Heidi Splete

Vigorous physical activity for 20 minutes a day was enough to maximize cardiorespiratory benefits in adolescents, based on data from more than 300 individuals.

Current recommendations for physical activity in children and adolescents from the World Health Organization call for moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) for an average of 60 minutes a day for physical and mental health; however, guidance on how much physical activity teens need to maximize cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) has not been determined, Samuel Joseph Burden, BMedSci, of John Radcliffe Hospital Oxford (England), and colleagues wrote.

“Although data in young people are limited, adult studies have shown that regular, brief vigorous physical activity is highly effective at improving health markers, including CRF, which is also an important marker of health in youth,” the researchers wrote.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers examined the associations between physical activity intensity and maximal CRF. The study population included 339 adolescents aged 13-14 years who were evaluated during the 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 school years. Participants wore wrist accelerometers to measure the intensity of physical activity and participated in 20-meter shuttle runs to demonstrate CRF. The researchers used partial multivariable linear regression to assess variables at different intensities including moderate physical activity (MPA), light physical activity (LPA), and sedentary time, as well as vigorous physical activity (VPA).

The wrist monitors measured the intensities of physical activity based on the bandpass-filtered followed by Euclidean norm metric (BFEN), a validated metric. “Previously validated thresholds for BFEN were used to determine the average duration of daily physical activity at each intensity: 0.1 g for LPA, 0.314 g for MPA, and 0.998 g for VPA,” the researchers wrote. Physical activity below the threshold for LPA was categorized as sedentary time.

Participants wore the accelerometers for 1 week; value recording included at least 3 weekdays and 1 weekend day, and each valid day required more than 6 hours of awake time.

Overall, VPA for up to 20 minutes was significantly associated with improved CRF. However, the benefits on CRF plateaued after that time, and longer duration of VPA was not associated with significantly greater improvements in CRF. Neither MPA nor LPA were associated with any improvements in CRF.

Participants who engaged in an average of 14 minutes (range, 12-17 minutes) of VPA per day met the median CRF.

The researchers also conducted independent t tests to assess differences in VPA at different CRF thresholds.

Those in the highest quartile of VPA had CRF z scores 1.03 higher, compared with those in the lower quartiles.

Given that current PA guidelines involve a combination of moderate and vigorous PA that could be met by MPA with no VPA, the current findings have public health implications for improving CRF in adolescents, the researchers wrote.

Even with MPA as an option, most adolescents fail to meet the recommendations of at least 60 minutes of MVPA, they said. “One possible reason is that this duration is quite long, requiring a daily time commitment that some may find difficult to maintain. A shorter target of 20 minutes might be easier to schedule daily and a focus on VPA would simplify messages about the intensity of activity that is likely to improve CRF.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of data from only two schools in the United Kingdom, which may limit generalizability, and future research would ideally include a more direct assessment of VO₂ max, the researchers wrote. However, the results were strengthened by the large and diverse study population, including teens with a wide range of body mass index as well as CRF.

Future research is needed to test whether interventions based on a target of 20 minutes of VPA creates significant improvements in adolescent cardiometabolic health, the researchers concluded.
 

Any activity has value for sedentary teens

The current study suggests that counseling teens about physical activity may be less challenging for clinicians if optimal cardiorespiratory benefits can be reached with shorter bouts of activity, Michele LaBotz, MD, of Intermed Sports Medicine, South Portland, Maine, and Sarah Hoffman, DO, of Tufts University, Boston, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The results have two key implications for pediatricians, the authors said. First, “optimal CRF can be achieved with much shorter periods of activity than previously recommended.” Second, “current ‘moderate to vigorous’ PA recommendations may not be sufficient to improve CRF in adolescents, if achieved through moderate activity only.”

However, the editorialists emphasized that, although shorter periods of higher-intensity exercise reduce the time burden for teens and families, specific education is needed to explain the extra effort involved in exercising vigorously enough for cardiorespiratory benefits.

Patients can be counseled that activity is vigorous when they start to sweat, their face gets red, and they feel short of breath and unable to talk during activity,” they explained. These sensations may be new and uncomfortable for children and teens who have been quite sedentary or used to low-intensity activity. Dr. LaBotz and Dr. Hoffman advised pediatricians to counsel patients to build intensity gradually, with “exercise snacks,” that involve several minutes of activity that become more challenging over time.

“Exercise snacks can include anything that elevates the heart rate for a minute or more, such as running up and down the stairs a few times; chasing the dog around the backyard; or just putting on some music and dancing hard,” the editorialists wrote.

“Some exercise is better than none, and extrapolating from adult data, the biggest benefit likely occurs when we can help our most sedentary and least fit patients become a bit more active, even if it falls short of currently recommended levels,” they concluded.

The study was supported by grants to various researchers from the British Heart Foundation, the Elizabeth Casson Trust, the U.K. National Institute of Health Research, the Professor Nigel Groome Studentship scheme (Oxford Brookes University), and the U.K. Department of Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Vigorous physical activity for 20 minutes a day was enough to maximize cardiorespiratory benefits in adolescents, based on data from more than 300 individuals.

Current recommendations for physical activity in children and adolescents from the World Health Organization call for moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) for an average of 60 minutes a day for physical and mental health; however, guidance on how much physical activity teens need to maximize cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) has not been determined, Samuel Joseph Burden, BMedSci, of John Radcliffe Hospital Oxford (England), and colleagues wrote.

“Although data in young people are limited, adult studies have shown that regular, brief vigorous physical activity is highly effective at improving health markers, including CRF, which is also an important marker of health in youth,” the researchers wrote.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers examined the associations between physical activity intensity and maximal CRF. The study population included 339 adolescents aged 13-14 years who were evaluated during the 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 school years. Participants wore wrist accelerometers to measure the intensity of physical activity and participated in 20-meter shuttle runs to demonstrate CRF. The researchers used partial multivariable linear regression to assess variables at different intensities including moderate physical activity (MPA), light physical activity (LPA), and sedentary time, as well as vigorous physical activity (VPA).

The wrist monitors measured the intensities of physical activity based on the bandpass-filtered followed by Euclidean norm metric (BFEN), a validated metric. “Previously validated thresholds for BFEN were used to determine the average duration of daily physical activity at each intensity: 0.1 g for LPA, 0.314 g for MPA, and 0.998 g for VPA,” the researchers wrote. Physical activity below the threshold for LPA was categorized as sedentary time.

Participants wore the accelerometers for 1 week; value recording included at least 3 weekdays and 1 weekend day, and each valid day required more than 6 hours of awake time.

Overall, VPA for up to 20 minutes was significantly associated with improved CRF. However, the benefits on CRF plateaued after that time, and longer duration of VPA was not associated with significantly greater improvements in CRF. Neither MPA nor LPA were associated with any improvements in CRF.

Participants who engaged in an average of 14 minutes (range, 12-17 minutes) of VPA per day met the median CRF.

The researchers also conducted independent t tests to assess differences in VPA at different CRF thresholds.

Those in the highest quartile of VPA had CRF z scores 1.03 higher, compared with those in the lower quartiles.

Given that current PA guidelines involve a combination of moderate and vigorous PA that could be met by MPA with no VPA, the current findings have public health implications for improving CRF in adolescents, the researchers wrote.

Even with MPA as an option, most adolescents fail to meet the recommendations of at least 60 minutes of MVPA, they said. “One possible reason is that this duration is quite long, requiring a daily time commitment that some may find difficult to maintain. A shorter target of 20 minutes might be easier to schedule daily and a focus on VPA would simplify messages about the intensity of activity that is likely to improve CRF.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of data from only two schools in the United Kingdom, which may limit generalizability, and future research would ideally include a more direct assessment of VO₂ max, the researchers wrote. However, the results were strengthened by the large and diverse study population, including teens with a wide range of body mass index as well as CRF.

Future research is needed to test whether interventions based on a target of 20 minutes of VPA creates significant improvements in adolescent cardiometabolic health, the researchers concluded.
 

Any activity has value for sedentary teens

The current study suggests that counseling teens about physical activity may be less challenging for clinicians if optimal cardiorespiratory benefits can be reached with shorter bouts of activity, Michele LaBotz, MD, of Intermed Sports Medicine, South Portland, Maine, and Sarah Hoffman, DO, of Tufts University, Boston, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The results have two key implications for pediatricians, the authors said. First, “optimal CRF can be achieved with much shorter periods of activity than previously recommended.” Second, “current ‘moderate to vigorous’ PA recommendations may not be sufficient to improve CRF in adolescents, if achieved through moderate activity only.”

However, the editorialists emphasized that, although shorter periods of higher-intensity exercise reduce the time burden for teens and families, specific education is needed to explain the extra effort involved in exercising vigorously enough for cardiorespiratory benefits.

Patients can be counseled that activity is vigorous when they start to sweat, their face gets red, and they feel short of breath and unable to talk during activity,” they explained. These sensations may be new and uncomfortable for children and teens who have been quite sedentary or used to low-intensity activity. Dr. LaBotz and Dr. Hoffman advised pediatricians to counsel patients to build intensity gradually, with “exercise snacks,” that involve several minutes of activity that become more challenging over time.

“Exercise snacks can include anything that elevates the heart rate for a minute or more, such as running up and down the stairs a few times; chasing the dog around the backyard; or just putting on some music and dancing hard,” the editorialists wrote.

“Some exercise is better than none, and extrapolating from adult data, the biggest benefit likely occurs when we can help our most sedentary and least fit patients become a bit more active, even if it falls short of currently recommended levels,” they concluded.

The study was supported by grants to various researchers from the British Heart Foundation, the Elizabeth Casson Trust, the U.K. National Institute of Health Research, the Professor Nigel Groome Studentship scheme (Oxford Brookes University), and the U.K. Department of Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Vigorous physical activity for 20 minutes a day was enough to maximize cardiorespiratory benefits in adolescents, based on data from more than 300 individuals.

Current recommendations for physical activity in children and adolescents from the World Health Organization call for moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) for an average of 60 minutes a day for physical and mental health; however, guidance on how much physical activity teens need to maximize cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) has not been determined, Samuel Joseph Burden, BMedSci, of John Radcliffe Hospital Oxford (England), and colleagues wrote.

“Although data in young people are limited, adult studies have shown that regular, brief vigorous physical activity is highly effective at improving health markers, including CRF, which is also an important marker of health in youth,” the researchers wrote.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers examined the associations between physical activity intensity and maximal CRF. The study population included 339 adolescents aged 13-14 years who were evaluated during the 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 school years. Participants wore wrist accelerometers to measure the intensity of physical activity and participated in 20-meter shuttle runs to demonstrate CRF. The researchers used partial multivariable linear regression to assess variables at different intensities including moderate physical activity (MPA), light physical activity (LPA), and sedentary time, as well as vigorous physical activity (VPA).

The wrist monitors measured the intensities of physical activity based on the bandpass-filtered followed by Euclidean norm metric (BFEN), a validated metric. “Previously validated thresholds for BFEN were used to determine the average duration of daily physical activity at each intensity: 0.1 g for LPA, 0.314 g for MPA, and 0.998 g for VPA,” the researchers wrote. Physical activity below the threshold for LPA was categorized as sedentary time.

Participants wore the accelerometers for 1 week; value recording included at least 3 weekdays and 1 weekend day, and each valid day required more than 6 hours of awake time.

Overall, VPA for up to 20 minutes was significantly associated with improved CRF. However, the benefits on CRF plateaued after that time, and longer duration of VPA was not associated with significantly greater improvements in CRF. Neither MPA nor LPA were associated with any improvements in CRF.

Participants who engaged in an average of 14 minutes (range, 12-17 minutes) of VPA per day met the median CRF.

The researchers also conducted independent t tests to assess differences in VPA at different CRF thresholds.

Those in the highest quartile of VPA had CRF z scores 1.03 higher, compared with those in the lower quartiles.

Given that current PA guidelines involve a combination of moderate and vigorous PA that could be met by MPA with no VPA, the current findings have public health implications for improving CRF in adolescents, the researchers wrote.

Even with MPA as an option, most adolescents fail to meet the recommendations of at least 60 minutes of MVPA, they said. “One possible reason is that this duration is quite long, requiring a daily time commitment that some may find difficult to maintain. A shorter target of 20 minutes might be easier to schedule daily and a focus on VPA would simplify messages about the intensity of activity that is likely to improve CRF.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of data from only two schools in the United Kingdom, which may limit generalizability, and future research would ideally include a more direct assessment of VO₂ max, the researchers wrote. However, the results were strengthened by the large and diverse study population, including teens with a wide range of body mass index as well as CRF.

Future research is needed to test whether interventions based on a target of 20 minutes of VPA creates significant improvements in adolescent cardiometabolic health, the researchers concluded.
 

Any activity has value for sedentary teens

The current study suggests that counseling teens about physical activity may be less challenging for clinicians if optimal cardiorespiratory benefits can be reached with shorter bouts of activity, Michele LaBotz, MD, of Intermed Sports Medicine, South Portland, Maine, and Sarah Hoffman, DO, of Tufts University, Boston, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The results have two key implications for pediatricians, the authors said. First, “optimal CRF can be achieved with much shorter periods of activity than previously recommended.” Second, “current ‘moderate to vigorous’ PA recommendations may not be sufficient to improve CRF in adolescents, if achieved through moderate activity only.”

However, the editorialists emphasized that, although shorter periods of higher-intensity exercise reduce the time burden for teens and families, specific education is needed to explain the extra effort involved in exercising vigorously enough for cardiorespiratory benefits.

Patients can be counseled that activity is vigorous when they start to sweat, their face gets red, and they feel short of breath and unable to talk during activity,” they explained. These sensations may be new and uncomfortable for children and teens who have been quite sedentary or used to low-intensity activity. Dr. LaBotz and Dr. Hoffman advised pediatricians to counsel patients to build intensity gradually, with “exercise snacks,” that involve several minutes of activity that become more challenging over time.

“Exercise snacks can include anything that elevates the heart rate for a minute or more, such as running up and down the stairs a few times; chasing the dog around the backyard; or just putting on some music and dancing hard,” the editorialists wrote.

“Some exercise is better than none, and extrapolating from adult data, the biggest benefit likely occurs when we can help our most sedentary and least fit patients become a bit more active, even if it falls short of currently recommended levels,” they concluded.

The study was supported by grants to various researchers from the British Heart Foundation, the Elizabeth Casson Trust, the U.K. National Institute of Health Research, the Professor Nigel Groome Studentship scheme (Oxford Brookes University), and the U.K. Department of Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Lisocabtagene maraleucel, a novel chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell product, evoked a clinical response in patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma in a pilot study presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Not all patients with relapsed or refractory large B cell lymphoma (r/r LBCL) are candidates for high-dose chemotherapy or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), and options for second-line therapies for this population are limited, said Dr. Alison Sehgal of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in her presentation of the findings.

Lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) is a CD19-directed CAR T-cell product. In a previous phase 3 randomized trial (the TRANSFORM study), lisocabtagene showed superiority over salvage chemotherapy for LBCL patients who were fit candidates for stem cell transplant, but its use in older, frail patients who are not transplant candidates remains uncertain, wrote Dr. Sehgal and colleagues in their poster at the meeting.

In the study, the researchers identified 74 patients with r/r LBCL. Of these, 61 were treated with liso-cel. The patients ranged in age from 53 to 84 years, with a median age of 74 years, 61% were male, and 89% were white. Approximately half were refractory and half were relapsed.

For the therapy, patients underwent lymphodepletion with cyclophosphamide and fludarabine, followed 2-7 days later by an infusion of liso-cel at a target dose of 100 x 106 CAR+ T cells; all patients had at least 6 months of follow-up from their first response.

The primary endpoint of overall response rate occurred in 80% of the patients, and clinically meaningful complete response occurred in 54% over a median follow-up of 12.3 months.

“Clinically meaningful CRs were observed across all subgroups,” Dr. Sehgal said in her presentation.

The response lasted a median of 21.7 months, and the median follow-up for duration of response was 15.5 months. The median overall survival was not reached, but the median progression-free survival was 9.0 months, with a median follow-up period of 13.0 months.

Responses occurred across all prespecified subgroups, with no significant differences in either safety or efficacy based on hematopoietic cell transplantation–specific comorbidity index (HCT-CI) scores.

“Despite the advanced age and comorbidities of the population, the safety profile was consistent with previous reports,” and no new or increased safety signals appeared, Dr. Sehgal said.

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or higher were neutropenia (48%), leukopenia (21%), thrombocytopenia (20%), and anemia (11%). Cytokine-release syndrome (CRS) occurred in 23 patients (38%); of these, 1 patient was grade 3 and none were grades 4 or 5.

Approximately one-third of the patients (31%) experienced neurological events during the study; three cases were grade 3, none were grades 4 or 5. Patients with CRS or NE were treated with tocilizumab (10%), corticosteroids (3%), or both (20%). Treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 79% of patients overall, including grade 5 events in two patients because of COVID-19.

The study findings were limited by the small sample size and lack of controls. However, the results support the potential use of liso-cel as a second-line therapy for r/r LBCL patients who are not candidates for HSCT, Dr. Sehgal concluded.
 

Addressing an ongoing unmet need

In an interview, study coauthor Dr. Leo I. Gordon of Northwestern University, Chicago, observed, “Patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma who are not considered candidates for stem cell transplant following first-line treatment, based on age, comorbidities, health status, or other prognostic factors, have more difficult-to-treat disease, poor prognosis, and more limited treatment options.”

Dr. Gordon noted that the PILOT study is the only trial to evaluate a CAR T-cell therapy as a second-line treatment for r/r LBCL patients who are not considered candidates for stem cell transplant.

“Data from the primary analysis of the PILOT study further demonstrate the potential value of using CAR T-cell therapies earlier in the treatment paradigm for relapsed or refractory LBCL to help improve clinical outcomes and address ongoing unmet need,” he said.

CAR T-cell therapies have shown benefits in later lines for r/r LBCL and as a second-line treatment for r/r LBCL patients who are deemed candidates for stem cell transplant, “so we were encouraged and not surprised by these data.”

However, Dr. Gordon noted, “There may be some patients with similar presentations that might have a transplant, so one limitation of the trial is how one defines patients where transplant is the intended therapy, and that assessment varies among institutions and clinicians.”

An application for liso-cel as a treatment for patients with r/r LBCL who have failed front-line therapy is currently under Priority Review with the FDA, with a Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) goal date of June 24, 2022, he added.
 

Liso-cel may fill treatment gap as second-line therapy

The current study is important because “the long-term outcomes of patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma who are not candidates for stem cell transplantation is very poor,” said Dr. Brian Till of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, in an interview.

