developers had to reduce the original phase 1 dose in 45% of phase 3 trials [of small molecule and monoclonal antibody targeted agents] approved by the FDA over 12 years because of toxicity.
Q: What is FDA’s goal for Project Optimus?
Dr. Yeung: They want to have a second piece, to balance that maximum tolerated dose with a safe and tolerable dose for most people.
Q: What kind of resistance is the FDA getting from drug companies?
Dr. Yeung: The FDA makes a good argument that the system wasn’t working. But drug companies say this will drive up the cost of clinical trials and won’t allow them to treat patients with the maximal doses they could give them. I see arguments from both sides. There has to be a balance between the two.
Q: How will all this affect drug development?
Dr. Yeung: Drugs may become more expensive because much more testing will happen during clinical trials.
Q: Could this reduce the number of investigational drugs?
Dr. Yeung: Hopefully not, but this is huge endeavor for smaller companies that are strapped for funding.
Q: What do you think the future holds?
Dr. Yeung: Ultimately, this is a good thing because if everything works out, we’ll have fewer toxic side effects. But we’re going to have to go through a period of growing pains.
AT SITC 2023
AXIOMATIC-SSP: Cautious optimism on factor XI inhibitor in stroke
The new factor XI inhibitor antithrombotic, milvexian (Bristol-Myers Squibb/Janssen), has shown promising results in a dose-finding phase 2 trial in patients with acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA), when given in addition to dual antiplatelet therapy.
Although there was no significant reduction in the primary composite endpoint of ischemic stroke or incident infarct on brain MRI at 90 days with milvexian versus placebo in the AXIOMATIC-SSP study, with no apparent dose response, the drug numerically reduced the risk for symptomatic ischemic stroke at most doses. And doses from 25 mg to 100 mg twice daily showed an approximately 30% relative risk reduction in symptomatic ischemic stroke versus placebo.
Milvexian at 25 mg once and twice daily was associated with a low incidence of major bleeding; a moderate increase in bleeding was seen with higher doses.
There was no increase in severe bleeding, compared with placebo, and no fatal bleeding occurred any study group.
“Based on the observed efficacy signal for ischemic stroke, the bleeding profile, and the overall safety and tolerability, milvexian will be further studied in a phase 3 trial in a similar stroke population,” concluded lead investigator, Mukul Sharma, MD, associate professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
Dr. Sharma presented the AXIOMATIC-SSP study results at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
New generation
Dr. Sharma explained that factor XI inhibitors represent the latest hope for a new generation of antithrombotic drugs with a low bleeding risk.
This has come about after observations that individuals born with factor XI deficiency have lower rates of ischemic stroke and thromboembolism than matched controls, without an offsetting increase in cerebral hemorrhage. In addition, spontaneous bleeding in these individuals is uncommon, and it is thought that factor XI is a strong driver of thrombus growth but plays a less important role in hemostasis, he noted.
“I think there is a tremendous niche for these drugs in stroke prevention,” Dr. Sharma said in an interview. “There is a huge unmet need in stroke patients for something other than aspirin over the long term which is effective but doesn’t cause hemorrhage.”
Dr. Sharma reported that antithrombotic efficacy of milvexian has already been demonstrated in a study of patients undergoing knee replacement in which the drug showed similar or increased efficacy in reducing thromboembolism, compared with enoxaparin, 40 mg, without an increase in major bleeding.
The aim of the current AXIOMATIC-SSP study was to find a dose suitable for use in the treatment of patients with acute stroke or TIA.
Patients with an acute ischemic stroke or TIA are at a high risk for another stroke in the first few months. Although antiplatelet drugs have reduced this event rate, there is still a significant residual risk for ischemic stroke, and the potential for major bleeding with additional antithrombotic therapies has limited the effectiveness of these options, Dr. Sharma explained. Currently, no anticoagulants are approved for noncardioembolic ischemic stroke prevention in the early phase.
The AXIOMATIC-SSP study included 2,366 patients within 48 hours of onset of a mild to moderate acute nonlacunar ischemic stroke. All patients had visible atherosclerotic plaque in a vessel supplying the affected brain region, and they all received background treatment with open-label aspirin and clopidogrel for 21 days, followed by open-label aspirin alone from days 22 to 90.
They were randomly assigned to one of five doses of milvexian (25, 50, 100, or 200 mg twice daily or 25 mg once daily) or placebo daily for 90 days.
The primary efficacy endpoint (symptomatic ischemic stroke or incident infarct on brain MRI) was numerically lower at the 50-mg and 100-mg twice-daily doses, and there was no apparent dose response (placebo, 16.6%; 25 mg once daily, 16.2%; 25 mg twice daily, 18.5%; 50 mg twice daily, 14.1%; 100 mg twice daily, 14.7%; 200 mg twice daily, 16.4%).
However, milvexian was associated with a numerically lower risk for clinical ischemic stroke at all doses except 200 mg twice daily, with doses from 25 to 100 mg twice daily showing an approximately 30% relative risk reduction versus placebo (placebo, 5.5%; 25 mg once daily, 4.6%; 25 mg twice daily, 3.8%; 50 mg twice daily, 4.0%; 100 mg twice daily, 3.5%; 200 mg twice daily, 7.7%).
The main safety endpoint was major bleeding, defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding. This was similar to placebo for milvexian 25 mg once daily and twice daily (all 0.6%) but was moderately increased in the 50 mg twice daily (1.5%), 100 mg twice daily (1.6%), and 200 mg twice daily (1.5%) groups.
Most major bleeding episodes were gastrointestinal. There was no increase in severe bleeding or symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage versus placebo, and no fatal bleeding occurred in any arm of the study.
Incremental improvement
On the hope for a class of drugs that reduce ischemic events without increasing bleeding, Dr. Sharma said, “we keep hoping for a home run where there is no increase in bleeding with a new generation of antithrombotic, but what we seem to get is an incremental improvement with each new class.
“Factor Xa inhibitors have a lower rate of bleeding, compared to warfarin. I think we will see another incremental improvement in bleeding with these new factor XI inhibitors and hopefully less of the more serious bleeding,” he said in an interview.
He pointed out that, in this study, milvexian was given on top of dual antiplatelet therapy. “In stroke neurology that sounds very risky as we know that going from a single antiplatelet to two antiplatelet agents increases the risk of bleeding and now we are adding in a third antithrombotic, but we feel comfortable doing it because of what has been observed in patients who have a genetic deficiency of factor XI – very low rates of spontaneous bleeding and they don’t bleed intracranially largely,” he added.
In addition to milvexian, another oral factor XI inhibitor, asundexian (Bayer), is also in development, and similar results were reported in a phase 2 stroke trial (PACIFIC-STROKE) at the same ESC session.
Both drugs are now believed to be going forward into phase 3 trials.
Discussant of the study at the ESC Hotline session, Giovanna Liuzzo, MD, Catholic University of Rome, highlighted the large unmet need for stroke therapies, noting that patients with acute stroke or TIA have a stroke recurrence rate of 5% at 30 days and 17% at 2 years. Although antiplatelet agents are recommended, the use of anticoagulants has been limited by concerns over bleeding risk, and the factor XI inhibitors are promising in that they have the potential for a lower bleeding risk.
