Researchers from Harvard and Brigham and Women’s Hospital say their study is the first to fully evaluate the link between mutations in sodium glucose co-transporter-1 (SGLT-1)—the gene responsible for absorbing glucose in the gut—and cardiometabolic disease.

The researchers used genetic data from 8,478 participants in the 25-year Atherosclerosis Risk In Communities (ARIC) study. The participants who carried the mutation (6%) had a lower risk of type 2 diabetes, were less obese, had a lower incidence of heart failure, and a lower mortality rate than did those without the mutation, regardless of dietary intake.

The researchers suggest that their findings “open the door to improved therapies” for cardiometabolic diseases.

Researchers from Harvard and Brigham and Women’s Hospital say their study is the first to fully evaluate the link between mutations in sodium glucose co-transporter-1 (SGLT-1)—the gene responsible for absorbing glucose in the gut—and cardiometabolic disease.

The researchers used genetic data from 8,478 participants in the 25-year Atherosclerosis Risk In Communities (ARIC) study. The participants who carried the mutation (6%) had a lower risk of type 2 diabetes, were less obese, had a lower incidence of heart failure, and a lower mortality rate than did those without the mutation, regardless of dietary intake.

The researchers suggest that their findings “open the door to improved therapies” for cardiometabolic diseases.

Researchers from Harvard and Brigham and Women’s Hospital say their study is the first to fully evaluate the link between mutations in sodium glucose co-transporter-1 (SGLT-1)—the gene responsible for absorbing glucose in the gut—and cardiometabolic disease.

The researchers used genetic data from 8,478 participants in the 25-year Atherosclerosis Risk In Communities (ARIC) study. The participants who carried the mutation (6%) had a lower risk of type 2 diabetes, were less obese, had a lower incidence of heart failure, and a lower mortality rate than did those without the mutation, regardless of dietary intake.

The researchers suggest that their findings “open the door to improved therapies” for cardiometabolic diseases.

This episode of the MDedge Daily News features four of the most important stories of 2018 regarding exercise and clinical practice. Physical activity is tied to lower depression risk among older adults, a task force advises behavioral intervention for obese adults, obesity didn’t just happen to society overnight, and the ADA and the EASD come together on a draft consensus statement for managing hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes.
Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify

This episode of the MDedge Daily News features four of the most important stories of 2018 regarding exercise and clinical practice. Physical activity is tied to lower depression risk among older adults, a task force advises behavioral intervention for obese adults, obesity didn’t just happen to society overnight, and the ADA and the EASD come together on a draft consensus statement for managing hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes.
Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify

This episode of the MDedge Daily News features four of the most important stories of 2018 regarding exercise and clinical practice. Physical activity is tied to lower depression risk among older adults, a task force advises behavioral intervention for obese adults, obesity didn’t just happen to society overnight, and the ADA and the EASD come together on a draft consensus statement for managing hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes.
Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify

Micrograph showing MM

A retrospective study suggests haploidentical hematopoietic stem cell transplant (haplo-HSCT) is feasible in patients with multiply relapsed or high-risk multiple myeloma (MM).

Investigators said haplo-HSCT produced an “acceptable” rate of non-relapse mortality (NRM)—21% at 1 year—in such patients.

“Our results demonstrate that [haplo-HSCT] can be safely performed in appropriate patients with MM who lack an HLA-matched sibling or unrelated donor,” the investigators wrote in Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

The research was conducted by Firoozeh Sahebi, MD, of City of Hope Medical Center in Duarte, California, and her colleagues.

The team analyzed data from 96 MM patients who had failed at least one previous autologous transplant and underwent haplo-HSCT between 2008 and 2016.

The patients had a median age of 54.9 (range, 36.6-73.3), and 65.6% were male. At baseline, 37.5% of patients were in very good partial response or better, 31.2% were in partial response, 13.5% had stable disease, and 17.7% had relapsed disease.

The median follow-up was 24 months. Almost all patients (97%) achieved neutrophil engraftment by day 28, and 75% had recovery of platelets by day 60.

Grade 2-4 acute graft-vs-host-disease occurred in 39% of patients by 100 days. Chronic graft-vs-host-disease was seen in 46% of patients at 2 years.

The rate of NRM was 21% at 1 year and 26% at 2 years. The cumulative risk of relapse and progression was 50% at 1 year and 56% at 2 years.

The 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 17%, and the 2-year overall survival (OS) was 48%.

In a univariate analysis, bone marrow transplant was associated with significantly better OS than peripheral blood transplant (P=0.001). However, there was no significant difference in PFS between the two.

NRM was lower with bone marrow transplant (P=0.016), and there was a trend toward a higher relapse rate with bone marrow (P=0.083).

The use of cyclophosphamide after transplant was associated with significantly better OS (P=0.009) but not PFS, NRM, or relapse.

Other factors—such as disease status and conditioning regimen—had no significant impact on survival, NRM, or relapse.

The investigators said they had no conflicts of interest related to this research.