“CAR T therapy leads to about a 40% cure rate, but is currently only available in this population after the failure of second-line therapy,” said Dr. Till, who was not involved in the study.

“Given that liso-cel was shown to improve outcomes in the second-line setting among transplant candidates, it is logical to consider it as second-line therapy in nontransplant candidates as well, who are otherwise fit enough to receive CAR T therapy,” Dr. Till explained.

“This study showed a rate of long-term progression-free survival similar to what has been observed in the third-line setting and was reasonably well tolerated in these older patients,” said Dr. Till. The results suggest “that second-line liso-cel may be an attractive treatment strategy for patients who are not candidates for stem cell transplantation due to advanced age or comorbidities,” he noted.

Dr. Till had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

The study was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb.

Lisocabtagene maraleucel, a novel chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell product, evoked a clinical response in patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma in a pilot study presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Not all patients with relapsed or refractory large B cell lymphoma (r/r LBCL) are candidates for high-dose chemotherapy or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), and options for second-line therapies for this population are limited, said Dr. Alison Sehgal of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in her presentation of the findings.

Lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) is a CD19-directed CAR T-cell product. In a previous phase 3 randomized trial (the TRANSFORM study), lisocabtagene showed superiority over salvage chemotherapy for LBCL patients who were fit candidates for stem cell transplant, but its use in older, frail patients who are not transplant candidates remains uncertain, wrote Dr. Sehgal and colleagues in their poster at the meeting.

In the study, the researchers identified 74 patients with r/r LBCL. Of these, 61 were treated with liso-cel. The patients ranged in age from 53 to 84 years, with a median age of 74 years, 61% were male, and 89% were white. Approximately half were refractory and half were relapsed.

For the therapy, patients underwent lymphodepletion with cyclophosphamide and fludarabine, followed 2-7 days later by an infusion of liso-cel at a target dose of 100 x 106 CAR+ T cells; all patients had at least 6 months of follow-up from their first response.

The primary endpoint of overall response rate occurred in 80% of the patients, and clinically meaningful complete response occurred in 54% over a median follow-up of 12.3 months.

“Clinically meaningful CRs were observed across all subgroups,” Dr. Sehgal said in her presentation.

The response lasted a median of 21.7 months, and the median follow-up for duration of response was 15.5 months. The median overall survival was not reached, but the median progression-free survival was 9.0 months, with a median follow-up period of 13.0 months.

Responses occurred across all prespecified subgroups, with no significant differences in either safety or efficacy based on hematopoietic cell transplantation–specific comorbidity index (HCT-CI) scores.

“Despite the advanced age and comorbidities of the population, the safety profile was consistent with previous reports,” and no new or increased safety signals appeared, Dr. Sehgal said.

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or higher were neutropenia (48%), leukopenia (21%), thrombocytopenia (20%), and anemia (11%). Cytokine-release syndrome (CRS) occurred in 23 patients (38%); of these, 1 patient was grade 3 and none were grades 4 or 5.

Approximately one-third of the patients (31%) experienced neurological events during the study; three cases were grade 3, none were grades 4 or 5. Patients with CRS or NE were treated with tocilizumab (10%), corticosteroids (3%), or both (20%). Treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 79% of patients overall, including grade 5 events in two patients because of COVID-19.

The study findings were limited by the small sample size and lack of controls. However, the results support the potential use of liso-cel as a second-line therapy for r/r LBCL patients who are not candidates for HSCT, Dr. Sehgal concluded.
 

Addressing an ongoing unmet need

In an interview, study coauthor Dr. Leo I. Gordon of Northwestern University, Chicago, observed, “Patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma who are not considered candidates for stem cell transplant following first-line treatment, based on age, comorbidities, health status, or other prognostic factors, have more difficult-to-treat disease, poor prognosis, and more limited treatment options.”

Dr. Gordon noted that the PILOT study is the only trial to evaluate a CAR T-cell therapy as a second-line treatment for r/r LBCL patients who are not considered candidates for stem cell transplant.

“Data from the primary analysis of the PILOT study further demonstrate the potential value of using CAR T-cell therapies earlier in the treatment paradigm for relapsed or refractory LBCL to help improve clinical outcomes and address ongoing unmet need,” he said.

CAR T-cell therapies have shown benefits in later lines for r/r LBCL and as a second-line treatment for r/r LBCL patients who are deemed candidates for stem cell transplant, “so we were encouraged and not surprised by these data.”

However, Dr. Gordon noted, “There may be some patients with similar presentations that might have a transplant, so one limitation of the trial is how one defines patients where transplant is the intended therapy, and that assessment varies among institutions and clinicians.”

An application for liso-cel as a treatment for patients with r/r LBCL who have failed front-line therapy is currently under Priority Review with the FDA, with a Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) goal date of June 24, 2022, he added.
 

Liso-cel may fill treatment gap as second-line therapy

The current study is important because “the long-term outcomes of patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma who are not candidates for stem cell transplantation is very poor,” said Dr. Brian Till of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, in an interview.

“CAR T therapy leads to about a 40% cure rate, but is currently only available in this population after the failure of second-line therapy,” said Dr. Till, who was not involved in the study.

“Given that liso-cel was shown to improve outcomes in the second-line setting among transplant candidates, it is logical to consider it as second-line therapy in nontransplant candidates as well, who are otherwise fit enough to receive CAR T therapy,” Dr. Till explained.

“This study showed a rate of long-term progression-free survival similar to what has been observed in the third-line setting and was reasonably well tolerated in these older patients,” said Dr. Till. The results suggest “that second-line liso-cel may be an attractive treatment strategy for patients who are not candidates for stem cell transplantation due to advanced age or comorbidities,” he noted.

Dr. Till had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

The study was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb.

Lisocabtagene maraleucel, a novel chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell product, evoked a clinical response in patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma in a pilot study presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Not all patients with relapsed or refractory large B cell lymphoma (r/r LBCL) are candidates for high-dose chemotherapy or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), and options for second-line therapies for this population are limited, said Dr. Alison Sehgal of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in her presentation of the findings.

Lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) is a CD19-directed CAR T-cell product. In a previous phase 3 randomized trial (the TRANSFORM study), lisocabtagene showed superiority over salvage chemotherapy for LBCL patients who were fit candidates for stem cell transplant, but its use in older, frail patients who are not transplant candidates remains uncertain, wrote Dr. Sehgal and colleagues in their poster at the meeting.

In the study, the researchers identified 74 patients with r/r LBCL. Of these, 61 were treated with liso-cel. The patients ranged in age from 53 to 84 years, with a median age of 74 years, 61% were male, and 89% were white. Approximately half were refractory and half were relapsed.

For the therapy, patients underwent lymphodepletion with cyclophosphamide and fludarabine, followed 2-7 days later by an infusion of liso-cel at a target dose of 100 x 106 CAR+ T cells; all patients had at least 6 months of follow-up from their first response.

The primary endpoint of overall response rate occurred in 80% of the patients, and clinically meaningful complete response occurred in 54% over a median follow-up of 12.3 months.

“Clinically meaningful CRs were observed across all subgroups,” Dr. Sehgal said in her presentation.

The response lasted a median of 21.7 months, and the median follow-up for duration of response was 15.5 months. The median overall survival was not reached, but the median progression-free survival was 9.0 months, with a median follow-up period of 13.0 months.

Responses occurred across all prespecified subgroups, with no significant differences in either safety or efficacy based on hematopoietic cell transplantation–specific comorbidity index (HCT-CI) scores.

“Despite the advanced age and comorbidities of the population, the safety profile was consistent with previous reports,” and no new or increased safety signals appeared, Dr. Sehgal said.

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or higher were neutropenia (48%), leukopenia (21%), thrombocytopenia (20%), and anemia (11%). Cytokine-release syndrome (CRS) occurred in 23 patients (38%); of these, 1 patient was grade 3 and none were grades 4 or 5.

Approximately one-third of the patients (31%) experienced neurological events during the study; three cases were grade 3, none were grades 4 or 5. Patients with CRS or NE were treated with tocilizumab (10%), corticosteroids (3%), or both (20%). Treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 79% of patients overall, including grade 5 events in two patients because of COVID-19.

The study findings were limited by the small sample size and lack of controls. However, the results support the potential use of liso-cel as a second-line therapy for r/r LBCL patients who are not candidates for HSCT, Dr. Sehgal concluded.
 

Addressing an ongoing unmet need

In an interview, study coauthor Dr. Leo I. Gordon of Northwestern University, Chicago, observed, “Patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma who are not considered candidates for stem cell transplant following first-line treatment, based on age, comorbidities, health status, or other prognostic factors, have more difficult-to-treat disease, poor prognosis, and more limited treatment options.”

Dr. Gordon noted that the PILOT study is the only trial to evaluate a CAR T-cell therapy as a second-line treatment for r/r LBCL patients who are not considered candidates for stem cell transplant.

“Data from the primary analysis of the PILOT study further demonstrate the potential value of using CAR T-cell therapies earlier in the treatment paradigm for relapsed or refractory LBCL to help improve clinical outcomes and address ongoing unmet need,” he said.

CAR T-cell therapies have shown benefits in later lines for r/r LBCL and as a second-line treatment for r/r LBCL patients who are deemed candidates for stem cell transplant, “so we were encouraged and not surprised by these data.”

However, Dr. Gordon noted, “There may be some patients with similar presentations that might have a transplant, so one limitation of the trial is how one defines patients where transplant is the intended therapy, and that assessment varies among institutions and clinicians.”

An application for liso-cel as a treatment for patients with r/r LBCL who have failed front-line therapy is currently under Priority Review with the FDA, with a Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) goal date of June 24, 2022, he added.
 

Liso-cel may fill treatment gap as second-line therapy

The current study is important because “the long-term outcomes of patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma who are not candidates for stem cell transplantation is very poor,” said Dr. Brian Till of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, in an interview.

“CAR T therapy leads to about a 40% cure rate, but is currently only available in this population after the failure of second-line therapy,” said Dr. Till, who was not involved in the study.

“Given that liso-cel was shown to improve outcomes in the second-line setting among transplant candidates, it is logical to consider it as second-line therapy in nontransplant candidates as well, who are otherwise fit enough to receive CAR T therapy,” Dr. Till explained.

“This study showed a rate of long-term progression-free survival similar to what has been observed in the third-line setting and was reasonably well tolerated in these older patients,” said Dr. Till. The results suggest “that second-line liso-cel may be an attractive treatment strategy for patients who are not candidates for stem cell transplantation due to advanced age or comorbidities,” he noted.

Dr. Till had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

The study was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb.

Approximately half of patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) treated with glofitamab showed clinical response, based on phase 2 data from 154 adults.

“We know that relapsed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma has a particularly poor prognosis,” especially for patients who have undergone at least two therapies, Dr. Michael Dickinson, MBBS, of the University of Melbourne said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Bispecific T cell–recruiting antibodies are emerging as a novel treatment option for B-cell cancers, said Dr. Dickinson.

Glofitamab is distinct among these therapies for its configuration that is bivalent for CD20 and monovalent for CD3, providing more potency than a 1:1 format, Dr. Dickinson explained in his presentation.

The study population included 154 adults aged 21-90 years with DLBCL who had received at least two prior treatments; all had received prior anti-CD20 Ab, and 149 had received anthracycline. The median age of the patients was 66 years, 65% were male, 75% had Ann Arbor stage III or IV disease, and 90% were refractory to any prior therapy.

The patients received intravenous glutamate-pyruvate transaminase, followed by an initial intravenous dose of glofitamab 7 days later. Glofitamab was given as step-up doses starting with 2.5 mg to a target of 30 mg.

The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) during initial treatment using Independent Review Committee (IRC) criteria, with overall response rate, duration of response, duration of complete response, progression-free survival, and overall survival as key secondary outcomes.

At a median of 12.6 months’ follow-up, the CR and overall response rates were 39.4% and 51.6%, respectively.

“Responses were achieved early; the median time to first complete response was 42 days,” Dr. Dickinson reported. Of the 38 patients with CR at the data cutoff point, 33 remained in complete remission (87%) based on IRC criteria. Complete response rates were consistent across prespecified subgroups, notably 42% of patients with no prior chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy and 70% and 34%, of those who were relapsed or refractory, respectively, to their last prior treatments.

The median duration of overall response was 18.4 months, and the median duration of complete response had not yet been estimated, Dr. Dickinson said. The median progression-free survival and overall survival rates were 4.9 months and 11.5 months, respectively, and the estimated 12-month overall survival was 49.8%.

“These are highly clinically significant results for this difficult to treat population,” Dr. Dickinson said in his presentation.

The most common adverse event was cytokine release syndrome (CRS), which occurred in 63% of patients. Of these, 3.9% were grade 3 or 4. Patients received corticosteroids (27.8%) or tocilizumab for management of CRS.

“As we have shown before, this is a first-course phenomenon, becoming far less frequent once step up dosing is complete,” Dr. Dickinson said in the presentation. “The median time to CRS is predictable, occurring around 10 hours after the IV infusion,” he said. Overall, 3.2% of the patients discontinued because of an adverse event.

A total of eight deaths occurred during the study; five of these were related to COVID-19 and the remaining three were in patients with manifest progression of disease.

Infections are to be expected in such a heavily treated population, and 14.9% of patients developed infections of grade 3 or higher, said Dr. Dickinson. Neutropenia of any grade occurred in 37.7%, febrile neutropenia in 2.6%. Neurological events occurred in 38.3% of patients; 3.2% were grade 3 or higher.

The study did not prospectively record immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome, Dr. Dickinson said, but an estimate suggests a rate of 2.6%, and none of the events were considered to be related to glofitamab, he noted.

The researchers also looked at a supporting cohort of 35 patients with a median follow up of more than 2 years. In this group, the complete remission rate was 35% and the median duration of remission was 34.2 months. “Our six longest patients have been in remission for longer than 3 years,” Dr. Dickinson said.

The latest glofitamab data “reflect routine practice and an area of need for this disease,” said Dr. Dickinson.

“I think these results will prove to be very meaningful for our patients with large cell lymphoma, and this drug will prove to be an important treatment option,” he said.
 

More follow-up needed, but findings show promise

A number of CD20/CD3-bispecific antibodies are in development for patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphomas, said study discussant Kerry J. Savage, MD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, who served as the discussant for the session.

Glofitamab differs from other treatments in that it is bivalent for CD20 and monovalent for CD3, “which imparts greater potency,” she noted. Glofitamab also has a silent Fc region that is designed to extend half-life and reduce toxicity.

Patients in the current study had at least two prior regimens, and importantly, “CR rates were similar, regardless of prior therapy,” said Dr. Savage. The longer follow-up cohort provides “a hint that the response may be durable.”

Looking ahead, “the important thing will be response durability” with longer follow-up, she added. “We don’t know the curative potential yet, but the results are encouraging so far.”

In the meantime, “the best use of bispecific antibodies is through clinical trials,” Dr. Savage said. “Keep an eye out for bispecific antibody combination trials as well.”

The study was funded by F. Hoffmann–La Roche. Dr. Dickinson disclosed honoraria from or serving as a consultant to companies including Amgen, Bristol Myers-Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, and Roche. Dr. Savage disclosed relationships, funding, and support from multiple companies including Bristol Myers-Squibb, Janssen Oncology, Kyowa, Merck, Novartis Canada Pharmaceuticals, Seattle Genetics and Roche.

Approximately half of patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) treated with glofitamab showed clinical response, based on phase 2 data from 154 adults.

“We know that relapsed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma has a particularly poor prognosis,” especially for patients who have undergone at least two therapies, Dr. Michael Dickinson, MBBS, of the University of Melbourne said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Bispecific T cell–recruiting antibodies are emerging as a novel treatment option for B-cell cancers, said Dr. Dickinson.

Glofitamab is distinct among these therapies for its configuration that is bivalent for CD20 and monovalent for CD3, providing more potency than a 1:1 format, Dr. Dickinson explained in his presentation.

The study population included 154 adults aged 21-90 years with DLBCL who had received at least two prior treatments; all had received prior anti-CD20 Ab, and 149 had received anthracycline. The median age of the patients was 66 years, 65% were male, 75% had Ann Arbor stage III or IV disease, and 90% were refractory to any prior therapy.

The patients received intravenous glutamate-pyruvate transaminase, followed by an initial intravenous dose of glofitamab 7 days later. Glofitamab was given as step-up doses starting with 2.5 mg to a target of 30 mg.

The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) during initial treatment using Independent Review Committee (IRC) criteria, with overall response rate, duration of response, duration of complete response, progression-free survival, and overall survival as key secondary outcomes.

At a median of 12.6 months’ follow-up, the CR and overall response rates were 39.4% and 51.6%, respectively.

“Responses were achieved early; the median time to first complete response was 42 days,” Dr. Dickinson reported. Of the 38 patients with CR at the data cutoff point, 33 remained in complete remission (87%) based on IRC criteria. Complete response rates were consistent across prespecified subgroups, notably 42% of patients with no prior chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy and 70% and 34%, of those who were relapsed or refractory, respectively, to their last prior treatments.

The median duration of overall response was 18.4 months, and the median duration of complete response had not yet been estimated, Dr. Dickinson said. The median progression-free survival and overall survival rates were 4.9 months and 11.5 months, respectively, and the estimated 12-month overall survival was 49.8%.

“These are highly clinically significant results for this difficult to treat population,” Dr. Dickinson said in his presentation.

The most common adverse event was cytokine release syndrome (CRS), which occurred in 63% of patients. Of these, 3.9% were grade 3 or 4. Patients received corticosteroids (27.8%) or tocilizumab for management of CRS.

“As we have shown before, this is a first-course phenomenon, becoming far less frequent once step up dosing is complete,” Dr. Dickinson said in the presentation. “The median time to CRS is predictable, occurring around 10 hours after the IV infusion,” he said. Overall, 3.2% of the patients discontinued because of an adverse event.

A total of eight deaths occurred during the study; five of these were related to COVID-19 and the remaining three were in patients with manifest progression of disease.

Infections are to be expected in such a heavily treated population, and 14.9% of patients developed infections of grade 3 or higher, said Dr. Dickinson. Neutropenia of any grade occurred in 37.7%, febrile neutropenia in 2.6%. Neurological events occurred in 38.3% of patients; 3.2% were grade 3 or higher.

The study did not prospectively record immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome, Dr. Dickinson said, but an estimate suggests a rate of 2.6%, and none of the events were considered to be related to glofitamab, he noted.