She suggested that results from the AXIOMATIC-SSP could point to a dose of milvexian of 25 mg twice daily as a balance between efficacy and bleeding to be taken into larger phase 3 trials
“The jury is still out on the safety and efficacy of milvexian as an adjunct to dual antiplatelet therapy for the prevention of recurrent noncardioembolic stroke,” Dr. Liuzzo concluded. “Only large-scale phase 3 trials will establish the safety and efficacy of factor XI inhibitors in the prevention of venous and arterial thrombosis.”
The AXIOMATIC-SSP study was funded by the Bristol-Myers Squibb/Janssen alliance. Dr. Sharma reported research contracts with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, and AstraZeneca, and consulting fees from Janssen, Bayer, HLS Therapeutics, and Alexion.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The new factor XI inhibitor antithrombotic, milvexian (Bristol-Myers Squibb/Janssen), has shown promising results in a dose-finding phase 2 trial in patients with acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA), when given in addition to dual antiplatelet therapy.
Although there was no significant reduction in the primary composite endpoint of ischemic stroke or incident infarct on brain MRI at 90 days with milvexian versus placebo in the AXIOMATIC-SSP study, with no apparent dose response, the drug numerically reduced the risk for symptomatic ischemic stroke at most doses. And doses from 25 mg to 100 mg twice daily showed an approximately 30% relative risk reduction in symptomatic ischemic stroke versus placebo.
Milvexian at 25 mg once and twice daily was associated with a low incidence of major bleeding; a moderate increase in bleeding was seen with higher doses.
There was no increase in severe bleeding, compared with placebo, and no fatal bleeding occurred any study group.
“Based on the observed efficacy signal for ischemic stroke, the bleeding profile, and the overall safety and tolerability, milvexian will be further studied in a phase 3 trial in a similar stroke population,” concluded lead investigator, Mukul Sharma, MD, associate professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
Dr. Sharma presented the AXIOMATIC-SSP study results at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
New generation
Dr. Sharma explained that factor XI inhibitors represent the latest hope for a new generation of antithrombotic drugs with a low bleeding risk.
This has come about after observations that individuals born with factor XI deficiency have lower rates of ischemic stroke and thromboembolism than matched controls, without an offsetting increase in cerebral hemorrhage. In addition, spontaneous bleeding in these individuals is uncommon, and it is thought that factor XI is a strong driver of thrombus growth but plays a less important role in hemostasis, he noted.
“I think there is a tremendous niche for these drugs in stroke prevention,” Dr. Sharma said in an interview. “There is a huge unmet need in stroke patients for something other than aspirin over the long term which is effective but doesn’t cause hemorrhage.”
Dr. Sharma reported that antithrombotic efficacy of milvexian has already been demonstrated in a study of patients undergoing knee replacement in which the drug showed similar or increased efficacy in reducing thromboembolism, compared with enoxaparin, 40 mg, without an increase in major bleeding.
The aim of the current AXIOMATIC-SSP study was to find a dose suitable for use in the treatment of patients with acute stroke or TIA.
Patients with an acute ischemic stroke or TIA are at a high risk for another stroke in the first few months. Although antiplatelet drugs have reduced this event rate, there is still a significant residual risk for ischemic stroke, and the potential for major bleeding with additional antithrombotic therapies has limited the effectiveness of these options, Dr. Sharma explained. Currently, no anticoagulants are approved for noncardioembolic ischemic stroke prevention in the early phase.
The AXIOMATIC-SSP study included 2,366 patients within 48 hours of onset of a mild to moderate acute nonlacunar ischemic stroke. All patients had visible atherosclerotic plaque in a vessel supplying the affected brain region, and they all received background treatment with open-label aspirin and clopidogrel for 21 days, followed by open-label aspirin alone from days 22 to 90.
They were randomly assigned to one of five doses of milvexian (25, 50, 100, or 200 mg twice daily or 25 mg once daily) or placebo daily for 90 days.
The primary efficacy endpoint (symptomatic ischemic stroke or incident infarct on brain MRI) was numerically lower at the 50-mg and 100-mg twice-daily doses, and there was no apparent dose response (placebo, 16.6%; 25 mg once daily, 16.2%; 25 mg twice daily, 18.5%; 50 mg twice daily, 14.1%; 100 mg twice daily, 14.7%; 200 mg twice daily, 16.4%).
However, milvexian was associated with a numerically lower risk for clinical ischemic stroke at all doses except 200 mg twice daily, with doses from 25 to 100 mg twice daily showing an approximately 30% relative risk reduction versus placebo (placebo, 5.5%; 25 mg once daily, 4.6%; 25 mg twice daily, 3.8%; 50 mg twice daily, 4.0%; 100 mg twice daily, 3.5%; 200 mg twice daily, 7.7%).
The main safety endpoint was major bleeding, defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding. This was similar to placebo for milvexian 25 mg once daily and twice daily (all 0.6%) but was moderately increased in the 50 mg twice daily (1.5%), 100 mg twice daily (1.6%), and 200 mg twice daily (1.5%) groups.
Most major bleeding episodes were gastrointestinal. There was no increase in severe bleeding or symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage versus placebo, and no fatal bleeding occurred in any arm of the study.
Incremental improvement
On the hope for a class of drugs that reduce ischemic events without increasing bleeding, Dr. Sharma said, “we keep hoping for a home run where there is no increase in bleeding with a new generation of antithrombotic, but what we seem to get is an incremental improvement with each new class.
“Factor Xa inhibitors have a lower rate of bleeding, compared to warfarin. I think we will see another incremental improvement in bleeding with these new factor XI inhibitors and hopefully less of the more serious bleeding,” he said in an interview.
He pointed out that, in this study, milvexian was given on top of dual antiplatelet therapy. “In stroke neurology that sounds very risky as we know that going from a single antiplatelet to two antiplatelet agents increases the risk of bleeding and now we are adding in a third antithrombotic, but we feel comfortable doing it because of what has been observed in patients who have a genetic deficiency of factor XI – very low rates of spontaneous bleeding and they don’t bleed intracranially largely,” he added.
In addition to milvexian, another oral factor XI inhibitor, asundexian (Bayer), is also in development, and similar results were reported in a phase 2 stroke trial (PACIFIC-STROKE) at the same ESC session.
Both drugs are now believed to be going forward into phase 3 trials.
Discussant of the study at the ESC Hotline session, Giovanna Liuzzo, MD, Catholic University of Rome, highlighted the large unmet need for stroke therapies, noting that patients with acute stroke or TIA have a stroke recurrence rate of 5% at 30 days and 17% at 2 years. Although antiplatelet agents are recommended, the use of anticoagulants has been limited by concerns over bleeding risk, and the factor XI inhibitors are promising in that they have the potential for a lower bleeding risk.
She suggested that results from the AXIOMATIC-SSP could point to a dose of milvexian of 25 mg twice daily as a balance between efficacy and bleeding to be taken into larger phase 3 trials
“The jury is still out on the safety and efficacy of milvexian as an adjunct to dual antiplatelet therapy for the prevention of recurrent noncardioembolic stroke,” Dr. Liuzzo concluded. “Only large-scale phase 3 trials will establish the safety and efficacy of factor XI inhibitors in the prevention of venous and arterial thrombosis.”
The AXIOMATIC-SSP study was funded by the Bristol-Myers Squibb/Janssen alliance. Dr. Sharma reported research contracts with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, and AstraZeneca, and consulting fees from Janssen, Bayer, HLS Therapeutics, and Alexion.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The new factor XI inhibitor antithrombotic, milvexian (Bristol-Myers Squibb/Janssen), has shown promising results in a dose-finding phase 2 trial in patients with acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA), when given in addition to dual antiplatelet therapy.
Although there was no significant reduction in the primary composite endpoint of ischemic stroke or incident infarct on brain MRI at 90 days with milvexian versus placebo in the AXIOMATIC-SSP study, with no apparent dose response, the drug numerically reduced the risk for symptomatic ischemic stroke at most doses. And doses from 25 mg to 100 mg twice daily showed an approximately 30% relative risk reduction in symptomatic ischemic stroke versus placebo.
Milvexian at 25 mg once and twice daily was associated with a low incidence of major bleeding; a moderate increase in bleeding was seen with higher doses.
There was no increase in severe bleeding, compared with placebo, and no fatal bleeding occurred any study group.
“Based on the observed efficacy signal for ischemic stroke, the bleeding profile, and the overall safety and tolerability, milvexian will be further studied in a phase 3 trial in a similar stroke population,” concluded lead investigator, Mukul Sharma, MD, associate professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
Dr. Sharma presented the AXIOMATIC-SSP study results at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
New generation
Dr. Sharma explained that factor XI inhibitors represent the latest hope for a new generation of antithrombotic drugs with a low bleeding risk.
This has come about after observations that individuals born with factor XI deficiency have lower rates of ischemic stroke and thromboembolism than matched controls, without an offsetting increase in cerebral hemorrhage. In addition, spontaneous bleeding in these individuals is uncommon, and it is thought that factor XI is a strong driver of thrombus growth but plays a less important role in hemostasis, he noted.
“I think there is a tremendous niche for these drugs in stroke prevention,” Dr. Sharma said in an interview. “There is a huge unmet need in stroke patients for something other than aspirin over the long term which is effective but doesn’t cause hemorrhage.”
Dr. Sharma reported that antithrombotic efficacy of milvexian has already been demonstrated in a study of patients undergoing knee replacement in which the drug showed similar or increased efficacy in reducing thromboembolism, compared with enoxaparin, 40 mg, without an increase in major bleeding.
The aim of the current AXIOMATIC-SSP study was to find a dose suitable for use in the treatment of patients with acute stroke or TIA.
Patients with an acute ischemic stroke or TIA are at a high risk for another stroke in the first few months. Although antiplatelet drugs have reduced this event rate, there is still a significant residual risk for ischemic stroke, and the potential for major bleeding with additional antithrombotic therapies has limited the effectiveness of these options, Dr. Sharma explained. Currently, no anticoagulants are approved for noncardioembolic ischemic stroke prevention in the early phase.
The AXIOMATIC-SSP study included 2,366 patients within 48 hours of onset of a mild to moderate acute nonlacunar ischemic stroke. All patients had visible atherosclerotic plaque in a vessel supplying the affected brain region, and they all received background treatment with open-label aspirin and clopidogrel for 21 days, followed by open-label aspirin alone from days 22 to 90.
They were randomly assigned to one of five doses of milvexian (25, 50, 100, or 200 mg twice daily or 25 mg once daily) or placebo daily for 90 days.
The primary efficacy endpoint (symptomatic ischemic stroke or incident infarct on brain MRI) was numerically lower at the 50-mg and 100-mg twice-daily doses, and there was no apparent dose response (placebo, 16.6%; 25 mg once daily, 16.2%; 25 mg twice daily, 18.5%; 50 mg twice daily, 14.1%; 100 mg twice daily, 14.7%; 200 mg twice daily, 16.4%).
However, milvexian was associated with a numerically lower risk for clinical ischemic stroke at all doses except 200 mg twice daily, with doses from 25 to 100 mg twice daily showing an approximately 30% relative risk reduction versus placebo (placebo, 5.5%; 25 mg once daily, 4.6%; 25 mg twice daily, 3.8%; 50 mg twice daily, 4.0%; 100 mg twice daily, 3.5%; 200 mg twice daily, 7.7%).
The main safety endpoint was major bleeding, defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding. This was similar to placebo for milvexian 25 mg once daily and twice daily (all 0.6%) but was moderately increased in the 50 mg twice daily (1.5%), 100 mg twice daily (1.6%), and 200 mg twice daily (1.5%) groups.
Most major bleeding episodes were gastrointestinal. There was no increase in severe bleeding or symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage versus placebo, and no fatal bleeding occurred in any arm of the study.
Incremental improvement
On the hope for a class of drugs that reduce ischemic events without increasing bleeding, Dr. Sharma said, “we keep hoping for a home run where there is no increase in bleeding with a new generation of antithrombotic, but what we seem to get is an incremental improvement with each new class.
“Factor Xa inhibitors have a lower rate of bleeding, compared to warfarin. I think we will see another incremental improvement in bleeding with these new factor XI inhibitors and hopefully less of the more serious bleeding,” he said in an interview.
He pointed out that, in this study, milvexian was given on top of dual antiplatelet therapy. “In stroke neurology that sounds very risky as we know that going from a single antiplatelet to two antiplatelet agents increases the risk of bleeding and now we are adding in a third antithrombotic, but we feel comfortable doing it because of what has been observed in patients who have a genetic deficiency of factor XI – very low rates of spontaneous bleeding and they don’t bleed intracranially largely,” he added.
In addition to milvexian, another oral factor XI inhibitor, asundexian (Bayer), is also in development, and similar results were reported in a phase 2 stroke trial (PACIFIC-STROKE) at the same ESC session.
Both drugs are now believed to be going forward into phase 3 trials.
Discussant of the study at the ESC Hotline session, Giovanna Liuzzo, MD, Catholic University of Rome, highlighted the large unmet need for stroke therapies, noting that patients with acute stroke or TIA have a stroke recurrence rate of 5% at 30 days and 17% at 2 years. Although antiplatelet agents are recommended, the use of anticoagulants has been limited by concerns over bleeding risk, and the factor XI inhibitors are promising in that they have the potential for a lower bleeding risk.
She suggested that results from the AXIOMATIC-SSP could point to a dose of milvexian of 25 mg twice daily as a balance between efficacy and bleeding to be taken into larger phase 3 trials
“The jury is still out on the safety and efficacy of milvexian as an adjunct to dual antiplatelet therapy for the prevention of recurrent noncardioembolic stroke,” Dr. Liuzzo concluded. “Only large-scale phase 3 trials will establish the safety and efficacy of factor XI inhibitors in the prevention of venous and arterial thrombosis.”
The AXIOMATIC-SSP study was funded by the Bristol-Myers Squibb/Janssen alliance. Dr. Sharma reported research contracts with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, and AstraZeneca, and consulting fees from Janssen, Bayer, HLS Therapeutics, and Alexion.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ESC CONGRESS 2022
COVID booster mounts ‘brisk’ response in patients with cancer
New data shed light on the durability of antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and the impact of booster doses for patients with cancer undergoing systemic therapy or who have received a stem cell transplant (SCT).