The researchers also looked at a supporting cohort of 35 patients with a median follow up of more than 2 years. In this group, the complete remission rate was 35% and the median duration of remission was 34.2 months. “Our six longest patients have been in remission for longer than 3 years,” Dr. Dickinson said.

The latest glofitamab data “reflect routine practice and an area of need for this disease,” said Dr. Dickinson.

“I think these results will prove to be very meaningful for our patients with large cell lymphoma, and this drug will prove to be an important treatment option,” he said.
 

More follow-up needed, but findings show promise

A number of CD20/CD3-bispecific antibodies are in development for patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphomas, said study discussant Kerry J. Savage, MD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, who served as the discussant for the session.

Glofitamab differs from other treatments in that it is bivalent for CD20 and monovalent for CD3, “which imparts greater potency,” she noted. Glofitamab also has a silent Fc region that is designed to extend half-life and reduce toxicity.

Patients in the current study had at least two prior regimens, and importantly, “CR rates were similar, regardless of prior therapy,” said Dr. Savage. The longer follow-up cohort provides “a hint that the response may be durable.”

Looking ahead, “the important thing will be response durability” with longer follow-up, she added. “We don’t know the curative potential yet, but the results are encouraging so far.”

In the meantime, “the best use of bispecific antibodies is through clinical trials,” Dr. Savage said. “Keep an eye out for bispecific antibody combination trials as well.”

The study was funded by F. Hoffmann–La Roche. Dr. Dickinson disclosed honoraria from or serving as a consultant to companies including Amgen, Bristol Myers-Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, and Roche. Dr. Savage disclosed relationships, funding, and support from multiple companies including Bristol Myers-Squibb, Janssen Oncology, Kyowa, Merck, Novartis Canada Pharmaceuticals, Seattle Genetics and Roche.

Approximately half of patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) treated with glofitamab showed clinical response, based on phase 2 data from 154 adults.

“We know that relapsed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma has a particularly poor prognosis,” especially for patients who have undergone at least two therapies, Dr. Michael Dickinson, MBBS, of the University of Melbourne said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Bispecific T cell–recruiting antibodies are emerging as a novel treatment option for B-cell cancers, said Dr. Dickinson.

Glofitamab is distinct among these therapies for its configuration that is bivalent for CD20 and monovalent for CD3, providing more potency than a 1:1 format, Dr. Dickinson explained in his presentation.

The study population included 154 adults aged 21-90 years with DLBCL who had received at least two prior treatments; all had received prior anti-CD20 Ab, and 149 had received anthracycline. The median age of the patients was 66 years, 65% were male, 75% had Ann Arbor stage III or IV disease, and 90% were refractory to any prior therapy.

The patients received intravenous glutamate-pyruvate transaminase, followed by an initial intravenous dose of glofitamab 7 days later. Glofitamab was given as step-up doses starting with 2.5 mg to a target of 30 mg.

The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) during initial treatment using Independent Review Committee (IRC) criteria, with overall response rate, duration of response, duration of complete response, progression-free survival, and overall survival as key secondary outcomes.

At a median of 12.6 months’ follow-up, the CR and overall response rates were 39.4% and 51.6%, respectively.

“Responses were achieved early; the median time to first complete response was 42 days,” Dr. Dickinson reported. Of the 38 patients with CR at the data cutoff point, 33 remained in complete remission (87%) based on IRC criteria. Complete response rates were consistent across prespecified subgroups, notably 42% of patients with no prior chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy and 70% and 34%, of those who were relapsed or refractory, respectively, to their last prior treatments.

The median duration of overall response was 18.4 months, and the median duration of complete response had not yet been estimated, Dr. Dickinson said. The median progression-free survival and overall survival rates were 4.9 months and 11.5 months, respectively, and the estimated 12-month overall survival was 49.8%.

“These are highly clinically significant results for this difficult to treat population,” Dr. Dickinson said in his presentation.

The most common adverse event was cytokine release syndrome (CRS), which occurred in 63% of patients. Of these, 3.9% were grade 3 or 4. Patients received corticosteroids (27.8%) or tocilizumab for management of CRS.

“As we have shown before, this is a first-course phenomenon, becoming far less frequent once step up dosing is complete,” Dr. Dickinson said in the presentation. “The median time to CRS is predictable, occurring around 10 hours after the IV infusion,” he said. Overall, 3.2% of the patients discontinued because of an adverse event.

A total of eight deaths occurred during the study; five of these were related to COVID-19 and the remaining three were in patients with manifest progression of disease.

Infections are to be expected in such a heavily treated population, and 14.9% of patients developed infections of grade 3 or higher, said Dr. Dickinson. Neutropenia of any grade occurred in 37.7%, febrile neutropenia in 2.6%. Neurological events occurred in 38.3% of patients; 3.2% were grade 3 or higher.

The study did not prospectively record immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome, Dr. Dickinson said, but an estimate suggests a rate of 2.6%, and none of the events were considered to be related to glofitamab, he noted.

The researchers also looked at a supporting cohort of 35 patients with a median follow up of more than 2 years. In this group, the complete remission rate was 35% and the median duration of remission was 34.2 months. “Our six longest patients have been in remission for longer than 3 years,” Dr. Dickinson said.

The latest glofitamab data “reflect routine practice and an area of need for this disease,” said Dr. Dickinson.

“I think these results will prove to be very meaningful for our patients with large cell lymphoma, and this drug will prove to be an important treatment option,” he said.
 

More follow-up needed, but findings show promise

A number of CD20/CD3-bispecific antibodies are in development for patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphomas, said study discussant Kerry J. Savage, MD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, who served as the discussant for the session.

Glofitamab differs from other treatments in that it is bivalent for CD20 and monovalent for CD3, “which imparts greater potency,” she noted. Glofitamab also has a silent Fc region that is designed to extend half-life and reduce toxicity.

Patients in the current study had at least two prior regimens, and importantly, “CR rates were similar, regardless of prior therapy,” said Dr. Savage. The longer follow-up cohort provides “a hint that the response may be durable.”

Looking ahead, “the important thing will be response durability” with longer follow-up, she added. “We don’t know the curative potential yet, but the results are encouraging so far.”

In the meantime, “the best use of bispecific antibodies is through clinical trials,” Dr. Savage said. “Keep an eye out for bispecific antibody combination trials as well.”

The study was funded by F. Hoffmann–La Roche. Dr. Dickinson disclosed honoraria from or serving as a consultant to companies including Amgen, Bristol Myers-Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, and Roche. Dr. Savage disclosed relationships, funding, and support from multiple companies including Bristol Myers-Squibb, Janssen Oncology, Kyowa, Merck, Novartis Canada Pharmaceuticals, Seattle Genetics and Roche.

Four common motor abnormalities in schizophrenia patients were associated with at least one poor functional outcome, based on data from 156 individuals.

Approximately half of adults with schizophrenia suffer from motor abnormalities that may impair their ability to work and decrease their quality of life, wrote Niluja Nadesalingam, MD, of the University of Bern, Switzerland, and colleagues. “Although previous reports show strong associations between single movement abnormalities and global as well as social functioning, we still struggle to understand the contribution of various motor domains,” they said.

The impact of these abnormalities on social and global functioning and on functional capacity remains unclear, but the researchers proposed that motor abnormalities would be associated with worse functional outcomes in schizophrenia patients.

In a study published in Comprehensive Psychiatry, the researchers identified patients with diagnosed schizophrenia spectrum disorders who were treated on an inpatient or outpatient basis at a single center. They collected data on five motor abnormalities: parkinsonism, catatonia, dyskinesia, neurological soft signs (NSS), and psychomotor slowing (PS). They assessed functional outcomes using the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF), the Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale (SOFAS), and the UCSD Performance-Based Skills Assessment (UPSA-B). The average age of the participants was 37.9 years and 88 of the 156 were male. The average duration of illness was 12.5 years.

Overall, patients with catatonia and parkinsonism scored significantly lower on GAF and SOFAS scale compared to those without catatonia and parkinsonism (P < .035 and P < .027, respectively).

No significant differences in functional outcomes appeared between patients with and without dyskinesia.

However, significant negative correlations were identified for parkinsonism and PS with GAF, SOFAS, and UPSA-B (P < .036 for all). “Our study further found that parkinsonism and psychomotor slowing also impair the functional capacity of patients,” which may be influenced by factors including deficits in social interaction and cognitive impairment, the researchers said.

Overall, the study findings demonstrate that motor abnormalities in patients with schizophrenia are strongly associated with poor functional outcomes, and the stronger the motor impairment, the worse the global and social functioning, the researchers said.

As for potential pathways, “motor abnormalities are readily observable signs, allowing laypersons to perceive subjects with schizophrenia as somebody with severe mental illness. Thus, motor abnormalities might lead to stigmatization of patients suffering from schizophrenia,” they wrote in their discussion.

The researchers emphasized the need to explore alternative treatment options that might improve motor abnormalities, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation, given the potential of antipsychotic medications to introduce additional motor abnormalities.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the potential for missed confounding variables, the small number of patients with dyskinesia, and the inability to deduce the course of illness because most of the patients were in psychotic episodes, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that specific motor abnormalities are associated with poor global and social functioning, and with reduced functional capacity, in adults with schizophrenia, the researchers said. “Future studies need to test whether amelioration of motor abnormalities may improve community functioning,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Bangerter Rhyner Foundation, and the Adrian and Simone Frutiger Foundation. Lead author Dr. Nadesalingam had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Four common motor abnormalities in schizophrenia patients were associated with at least one poor functional outcome, based on data from 156 individuals.

Approximately half of adults with schizophrenia suffer from motor abnormalities that may impair their ability to work and decrease their quality of life, wrote Niluja Nadesalingam, MD, of the University of Bern, Switzerland, and colleagues. “Although previous reports show strong associations between single movement abnormalities and global as well as social functioning, we still struggle to understand the contribution of various motor domains,” they said.

The impact of these abnormalities on social and global functioning and on functional capacity remains unclear, but the researchers proposed that motor abnormalities would be associated with worse functional outcomes in schizophrenia patients.

In a study published in Comprehensive Psychiatry, the researchers identified patients with diagnosed schizophrenia spectrum disorders who were treated on an inpatient or outpatient basis at a single center. They collected data on five motor abnormalities: parkinsonism, catatonia, dyskinesia, neurological soft signs (NSS), and psychomotor slowing (PS). They assessed functional outcomes using the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF), the Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale (SOFAS), and the UCSD Performance-Based Skills Assessment (UPSA-B). The average age of the participants was 37.9 years and 88 of the 156 were male. The average duration of illness was 12.5 years.

Overall, patients with catatonia and parkinsonism scored significantly lower on GAF and SOFAS scale compared to those without catatonia and parkinsonism (P < .035 and P < .027, respectively).

No significant differences in functional outcomes appeared between patients with and without dyskinesia.

However, significant negative correlations were identified for parkinsonism and PS with GAF, SOFAS, and UPSA-B (P < .036 for all). “Our study further found that parkinsonism and psychomotor slowing also impair the functional capacity of patients,” which may be influenced by factors including deficits in social interaction and cognitive impairment, the researchers said.

Overall, the study findings demonstrate that motor abnormalities in patients with schizophrenia are strongly associated with poor functional outcomes, and the stronger the motor impairment, the worse the global and social functioning, the researchers said.

As for potential pathways, “motor abnormalities are readily observable signs, allowing laypersons to perceive subjects with schizophrenia as somebody with severe mental illness. Thus, motor abnormalities might lead to stigmatization of patients suffering from schizophrenia,” they wrote in their discussion.

The researchers emphasized the need to explore alternative treatment options that might improve motor abnormalities, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation, given the potential of antipsychotic medications to introduce additional motor abnormalities.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the potential for missed confounding variables, the small number of patients with dyskinesia, and the inability to deduce the course of illness because most of the patients were in psychotic episodes, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that specific motor abnormalities are associated with poor global and social functioning, and with reduced functional capacity, in adults with schizophrenia, the researchers said. “Future studies need to test whether amelioration of motor abnormalities may improve community functioning,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Bangerter Rhyner Foundation, and the Adrian and Simone Frutiger Foundation. Lead author Dr. Nadesalingam had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Four common motor abnormalities in schizophrenia patients were associated with at least one poor functional outcome, based on data from 156 individuals.

Approximately half of adults with schizophrenia suffer from motor abnormalities that may impair their ability to work and decrease their quality of life, wrote Niluja Nadesalingam, MD, of the University of Bern, Switzerland, and colleagues. “Although previous reports show strong associations between single movement abnormalities and global as well as social functioning, we still struggle to understand the contribution of various motor domains,” they said.

The impact of these abnormalities on social and global functioning and on functional capacity remains unclear, but the researchers proposed that motor abnormalities would be associated with worse functional outcomes in schizophrenia patients.

In a study published in Comprehensive Psychiatry, the researchers identified patients with diagnosed schizophrenia spectrum disorders who were treated on an inpatient or outpatient basis at a single center. They collected data on five motor abnormalities: parkinsonism, catatonia, dyskinesia, neurological soft signs (NSS), and psychomotor slowing (PS). They assessed functional outcomes using the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF), the Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale (SOFAS), and the UCSD Performance-Based Skills Assessment (UPSA-B). The average age of the participants was 37.9 years and 88 of the 156 were male. The average duration of illness was 12.5 years.

Overall, patients with catatonia and parkinsonism scored significantly lower on GAF and SOFAS scale compared to those without catatonia and parkinsonism (P < .035 and P < .027, respectively).

No significant differences in functional outcomes appeared between patients with and without dyskinesia.

However, significant negative correlations were identified for parkinsonism and PS with GAF, SOFAS, and UPSA-B (P < .036 for all). “Our study further found that parkinsonism and psychomotor slowing also impair the functional capacity of patients,” which may be influenced by factors including deficits in social interaction and cognitive impairment, the researchers said.

Overall, the study findings demonstrate that motor abnormalities in patients with schizophrenia are strongly associated with poor functional outcomes, and the stronger the motor impairment, the worse the global and social functioning, the researchers said.

As for potential pathways, “motor abnormalities are readily observable signs, allowing laypersons to perceive subjects with schizophrenia as somebody with severe mental illness. Thus, motor abnormalities might lead to stigmatization of patients suffering from schizophrenia,” they wrote in their discussion.

The researchers emphasized the need to explore alternative treatment options that might improve motor abnormalities, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation, given the potential of antipsychotic medications to introduce additional motor abnormalities.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the potential for missed confounding variables, the small number of patients with dyskinesia, and the inability to deduce the course of illness because most of the patients were in psychotic episodes, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that specific motor abnormalities are associated with poor global and social functioning, and with reduced functional capacity, in adults with schizophrenia, the researchers said. “Future studies need to test whether amelioration of motor abnormalities may improve community functioning,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Bangerter Rhyner Foundation, and the Adrian and Simone Frutiger Foundation. Lead author Dr. Nadesalingam had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Deaf babies and toddlers with developmental delays may benefit significantly from receiving cochlear implants over hearing aids.

A new study, published in the journal Pediatrics, pushes against the notion that children with low nonverbal cognition and adaptive functioning skills won’t improve if given cochlear implants. Some insurers cover hearing aids for children with developmental disorders but not the implants, which can cost between $60,000 and $100,000 per ear.

“We were surprised [by] the large magnitude of the improvements, not only in quality of life, but also in cognition, ability to function in daily living situations, and speech and language,” lead author John S. Oghalai, MD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, told this news organization. “Remember, these are children with substantial developmental delays. Any improvements are incredibly important and meaningful.”

All children with severe hearing loss should be referred for cochlear implant evaluation, “regardless of the presence of other disabilities,” Dr. Oghalai said. “The younger this referral happens, the better the outcomes will be.”

Dr. Oghalai and his colleagues reviewed data from 204 children approximately 1-3 years old with hearing aids receiving treatment in Texas and California. Of these, 138 received a cochlear implant and had normal cognitive skills and social competence (referred to as adaptive behavior). Another 37 received a cochlear implant and also met criteria for early developmental impairment (EDI), defined by measures of nonverbal cognitive scores and adaptive functioning.

A third group of 29 children with EDI continued with hearing aids without a cochlear implant.

The children were evaluated annually for 1-5 years, with the average follow-up of 2 years. At baseline, no significant differences were noted between the children with EDI who received implants and those who did not on cognition, language, auditory skills, or measures of parental or child stress.

Overall, children who received implants scored higher on cognitive and social measures than those who continued using hearing aids.

Compared with children with EDI who received implants, children without EDI who received implants had significantly higher developmental scores by the study’s end (P ≤ .001), whereas children with EDI who did not receive implants had significantly lower scores (P ≤ .04).

Children who received implants, and their parents, also experienced less stress than those who did not receive the devices, according to the researchers.

Dr. Oghalai and colleagues also measured developmental trajectories for each cohort. Children without delays who received implants had the best outcomes, but those with EDI who received implants had better outcomes than those with EDI and hearing aids.
 

Findings ‘overdue’

“This study is overdue,” Howard Francis, MD, chair of the department of head and neck surgery & communication sciences at Duke University, Durham, N.C., told this news organization.

Dr. Francis called the new research “reasonably powered and designed,” and said it “documents benefits in the cognitive, language, and patient-child relationship domains” in children who received cochlear implants “compared to children with similar levels of developmental delay whose hearing loss was treated using hearing aids.”  

However, “larger studies will be needed to account for potential effects of older age at intervention in the hearing aid group,” he said. Socioeconomic effects are a topic for future research as well, Dr. Francis added.

The researchers initially wanted to perform a controlled clinical trial. However, by the time they secured funding, health insurance policy had changed to cover cochlear implants for children without EDI because of demonstrated benefits shown in studies.

They also were unable to determine the reasons for families’ decisions to choose implants or hearing aids and were unable to assess the impact of insurance on the choice of implantation. But they did find that families with insurers who would cover implants often did choose the devices. Children were also followed for an average of 2 years, so long-term outcomes are unknown.  

Despite these limitations, the results support the value of cochlear implantation in children with disabilities and developmental delays, and it should be discussed with parents, the researchers concluded.

“Cochlear implants are just a tool; they do not provide speech and language,” Dr. Oghalai said. “Any child with severe hearing loss requires significant therapy and education via sign language, auditory-verbal therapy, or both. Making the decision about what type of therapy to do is personal, and it depends upon the family and the options that are available to them in their community.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The researchers and Dr. Francis have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Deaf babies and toddlers with developmental delays may benefit significantly from receiving cochlear implants over hearing aids.

A new study, published in the journal Pediatrics, pushes against the notion that children with low nonverbal cognition and adaptive functioning skills won’t improve if given cochlear implants. Some insurers cover hearing aids for children with developmental disorders but not the implants, which can cost between $60,000 and $100,000 per ear.

“We were surprised [by] the large magnitude of the improvements, not only in quality of life, but also in cognition, ability to function in daily living situations, and speech and language,” lead author John S. Oghalai, MD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, told this news organization. “Remember, these are children with substantial developmental delays. Any improvements are incredibly important and meaningful.”

All children with severe hearing loss should be referred for cochlear implant evaluation, “regardless of the presence of other disabilities,” Dr. Oghalai said. “The younger this referral happens, the better the outcomes will be.”

Dr. Oghalai and his colleagues reviewed data from 204 children approximately 1-3 years old with hearing aids receiving treatment in Texas and California. Of these, 138 received a cochlear implant and had normal cognitive skills and social competence (referred to as adaptive behavior). Another 37 received a cochlear implant and also met criteria for early developmental impairment (EDI), defined by measures of nonverbal cognitive scores and adaptive functioning.

A third group of 29 children with EDI continued with hearing aids without a cochlear implant.

The children were evaluated annually for 1-5 years, with the average follow-up of 2 years. At baseline, no significant differences were noted between the children with EDI who received implants and those who did not on cognition, language, auditory skills, or measures of parental or child stress.

Overall, children who received implants scored higher on cognitive and social measures than those who continued using hearing aids.

Compared with children with EDI who received implants, children without EDI who received implants had significantly higher developmental scores by the study’s end (P ≤ .001), whereas children with EDI who did not receive implants had significantly lower scores (P ≤ .04).

Children who received implants, and their parents, also experienced less stress than those who did not receive the devices, according to the researchers.

Dr. Oghalai and colleagues also measured developmental trajectories for each cohort. Children without delays who received implants had the best outcomes, but those with EDI who received implants had better outcomes than those with EDI and hearing aids.
 

Findings ‘overdue’

“This study is overdue,” Howard Francis, MD, chair of the department of head and neck surgery & communication sciences at Duke University, Durham, N.C., told this news organization.

Dr. Francis called the new research “reasonably powered and designed,” and said it “documents benefits in the cognitive, language, and patient-child relationship domains” in children who received cochlear implants “compared to children with similar levels of developmental delay whose hearing loss was treated using hearing aids.”  

However, “larger studies will be needed to account for potential effects of older age at intervention in the hearing aid group,” he said. Socioeconomic effects are a topic for future research as well, Dr. Francis added.

The researchers initially wanted to perform a controlled clinical trial. However, by the time they secured funding, health insurance policy had changed to cover cochlear implants for children without EDI because of demonstrated benefits shown in studies.

They also were unable to determine the reasons for families’ decisions to choose implants or hearing aids and were unable to assess the impact of insurance on the choice of implantation. But they did find that families with insurers who would cover implants often did choose the devices. Children were also followed for an average of 2 years, so long-term outcomes are unknown.  

Despite these limitations, the results support the value of cochlear implantation in children with disabilities and developmental delays, and it should be discussed with parents, the researchers concluded.

“Cochlear implants are just a tool; they do not provide speech and language,” Dr. Oghalai said. “Any child with severe hearing loss requires significant therapy and education via sign language, auditory-verbal therapy, or both. Making the decision about what type of therapy to do is personal, and it depends upon the family and the options that are available to them in their community.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The researchers and Dr. Francis have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Deaf babies and toddlers with developmental delays may benefit significantly from receiving cochlear implants over hearing aids.

A new study, published in the journal Pediatrics, pushes against the notion that children with low nonverbal cognition and adaptive functioning skills won’t improve if given cochlear implants. Some insurers cover hearing aids for children with developmental disorders but not the implants, which can cost between $60,000 and $100,000 per ear.

“We were surprised [by] the large magnitude of the improvements, not only in quality of life, but also in cognition, ability to function in daily living situations, and speech and language,” lead author John S. Oghalai, MD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, told this news organization. “Remember, these are children with substantial developmental delays. Any improvements are incredibly important and meaningful.”

All children with severe hearing loss should be referred for cochlear implant evaluation, “regardless of the presence of other disabilities,” Dr. Oghalai said. “The younger this referral happens, the better the outcomes will be.”

Dr. Oghalai and his colleagues reviewed data from 204 children approximately 1-3 years old with hearing aids receiving treatment in Texas and California. Of these, 138 received a cochlear implant and had normal cognitive skills and social competence (referred to as adaptive behavior). Another 37 received a cochlear implant and also met criteria for early developmental impairment (EDI), defined by measures of nonverbal cognitive scores and adaptive functioning.

A third group of 29 children with EDI continued with hearing aids without a cochlear implant.

The children were evaluated annually for 1-5 years, with the average follow-up of 2 years. At baseline, no significant differences were noted between the children with EDI who received implants and those who did not on cognition, language, auditory skills, or measures of parental or child stress.

Overall, children who received implants scored higher on cognitive and social measures than those who continued using hearing aids.

Compared with children with EDI who received implants, children without EDI who received implants had significantly higher developmental scores by the study’s end (P ≤ .001), whereas children with EDI who did not receive implants had significantly lower scores (P ≤ .04).

Children who received implants, and their parents, also experienced less stress than those who did not receive the devices, according to the researchers.

Dr. Oghalai and colleagues also measured developmental trajectories for each cohort. Children without delays who received implants had the best outcomes, but those with EDI who received implants had better outcomes than those with EDI and hearing aids.
 

Findings ‘overdue’

“This study is overdue,” Howard Francis, MD, chair of the department of head and neck surgery & communication sciences at Duke University, Durham, N.C., told this news organization.

Dr. Francis called the new research “reasonably powered and designed,” and said it “documents benefits in the cognitive, language, and patient-child relationship domains” in children who received cochlear implants “compared to children with similar levels of developmental delay whose hearing loss was treated using hearing aids.”  

However, “larger studies will be needed to account for potential effects of older age at intervention in the hearing aid group,” he said. Socioeconomic effects are a topic for future research as well, Dr. Francis added.

The researchers initially wanted to perform a controlled clinical trial. However, by the time they secured funding, health insurance policy had changed to cover cochlear implants for children without EDI because of demonstrated benefits shown in studies.

They also were unable to determine the reasons for families’ decisions to choose implants or hearing aids and were unable to assess the impact of insurance on the choice of implantation. But they did find that families with insurers who would cover implants often did choose the devices. Children were also followed for an average of 2 years, so long-term outcomes are unknown.  

Despite these limitations, the results support the value of cochlear implantation in children with disabilities and developmental delays, and it should be discussed with parents, the researchers concluded.

“Cochlear implants are just a tool; they do not provide speech and language,” Dr. Oghalai said. “Any child with severe hearing loss requires significant therapy and education via sign language, auditory-verbal therapy, or both. Making the decision about what type of therapy to do is personal, and it depends upon the family and the options that are available to them in their community.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The researchers and Dr. Francis have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with relapsed or refractory B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma responded positively to a new therapy based on genome editing in early results from a phase 1 study, according to a news release from manufacturer Caribou Biosciences.

In the first-in-human, phase 1 open-label study, known as ANTLER, 5 out of 5 patients with relapsed or refractory B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (r/r B-NHL) responded to a single dose of CB-010, an allogeneic CAR-T cell therapy designed to boost antitumor activity, according to the company.

The use of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy involves taking T cells out of the body, reprogramming them with CAR to better equip them to kill cancer cells, and putting them back into the body.

The study consists of two sections: an initial dose escalation following a 3 + 3 design, with prespecified, increasing doses, followed by an expanded trial in which all patients receive CB-010 at the dose determined in the first section.

The study population included 6 adults with r/r B-NHL who had relapsed after previous treatment with a median of 3 prior therapies. At baseline, all 6 patients underwent a lymphodepletion regimen consisting of cyclophosphamide at 60 mg/kg/day for 2 days, followed by 5 days of fludarabine at 25 mg/m²/day.

Then all patients received a single dose of 40x106 CAR-T cells. As of the Feb. 23, 2022, data cutoff date, 5 of the 6 patients had completed the 28-day dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) evaluation period. All 5 patients (100%) achieved a response; 4 achieved complete response and 1 achieved partial response. All 4 of the complete responders had ongoing complete response at 3 months, and the longest measured complete response was 6 months, according to the company.

“We are excited to see a 100% overall response rate with CB-010 at dose level 1 for these patients who have limited treatment options,” said Dr. Syed Rizvi, chief medical officer for Caribou Biosciences, in the press release. “We believe this initial level of activity is unparalleled for a single, starting dose of cell therapy. CB-010 was generally well-tolerated, with adverse events routinely observed in autologous or allogeneic anti-CD19 CAR-T cell therapies,” he said.

Based on the promising safety and efficacy results, the company is enrolling patients in a second cohort for treatment at dose level 2 (80x106 CAR-T cells), according to the news release.

Another allogeneic CAR-T cell therapy known as ALLO-501A is being studied in a similar trial conducted by the Moffitt Cancer Center.

Overall, CB-010 was well-tolerated, according to Caribou Biosciences. No cases of graft-versus-host disease were reported. A total of 3 patients developed grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs) within the first 28 days; the most common were neutropenia (50%), thrombocytopenia (33%), anemia (17%), and hypogammaglobulinemia (17%). One patient experienced both grade 1 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and grade 3 Immune effector cell-Associated Neurotoxicity Syndrome (ICANS). This response was characterized as a dose-limiting toxicity. The patient was treated with tocilizumab and steroids, recovered within 39 hours, and went on to achieve a complete response, according to the company.

Although the safety profile in the current study was promising, prior research suggest that concerns associated with CRS and ICANS should not be ignored and may be barriers to treatment.

In an article published in Bone Marrow Transplant in 2021, Dr. Vipul Sheth and Dr. Jordan Gauthier of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, noted that adverse effects may remain a challenge to widespread use of CAR-T in patients with refractory or relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukemia, for which it has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and several European agencies. However, “there is mounting evidence that earlier, and potentially more targeted, interventions can reduce these toxicities,” they wrote.
 

Study provides solid stepping stone

“CRS and ICANS are mild in most patients but can be severe and sometimes life-threatening in a subset of patients undergoing CD19 CAR T-cell therapy,” Dr. Gauthier said in an interview. “Different strategies are being investigated to mitigate or treat severe toxicities, such as the use of prophylactic corticosteroids, anakinra, lenzilumab, itacitinib. I am hopeful we will soon manage to prevent toxicities while maintaining potent anti-tumor effects,” he said.

“While autologous CD19 CAR-T cells have high efficacy in patients with refractory/relapsed large B-cell lymphoma, product manufacturing remains a complicated and lengthy process in the autologous setting,” Dr. Gauthier noted. “Commercial CAR T-cell manufacturing takes approximately 3-4 weeks, sometimes longer. Some patients won’t survive long enough to receive their infusion. In some patients, T-cell function is dramatically impaired, due to prior therapies or to the disease itself,” he said.

Dr. Gauthier said he was not surprised but that he was encouraged by the apparent early success of the ANTLER study. “The proof-of-concept that allogeneic CD19-targeted CAR T cells can induce high response rates in r/r LBCL has already been established,” he said. “Having said that, it is comforting to see prior findings confirmed by this new study, and those results are exciting for the field,” he added.

As for additional research, “we need longer follow-up after allogeneic CD19-targeted CAR T-cell therapy to ensure responses are durable,” Dr. Gauthier explained. “We also need to better understand the biology driving the antitumor effects and the side effects of CAR T-cells. This will help us build more efficacious and safer CAR T-cell therapies,” he said.
 

Response and side effects show promise for future research

The therapy is “the best CAR-T product” that clinicians can provide for patients knowing that autologous CAR-T works, said Dr. Ahmed Galal, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., in an interview. The current research supports the use of this treatment immediately for patients, he added.

Dr. Galal said he was somewhat surprised, but pleasantly so, by the 100% response rate. This rate is likely because of the small number of patients and may not hold up in further research, but “even 90% would be an amazing achievement,” he said. The tolerable safety profile is encouraging as well, he emphasized. Dr. Galal said that he did not foresee any real barriers to expanded use of the therapy and that technology should make it easier to deliver at authorized centers.

Limitations to the current study are those common to all phase 1 trials, such as the strict inclusion criteria, Dr. Galal said. As research progresses to phase 2, “I don’t think it will be an obstacle to find patients,” he said. However, patients should be aware of side effects, and clinicians should maintain a culture of education to help them understand the value of the therapy, he added.

The complete data from the preliminary findings are scheduled to be presented at the European Hematology Association (EHA) 2022 Hybrid Congress, Vienna, in June, as abstract P1455, titled “First-in-human trial of CB-010, a CRISPR-edited allogeneic anti-CD19 CAR-T cell therapy with a PD-1 knock out, in patients with relapsed or refractory B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (ANTLER study).” The findings are scheduled to be presented by Loretta J. Nastoupil, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, according to Caribou Biosciences.

Dr. Gauthier had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Galal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Patients with relapsed or refractory B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma responded positively to a new therapy based on genome editing in early results from a phase 1 study, according to a news release from manufacturer Caribou Biosciences.

In the first-in-human, phase 1 open-label study, known as ANTLER, 5 out of 5 patients with relapsed or refractory B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (r/r B-NHL) responded to a single dose of CB-010, an allogeneic CAR-T cell therapy designed to boost antitumor activity, according to the company.

The use of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy involves taking T cells out of the body, reprogramming them with CAR to better equip them to kill cancer cells, and putting them back into the body.

The study consists of two sections: an initial dose escalation following a 3 + 3 design, with prespecified, increasing doses, followed by an expanded trial in which all patients receive CB-010 at the dose determined in the first section.

The study population included 6 adults with r/r B-NHL who had relapsed after previous treatment with a median of 3 prior therapies. At baseline, all 6 patients underwent a lymphodepletion regimen consisting of cyclophosphamide at 60 mg/kg/day for 2 days, followed by 5 days of fludarabine at 25 mg/m²/day.

Then all patients received a single dose of 40x106 CAR-T cells. As of the Feb. 23, 2022, data cutoff date, 5 of the 6 patients had completed the 28-day dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) evaluation period. All 5 patients (100%) achieved a response; 4 achieved complete response and 1 achieved partial response. All 4 of the complete responders had ongoing complete response at 3 months, and the longest measured complete response was 6 months, according to the company.

“We are excited to see a 100% overall response rate with CB-010 at dose level 1 for these patients who have limited treatment options,” said Dr. Syed Rizvi, chief medical officer for Caribou Biosciences, in the press release. “We believe this initial level of activity is unparalleled for a single, starting dose of cell therapy. CB-010 was generally well-tolerated, with adverse events routinely observed in autologous or allogeneic anti-CD19 CAR-T cell therapies,” he said.

Based on the promising safety and efficacy results, the company is enrolling patients in a second cohort for treatment at dose level 2 (80x106 CAR-T cells), according to the news release.

Another allogeneic CAR-T cell therapy known as ALLO-501A is being studied in a similar trial conducted by the Moffitt Cancer Center.

Overall, CB-010 was well-tolerated, according to Caribou Biosciences. No cases of graft-versus-host disease were reported. A total of 3 patients developed grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs) within the first 28 days; the most common were neutropenia (50%), thrombocytopenia (33%), anemia (17%), and hypogammaglobulinemia (17%). One patient experienced both grade 1 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and grade 3 Immune effector cell-Associated Neurotoxicity Syndrome (ICANS). This response was characterized as a dose-limiting toxicity. The patient was treated with tocilizumab and steroids, recovered within 39 hours, and went on to achieve a complete response, according to the company.

Although the safety profile in the current study was promising, prior research suggest that concerns associated with CRS and ICANS should not be ignored and may be barriers to treatment.

In an article published in Bone Marrow Transplant in 2021, Dr. Vipul Sheth and Dr. Jordan Gauthier of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, noted that adverse effects may remain a challenge to widespread use of CAR-T in patients with refractory or relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukemia, for which it has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and several European agencies. However, “there is mounting evidence that earlier, and potentially more targeted, interventions can reduce these toxicities,” they wrote.
 

Study provides solid stepping stone

“CRS and ICANS are mild in most patients but can be severe and sometimes life-threatening in a subset of patients undergoing CD19 CAR T-cell therapy,” Dr. Gauthier said in an interview. “Different strategies are being investigated to mitigate or treat severe toxicities, such as the use of prophylactic corticosteroids, anakinra, lenzilumab, itacitinib. I am hopeful we will soon manage to prevent toxicities while maintaining potent anti-tumor effects,” he said.

“While autologous CD19 CAR-T cells have high efficacy in patients with refractory/relapsed large B-cell lymphoma, product manufacturing remains a complicated and lengthy process in the autologous setting,” Dr. Gauthier noted. “Commercial CAR T-cell manufacturing takes approximately 3-4 weeks, sometimes longer. Some patients won’t survive long enough to receive their infusion. In some patients, T-cell function is dramatically impaired, due to prior therapies or to the disease itself,” he said.

Dr. Gauthier said he was not surprised but that he was encouraged by the apparent early success of the ANTLER study. “The proof-of-concept that allogeneic CD19-targeted CAR T cells can induce high response rates in r/r LBCL has already been established,” he said. “Having said that, it is comforting to see prior findings confirmed by this new study, and those results are exciting for the field,” he added.

As for additional research, “we need longer follow-up after allogeneic CD19-targeted CAR T-cell therapy to ensure responses are durable,” Dr. Gauthier explained. “We also need to better understand the biology driving the antitumor effects and the side effects of CAR T-cells. This will help us build more efficacious and safer CAR T-cell therapies,” he said.
 

Response and side effects show promise for future research

The therapy is “the best CAR-T product” that clinicians can provide for patients knowing that autologous CAR-T works, said Dr. Ahmed Galal, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., in an interview. The current research supports the use of this treatment immediately for patients, he added.

Dr. Galal said he was somewhat surprised, but pleasantly so, by the 100% response rate. This rate is likely because of the small number of patients and may not hold up in further research, but “even 90% would be an amazing achievement,” he said. The tolerable safety profile is encouraging as well, he emphasized. Dr. Galal said that he did not foresee any real barriers to expanded use of the therapy and that technology should make it easier to deliver at authorized centers.

Limitations to the current study are those common to all phase 1 trials, such as the strict inclusion criteria, Dr. Galal said. As research progresses to phase 2, “I don’t think it will be an obstacle to find patients,” he said. However, patients should be aware of side effects, and clinicians should maintain a culture of education to help them understand the value of the therapy, he added.