In a cross-sectional study of 453 such patients, anti–SARS-CoV-2 spike protein receptor binding domain (anti-RBD) antibodies peaked 1 month after the second dose of an mRNA vaccine and remained stable over the next 6 months.
Notably, compared with the primary vaccine course, patients experienced a 20-fold increase in anti-RBD antibodies after the third vaccine dose, “indicative of a brisk anamnestic response from memory B cells,” Qamar Khan, MD, a medical oncologist at the University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, and colleagues report.
The study appeared online in JAMA Oncology.
Given the risk of poor outcomes among patients with cancer and recipients of SCTs who get COVID, Dr. Khan and colleagues wanted to understand the durability of the antibody response to COVID vaccines in this population.
Among the 453 patients enrolled in the study, 70% had solid tumors and 30% had hematologic malignancies. Just over 40% were receiving chemotherapy, 16% were receiving immunotherapy, 14% were receiving a targeted oral agent, 5% were receiving chemoimmunotherapy, and 25% had received an SCT.
Regarding vaccine type, 61% received the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine, 36% received the Moderna mRNA vaccine, and 4% got the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson vaccine. The mean age of the cohort was 60.4 years; 56% were women.
Prior to vaccination, the geometric mean titer (GMT) of anti-RBD antibodies for all patients was 1.7; it increased to 18.65 2 weeks after the first dose.
At 1 month after the second mRNA dose (or 2 months after the Johnson & Johnson vaccine), GMTs of anti-RBD antibodies reached 470.38 and then decreased to 425.8 at 3 months after the second dose (or 4 months after the Johnson & Johnson vaccine). Patients who were male, older than 65 years, and who had been diagnosed with a hematologic malignant tumor were more likely to have lower anti-RBD GMT 3 months after the second vaccine dose.
GMTs subsequently increased to 447.23 6 months after the second dose (7 months for Johnson & Johnson).
One month after the third dose, GMTs of anti-RBD antibodies rose to 9,224.85 – more than 20 times the previous GMT value.
According to the investigators, roughly 80% of these patients remained above the threshold of an anti-RBD level of 100 U/mL or higher at 6 months.
“While still an arbitrary cutoff, an anti-RBD level of 100 U/mL or higher has been associated with protection and has been used to evaluate the effectiveness of a third dose of an mRNA vaccine in a randomized clinical trial of patients who received a solid organ transplant,” Dr. Khan and colleagues write.
“Although more data are needed to confirm this level as protective, if established, anti-RBD can potentially be used to prioritize additional vaccine doses, especially in regions of the world with limited vaccine resources,” the authors conclude.
The study was supported in part by the University of Kansas Cancer Center and the Investigator Initiated Steering Committee, by a grant from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and a University of Kansas Cancer Center Support Grant from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Khan reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New data shed light on the durability of antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and the impact of booster doses for patients with cancer undergoing systemic therapy or who have received a stem cell transplant (SCT).
In a cross-sectional study of 453 such patients, anti–SARS-CoV-2 spike protein receptor binding domain (anti-RBD) antibodies peaked 1 month after the second dose of an mRNA vaccine and remained stable over the next 6 months.
Notably, compared with the primary vaccine course, patients experienced a 20-fold increase in anti-RBD antibodies after the third vaccine dose, “indicative of a brisk anamnestic response from memory B cells,” Qamar Khan, MD, a medical oncologist at the University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, and colleagues report.
The study appeared online in JAMA Oncology.
Given the risk of poor outcomes among patients with cancer and recipients of SCTs who get COVID, Dr. Khan and colleagues wanted to understand the durability of the antibody response to COVID vaccines in this population.
Among the 453 patients enrolled in the study, 70% had solid tumors and 30% had hematologic malignancies. Just over 40% were receiving chemotherapy, 16% were receiving immunotherapy, 14% were receiving a targeted oral agent, 5% were receiving chemoimmunotherapy, and 25% had received an SCT.
Regarding vaccine type, 61% received the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine, 36% received the Moderna mRNA vaccine, and 4% got the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson vaccine. The mean age of the cohort was 60.4 years; 56% were women.
Prior to vaccination, the geometric mean titer (GMT) of anti-RBD antibodies for all patients was 1.7; it increased to 18.65 2 weeks after the first dose.
At 1 month after the second mRNA dose (or 2 months after the Johnson & Johnson vaccine), GMTs of anti-RBD antibodies reached 470.38 and then decreased to 425.8 at 3 months after the second dose (or 4 months after the Johnson & Johnson vaccine). Patients who were male, older than 65 years, and who had been diagnosed with a hematologic malignant tumor were more likely to have lower anti-RBD GMT 3 months after the second vaccine dose.
GMTs subsequently increased to 447.23 6 months after the second dose (7 months for Johnson & Johnson).
One month after the third dose, GMTs of anti-RBD antibodies rose to 9,224.85 – more than 20 times the previous GMT value.
According to the investigators, roughly 80% of these patients remained above the threshold of an anti-RBD level of 100 U/mL or higher at 6 months.
“While still an arbitrary cutoff, an anti-RBD level of 100 U/mL or higher has been associated with protection and has been used to evaluate the effectiveness of a third dose of an mRNA vaccine in a randomized clinical trial of patients who received a solid organ transplant,” Dr. Khan and colleagues write.
“Although more data are needed to confirm this level as protective, if established, anti-RBD can potentially be used to prioritize additional vaccine doses, especially in regions of the world with limited vaccine resources,” the authors conclude.
The study was supported in part by the University of Kansas Cancer Center and the Investigator Initiated Steering Committee, by a grant from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and a University of Kansas Cancer Center Support Grant from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Khan reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New data shed light on the durability of antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and the impact of booster doses for patients with cancer undergoing systemic therapy or who have received a stem cell transplant (SCT).
In a cross-sectional study of 453 such patients, anti–SARS-CoV-2 spike protein receptor binding domain (anti-RBD) antibodies peaked 1 month after the second dose of an mRNA vaccine and remained stable over the next 6 months.
Notably, compared with the primary vaccine course, patients experienced a 20-fold increase in anti-RBD antibodies after the third vaccine dose, “indicative of a brisk anamnestic response from memory B cells,” Qamar Khan, MD, a medical oncologist at the University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, and colleagues report.
The study appeared online in JAMA Oncology.
Given the risk of poor outcomes among patients with cancer and recipients of SCTs who get COVID, Dr. Khan and colleagues wanted to understand the durability of the antibody response to COVID vaccines in this population.
Among the 453 patients enrolled in the study, 70% had solid tumors and 30% had hematologic malignancies. Just over 40% were receiving chemotherapy, 16% were receiving immunotherapy, 14% were receiving a targeted oral agent, 5% were receiving chemoimmunotherapy, and 25% had received an SCT.
Regarding vaccine type, 61% received the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine, 36% received the Moderna mRNA vaccine, and 4% got the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson vaccine. The mean age of the cohort was 60.4 years; 56% were women.
Prior to vaccination, the geometric mean titer (GMT) of anti-RBD antibodies for all patients was 1.7; it increased to 18.65 2 weeks after the first dose.