The complete data from the preliminary findings are scheduled to be presented at the European Hematology Association (EHA) 2022 Hybrid Congress, Vienna, in June, as abstract P1455, titled “First-in-human trial of CB-010, a CRISPR-edited allogeneic anti-CD19 CAR-T cell therapy with a PD-1 knock out, in patients with relapsed or refractory B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (ANTLER study).” The findings are scheduled to be presented by Loretta J. Nastoupil, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, according to Caribou Biosciences.

Dr. Gauthier had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Galal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Patients with relapsed or refractory B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma responded positively to a new therapy based on genome editing in early results from a phase 1 study, according to a news release from manufacturer Caribou Biosciences.

In the first-in-human, phase 1 open-label study, known as ANTLER, 5 out of 5 patients with relapsed or refractory B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (r/r B-NHL) responded to a single dose of CB-010, an allogeneic CAR-T cell therapy designed to boost antitumor activity, according to the company.

The use of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy involves taking T cells out of the body, reprogramming them with CAR to better equip them to kill cancer cells, and putting them back into the body.

The study consists of two sections: an initial dose escalation following a 3 + 3 design, with prespecified, increasing doses, followed by an expanded trial in which all patients receive CB-010 at the dose determined in the first section.

The study population included 6 adults with r/r B-NHL who had relapsed after previous treatment with a median of 3 prior therapies. At baseline, all 6 patients underwent a lymphodepletion regimen consisting of cyclophosphamide at 60 mg/kg/day for 2 days, followed by 5 days of fludarabine at 25 mg/m²/day.

Then all patients received a single dose of 40x106 CAR-T cells. As of the Feb. 23, 2022, data cutoff date, 5 of the 6 patients had completed the 28-day dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) evaluation period. All 5 patients (100%) achieved a response; 4 achieved complete response and 1 achieved partial response. All 4 of the complete responders had ongoing complete response at 3 months, and the longest measured complete response was 6 months, according to the company.

“We are excited to see a 100% overall response rate with CB-010 at dose level 1 for these patients who have limited treatment options,” said Dr. Syed Rizvi, chief medical officer for Caribou Biosciences, in the press release. “We believe this initial level of activity is unparalleled for a single, starting dose of cell therapy. CB-010 was generally well-tolerated, with adverse events routinely observed in autologous or allogeneic anti-CD19 CAR-T cell therapies,” he said.

Based on the promising safety and efficacy results, the company is enrolling patients in a second cohort for treatment at dose level 2 (80x106 CAR-T cells), according to the news release.

Another allogeneic CAR-T cell therapy known as ALLO-501A is being studied in a similar trial conducted by the Moffitt Cancer Center.

Overall, CB-010 was well-tolerated, according to Caribou Biosciences. No cases of graft-versus-host disease were reported. A total of 3 patients developed grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs) within the first 28 days; the most common were neutropenia (50%), thrombocytopenia (33%), anemia (17%), and hypogammaglobulinemia (17%). One patient experienced both grade 1 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and grade 3 Immune effector cell-Associated Neurotoxicity Syndrome (ICANS). This response was characterized as a dose-limiting toxicity. The patient was treated with tocilizumab and steroids, recovered within 39 hours, and went on to achieve a complete response, according to the company.

Although the safety profile in the current study was promising, prior research suggest that concerns associated with CRS and ICANS should not be ignored and may be barriers to treatment.

In an article published in Bone Marrow Transplant in 2021, Dr. Vipul Sheth and Dr. Jordan Gauthier of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, noted that adverse effects may remain a challenge to widespread use of CAR-T in patients with refractory or relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukemia, for which it has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and several European agencies. However, “there is mounting evidence that earlier, and potentially more targeted, interventions can reduce these toxicities,” they wrote.
 

Study provides solid stepping stone

“CRS and ICANS are mild in most patients but can be severe and sometimes life-threatening in a subset of patients undergoing CD19 CAR T-cell therapy,” Dr. Gauthier said in an interview. “Different strategies are being investigated to mitigate or treat severe toxicities, such as the use of prophylactic corticosteroids, anakinra, lenzilumab, itacitinib. I am hopeful we will soon manage to prevent toxicities while maintaining potent anti-tumor effects,” he said.

“While autologous CD19 CAR-T cells have high efficacy in patients with refractory/relapsed large B-cell lymphoma, product manufacturing remains a complicated and lengthy process in the autologous setting,” Dr. Gauthier noted. “Commercial CAR T-cell manufacturing takes approximately 3-4 weeks, sometimes longer. Some patients won’t survive long enough to receive their infusion. In some patients, T-cell function is dramatically impaired, due to prior therapies or to the disease itself,” he said.

Dr. Gauthier said he was not surprised but that he was encouraged by the apparent early success of the ANTLER study. “The proof-of-concept that allogeneic CD19-targeted CAR T cells can induce high response rates in r/r LBCL has already been established,” he said. “Having said that, it is comforting to see prior findings confirmed by this new study, and those results are exciting for the field,” he added.

As for additional research, “we need longer follow-up after allogeneic CD19-targeted CAR T-cell therapy to ensure responses are durable,” Dr. Gauthier explained. “We also need to better understand the biology driving the antitumor effects and the side effects of CAR T-cells. This will help us build more efficacious and safer CAR T-cell therapies,” he said.
 

Response and side effects show promise for future research

The therapy is “the best CAR-T product” that clinicians can provide for patients knowing that autologous CAR-T works, said Dr. Ahmed Galal, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., in an interview. The current research supports the use of this treatment immediately for patients, he added.

Dr. Galal said he was somewhat surprised, but pleasantly so, by the 100% response rate. This rate is likely because of the small number of patients and may not hold up in further research, but “even 90% would be an amazing achievement,” he said. The tolerable safety profile is encouraging as well, he emphasized. Dr. Galal said that he did not foresee any real barriers to expanded use of the therapy and that technology should make it easier to deliver at authorized centers.

Limitations to the current study are those common to all phase 1 trials, such as the strict inclusion criteria, Dr. Galal said. As research progresses to phase 2, “I don’t think it will be an obstacle to find patients,” he said. However, patients should be aware of side effects, and clinicians should maintain a culture of education to help them understand the value of the therapy, he added.

The complete data from the preliminary findings are scheduled to be presented at the European Hematology Association (EHA) 2022 Hybrid Congress, Vienna, in June, as abstract P1455, titled “First-in-human trial of CB-010, a CRISPR-edited allogeneic anti-CD19 CAR-T cell therapy with a PD-1 knock out, in patients with relapsed or refractory B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (ANTLER study).” The findings are scheduled to be presented by Loretta J. Nastoupil, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, according to Caribou Biosciences.

Dr. Gauthier had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Galal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A weekly subcutaneous dose of teclistamab resulted in high response rates among adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, based on data from 165 patients in the MajesTEC-1 study presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“We have limited treatment options for triple-class exposed and refractory multiple myeloma patients, especially for use in the community,” coauthor Dr. Saad Z. Usmani, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said in an interview. “Teclistamab is a BCMA directed bispecific antibody that is showing high response rates at the recommended subcutaneous phase 2 doses (RP2D),” and has a strong safety profile, he explained.

Teclistamab tackles two targets – both CD3 on the surface of T cells and B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) on the surface of myeloma cells – said Dr. Ajay K. Nooka of Emory University, Atlanta, in the meeting presentation. The study was published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

After teclistamab showed promising efficacy and an acceptable level of side effects in phase 1, researchers enrolled 165 adults aged 33-84 years with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM). The patients had experienced at least three previous lines of therapy (LOT). All patients received a weekly subcutaneous injection of 1.5 mg/kg of body weight following step-up doses of 0.06 mg/kg and 0.3 mg/kg. The primary endpoint of the study was overall response.

The median age of the patients was 64 years; 58% were male, 81.2% were White. The median prior LOT was 5; all of the patients were triple-class exposed (100%); 70% were penta-drug exposed, 78% were triple-class refractory, and 30% penta-drug refractory.

The overall response rate (ORR) was 63% over a median follow-up period of approximately 14.1 months. In addition, 39.4% of patients had a complete response or better, and 26.7% had no minimal residual disease, for a negative minimal residual disease rate of 46.2% in patients with complete response. The median durations of response and progression-free survival were 18.4 months and 11.3 months, respectively.

“The ORR was consistent across clinically relevant subgroups, including high cytogenetic risk and penta-drug refractory subgroups,” Dr. Nooka said in his presentation.

The most common adverse event was cytokine release syndrome, which occurred in 72.1% of patients; however, only 0.6% of these events were grade 3, and none were grade 4. Other adverse events included neutropenia in 70.9% (64.2% of events were grade 3 or 4), anemia (52.1%, 37.0% of events were grade 3 or 4, respectively) and thrombocytopenia (40%, 21.2% of events were grade 3 or 4). Infections occurred in 76.4% of patients overall, 44.8% of which were grade 3 or 4, and neurotoxic events occurred in 24 patients (14.5%). The five cases of immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome (CRS) were grade 1 or 2.

A total of 2 patients (1.2%) discontinued the study because of adverse events, but no discontinuations or dose reductions occurred as a result of neurotoxic events.

A total of 5 deaths attributed to teclistamab occurred during the study: 2 caused by COVID-19, 1 pneumonia, 1 hepatic failure, and 1 progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML).

The responses were durable and persisted over time, said Dr. Nooka. At the point of data cutoff, 64.4% of patients who responded maintained that response.

Overall, the data support teclistamab as “a promising new, off-the-shelf, T-cell redirecting therapy targeting BCMA for patients with relapsed or refractory MM,” with phase 3 studies ongoing and early access programs in progress, Dr. Nooka concluded.

 “The ORR and durability of response seen with teclistamab is very impressive when one sees the data for other single agents approved for relapsed/refractory MM in the past,” Dr. Usmani said in an interview. “I hope the current data will help get a regulatory approval for the triple class exposed MM population.”

However, potential barriers to widespread use of teclistamab in practice include logistics and a learning curve for practicing hematologists/oncologists, Dr. Usmani noted. “While the CRS appears to be grade 1 or 2 and very manageable, the logistics of giving bispecific antibodies in the community setting and managing CRS during the first cycle of therapy in the community will need to be worked out, and partnership with academic centers that have experience in managing these patients will be needed, he added.

As for additional research, “teclistamab is being combined with other MM therapies and being explored in earlier lines of treatment,” Dr. Usmani said.
 

Be ready to manage infections

Despite promising early findings, the use of teclistamab and other BCMA-targeting biospecific therapies is “not a free lunch” for refractory and relapsed MM patients, said discussant Dr. Madhav V. Dhodapkar of Emory University, Atlanta, during the discussion period after the ASCO presentation.

Although the risk of CRS and ICANS appears low, “infections are emerging as a major adverse event” that need to be recognized and managed, he said.

A distinct pattern of infections may be emerging, based on data from the current study and other studies of similar therapies, with infections such as Pneumocystis jirovecii (PJP) and cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation, Dr. Dhodapkar added.

He noted other considerations for studies of teclistamab and similar therapies, including the need to address both host-related and tumor-related factors, as well as seasonal and opportunistic threats such as COVID-19.

Future research questions include whether there is a role for pathogen-specific surveillance to help mitigate infection risk, including COVID-19 risk management strategies, he emphasized.

The study was funded by Janssen Research and Development.

Dr. Usmani disclosed relationships as a consultant or advisor, speakers’ bureau member, and/or recipient of research funding from serving as a consultant or advisor for Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Celgene, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Oncology, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Merck, Oncopeptides, Seattle Genetics, Skyline Diagnostics, and Takeda. Lead author of the New England Journal paper Dr. Philippe Moreau disclosed relationships with companies including Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, Oncopeptides, and Sanofi. ASCO presenting author Dr. Nooka disclosed relationships with companies including Adaptive Biotechnologies, Amgen, BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Oncology, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Oncopeptides, Secura Bio, Arch Oncology, and Takeda.

A weekly subcutaneous dose of teclistamab resulted in high response rates among adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, based on data from 165 patients in the MajesTEC-1 study presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“We have limited treatment options for triple-class exposed and refractory multiple myeloma patients, especially for use in the community,” coauthor Dr. Saad Z. Usmani, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said in an interview. “Teclistamab is a BCMA directed bispecific antibody that is showing high response rates at the recommended subcutaneous phase 2 doses (RP2D),” and has a strong safety profile, he explained.

Teclistamab tackles two targets – both CD3 on the surface of T cells and B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) on the surface of myeloma cells – said Dr. Ajay K. Nooka of Emory University, Atlanta, in the meeting presentation. The study was published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

After teclistamab showed promising efficacy and an acceptable level of side effects in phase 1, researchers enrolled 165 adults aged 33-84 years with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM). The patients had experienced at least three previous lines of therapy (LOT). All patients received a weekly subcutaneous injection of 1.5 mg/kg of body weight following step-up doses of 0.06 mg/kg and 0.3 mg/kg. The primary endpoint of the study was overall response.

The median age of the patients was 64 years; 58% were male, 81.2% were White. The median prior LOT was 5; all of the patients were triple-class exposed (100%); 70% were penta-drug exposed, 78% were triple-class refractory, and 30% penta-drug refractory.

The overall response rate (ORR) was 63% over a median follow-up period of approximately 14.1 months. In addition, 39.4% of patients had a complete response or better, and 26.7% had no minimal residual disease, for a negative minimal residual disease rate of 46.2% in patients with complete response. The median durations of response and progression-free survival were 18.4 months and 11.3 months, respectively.

“The ORR was consistent across clinically relevant subgroups, including high cytogenetic risk and penta-drug refractory subgroups,” Dr. Nooka said in his presentation.

The most common adverse event was cytokine release syndrome, which occurred in 72.1% of patients; however, only 0.6% of these events were grade 3, and none were grade 4. Other adverse events included neutropenia in 70.9% (64.2% of events were grade 3 or 4), anemia (52.1%, 37.0% of events were grade 3 or 4, respectively) and thrombocytopenia (40%, 21.2% of events were grade 3 or 4). Infections occurred in 76.4% of patients overall, 44.8% of which were grade 3 or 4, and neurotoxic events occurred in 24 patients (14.5%). The five cases of immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome (CRS) were grade 1 or 2.

A total of 2 patients (1.2%) discontinued the study because of adverse events, but no discontinuations or dose reductions occurred as a result of neurotoxic events.

A total of 5 deaths attributed to teclistamab occurred during the study: 2 caused by COVID-19, 1 pneumonia, 1 hepatic failure, and 1 progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML).

The responses were durable and persisted over time, said Dr. Nooka. At the point of data cutoff, 64.4% of patients who responded maintained that response.

Overall, the data support teclistamab as “a promising new, off-the-shelf, T-cell redirecting therapy targeting BCMA for patients with relapsed or refractory MM,” with phase 3 studies ongoing and early access programs in progress, Dr. Nooka concluded.

 “The ORR and durability of response seen with teclistamab is very impressive when one sees the data for other single agents approved for relapsed/refractory MM in the past,” Dr. Usmani said in an interview. “I hope the current data will help get a regulatory approval for the triple class exposed MM population.”

However, potential barriers to widespread use of teclistamab in practice include logistics and a learning curve for practicing hematologists/oncologists, Dr. Usmani noted. “While the CRS appears to be grade 1 or 2 and very manageable, the logistics of giving bispecific antibodies in the community setting and managing CRS during the first cycle of therapy in the community will need to be worked out, and partnership with academic centers that have experience in managing these patients will be needed, he added.

As for additional research, “teclistamab is being combined with other MM therapies and being explored in earlier lines of treatment,” Dr. Usmani said.
 

Be ready to manage infections

Despite promising early findings, the use of teclistamab and other BCMA-targeting biospecific therapies is “not a free lunch” for refractory and relapsed MM patients, said discussant Dr. Madhav V. Dhodapkar of Emory University, Atlanta, during the discussion period after the ASCO presentation.

Although the risk of CRS and ICANS appears low, “infections are emerging as a major adverse event” that need to be recognized and managed, he said.

A distinct pattern of infections may be emerging, based on data from the current study and other studies of similar therapies, with infections such as Pneumocystis jirovecii (PJP) and cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation, Dr. Dhodapkar added.

He noted other considerations for studies of teclistamab and similar therapies, including the need to address both host-related and tumor-related factors, as well as seasonal and opportunistic threats such as COVID-19.

Future research questions include whether there is a role for pathogen-specific surveillance to help mitigate infection risk, including COVID-19 risk management strategies, he emphasized.

The study was funded by Janssen Research and Development.

Dr. Usmani disclosed relationships as a consultant or advisor, speakers’ bureau member, and/or recipient of research funding from serving as a consultant or advisor for Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Celgene, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Oncology, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Merck, Oncopeptides, Seattle Genetics, Skyline Diagnostics, and Takeda. Lead author of the New England Journal paper Dr. Philippe Moreau disclosed relationships with companies including Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, Oncopeptides, and Sanofi. ASCO presenting author Dr. Nooka disclosed relationships with companies including Adaptive Biotechnologies, Amgen, BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Oncology, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Oncopeptides, Secura Bio, Arch Oncology, and Takeda.

A weekly subcutaneous dose of teclistamab resulted in high response rates among adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, based on data from 165 patients in the MajesTEC-1 study presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“We have limited treatment options for triple-class exposed and refractory multiple myeloma patients, especially for use in the community,” coauthor Dr. Saad Z. Usmani, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said in an interview. “Teclistamab is a BCMA directed bispecific antibody that is showing high response rates at the recommended subcutaneous phase 2 doses (RP2D),” and has a strong safety profile, he explained.

Teclistamab tackles two targets – both CD3 on the surface of T cells and B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) on the surface of myeloma cells – said Dr. Ajay K. Nooka of Emory University, Atlanta, in the meeting presentation. The study was published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

After teclistamab showed promising efficacy and an acceptable level of side effects in phase 1, researchers enrolled 165 adults aged 33-84 years with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM). The patients had experienced at least three previous lines of therapy (LOT). All patients received a weekly subcutaneous injection of 1.5 mg/kg of body weight following step-up doses of 0.06 mg/kg and 0.3 mg/kg. The primary endpoint of the study was overall response.

The median age of the patients was 64 years; 58% were male, 81.2% were White. The median prior LOT was 5; all of the patients were triple-class exposed (100%); 70% were penta-drug exposed, 78% were triple-class refractory, and 30% penta-drug refractory.

The overall response rate (ORR) was 63% over a median follow-up period of approximately 14.1 months. In addition, 39.4% of patients had a complete response or better, and 26.7% had no minimal residual disease, for a negative minimal residual disease rate of 46.2% in patients with complete response. The median durations of response and progression-free survival were 18.4 months and 11.3 months, respectively.

“The ORR was consistent across clinically relevant subgroups, including high cytogenetic risk and penta-drug refractory subgroups,” Dr. Nooka said in his presentation.

The most common adverse event was cytokine release syndrome, which occurred in 72.1% of patients; however, only 0.6% of these events were grade 3, and none were grade 4. Other adverse events included neutropenia in 70.9% (64.2% of events were grade 3 or 4), anemia (52.1%, 37.0% of events were grade 3 or 4, respectively) and thrombocytopenia (40%, 21.2% of events were grade 3 or 4). Infections occurred in 76.4% of patients overall, 44.8% of which were grade 3 or 4, and neurotoxic events occurred in 24 patients (14.5%). The five cases of immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome (CRS) were grade 1 or 2.

A total of 2 patients (1.2%) discontinued the study because of adverse events, but no discontinuations or dose reductions occurred as a result of neurotoxic events.

A total of 5 deaths attributed to teclistamab occurred during the study: 2 caused by COVID-19, 1 pneumonia, 1 hepatic failure, and 1 progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML).

The responses were durable and persisted over time, said Dr. Nooka. At the point of data cutoff, 64.4% of patients who responded maintained that response.

Overall, the data support teclistamab as “a promising new, off-the-shelf, T-cell redirecting therapy targeting BCMA for patients with relapsed or refractory MM,” with phase 3 studies ongoing and early access programs in progress, Dr. Nooka concluded.

 “The ORR and durability of response seen with teclistamab is very impressive when one sees the data for other single agents approved for relapsed/refractory MM in the past,” Dr. Usmani said in an interview. “I hope the current data will help get a regulatory approval for the triple class exposed MM population.”

However, potential barriers to widespread use of teclistamab in practice include logistics and a learning curve for practicing hematologists/oncologists, Dr. Usmani noted. “While the CRS appears to be grade 1 or 2 and very manageable, the logistics of giving bispecific antibodies in the community setting and managing CRS during the first cycle of therapy in the community will need to be worked out, and partnership with academic centers that have experience in managing these patients will be needed, he added.

As for additional research, “teclistamab is being combined with other MM therapies and being explored in earlier lines of treatment,” Dr. Usmani said.
 

Be ready to manage infections

Despite promising early findings, the use of teclistamab and other BCMA-targeting biospecific therapies is “not a free lunch” for refractory and relapsed MM patients, said discussant Dr. Madhav V. Dhodapkar of Emory University, Atlanta, during the discussion period after the ASCO presentation.

Although the risk of CRS and ICANS appears low, “infections are emerging as a major adverse event” that need to be recognized and managed, he said.

A distinct pattern of infections may be emerging, based on data from the current study and other studies of similar therapies, with infections such as Pneumocystis jirovecii (PJP) and cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation, Dr. Dhodapkar added.

He noted other considerations for studies of teclistamab and similar therapies, including the need to address both host-related and tumor-related factors, as well as seasonal and opportunistic threats such as COVID-19.

Future research questions include whether there is a role for pathogen-specific surveillance to help mitigate infection risk, including COVID-19 risk management strategies, he emphasized.

The study was funded by Janssen Research and Development.

Dr. Usmani disclosed relationships as a consultant or advisor, speakers’ bureau member, and/or recipient of research funding from serving as a consultant or advisor for Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Celgene, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Oncology, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Merck, Oncopeptides, Seattle Genetics, Skyline Diagnostics, and Takeda. Lead author of the New England Journal paper Dr. Philippe Moreau disclosed relationships with companies including Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, Oncopeptides, and Sanofi. ASCO presenting author Dr. Nooka disclosed relationships with companies including Adaptive Biotechnologies, Amgen, BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Oncology, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Oncopeptides, Secura Bio, Arch Oncology, and Takeda.

The number of general internists choosing a career in hospital medicine jumped from 25% to 40% over 10 years, according to data from the American Board of Internal Medicine.

In a new study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, researchers from ABIM reviewed certification data from 67,902 general internists, accounting for 80% of all general internists certified in the United States from 1990 to 2017.

The researchers also used data from Medicare fee-for-service claims from 2008-2018 to measure and categorize practice setting types. The claims were from patients aged 65 years or older with at least 20 evaluation and management visits each year. Practice settings were categorized as hospitalist, outpatient, or mixed.

“ABIM is always working to understand the real-life experience of physicians, and this project grew out of that sort of analysis,” lead author Bradley M. Gray, PhD, a health services researcher at ABIM in Philadelphia, said in an interview. “We wanted to better understand practice setting, because that relates to the kinds of questions that we ask on our certifying exams. When we did this, we noticed a trend toward hospital medicine.”

Overall, the percentages of general internists in hospitalist practice and outpatient-only practice increased during the study period, from 25% to 40% and from 23% to 38%, respectively. By contrast, the percentage of general internists in a mixed-practice setting decreased from 52% to 23%, a 56% decline. Most of the physicians who left the mixed practice setting switched to outpatient-only practices.

Among the internists certified in 2017, 71% practiced as hospitalists, compared with 8% practicing as outpatient-only physicians. Most physicians remained in their original choice of practice setting. For physicians certified in 1999 and 2012, 86% and 85%, respectively, of those who chose hospitalist medicine remained in the hospital setting 5 years later, as did 95% of outpatient physicians, but only 57% of mixed-practice physicians.

The shift to outpatient practice among senior physicians offset the potential decline in outpatient primary care resulting from the increased choice of hospitalist medicine by new internists, the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the reliance on Medicare fee-for-service claims, the researchers noted.

“We were surprised by both the dramatic shift toward hospital medicine by new physicians and the shift to outpatient only (an extreme category) for more senior physicians,” Dr. Gray said in an interview.

The shift toward outpatient practice among older physicians may be driven by convenience, said Dr. Gray. “I suspect that it is more efficient to specialize in terms of practice setting. Only seeing patients in the outpatient setting means that you don’t have to travel to the hospital, which can be time consuming.

“Also, with fewer new physicians going into primary care, older physicians need to focus on outpatient visits. This could be problematic in the future as more senior physicians retire and are replaced by new physicians who focus on hospital care,” which could lead to more shortages in primary care physicians, he explained.

The trend toward hospital medicine as a career has been going on since before the pandemic, said Dr. Gray. “I don’t think the pandemic will ultimately impact this trend. That said, at least in the short run, there may have been a decreased demand for primary care, but that is just my speculation. As more data flow in we will be able to answer this question more directly.”

Next steps for research included digging deeper into the data to understand the nature of conditions facing hospitalists, Dr. Gray said.
 

Implications for primary care

“This study provides an updated snapshot of the popularity of hospital medicine,” said Bradley A. Sharpe, MD, of the division of hospital medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. “It is also important to conduct this study now as health systems think about the challenge of providing high-quality primary care with a rapidly decreasing number of internists choosing to practice outpatient medicine.” Dr. Sharpe was not involved in the study.

“The most surprising finding to me was not the increase in general internists focusing on hospital medicine, but the amount of the increase; it is remarkable that nearly three quarters of general internists are choosing to practice as hospitalists,” Dr. Sharpe noted.

“I think there are a number of key factors at play,” he said. “First, as hospital medicine as a field is now more than 25 years old, hospitals and health systems have evolved to create hospital medicine jobs that are interesting, engaging, rewarding (financially and otherwise), doable, and sustainable. Second, being an outpatient internist is incredibly challenging; multiple studies have shown that it is essentially impossible to complete the evidence-based preventive care for a panel of patients on top of everything else. We know burnout rates are often higher among primary care and family medicine providers. On top of that, the expansion of electronic health records and patient access has led to a massive increase in messages to providers; this has been shown to be associated with burnout.”

The potential impact of the pandemic on physicians’ choices and the trend toward hospital medicine is an interested question, Dr. Sharpe said. The current study showed only trends through 2017.

“To be honest, I think it is difficult to predict,” he said. “Hospitalists shouldered much of the burden of COVID care nationally and burnout rates are high. One could imagine the extra work (as well as concern for personal safety) could lead to fewer providers choosing hospital medicine.

“At the same time, the pandemic has driven many of us to reflect on life and our values and what is important and, through that lens, providers might choose hospital medicine as a more sustainable, do-able, rewarding, and enjoyable career choice,” Dr. Sharpe emphasized.

“Additional research could explore the drivers of this clear trend toward hospital medicine. Determining what is motivating this trend could help hospitals and health systems ensure they have the right workforce for the future and, in particular, how to create outpatient positions that are attractive and rewarding,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Sharpe disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The number of general internists choosing a career in hospital medicine jumped from 25% to 40% over 10 years, according to data from the American Board of Internal Medicine.

In a new study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, researchers from ABIM reviewed certification data from 67,902 general internists, accounting for 80% of all general internists certified in the United States from 1990 to 2017.

The researchers also used data from Medicare fee-for-service claims from 2008-2018 to measure and categorize practice setting types. The claims were from patients aged 65 years or older with at least 20 evaluation and management visits each year. Practice settings were categorized as hospitalist, outpatient, or mixed.

“ABIM is always working to understand the real-life experience of physicians, and this project grew out of that sort of analysis,” lead author Bradley M. Gray, PhD, a health services researcher at ABIM in Philadelphia, said in an interview. “We wanted to better understand practice setting, because that relates to the kinds of questions that we ask on our certifying exams. When we did this, we noticed a trend toward hospital medicine.”

Overall, the percentages of general internists in hospitalist practice and outpatient-only practice increased during the study period, from 25% to 40% and from 23% to 38%, respectively. By contrast, the percentage of general internists in a mixed-practice setting decreased from 52% to 23%, a 56% decline. Most of the physicians who left the mixed practice setting switched to outpatient-only practices.

Among the internists certified in 2017, 71% practiced as hospitalists, compared with 8% practicing as outpatient-only physicians. Most physicians remained in their original choice of practice setting. For physicians certified in 1999 and 2012, 86% and 85%, respectively, of those who chose hospitalist medicine remained in the hospital setting 5 years later, as did 95% of outpatient physicians, but only 57% of mixed-practice physicians.

The shift to outpatient practice among senior physicians offset the potential decline in outpatient primary care resulting from the increased choice of hospitalist medicine by new internists, the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the reliance on Medicare fee-for-service claims, the researchers noted.

“We were surprised by both the dramatic shift toward hospital medicine by new physicians and the shift to outpatient only (an extreme category) for more senior physicians,” Dr. Gray said in an interview.

The shift toward outpatient practice among older physicians may be driven by convenience, said Dr. Gray. “I suspect that it is more efficient to specialize in terms of practice setting. Only seeing patients in the outpatient setting means that you don’t have to travel to the hospital, which can be time consuming.

“Also, with fewer new physicians going into primary care, older physicians need to focus on outpatient visits. This could be problematic in the future as more senior physicians retire and are replaced by new physicians who focus on hospital care,” which could lead to more shortages in primary care physicians, he explained.

The trend toward hospital medicine as a career has been going on since before the pandemic, said Dr. Gray. “I don’t think the pandemic will ultimately impact this trend. That said, at least in the short run, there may have been a decreased demand for primary care, but that is just my speculation. As more data flow in we will be able to answer this question more directly.”

Next steps for research included digging deeper into the data to understand the nature of conditions facing hospitalists, Dr. Gray said.
 

Implications for primary care

“This study provides an updated snapshot of the popularity of hospital medicine,” said Bradley A. Sharpe, MD, of the division of hospital medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. “It is also important to conduct this study now as health systems think about the challenge of providing high-quality primary care with a rapidly decreasing number of internists choosing to practice outpatient medicine.” Dr. Sharpe was not involved in the study.

“The most surprising finding to me was not the increase in general internists focusing on hospital medicine, but the amount of the increase; it is remarkable that nearly three quarters of general internists are choosing to practice as hospitalists,” Dr. Sharpe noted.

“I think there are a number of key factors at play,” he said. “First, as hospital medicine as a field is now more than 25 years old, hospitals and health systems have evolved to create hospital medicine jobs that are interesting, engaging, rewarding (financially and otherwise), doable, and sustainable. Second, being an outpatient internist is incredibly challenging; multiple studies have shown that it is essentially impossible to complete the evidence-based preventive care for a panel of patients on top of everything else. We know burnout rates are often higher among primary care and family medicine providers. On top of that, the expansion of electronic health records and patient access has led to a massive increase in messages to providers; this has been shown to be associated with burnout.”

The potential impact of the pandemic on physicians’ choices and the trend toward hospital medicine is an interested question, Dr. Sharpe said. The current study showed only trends through 2017.

“To be honest, I think it is difficult to predict,” he said. “Hospitalists shouldered much of the burden of COVID care nationally and burnout rates are high. One could imagine the extra work (as well as concern for personal safety) could lead to fewer providers choosing hospital medicine.

“At the same time, the pandemic has driven many of us to reflect on life and our values and what is important and, through that lens, providers might choose hospital medicine as a more sustainable, do-able, rewarding, and enjoyable career choice,” Dr. Sharpe emphasized.

“Additional research could explore the drivers of this clear trend toward hospital medicine. Determining what is motivating this trend could help hospitals and health systems ensure they have the right workforce for the future and, in particular, how to create outpatient positions that are attractive and rewarding,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Sharpe disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The number of general internists choosing a career in hospital medicine jumped from 25% to 40% over 10 years, according to data from the American Board of Internal Medicine.

In a new study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, researchers from ABIM reviewed certification data from 67,902 general internists, accounting for 80% of all general internists certified in the United States from 1990 to 2017.

The researchers also used data from Medicare fee-for-service claims from 2008-2018 to measure and categorize practice setting types. The claims were from patients aged 65 years or older with at least 20 evaluation and management visits each year. Practice settings were categorized as hospitalist, outpatient, or mixed.

“ABIM is always working to understand the real-life experience of physicians, and this project grew out of that sort of analysis,” lead author Bradley M. Gray, PhD, a health services researcher at ABIM in Philadelphia, said in an interview. “We wanted to better understand practice setting, because that relates to the kinds of questions that we ask on our certifying exams. When we did this, we noticed a trend toward hospital medicine.”

Overall, the percentages of general internists in hospitalist practice and outpatient-only practice increased during the study period, from 25% to 40% and from 23% to 38%, respectively. By contrast, the percentage of general internists in a mixed-practice setting decreased from 52% to 23%, a 56% decline. Most of the physicians who left the mixed practice setting switched to outpatient-only practices.

Among the internists certified in 2017, 71% practiced as hospitalists, compared with 8% practicing as outpatient-only physicians. Most physicians remained in their original choice of practice setting. For physicians certified in 1999 and 2012, 86% and 85%, respectively, of those who chose hospitalist medicine remained in the hospital setting 5 years later, as did 95% of outpatient physicians, but only 57% of mixed-practice physicians.

The shift to outpatient practice among senior physicians offset the potential decline in outpatient primary care resulting from the increased choice of hospitalist medicine by new internists, the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the reliance on Medicare fee-for-service claims, the researchers noted.

“We were surprised by both the dramatic shift toward hospital medicine by new physicians and the shift to outpatient only (an extreme category) for more senior physicians,” Dr. Gray said in an interview.

The shift toward outpatient practice among older physicians may be driven by convenience, said Dr. Gray. “I suspect that it is more efficient to specialize in terms of practice setting. Only seeing patients in the outpatient setting means that you don’t have to travel to the hospital, which can be time consuming.

“Also, with fewer new physicians going into primary care, older physicians need to focus on outpatient visits. This could be problematic in the future as more senior physicians retire and are replaced by new physicians who focus on hospital care,” which could lead to more shortages in primary care physicians, he explained.

The trend toward hospital medicine as a career has been going on since before the pandemic, said Dr. Gray. “I don’t think the pandemic will ultimately impact this trend. That said, at least in the short run, there may have been a decreased demand for primary care, but that is just my speculation. As more data flow in we will be able to answer this question more directly.”

Next steps for research included digging deeper into the data to understand the nature of conditions facing hospitalists, Dr. Gray said.
 

Implications for primary care

“This study provides an updated snapshot of the popularity of hospital medicine,” said Bradley A. Sharpe, MD, of the division of hospital medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. “It is also important to conduct this study now as health systems think about the challenge of providing high-quality primary care with a rapidly decreasing number of internists choosing to practice outpatient medicine.” Dr. Sharpe was not involved in the study.

“The most surprising finding to me was not the increase in general internists focusing on hospital medicine, but the amount of the increase; it is remarkable that nearly three quarters of general internists are choosing to practice as hospitalists,” Dr. Sharpe noted.

“I think there are a number of key factors at play,” he said. “First, as hospital medicine as a field is now more than 25 years old, hospitals and health systems have evolved to create hospital medicine jobs that are interesting, engaging, rewarding (financially and otherwise), doable, and sustainable. Second, being an outpatient internist is incredibly challenging; multiple studies have shown that it is essentially impossible to complete the evidence-based preventive care for a panel of patients on top of everything else. We know burnout rates are often higher among primary care and family medicine providers. On top of that, the expansion of electronic health records and patient access has led to a massive increase in messages to providers; this has been shown to be associated with burnout.”

The potential impact of the pandemic on physicians’ choices and the trend toward hospital medicine is an interested question, Dr. Sharpe said. The current study showed only trends through 2017.

“To be honest, I think it is difficult to predict,” he said. “Hospitalists shouldered much of the burden of COVID care nationally and burnout rates are high. One could imagine the extra work (as well as concern for personal safety) could lead to fewer providers choosing hospital medicine.

“At the same time, the pandemic has driven many of us to reflect on life and our values and what is important and, through that lens, providers might choose hospital medicine as a more sustainable, do-able, rewarding, and enjoyable career choice,” Dr. Sharpe emphasized.

“Additional research could explore the drivers of this clear trend toward hospital medicine. Determining what is motivating this trend could help hospitals and health systems ensure they have the right workforce for the future and, in particular, how to create outpatient positions that are attractive and rewarding,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Sharpe disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Babies of mothers who experience significant psychological distress during pregnancy showed evidence of altered brain development in utero and reduced cognitive outcomes at 18 months, based on data from a pair of studies including approximately 300 women.

In a longitudinal study published in JAMA Network Open, Yao Wu, PhD, of Children’s National Hospital, Washington, and colleagues recruited 97 healthy mother-infant dyads between January 2016 and October 2020 at a single center. Of these, 87 underwent two fetal brain imaging studies each, and 10 completed the first MRI visit, for a total of 184 fetal MRIs.