At 1 month after the second mRNA dose (or 2 months after the Johnson & Johnson vaccine), GMTs of anti-RBD antibodies reached 470.38 and then decreased to 425.8 at 3 months after the second dose (or 4 months after the Johnson & Johnson vaccine). Patients who were male, older than 65 years, and who had been diagnosed with a hematologic malignant tumor were more likely to have lower anti-RBD GMT 3 months after the second vaccine dose.
GMTs subsequently increased to 447.23 6 months after the second dose (7 months for Johnson & Johnson).
One month after the third dose, GMTs of anti-RBD antibodies rose to 9,224.85 – more than 20 times the previous GMT value.
According to the investigators, roughly 80% of these patients remained above the threshold of an anti-RBD level of 100 U/mL or higher at 6 months.
“While still an arbitrary cutoff, an anti-RBD level of 100 U/mL or higher has been associated with protection and has been used to evaluate the effectiveness of a third dose of an mRNA vaccine in a randomized clinical trial of patients who received a solid organ transplant,” Dr. Khan and colleagues write.
“Although more data are needed to confirm this level as protective, if established, anti-RBD can potentially be used to prioritize additional vaccine doses, especially in regions of the world with limited vaccine resources,” the authors conclude.
The study was supported in part by the University of Kansas Cancer Center and the Investigator Initiated Steering Committee, by a grant from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and a University of Kansas Cancer Center Support Grant from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Khan reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY
Global data suggest rising CLL incidence since 1990
Either way, “to our best knowledge, this study is the first study to provide a comprehensive description of the epidemiology and global burden of CLL worldwide,” the authors reported in BioMedical Engineering Online.
The findings are an evaluation of data from the 2019 Global Burden of Disease study, which includes epidemiological data on 369 diseases in 204 nations and territories around the world.
According to the analysis, the age-standardized incidence rate of CLL rose globally over the last 3 decades, from 0.76 per 100,000 persons in 1990 to 1.34 per 100,000 in 2019, for an estimated annual percentage change of 1.86%.
While increases were observed across all economic levels, the highest increases were observed in regions with the highest social determinant index. Notably, the fastest rise was observed in middle-income regions.
“What cannot be ignored is the rapid growth of the disease burden in middle [social determinant index] regions, which potentially indicated an underestimated incidence and mortality in underdeveloped countries,” write the authors, led by senior author Huafeng Wang, MD, of the department of hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
The highest annual age-standardized incidence rates in 2019 occurred in western Europe, high-income areas of North America and central Europe, while the fastest increase in the incidence of CLL occurred in east Asia, central Europe, and Andean Latin America, according to the study.
Mortality rates
The age-standardized death rate from CLL also increased globally, from 0.40 per 100,000 persons in 1990 to 0.58 per 100,000 in 2019, for an estimated annual percentage change of 1.17.
The increases in death rates were observed across all income regions over the study period, with the highest age-standardized death rate in 2019, consistent with incidence rates, occurring in the highest-income regions, specifically in central Europe, western Europe, and high-income North America.
The geographic trends were similar in terms of disability-adjusted life-years, which increased globally from 9.20 per 100,000 persons in 1990 to 12.26 per 100,000 in 2019, for an estimated annual percentage change of 0.92%.
The authors noted that the geographic variation of CLL is consistent with research suggesting that White ancestry is a risk factor for this leukemia. And while the incidence of CLL is generally low in the 22 nations of the Arab League, the burden of disease is high in Israel.
Age and gender
The study shows that, during the past 30 years in general, CLL was more common among males, with some regional differences. For instance, in contrast to global trends, females in low-income regions accounted for the majority of incidence and mortality.
The majority of CLL cases occurred in people over the age of 50, which is consistent with known patterns of CLL occurring in older patients. Of note, the majority of cases between the ages of 50 and 69 were in low-income regions, while more than half of the incidence cases in higher-income regions were among those over the age of 70.
Risk factors
Key risk factors that may to be linked to CLL-related mortality and disability include high body mass index, occupational exposure to benzene and formaldehyde, and smoking, which was the strongest risk factor, the authors reported.
Obesity has previously been linked with an increased risk of lymphohematopoietic cancers in general and with poorer responses to treatment and reduced progression-free survival in CLL, in particular.
While the database otherwise provided only limited insights into potential CLL risk factors, “among the factors [the database] provided, the risk of benzene and formaldehyde exposure should be paid attention to,” Dr. Wang said in an interview.
“Different from other risk factors, emerging evidence has clearly pointed out the close relationship between benzene and formaldehyde exposure and hematological malignancies,” he explained. “With globalization, a large number of factories moved to less developed regions. The problem of occupational toxic exposure needs to be addressed.”
In general, the trends in the current study are consistent with previous research showing that, while there was a significant global decrease in leukemia incidence between 1990 and 2017, the incidence rates of CLL as well as acute myeloid leukemia (AML) significantly increased in most countries during that period.
“The age-standardized incidence rate of AML has steadily increased over the past 30 years, but not as rapidly as CLL,” Dr. Wang said.
He added that an encouraging sign is the “significant decline” in the age-standardized rate of chronic myeloid leukemia seen with the advent of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs).
“Perhaps for CLL, the emergence of epoch-making therapies like TKIs will also contribute to the reduction of disease burden [with that disease],” he said.
Surveillance bias?
The authors note a key caveat that the lower rates observed in low-income regions could be related to underreporting and lower screening of cancers in those regions. However, commenting on the study, Robert Peter Gale, MD, PhD, suggested that, conversely, the trends may represent a surveillance bias, reflecting an increased detection of CLL.
In fact, “it is most unlikely the incidence of CLL is really increasing,” Dr. Gale, visiting professor of hematology at the Hematology Research Centre, department of immunology and inflammation, Imperial College London, said in an interview.
“More than one-half of people with CLL have no signs or symptoms, and the diagnosis is made when they have a blood test done for unrelated reasons,” such as in the process of qualifying for life or medical insurance or for a new job, he explained. “The more testing you do, the more cases you will detect.”
Dr. Gale pointed out that research his team has conducted in China also showed an increasing incidence of CLL. However, “on closer study, we found about two-thirds of cases were incidental, namely cases detected under circumstances [such as blood testing for a job].”
Shen-Miao Yang, MD, first author of that study, agreed and noted that improved treatment with drugs such as Bruton kinase inhibitors also can have the effect of increasing incidence – by extending lives.
“More patients are diagnosed, [and] receive the new agent, and their longer survival contributes to the increased burden of CLL,” Dr. Yang of People’s Hospital of Peking University, Peking University Institute of Hematology, Beijing, said in an interview.
Furthermore, “advanced techniques such as flow cytometry and fluorescence in situ hybridization are routinely used for the diagnosis and prognosis of CLL patients – that also increases the CLL burden.”
Dr. Yang had no disclosures to report. Dr. Gale disclosed that he is a consultant to BeiGene, Fusion Pharma, La Jolla NanoMedical, MingSight Pharmaceuticals, CStone Pharmaceuticals, NexImmune, and Prolacta Bioscience; an adviser to Antengene Biotech; medical director of FFF Enterprises; a partner of AZCA; member of the board of directors of the Russian Foundation for Cancer Research Support; and on the scientific advisory board of StemRad.