Neurodevelopment and social-emotional development for infants at 18 months of age was measured using the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development and Infant-Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment. The mean age of the mothers was 35 years; maternal distress was assessed between 24 and 40 weeks’ gestation using validated self-report questionnaires. Parenting stress was assessed at the 18-month infant testing using the Parenting Stress Index-Short Form.

Overall, prenatal maternal stress was negatively associated with infant cognitive performance (P = .01) at 18 months, mediated by fetal left hippocampal volume.

In addition, increased fetal cortical local gyrification index and sulcal depth measured during reported times of prenatal maternal distress were associated with significantly poorer social-emotional scores and competence scores at age 18 months. The beta coefficients for local gyrification index and sulcal depth were –54.62 and –14.22, respectively, for social-emotional and competence scores, –24.01 and –7.53, respectively; P values were P < .001, P < .002, P = .003, P < .001, respectively.

“Increased cortical gyrification has been suggested in children with dyslexia and autism, and sulcal depth has been associated with the severity of impaired performance on working memory and executive function in adults with schizophrenia,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings.

The current study “extends our previous findings and suggests a critical role for disturbances in emerging fetal cerebral cortical folding development in mediating the association between prenatal maternal distress and neurodevelopmental problems that later manifest in infancy,” they explained.

The researchers also found that prenatal maternal anxiety, stress, and depression were positively associated with all measures of parenting stress at the 18-month testing visit.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of self-reports for both maternal distress and infant social-emotional assessment, despite the use of validated questionnaires, and the fact that assessment of maternal distress at specific times may not reflect the entire pregnancy, the researchers noted. Other potential limitations included the inability to use some MRI data because of fetal movement and the homogenous population of relatively highly educated women with access to health care that may not reflect other areas, they said.

“Identifying early brain developmental biomarkers may help improve the identification of infants at risk for later neurodevelopmental impairment who might benefit from early targeted interventions,” the researchers concluded.
 

Technology enhances health and disease models

The effect of the prenatal period on future well-being is recognized, but the current study makes “substantial contributions to prenatal programming science, with implications for ways to transform the prenatal care ecosystem for two-generation impact,” Catherine Monk, PhD, and Cristina R. Fernández, MD, both of Columbia University, New York, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

John Abbott/Columbia University

The developmental origins of health and disease (DOHaD) conceptual model introduced by Dr. David Barker in 1995 were later applied to show that maternal stress, depression, and anxiety affected child prenatal and future development, they said. However, the current study uses cutting-edge neuroscience to directly assess developing fetal brains. The finding of reduced cognitive functioning at 18 months associated with maternal stress is consistent with other findings, they noted.

“Finding an association between maternal prenatal stress and infant cognitive outcomes in the setting of what may be modest stress relative to that of a low-resourced or historically marginalized sample underscores the importance of this research; presumably, with higher stress, and greater social determinants of health burden, the effect sizes would be even greater and of greater concern,” they said.

However, studies such as the current one “have the potential to transform the prenatal and postpartum care ecosystems,” by encouraging a whole-person approach to the care of pregnant women, including attention to mental well-being and quality of life, they emphasized.
 

COVID-19 stress considerations

In a separate study published in Communications Medicine, Yuan-Chiao Lu, MD, also of Children’s National Hospital in Washington, and colleagues found a similar effect of maternal stress on fetal brain development.

The researchers imaged the brains of fetuses before and during the COVID-19 pandemic and interviewed mothers about any distress they experienced during pregnancy.

The study population included 65 women with known COVID-19 exposures who underwent 92 fetal MRIs and 137 prepandemic controls who underwent 182 fetal MRIs. Maternal distress was measured via the Spielberger State Anxiety Inventory, Spielberger Trait Anxiety Inventory, Perceived Stress Scale, and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale.

Overall, scores on measures of stress and depression were significantly higher for women in the pandemic group compared with controls. Of the 173 women for whom maternal distress measures were available, 28% of the prepandemic group and 52% of the pandemic group met criteria for elevated maternal psychological distress, defined as above the threshold for distress on any one of the four measures.

After the researchers controlled for maternal distress, MRI data showed decreases in fetal white matter and in hippocampal and cerebellar volumes in fetuses in the pandemic group compared with controls.

Other signs of impaired brain development were similar to those seen in the JAMA Network Open study, including decreased cortical surface area and local gyrification index, as well as reduced sulcal depth in multiple brain lobes, indicating delayed cerebral cortical gyrification.

The second study was limited by a lack of data on other lifestyle changes during the pandemic that might influence maternal health and fetal development, the researchers noted. Other limitations were the possible lack of generalizability to a range of racial and ethnic populations and geographic areas outside of Washington, and the inability to control for unknown COVID-19 exposures or subclinical infections in controls, they said.

However, the results support findings from previous studies, and provide a unique opportunity to study the effect of prenatal stress on early development, as well as a chance to implement “novel and timely interventions,” the researchers wrote.

“Monitoring the COVID generation of infants for long-term cognitive and health outcomes after birth is warranted and currently underway,” and continued research may inform preventive strategies for pregnant women experiencing multiple stressors beyond the pandemic, they concluded.


 

Interpret pandemic effect with caution

“Research studies, as well as our own daily experiences, have made it abundantly clear that stress is on the rise as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic,” said editorial author Dr. Monk, who commented on the second study in an interview. “This is an important public health question: Early identification of pandemic effects on child development can help garner the necessary resources to intervene early, dramatically increasing the likelihood of improving that child’s developmental trajectory,” she said.

“The pandemic is an unprecedented experience that has widespread impact on people’s lives, how could it not also alter gestational biology and the developing brain? That being said, we need to be cautious in that we do not yet know the functional implications of these brain changes for longer-term development,” Dr. Monk said. “Also, we do not know what aspects of women’s pandemic-affected lives had an influence on fetal brain development. The authors found higher stress in pandemic versus nonpandemic women, but not evidence that distress was the mediating variable relating pregnancy during the pandemic to altered brain development,” she explained.

The take-home message for clinicians is to “provide your patients with realistic avenues for neurodevelopmental assessments of their children if they, or you, have concerns,” Dr. Monk said. “However, do not prejudge ‘pandemic babies,’ as not all children will be affected by these potential pandemic effects,” she emphasized. “It is possible to misjudge normal variation in children’s development and unnecessarily raise parents’ anxiety levels. Importantly, this period of brain plasticity means any needed intervention likely can have a big, ameliorating impact,” she added.

“We need follow-up studies looking at pandemic effects on prenatal and postnatal development and what factors protect the fetus and birthing person from the negative influences,” she said.

The JAMA study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the A. James & Alice B. Clark Foundation. The study in Communications Medicine was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research Center, and the A. James & Alice B. Clark Foundation. None of the researchers in either study disclosed conflicts of interest. Dr. Monk disclosed grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Bezos Family Foundation, and the Robin Hood Foundation outside the submitted work.

Babies of mothers who experience significant psychological distress during pregnancy showed evidence of altered brain development in utero and reduced cognitive outcomes at 18 months, based on data from a pair of studies including approximately 300 women.

In a longitudinal study published in JAMA Network Open, Yao Wu, PhD, of Children’s National Hospital, Washington, and colleagues recruited 97 healthy mother-infant dyads between January 2016 and October 2020 at a single center. Of these, 87 underwent two fetal brain imaging studies each, and 10 completed the first MRI visit, for a total of 184 fetal MRIs.

Neurodevelopment and social-emotional development for infants at 18 months of age was measured using the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development and Infant-Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment. The mean age of the mothers was 35 years; maternal distress was assessed between 24 and 40 weeks’ gestation using validated self-report questionnaires. Parenting stress was assessed at the 18-month infant testing using the Parenting Stress Index-Short Form.

Overall, prenatal maternal stress was negatively associated with infant cognitive performance (P = .01) at 18 months, mediated by fetal left hippocampal volume.

In addition, increased fetal cortical local gyrification index and sulcal depth measured during reported times of prenatal maternal distress were associated with significantly poorer social-emotional scores and competence scores at age 18 months. The beta coefficients for local gyrification index and sulcal depth were –54.62 and –14.22, respectively, for social-emotional and competence scores, –24.01 and –7.53, respectively; P values were P < .001, P < .002, P = .003, P < .001, respectively.

“Increased cortical gyrification has been suggested in children with dyslexia and autism, and sulcal depth has been associated with the severity of impaired performance on working memory and executive function in adults with schizophrenia,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings.

The current study “extends our previous findings and suggests a critical role for disturbances in emerging fetal cerebral cortical folding development in mediating the association between prenatal maternal distress and neurodevelopmental problems that later manifest in infancy,” they explained.

The researchers also found that prenatal maternal anxiety, stress, and depression were positively associated with all measures of parenting stress at the 18-month testing visit.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of self-reports for both maternal distress and infant social-emotional assessment, despite the use of validated questionnaires, and the fact that assessment of maternal distress at specific times may not reflect the entire pregnancy, the researchers noted. Other potential limitations included the inability to use some MRI data because of fetal movement and the homogenous population of relatively highly educated women with access to health care that may not reflect other areas, they said.

“Identifying early brain developmental biomarkers may help improve the identification of infants at risk for later neurodevelopmental impairment who might benefit from early targeted interventions,” the researchers concluded.
 

Technology enhances health and disease models

The effect of the prenatal period on future well-being is recognized, but the current study makes “substantial contributions to prenatal programming science, with implications for ways to transform the prenatal care ecosystem for two-generation impact,” Catherine Monk, PhD, and Cristina R. Fernández, MD, both of Columbia University, New York, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

John Abbott/Columbia University

The developmental origins of health and disease (DOHaD) conceptual model introduced by Dr. David Barker in 1995 were later applied to show that maternal stress, depression, and anxiety affected child prenatal and future development, they said. However, the current study uses cutting-edge neuroscience to directly assess developing fetal brains. The finding of reduced cognitive functioning at 18 months associated with maternal stress is consistent with other findings, they noted.

“Finding an association between maternal prenatal stress and infant cognitive outcomes in the setting of what may be modest stress relative to that of a low-resourced or historically marginalized sample underscores the importance of this research; presumably, with higher stress, and greater social determinants of health burden, the effect sizes would be even greater and of greater concern,” they said.

However, studies such as the current one “have the potential to transform the prenatal and postpartum care ecosystems,” by encouraging a whole-person approach to the care of pregnant women, including attention to mental well-being and quality of life, they emphasized.
 

COVID-19 stress considerations

In a separate study published in Communications Medicine, Yuan-Chiao Lu, MD, also of Children’s National Hospital in Washington, and colleagues found a similar effect of maternal stress on fetal brain development.

The researchers imaged the brains of fetuses before and during the COVID-19 pandemic and interviewed mothers about any distress they experienced during pregnancy.

The study population included 65 women with known COVID-19 exposures who underwent 92 fetal MRIs and 137 prepandemic controls who underwent 182 fetal MRIs. Maternal distress was measured via the Spielberger State Anxiety Inventory, Spielberger Trait Anxiety Inventory, Perceived Stress Scale, and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale.

Overall, scores on measures of stress and depression were significantly higher for women in the pandemic group compared with controls. Of the 173 women for whom maternal distress measures were available, 28% of the prepandemic group and 52% of the pandemic group met criteria for elevated maternal psychological distress, defined as above the threshold for distress on any one of the four measures.

After the researchers controlled for maternal distress, MRI data showed decreases in fetal white matter and in hippocampal and cerebellar volumes in fetuses in the pandemic group compared with controls.

Other signs of impaired brain development were similar to those seen in the JAMA Network Open study, including decreased cortical surface area and local gyrification index, as well as reduced sulcal depth in multiple brain lobes, indicating delayed cerebral cortical gyrification.

The second study was limited by a lack of data on other lifestyle changes during the pandemic that might influence maternal health and fetal development, the researchers noted. Other limitations were the possible lack of generalizability to a range of racial and ethnic populations and geographic areas outside of Washington, and the inability to control for unknown COVID-19 exposures or subclinical infections in controls, they said.

However, the results support findings from previous studies, and provide a unique opportunity to study the effect of prenatal stress on early development, as well as a chance to implement “novel and timely interventions,” the researchers wrote.

“Monitoring the COVID generation of infants for long-term cognitive and health outcomes after birth is warranted and currently underway,” and continued research may inform preventive strategies for pregnant women experiencing multiple stressors beyond the pandemic, they concluded.


 

Interpret pandemic effect with caution

“Research studies, as well as our own daily experiences, have made it abundantly clear that stress is on the rise as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic,” said editorial author Dr. Monk, who commented on the second study in an interview. “This is an important public health question: Early identification of pandemic effects on child development can help garner the necessary resources to intervene early, dramatically increasing the likelihood of improving that child’s developmental trajectory,” she said.

“The pandemic is an unprecedented experience that has widespread impact on people’s lives, how could it not also alter gestational biology and the developing brain? That being said, we need to be cautious in that we do not yet know the functional implications of these brain changes for longer-term development,” Dr. Monk said. “Also, we do not know what aspects of women’s pandemic-affected lives had an influence on fetal brain development. The authors found higher stress in pandemic versus nonpandemic women, but not evidence that distress was the mediating variable relating pregnancy during the pandemic to altered brain development,” she explained.

The take-home message for clinicians is to “provide your patients with realistic avenues for neurodevelopmental assessments of their children if they, or you, have concerns,” Dr. Monk said. “However, do not prejudge ‘pandemic babies,’ as not all children will be affected by these potential pandemic effects,” she emphasized. “It is possible to misjudge normal variation in children’s development and unnecessarily raise parents’ anxiety levels. Importantly, this period of brain plasticity means any needed intervention likely can have a big, ameliorating impact,” she added.

“We need follow-up studies looking at pandemic effects on prenatal and postnatal development and what factors protect the fetus and birthing person from the negative influences,” she said.

The JAMA study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the A. James & Alice B. Clark Foundation. The study in Communications Medicine was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research Center, and the A. James & Alice B. Clark Foundation. None of the researchers in either study disclosed conflicts of interest. Dr. Monk disclosed grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Bezos Family Foundation, and the Robin Hood Foundation outside the submitted work.

Babies of mothers who experience significant psychological distress during pregnancy showed evidence of altered brain development in utero and reduced cognitive outcomes at 18 months, based on data from a pair of studies including approximately 300 women.

In a longitudinal study published in JAMA Network Open, Yao Wu, PhD, of Children’s National Hospital, Washington, and colleagues recruited 97 healthy mother-infant dyads between January 2016 and October 2020 at a single center. Of these, 87 underwent two fetal brain imaging studies each, and 10 completed the first MRI visit, for a total of 184 fetal MRIs.

Neurodevelopment and social-emotional development for infants at 18 months of age was measured using the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development and Infant-Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment. The mean age of the mothers was 35 years; maternal distress was assessed between 24 and 40 weeks’ gestation using validated self-report questionnaires. Parenting stress was assessed at the 18-month infant testing using the Parenting Stress Index-Short Form.

Overall, prenatal maternal stress was negatively associated with infant cognitive performance (P = .01) at 18 months, mediated by fetal left hippocampal volume.

In addition, increased fetal cortical local gyrification index and sulcal depth measured during reported times of prenatal maternal distress were associated with significantly poorer social-emotional scores and competence scores at age 18 months. The beta coefficients for local gyrification index and sulcal depth were –54.62 and –14.22, respectively, for social-emotional and competence scores, –24.01 and –7.53, respectively; P values were P < .001, P < .002, P = .003, P < .001, respectively.

“Increased cortical gyrification has been suggested in children with dyslexia and autism, and sulcal depth has been associated with the severity of impaired performance on working memory and executive function in adults with schizophrenia,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings.

The current study “extends our previous findings and suggests a critical role for disturbances in emerging fetal cerebral cortical folding development in mediating the association between prenatal maternal distress and neurodevelopmental problems that later manifest in infancy,” they explained.

The researchers also found that prenatal maternal anxiety, stress, and depression were positively associated with all measures of parenting stress at the 18-month testing visit.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of self-reports for both maternal distress and infant social-emotional assessment, despite the use of validated questionnaires, and the fact that assessment of maternal distress at specific times may not reflect the entire pregnancy, the researchers noted. Other potential limitations included the inability to use some MRI data because of fetal movement and the homogenous population of relatively highly educated women with access to health care that may not reflect other areas, they said.

“Identifying early brain developmental biomarkers may help improve the identification of infants at risk for later neurodevelopmental impairment who might benefit from early targeted interventions,” the researchers concluded.
 

Technology enhances health and disease models

The effect of the prenatal period on future well-being is recognized, but the current study makes “substantial contributions to prenatal programming science, with implications for ways to transform the prenatal care ecosystem for two-generation impact,” Catherine Monk, PhD, and Cristina R. Fernández, MD, both of Columbia University, New York, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

John Abbott/Columbia University

The developmental origins of health and disease (DOHaD) conceptual model introduced by Dr. David Barker in 1995 were later applied to show that maternal stress, depression, and anxiety affected child prenatal and future development, they said. However, the current study uses cutting-edge neuroscience to directly assess developing fetal brains. The finding of reduced cognitive functioning at 18 months associated with maternal stress is consistent with other findings, they noted.

“Finding an association between maternal prenatal stress and infant cognitive outcomes in the setting of what may be modest stress relative to that of a low-resourced or historically marginalized sample underscores the importance of this research; presumably, with higher stress, and greater social determinants of health burden, the effect sizes would be even greater and of greater concern,” they said.

However, studies such as the current one “have the potential to transform the prenatal and postpartum care ecosystems,” by encouraging a whole-person approach to the care of pregnant women, including attention to mental well-being and quality of life, they emphasized.
 

COVID-19 stress considerations

In a separate study published in Communications Medicine, Yuan-Chiao Lu, MD, also of Children’s National Hospital in Washington, and colleagues found a similar effect of maternal stress on fetal brain development.

The researchers imaged the brains of fetuses before and during the COVID-19 pandemic and interviewed mothers about any distress they experienced during pregnancy.

The study population included 65 women with known COVID-19 exposures who underwent 92 fetal MRIs and 137 prepandemic controls who underwent 182 fetal MRIs. Maternal distress was measured via the Spielberger State Anxiety Inventory, Spielberger Trait Anxiety Inventory, Perceived Stress Scale, and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale.

Overall, scores on measures of stress and depression were significantly higher for women in the pandemic group compared with controls. Of the 173 women for whom maternal distress measures were available, 28% of the prepandemic group and 52% of the pandemic group met criteria for elevated maternal psychological distress, defined as above the threshold for distress on any one of the four measures.

After the researchers controlled for maternal distress, MRI data showed decreases in fetal white matter and in hippocampal and cerebellar volumes in fetuses in the pandemic group compared with controls.