Either way, “to our best knowledge, this study is the first study to provide a comprehensive description of the epidemiology and global burden of CLL worldwide,” the authors reported in BioMedical Engineering Online.
The findings are an evaluation of data from the 2019 Global Burden of Disease study, which includes epidemiological data on 369 diseases in 204 nations and territories around the world.
According to the analysis, the age-standardized incidence rate of CLL rose globally over the last 3 decades, from 0.76 per 100,000 persons in 1990 to 1.34 per 100,000 in 2019, for an estimated annual percentage change of 1.86%.
While increases were observed across all economic levels, the highest increases were observed in regions with the highest social determinant index. Notably, the fastest rise was observed in middle-income regions.
“What cannot be ignored is the rapid growth of the disease burden in middle [social determinant index] regions, which potentially indicated an underestimated incidence and mortality in underdeveloped countries,” write the authors, led by senior author Huafeng Wang, MD, of the department of hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
The highest annual age-standardized incidence rates in 2019 occurred in western Europe, high-income areas of North America and central Europe, while the fastest increase in the incidence of CLL occurred in east Asia, central Europe, and Andean Latin America, according to the study.
Mortality rates
The age-standardized death rate from CLL also increased globally, from 0.40 per 100,000 persons in 1990 to 0.58 per 100,000 in 2019, for an estimated annual percentage change of 1.17.
The increases in death rates were observed across all income regions over the study period, with the highest age-standardized death rate in 2019, consistent with incidence rates, occurring in the highest-income regions, specifically in central Europe, western Europe, and high-income North America.
The geographic trends were similar in terms of disability-adjusted life-years, which increased globally from 9.20 per 100,000 persons in 1990 to 12.26 per 100,000 in 2019, for an estimated annual percentage change of 0.92%.
The authors noted that the geographic variation of CLL is consistent with research suggesting that White ancestry is a risk factor for this leukemia. And while the incidence of CLL is generally low in the 22 nations of the Arab League, the burden of disease is high in Israel.
Age and gender
The study shows that, during the past 30 years in general, CLL was more common among males, with some regional differences. For instance, in contrast to global trends, females in low-income regions accounted for the majority of incidence and mortality.
The majority of CLL cases occurred in people over the age of 50, which is consistent with known patterns of CLL occurring in older patients. Of note, the majority of cases between the ages of 50 and 69 were in low-income regions, while more than half of the incidence cases in higher-income regions were among those over the age of 70.
Risk factors
Key risk factors that may to be linked to CLL-related mortality and disability include high body mass index, occupational exposure to benzene and formaldehyde, and smoking, which was the strongest risk factor, the authors reported.
Obesity has previously been linked with an increased risk of lymphohematopoietic cancers in general and with poorer responses to treatment and reduced progression-free survival in CLL, in particular.
While the database otherwise provided only limited insights into potential CLL risk factors, “among the factors [the database] provided, the risk of benzene and formaldehyde exposure should be paid attention to,” Dr. Wang said in an interview.
“Different from other risk factors, emerging evidence has clearly pointed out the close relationship between benzene and formaldehyde exposure and hematological malignancies,” he explained. “With globalization, a large number of factories moved to less developed regions. The problem of occupational toxic exposure needs to be addressed.”
In general, the trends in the current study are consistent with previous research showing that, while there was a significant global decrease in leukemia incidence between 1990 and 2017, the incidence rates of CLL as well as acute myeloid leukemia (AML) significantly increased in most countries during that period.
“The age-standardized incidence rate of AML has steadily increased over the past 30 years, but not as rapidly as CLL,” Dr. Wang said.
He added that an encouraging sign is the “significant decline” in the age-standardized rate of chronic myeloid leukemia seen with the advent of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs).
“Perhaps for CLL, the emergence of epoch-making therapies like TKIs will also contribute to the reduction of disease burden [with that disease],” he said.
Surveillance bias?
The authors note a key caveat that the lower rates observed in low-income regions could be related to underreporting and lower screening of cancers in those regions. However, commenting on the study, Robert Peter Gale, MD, PhD, suggested that, conversely, the trends may represent a surveillance bias, reflecting an increased detection of CLL.
In fact, “it is most unlikely the incidence of CLL is really increasing,” Dr. Gale, visiting professor of hematology at the Hematology Research Centre, department of immunology and inflammation, Imperial College London, said in an interview.
“More than one-half of people with CLL have no signs or symptoms, and the diagnosis is made when they have a blood test done for unrelated reasons,” such as in the process of qualifying for life or medical insurance or for a new job, he explained. “The more testing you do, the more cases you will detect.”
Dr. Gale pointed out that research his team has conducted in China also showed an increasing incidence of CLL. However, “on closer study, we found about two-thirds of cases were incidental, namely cases detected under circumstances [such as blood testing for a job].”
Shen-Miao Yang, MD, first author of that study, agreed and noted that improved treatment with drugs such as Bruton kinase inhibitors also can have the effect of increasing incidence – by extending lives.
“More patients are diagnosed, [and] receive the new agent, and their longer survival contributes to the increased burden of CLL,” Dr. Yang of People’s Hospital of Peking University, Peking University Institute of Hematology, Beijing, said in an interview.
Furthermore, “advanced techniques such as flow cytometry and fluorescence in situ hybridization are routinely used for the diagnosis and prognosis of CLL patients – that also increases the CLL burden.”
Dr. Yang had no disclosures to report. Dr. Gale disclosed that he is a consultant to BeiGene, Fusion Pharma, La Jolla NanoMedical, MingSight Pharmaceuticals, CStone Pharmaceuticals, NexImmune, and Prolacta Bioscience; an adviser to Antengene Biotech; medical director of FFF Enterprises; a partner of AZCA; member of the board of directors of the Russian Foundation for Cancer Research Support; and on the scientific advisory board of StemRad.
Either way, “to our best knowledge, this study is the first study to provide a comprehensive description of the epidemiology and global burden of CLL worldwide,” the authors reported in BioMedical Engineering Online.
The findings are an evaluation of data from the 2019 Global Burden of Disease study, which includes epidemiological data on 369 diseases in 204 nations and territories around the world.
According to the analysis, the age-standardized incidence rate of CLL rose globally over the last 3 decades, from 0.76 per 100,000 persons in 1990 to 1.34 per 100,000 in 2019, for an estimated annual percentage change of 1.86%.
While increases were observed across all economic levels, the highest increases were observed in regions with the highest social determinant index. Notably, the fastest rise was observed in middle-income regions.
“What cannot be ignored is the rapid growth of the disease burden in middle [social determinant index] regions, which potentially indicated an underestimated incidence and mortality in underdeveloped countries,” write the authors, led by senior author Huafeng Wang, MD, of the department of hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
The highest annual age-standardized incidence rates in 2019 occurred in western Europe, high-income areas of North America and central Europe, while the fastest increase in the incidence of CLL occurred in east Asia, central Europe, and Andean Latin America, according to the study.
Mortality rates
The age-standardized death rate from CLL also increased globally, from 0.40 per 100,000 persons in 1990 to 0.58 per 100,000 in 2019, for an estimated annual percentage change of 1.17.
The increases in death rates were observed across all income regions over the study period, with the highest age-standardized death rate in 2019, consistent with incidence rates, occurring in the highest-income regions, specifically in central Europe, western Europe, and high-income North America.
The geographic trends were similar in terms of disability-adjusted life-years, which increased globally from 9.20 per 100,000 persons in 1990 to 12.26 per 100,000 in 2019, for an estimated annual percentage change of 0.92%.
The authors noted that the geographic variation of CLL is consistent with research suggesting that White ancestry is a risk factor for this leukemia. And while the incidence of CLL is generally low in the 22 nations of the Arab League, the burden of disease is high in Israel.
Age and gender
The study shows that, during the past 30 years in general, CLL was more common among males, with some regional differences. For instance, in contrast to global trends, females in low-income regions accounted for the majority of incidence and mortality.
The majority of CLL cases occurred in people over the age of 50, which is consistent with known patterns of CLL occurring in older patients. Of note, the majority of cases between the ages of 50 and 69 were in low-income regions, while more than half of the incidence cases in higher-income regions were among those over the age of 70.
Risk factors
Key risk factors that may to be linked to CLL-related mortality and disability include high body mass index, occupational exposure to benzene and formaldehyde, and smoking, which was the strongest risk factor, the authors reported.
Obesity has previously been linked with an increased risk of lymphohematopoietic cancers in general and with poorer responses to treatment and reduced progression-free survival in CLL, in particular.
While the database otherwise provided only limited insights into potential CLL risk factors, “among the factors [the database] provided, the risk of benzene and formaldehyde exposure should be paid attention to,” Dr. Wang said in an interview.
“Different from other risk factors, emerging evidence has clearly pointed out the close relationship between benzene and formaldehyde exposure and hematological malignancies,” he explained. “With globalization, a large number of factories moved to less developed regions. The problem of occupational toxic exposure needs to be addressed.”
In general, the trends in the current study are consistent with previous research showing that, while there was a significant global decrease in leukemia incidence between 1990 and 2017, the incidence rates of CLL as well as acute myeloid leukemia (AML) significantly increased in most countries during that period.
“The age-standardized incidence rate of AML has steadily increased over the past 30 years, but not as rapidly as CLL,” Dr. Wang said.
He added that an encouraging sign is the “significant decline” in the age-standardized rate of chronic myeloid leukemia seen with the advent of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs).
“Perhaps for CLL, the emergence of epoch-making therapies like TKIs will also contribute to the reduction of disease burden [with that disease],” he said.
Surveillance bias?
The authors note a key caveat that the lower rates observed in low-income regions could be related to underreporting and lower screening of cancers in those regions. However, commenting on the study, Robert Peter Gale, MD, PhD, suggested that, conversely, the trends may represent a surveillance bias, reflecting an increased detection of CLL.
In fact, “it is most unlikely the incidence of CLL is really increasing,” Dr. Gale, visiting professor of hematology at the Hematology Research Centre, department of immunology and inflammation, Imperial College London, said in an interview.
“More than one-half of people with CLL have no signs or symptoms, and the diagnosis is made when they have a blood test done for unrelated reasons,” such as in the process of qualifying for life or medical insurance or for a new job, he explained. “The more testing you do, the more cases you will detect.”
Dr. Gale pointed out that research his team has conducted in China also showed an increasing incidence of CLL. However, “on closer study, we found about two-thirds of cases were incidental, namely cases detected under circumstances [such as blood testing for a job].”
Shen-Miao Yang, MD, first author of that study, agreed and noted that improved treatment with drugs such as Bruton kinase inhibitors also can have the effect of increasing incidence – by extending lives.
“More patients are diagnosed, [and] receive the new agent, and their longer survival contributes to the increased burden of CLL,” Dr. Yang of People’s Hospital of Peking University, Peking University Institute of Hematology, Beijing, said in an interview.
Furthermore, “advanced techniques such as flow cytometry and fluorescence in situ hybridization are routinely used for the diagnosis and prognosis of CLL patients – that also increases the CLL burden.”
Dr. Yang had no disclosures to report. Dr. Gale disclosed that he is a consultant to BeiGene, Fusion Pharma, La Jolla NanoMedical, MingSight Pharmaceuticals, CStone Pharmaceuticals, NexImmune, and Prolacta Bioscience; an adviser to Antengene Biotech; medical director of FFF Enterprises; a partner of AZCA; member of the board of directors of the Russian Foundation for Cancer Research Support; and on the scientific advisory board of StemRad.
FROM BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING ONLINE
Researchers tout new CLL prognostic tool
Researchers report that they’ve confirmed the usefulness of a new tool to help physicians pinpoint prognoses for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).
“Physicians may use this tool to support decisions regarding supportive care, manage the patient’s and physician’s expectations, and potentially tailor therapy,” study lead author and epidemiologist Emelie Rotbain, MD, PhD, of Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, said in an interview.
The study appeared Jan. 10 in the journal Blood Advances.
According to Dr. Rotbain,
Researchers developed the questions based on an analysis of categories in the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale that are most linked to event-free survival (EFS) from time of treatment.
The tool looks at three organ systems – vascular, upper GI, and endocrine – and asks about conditions such as diabetes and chronic use of a proton pump inhibitor, study coauthor and hematologist/oncologist Alexey V. Danilov, MD, PhD, codirector of the Toni Stephenson Lymphoma Center at the City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, Calif., said in an interview. The tool then generates a score based on the variables.
For the new study, the researchers retrospectively applied the tool to 4,975 patients who appeared in the Danish National CLL Register from 2008 to 2018 (61% male, median age 70.7.). Of those, 1,513 received first-line treatment during follow-up (median = 4.39 years).
At diagnosis, nearly two-thirds (63%) of patients were considered to be low risk. None of these had endocrinological, upper gastrointestinal, or vascular disease. Another 30% were considered to be at intermediate risk. The remaining 7% were at high risk. They had high levels of endocrinological (55.6%), upper gastrointestinal (64.6%), and vascular disease (91.0%).
The high-risk patients had a median survival of 6.0 years. The intermediate-risk patients lived for a median of 8.5 years, while the low-risk patients didn’t reach a median survival level.
Fifty-six percent of high-risk patients were treated within 4 years, compared to 20%-30% of intermediate- and low-risk patients. Median event-free survival from time of treatment was 8.4, 4.4, and 2.2 years for the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively.
The authors cautioned that “differences in survival by type of treatment, particularly in patients treated with targeted therapies who were underrepresented in this study, could influence survival and limit the generalizability of these results.”
They added that “while prognostic factors should remain key for treatment decisions, clinical trial data from pivotal phase 3 trials with novel targeted agents versus chemoimmunotherapy should be reanalyzed with addition of CLL-CI to assess the optimal treatment for patients according to CLL-CI.”
The tool is not yet available online, Dr. Danilov said, “but that is something that we as a group could potentially work on.”
Joanna Rhodes, MD, assistant professor with Northwell Health Cancer Institute/Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, N.Y., said in an interview that the tool is easy to use and appropriate to apply at first consultation. It should be used in conjunction with the International Prognostic Index for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL-IPI), she said.
“We often discuss frailty as a factor in types of and timing of treatment for patients with CLL, but often this is not directly measured in clinical practice,” she said. “The CLL-CI is associated with important outcomes, particularly overall survival, which is our most important metric in oncology. Additionally, it provides important information on time to first treatment and overall survival, which are useful when we are counseling patients.”