Other signs of impaired brain development were similar to those seen in the JAMA Network Open study, including decreased cortical surface area and local gyrification index, as well as reduced sulcal depth in multiple brain lobes, indicating delayed cerebral cortical gyrification.

The second study was limited by a lack of data on other lifestyle changes during the pandemic that might influence maternal health and fetal development, the researchers noted. Other limitations were the possible lack of generalizability to a range of racial and ethnic populations and geographic areas outside of Washington, and the inability to control for unknown COVID-19 exposures or subclinical infections in controls, they said.

However, the results support findings from previous studies, and provide a unique opportunity to study the effect of prenatal stress on early development, as well as a chance to implement “novel and timely interventions,” the researchers wrote.

“Monitoring the COVID generation of infants for long-term cognitive and health outcomes after birth is warranted and currently underway,” and continued research may inform preventive strategies for pregnant women experiencing multiple stressors beyond the pandemic, they concluded.


 

Interpret pandemic effect with caution

“Research studies, as well as our own daily experiences, have made it abundantly clear that stress is on the rise as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic,” said editorial author Dr. Monk, who commented on the second study in an interview. “This is an important public health question: Early identification of pandemic effects on child development can help garner the necessary resources to intervene early, dramatically increasing the likelihood of improving that child’s developmental trajectory,” she said.

“The pandemic is an unprecedented experience that has widespread impact on people’s lives, how could it not also alter gestational biology and the developing brain? That being said, we need to be cautious in that we do not yet know the functional implications of these brain changes for longer-term development,” Dr. Monk said. “Also, we do not know what aspects of women’s pandemic-affected lives had an influence on fetal brain development. The authors found higher stress in pandemic versus nonpandemic women, but not evidence that distress was the mediating variable relating pregnancy during the pandemic to altered brain development,” she explained.

The take-home message for clinicians is to “provide your patients with realistic avenues for neurodevelopmental assessments of their children if they, or you, have concerns,” Dr. Monk said. “However, do not prejudge ‘pandemic babies,’ as not all children will be affected by these potential pandemic effects,” she emphasized. “It is possible to misjudge normal variation in children’s development and unnecessarily raise parents’ anxiety levels. Importantly, this period of brain plasticity means any needed intervention likely can have a big, ameliorating impact,” she added.

“We need follow-up studies looking at pandemic effects on prenatal and postnatal development and what factors protect the fetus and birthing person from the negative influences,” she said.

The JAMA study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the A. James & Alice B. Clark Foundation. The study in Communications Medicine was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research Center, and the A. James & Alice B. Clark Foundation. None of the researchers in either study disclosed conflicts of interest. Dr. Monk disclosed grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Bezos Family Foundation, and the Robin Hood Foundation outside the submitted work.

Less than 10% of parents followed recommended safe sleep practices for their infants aged 12 months and younger at both sleep onset and after nighttime waking, based on data from a survey of 1,500 parents published in Pediatrics.

Sleep-related death remains a major cause of infant mortality in the United States despite the early success of public health campaigns for safe sleep practices, such as “Back to Sleep,” and many parents persist in unsafe practices such as prone positioning and bed-sharing, Mersine A. Bryan, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote. “Though nighttime waking is common for infants, less attention has been paid to the safety of second-sleep practices.”

To examine the prevalence and safety of infant second-sleep practices, the researchers used a cross-sectional online survey to collect information on sleep practices from parents of infants aged 12 months and younger; 74% of the respondents were female, 65% were White, 12% were Black, and 17% were Hispanic. The mean age of the infants was 6.6 months, and 24% were aged 3 months and younger.

The survey included parent reports of three safe sleep practices based on the American Academy of Pediatrics 2016 Safe Infant Sleep Guidelines: supine infant sleep position, use of a separate sleep space (vs. bed sharing), and use of an approved surface/safe location (such as a bassinet, crib, cradle, or play yard vs. an adult bed).

Parents were asked to report sleep practices at sleep onset and at nighttime waking, and the researchers used a composite score to determine safe practices were met at each of these two time points.

Of the 1,500 participants, 581 (39%), reported any second-sleep practice. Of the 482 who reported on all three sleep practices at both time points, 29% met all three safe sleep criteria at sleep onset and 9% met all three safe sleep criteria at sleep onset and nighttime waking.

Of the parents who reported second sleep practices, 39% reported changes in practice after nighttime waking from sleep onset. Significantly more parents who switched practices between sleep onset and nighttime waking shifted from a safer to a less safe practice, the researchers noted.

For positioning, 67% of respondents overall reported placing infants on their backs at sleep onset. Among the 564 who reported a second sleep position, 42% placed infants on their backs again; 13% switched from supine to nonsupine positions and 7% changed from nonsupine to supine.

For sleep spaces, 72% of participants overall reported a separate sleep space for infants at sleep onset. Of the 508 who reported on second-sleep spaces, 54% kept infants in a separate space after nighttime waking, 18% shifted to a shared space after nighttime waking. Of those in shared spaces at sleep onset, 8% shifted to separate spaces after nighttime waking.

For sleep location, 71% of respondents overall used an approved sleep surface at sleep onset. Of the 560 who reported sleep location at both time points, 42% remained in a safe location after nighttime waking, while 30% were moved from a safe to an unsafe location, and 10% of those in an unsafe location were moved from an unsafe to a safe location.

In a multivariate analysis, the researchers examined the demographics associated with changes in sleep practice after nighttime waking. Parents younger than 25 years, first-time parents, those who identified as Black non-Hispanic or Hispanic, smokers, and those with preterm infants (less than 37 weeks’ gestation) were more likely to change sleep practices after nighttime waking. However, parents who reported a safe sleep practice at sleep onset were more likely to do so after nighttime waking.

“We hypothesize that expansion of existing strategies to promote infant safe sleep practices to include sleep practices after nighttime waking can have a positive impact on infant safe sleep,” the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of an online survey, which limited the study population to those with internet and computer access, and the reliance on self-reports and only two time points, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the inclusion of only three of the AAP sleep recommendations, and the inclusion of only English speakers.

However, the results were strengthened by the large, diverse, and geographically representative sample of parents.

“When advising families about infant sleep, pediatricians should discuss nighttime wakings with parents because they are common and reinforce the need for safe sleep practices every time,” the researchers noted.
 

Increase opportunities for education

The current study is important because infants continue to die or experience life-long catastrophic health outcomes as a result of not following safe sleep practices, Cathy Haut, DNP, CPNP-AC, CPNP-PC, a pediatric nurse practitioner in Rehoboth Beach, Del., said in an interview.

“I am not surprised by the study findings,” said Dr. Haut, who was not involved in the study. “As a pediatric nurse practitioner for over 35 years, I see infant sleep as a continuing challenge for families. In today’s fast-paced world, multiple priorities leave parents few resources for managing their own well-being, with adequate sleep being one health requirement that is often not met for them.”

To improve safe sleep practices, “it is imperative for health care providers in any setting to address safe sleep practices for infants and children,” said Dr. Haut. “In addition to safety, opportunity for adequate hours of sleep is also important.” She acknowledged that, “in the office setting, time is a huge barrier to completing comprehensive anticipatory guidance. When parents ask questions about sleep, they are often doing everything they can to physically make it through the night with a crying infant. Enforcing safe practices at this point is extremely difficult.”

However, some opportunities for safe sleep education include the prenatal period when parents can take time to listen and plan, not just for feeding preferences but for safe infant sleep practices, Dr. Haut noted.

“When sleep is a problem, families can be invited back to the office for additional counseling and education, which allows more time than within a scheduled health visit,” Dr. Haut emphasized. “Finally, enhanced public awareness is an aspect of learning. In my career I have seen the devastating results of suffocation while cosleeping as well as injuries from falling from a bed or inappropriate sleeping space, and other poor outcomes from inadequate support for safe sleep habits.”

As for additional research, studies are needed to include larger populations and “to further quantify positive outcomes of following safe sleeping practices,” said Dr. Haut. The results of these studies should be made available to the general public, not only to health care professionals. 

The study was supported by Seattle Children’s Research Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Haut had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

Less than 10% of parents followed recommended safe sleep practices for their infants aged 12 months and younger at both sleep onset and after nighttime waking, based on data from a survey of 1,500 parents published in Pediatrics.

Sleep-related death remains a major cause of infant mortality in the United States despite the early success of public health campaigns for safe sleep practices, such as “Back to Sleep,” and many parents persist in unsafe practices such as prone positioning and bed-sharing, Mersine A. Bryan, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote. “Though nighttime waking is common for infants, less attention has been paid to the safety of second-sleep practices.”

To examine the prevalence and safety of infant second-sleep practices, the researchers used a cross-sectional online survey to collect information on sleep practices from parents of infants aged 12 months and younger; 74% of the respondents were female, 65% were White, 12% were Black, and 17% were Hispanic. The mean age of the infants was 6.6 months, and 24% were aged 3 months and younger.

The survey included parent reports of three safe sleep practices based on the American Academy of Pediatrics 2016 Safe Infant Sleep Guidelines: supine infant sleep position, use of a separate sleep space (vs. bed sharing), and use of an approved surface/safe location (such as a bassinet, crib, cradle, or play yard vs. an adult bed).

Parents were asked to report sleep practices at sleep onset and at nighttime waking, and the researchers used a composite score to determine safe practices were met at each of these two time points.

Of the 1,500 participants, 581 (39%), reported any second-sleep practice. Of the 482 who reported on all three sleep practices at both time points, 29% met all three safe sleep criteria at sleep onset and 9% met all three safe sleep criteria at sleep onset and nighttime waking.

Of the parents who reported second sleep practices, 39% reported changes in practice after nighttime waking from sleep onset. Significantly more parents who switched practices between sleep onset and nighttime waking shifted from a safer to a less safe practice, the researchers noted.

For positioning, 67% of respondents overall reported placing infants on their backs at sleep onset. Among the 564 who reported a second sleep position, 42% placed infants on their backs again; 13% switched from supine to nonsupine positions and 7% changed from nonsupine to supine.

For sleep spaces, 72% of participants overall reported a separate sleep space for infants at sleep onset. Of the 508 who reported on second-sleep spaces, 54% kept infants in a separate space after nighttime waking, 18% shifted to a shared space after nighttime waking. Of those in shared spaces at sleep onset, 8% shifted to separate spaces after nighttime waking.

For sleep location, 71% of respondents overall used an approved sleep surface at sleep onset. Of the 560 who reported sleep location at both time points, 42% remained in a safe location after nighttime waking, while 30% were moved from a safe to an unsafe location, and 10% of those in an unsafe location were moved from an unsafe to a safe location.

In a multivariate analysis, the researchers examined the demographics associated with changes in sleep practice after nighttime waking. Parents younger than 25 years, first-time parents, those who identified as Black non-Hispanic or Hispanic, smokers, and those with preterm infants (less than 37 weeks’ gestation) were more likely to change sleep practices after nighttime waking. However, parents who reported a safe sleep practice at sleep onset were more likely to do so after nighttime waking.

“We hypothesize that expansion of existing strategies to promote infant safe sleep practices to include sleep practices after nighttime waking can have a positive impact on infant safe sleep,” the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of an online survey, which limited the study population to those with internet and computer access, and the reliance on self-reports and only two time points, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the inclusion of only three of the AAP sleep recommendations, and the inclusion of only English speakers.

However, the results were strengthened by the large, diverse, and geographically representative sample of parents.

“When advising families about infant sleep, pediatricians should discuss nighttime wakings with parents because they are common and reinforce the need for safe sleep practices every time,” the researchers noted.
 

Increase opportunities for education

The current study is important because infants continue to die or experience life-long catastrophic health outcomes as a result of not following safe sleep practices, Cathy Haut, DNP, CPNP-AC, CPNP-PC, a pediatric nurse practitioner in Rehoboth Beach, Del., said in an interview.

“I am not surprised by the study findings,” said Dr. Haut, who was not involved in the study. “As a pediatric nurse practitioner for over 35 years, I see infant sleep as a continuing challenge for families. In today’s fast-paced world, multiple priorities leave parents few resources for managing their own well-being, with adequate sleep being one health requirement that is often not met for them.”

To improve safe sleep practices, “it is imperative for health care providers in any setting to address safe sleep practices for infants and children,” said Dr. Haut. “In addition to safety, opportunity for adequate hours of sleep is also important.” She acknowledged that, “in the office setting, time is a huge barrier to completing comprehensive anticipatory guidance. When parents ask questions about sleep, they are often doing everything they can to physically make it through the night with a crying infant. Enforcing safe practices at this point is extremely difficult.”

However, some opportunities for safe sleep education include the prenatal period when parents can take time to listen and plan, not just for feeding preferences but for safe infant sleep practices, Dr. Haut noted.

“When sleep is a problem, families can be invited back to the office for additional counseling and education, which allows more time than within a scheduled health visit,” Dr. Haut emphasized. “Finally, enhanced public awareness is an aspect of learning. In my career I have seen the devastating results of suffocation while cosleeping as well as injuries from falling from a bed or inappropriate sleeping space, and other poor outcomes from inadequate support for safe sleep habits.”

As for additional research, studies are needed to include larger populations and “to further quantify positive outcomes of following safe sleeping practices,” said Dr. Haut. The results of these studies should be made available to the general public, not only to health care professionals. 

The study was supported by Seattle Children’s Research Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Haut had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

Less than 10% of parents followed recommended safe sleep practices for their infants aged 12 months and younger at both sleep onset and after nighttime waking, based on data from a survey of 1,500 parents published in Pediatrics.

Sleep-related death remains a major cause of infant mortality in the United States despite the early success of public health campaigns for safe sleep practices, such as “Back to Sleep,” and many parents persist in unsafe practices such as prone positioning and bed-sharing, Mersine A. Bryan, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote. “Though nighttime waking is common for infants, less attention has been paid to the safety of second-sleep practices.”

To examine the prevalence and safety of infant second-sleep practices, the researchers used a cross-sectional online survey to collect information on sleep practices from parents of infants aged 12 months and younger; 74% of the respondents were female, 65% were White, 12% were Black, and 17% were Hispanic. The mean age of the infants was 6.6 months, and 24% were aged 3 months and younger.

The survey included parent reports of three safe sleep practices based on the American Academy of Pediatrics 2016 Safe Infant Sleep Guidelines: supine infant sleep position, use of a separate sleep space (vs. bed sharing), and use of an approved surface/safe location (such as a bassinet, crib, cradle, or play yard vs. an adult bed).

Parents were asked to report sleep practices at sleep onset and at nighttime waking, and the researchers used a composite score to determine safe practices were met at each of these two time points.

Of the 1,500 participants, 581 (39%), reported any second-sleep practice. Of the 482 who reported on all three sleep practices at both time points, 29% met all three safe sleep criteria at sleep onset and 9% met all three safe sleep criteria at sleep onset and nighttime waking.

Of the parents who reported second sleep practices, 39% reported changes in practice after nighttime waking from sleep onset. Significantly more parents who switched practices between sleep onset and nighttime waking shifted from a safer to a less safe practice, the researchers noted.

For positioning, 67% of respondents overall reported placing infants on their backs at sleep onset. Among the 564 who reported a second sleep position, 42% placed infants on their backs again; 13% switched from supine to nonsupine positions and 7% changed from nonsupine to supine.

For sleep spaces, 72% of participants overall reported a separate sleep space for infants at sleep onset. Of the 508 who reported on second-sleep spaces, 54% kept infants in a separate space after nighttime waking, 18% shifted to a shared space after nighttime waking. Of those in shared spaces at sleep onset, 8% shifted to separate spaces after nighttime waking.

For sleep location, 71% of respondents overall used an approved sleep surface at sleep onset. Of the 560 who reported sleep location at both time points, 42% remained in a safe location after nighttime waking, while 30% were moved from a safe to an unsafe location, and 10% of those in an unsafe location were moved from an unsafe to a safe location.

In a multivariate analysis, the researchers examined the demographics associated with changes in sleep practice after nighttime waking. Parents younger than 25 years, first-time parents, those who identified as Black non-Hispanic or Hispanic, smokers, and those with preterm infants (less than 37 weeks’ gestation) were more likely to change sleep practices after nighttime waking. However, parents who reported a safe sleep practice at sleep onset were more likely to do so after nighttime waking.

“We hypothesize that expansion of existing strategies to promote infant safe sleep practices to include sleep practices after nighttime waking can have a positive impact on infant safe sleep,” the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of an online survey, which limited the study population to those with internet and computer access, and the reliance on self-reports and only two time points, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the inclusion of only three of the AAP sleep recommendations, and the inclusion of only English speakers.

However, the results were strengthened by the large, diverse, and geographically representative sample of parents.

“When advising families about infant sleep, pediatricians should discuss nighttime wakings with parents because they are common and reinforce the need for safe sleep practices every time,” the researchers noted.
 

Increase opportunities for education

The current study is important because infants continue to die or experience life-long catastrophic health outcomes as a result of not following safe sleep practices, Cathy Haut, DNP, CPNP-AC, CPNP-PC, a pediatric nurse practitioner in Rehoboth Beach, Del., said in an interview.

“I am not surprised by the study findings,” said Dr. Haut, who was not involved in the study. “As a pediatric nurse practitioner for over 35 years, I see infant sleep as a continuing challenge for families. In today’s fast-paced world, multiple priorities leave parents few resources for managing their own well-being, with adequate sleep being one health requirement that is often not met for them.”

To improve safe sleep practices, “it is imperative for health care providers in any setting to address safe sleep practices for infants and children,” said Dr. Haut. “In addition to safety, opportunity for adequate hours of sleep is also important.” She acknowledged that, “in the office setting, time is a huge barrier to completing comprehensive anticipatory guidance. When parents ask questions about sleep, they are often doing everything they can to physically make it through the night with a crying infant. Enforcing safe practices at this point is extremely difficult.”

However, some opportunities for safe sleep education include the prenatal period when parents can take time to listen and plan, not just for feeding preferences but for safe infant sleep practices, Dr. Haut noted.

“When sleep is a problem, families can be invited back to the office for additional counseling and education, which allows more time than within a scheduled health visit,” Dr. Haut emphasized. “Finally, enhanced public awareness is an aspect of learning. In my career I have seen the devastating results of suffocation while cosleeping as well as injuries from falling from a bed or inappropriate sleeping space, and other poor outcomes from inadequate support for safe sleep habits.”

As for additional research, studies are needed to include larger populations and “to further quantify positive outcomes of following safe sleeping practices,” said Dr. Haut. The results of these studies should be made available to the general public, not only to health care professionals. 

The study was supported by Seattle Children’s Research Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Haut had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.