Like the study authors, Dr. Rhodes cautioned that the CLL-CI has not been validated specifically in patients treated with targeted therapies. “It may not be applicable in this setting, particularly in the front-line setting, as these treatments were underrepresented in this cohort. Further studies in this population are needed to answer this question.”
The study is funded in part by Novo Nordisk Foundation. Several study authors report various disclosures outside the scope of this study. Dr. Rhodes has no disclosures.
Researchers report that they’ve confirmed the usefulness of a new tool to help physicians pinpoint prognoses for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).
“Physicians may use this tool to support decisions regarding supportive care, manage the patient’s and physician’s expectations, and potentially tailor therapy,” study lead author and epidemiologist Emelie Rotbain, MD, PhD, of Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, said in an interview.
The study appeared Jan. 10 in the journal Blood Advances.
According to Dr. Rotbain,
Researchers developed the questions based on an analysis of categories in the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale that are most linked to event-free survival (EFS) from time of treatment.
The tool looks at three organ systems – vascular, upper GI, and endocrine – and asks about conditions such as diabetes and chronic use of a proton pump inhibitor, study coauthor and hematologist/oncologist Alexey V. Danilov, MD, PhD, codirector of the Toni Stephenson Lymphoma Center at the City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, Calif., said in an interview. The tool then generates a score based on the variables.
For the new study, the researchers retrospectively applied the tool to 4,975 patients who appeared in the Danish National CLL Register from 2008 to 2018 (61% male, median age 70.7.). Of those, 1,513 received first-line treatment during follow-up (median = 4.39 years).
At diagnosis, nearly two-thirds (63%) of patients were considered to be low risk. None of these had endocrinological, upper gastrointestinal, or vascular disease. Another 30% were considered to be at intermediate risk. The remaining 7% were at high risk. They had high levels of endocrinological (55.6%), upper gastrointestinal (64.6%), and vascular disease (91.0%).
The high-risk patients had a median survival of 6.0 years. The intermediate-risk patients lived for a median of 8.5 years, while the low-risk patients didn’t reach a median survival level.
Fifty-six percent of high-risk patients were treated within 4 years, compared to 20%-30% of intermediate- and low-risk patients. Median event-free survival from time of treatment was 8.4, 4.4, and 2.2 years for the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively.
The authors cautioned that “differences in survival by type of treatment, particularly in patients treated with targeted therapies who were underrepresented in this study, could influence survival and limit the generalizability of these results.”
They added that “while prognostic factors should remain key for treatment decisions, clinical trial data from pivotal phase 3 trials with novel targeted agents versus chemoimmunotherapy should be reanalyzed with addition of CLL-CI to assess the optimal treatment for patients according to CLL-CI.”
The tool is not yet available online, Dr. Danilov said, “but that is something that we as a group could potentially work on.”
Joanna Rhodes, MD, assistant professor with Northwell Health Cancer Institute/Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, N.Y., said in an interview that the tool is easy to use and appropriate to apply at first consultation. It should be used in conjunction with the International Prognostic Index for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL-IPI), she said.
“We often discuss frailty as a factor in types of and timing of treatment for patients with CLL, but often this is not directly measured in clinical practice,” she said. “The CLL-CI is associated with important outcomes, particularly overall survival, which is our most important metric in oncology. Additionally, it provides important information on time to first treatment and overall survival, which are useful when we are counseling patients.”
Like the study authors, Dr. Rhodes cautioned that the CLL-CI has not been validated specifically in patients treated with targeted therapies. “It may not be applicable in this setting, particularly in the front-line setting, as these treatments were underrepresented in this cohort. Further studies in this population are needed to answer this question.”
The study is funded in part by Novo Nordisk Foundation. Several study authors report various disclosures outside the scope of this study. Dr. Rhodes has no disclosures.
Researchers report that they’ve confirmed the usefulness of a new tool to help physicians pinpoint prognoses for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).
“Physicians may use this tool to support decisions regarding supportive care, manage the patient’s and physician’s expectations, and potentially tailor therapy,” study lead author and epidemiologist Emelie Rotbain, MD, PhD, of Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, said in an interview.
The study appeared Jan. 10 in the journal Blood Advances.
According to Dr. Rotbain,
Researchers developed the questions based on an analysis of categories in the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale that are most linked to event-free survival (EFS) from time of treatment.
The tool looks at three organ systems – vascular, upper GI, and endocrine – and asks about conditions such as diabetes and chronic use of a proton pump inhibitor, study coauthor and hematologist/oncologist Alexey V. Danilov, MD, PhD, codirector of the Toni Stephenson Lymphoma Center at the City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, Calif., said in an interview. The tool then generates a score based on the variables.
For the new study, the researchers retrospectively applied the tool to 4,975 patients who appeared in the Danish National CLL Register from 2008 to 2018 (61% male, median age 70.7.). Of those, 1,513 received first-line treatment during follow-up (median = 4.39 years).
At diagnosis, nearly two-thirds (63%) of patients were considered to be low risk. None of these had endocrinological, upper gastrointestinal, or vascular disease. Another 30% were considered to be at intermediate risk. The remaining 7% were at high risk. They had high levels of endocrinological (55.6%), upper gastrointestinal (64.6%), and vascular disease (91.0%).
The high-risk patients had a median survival of 6.0 years. The intermediate-risk patients lived for a median of 8.5 years, while the low-risk patients didn’t reach a median survival level.
Fifty-six percent of high-risk patients were treated within 4 years, compared to 20%-30% of intermediate- and low-risk patients. Median event-free survival from time of treatment was 8.4, 4.4, and 2.2 years for the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively.
The authors cautioned that “differences in survival by type of treatment, particularly in patients treated with targeted therapies who were underrepresented in this study, could influence survival and limit the generalizability of these results.”
They added that “while prognostic factors should remain key for treatment decisions, clinical trial data from pivotal phase 3 trials with novel targeted agents versus chemoimmunotherapy should be reanalyzed with addition of CLL-CI to assess the optimal treatment for patients according to CLL-CI.”
The tool is not yet available online, Dr. Danilov said, “but that is something that we as a group could potentially work on.”
Joanna Rhodes, MD, assistant professor with Northwell Health Cancer Institute/Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, N.Y., said in an interview that the tool is easy to use and appropriate to apply at first consultation. It should be used in conjunction with the International Prognostic Index for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL-IPI), she said.
“We often discuss frailty as a factor in types of and timing of treatment for patients with CLL, but often this is not directly measured in clinical practice,” she said. “The CLL-CI is associated with important outcomes, particularly overall survival, which is our most important metric in oncology. Additionally, it provides important information on time to first treatment and overall survival, which are useful when we are counseling patients.”
Like the study authors, Dr. Rhodes cautioned that the CLL-CI has not been validated specifically in patients treated with targeted therapies. “It may not be applicable in this setting, particularly in the front-line setting, as these treatments were underrepresented in this cohort. Further studies in this population are needed to answer this question.”
The study is funded in part by Novo Nordisk Foundation. Several study authors report various disclosures outside the scope of this study. Dr. Rhodes has no disclosures.
FROM BLOOD ADVANCES