Micrograph showing MM

A retrospective study suggests haploidentical hematopoietic stem cell transplant (haplo-HSCT) is feasible in patients with multiply relapsed or high-risk multiple myeloma (MM).

Investigators said haplo-HSCT produced an “acceptable” rate of non-relapse mortality (NRM)—21% at 1 year—in such patients.

“Our results demonstrate that [haplo-HSCT] can be safely performed in appropriate patients with MM who lack an HLA-matched sibling or unrelated donor,” the investigators wrote in Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

The research was conducted by Firoozeh Sahebi, MD, of City of Hope Medical Center in Duarte, California, and her colleagues.

The team analyzed data from 96 MM patients who had failed at least one previous autologous transplant and underwent haplo-HSCT between 2008 and 2016.

The patients had a median age of 54.9 (range, 36.6-73.3), and 65.6% were male. At baseline, 37.5% of patients were in very good partial response or better, 31.2% were in partial response, 13.5% had stable disease, and 17.7% had relapsed disease.

The median follow-up was 24 months. Almost all patients (97%) achieved neutrophil engraftment by day 28, and 75% had recovery of platelets by day 60.

Grade 2-4 acute graft-vs-host-disease occurred in 39% of patients by 100 days. Chronic graft-vs-host-disease was seen in 46% of patients at 2 years.

The rate of NRM was 21% at 1 year and 26% at 2 years. The cumulative risk of relapse and progression was 50% at 1 year and 56% at 2 years.

The 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 17%, and the 2-year overall survival (OS) was 48%.

In a univariate analysis, bone marrow transplant was associated with significantly better OS than peripheral blood transplant (P=0.001). However, there was no significant difference in PFS between the two.

NRM was lower with bone marrow transplant (P=0.016), and there was a trend toward a higher relapse rate with bone marrow (P=0.083).

The use of cyclophosphamide after transplant was associated with significantly better OS (P=0.009) but not PFS, NRM, or relapse.

Other factors—such as disease status and conditioning regimen—had no significant impact on survival, NRM, or relapse.

The investigators said they had no conflicts of interest related to this research.

Micrograph showing MM

A retrospective study suggests haploidentical hematopoietic stem cell transplant (haplo-HSCT) is feasible in patients with multiply relapsed or high-risk multiple myeloma (MM).

Investigators said haplo-HSCT produced an “acceptable” rate of non-relapse mortality (NRM)—21% at 1 year—in such patients.

“Our results demonstrate that [haplo-HSCT] can be safely performed in appropriate patients with MM who lack an HLA-matched sibling or unrelated donor,” the investigators wrote in Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

The research was conducted by Firoozeh Sahebi, MD, of City of Hope Medical Center in Duarte, California, and her colleagues.

The team analyzed data from 96 MM patients who had failed at least one previous autologous transplant and underwent haplo-HSCT between 2008 and 2016.

The patients had a median age of 54.9 (range, 36.6-73.3), and 65.6% were male. At baseline, 37.5% of patients were in very good partial response or better, 31.2% were in partial response, 13.5% had stable disease, and 17.7% had relapsed disease.

The median follow-up was 24 months. Almost all patients (97%) achieved neutrophil engraftment by day 28, and 75% had recovery of platelets by day 60.

Grade 2-4 acute graft-vs-host-disease occurred in 39% of patients by 100 days. Chronic graft-vs-host-disease was seen in 46% of patients at 2 years.

The rate of NRM was 21% at 1 year and 26% at 2 years. The cumulative risk of relapse and progression was 50% at 1 year and 56% at 2 years.

The 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 17%, and the 2-year overall survival (OS) was 48%.

In a univariate analysis, bone marrow transplant was associated with significantly better OS than peripheral blood transplant (P=0.001). However, there was no significant difference in PFS between the two.

NRM was lower with bone marrow transplant (P=0.016), and there was a trend toward a higher relapse rate with bone marrow (P=0.083).

The use of cyclophosphamide after transplant was associated with significantly better OS (P=0.009) but not PFS, NRM, or relapse.

Other factors—such as disease status and conditioning regimen—had no significant impact on survival, NRM, or relapse.

The investigators said they had no conflicts of interest related to this research.

Total knee replacement risk spares after artheroscopic surgery for meniscal tear. Also today, the ADA releases guidelines for type 2 diabetes in children and youth, Nasal glucagon is a viable alternative to intramuscular administration, and draft guidelines advise HIV screening for most teens and adults.

Amazon Alexa

Apple Podcasts

Google Podcasts

Spotify

Total knee replacement risk spares after artheroscopic surgery for meniscal tear. Also today, the ADA releases guidelines for type 2 diabetes in children and youth, Nasal glucagon is a viable alternative to intramuscular administration, and draft guidelines advise HIV screening for most teens and adults.

Amazon Alexa

Apple Podcasts

Google Podcasts

Spotify

Total knee replacement risk spares after artheroscopic surgery for meniscal tear. Also today, the ADA releases guidelines for type 2 diabetes in children and youth, Nasal glucagon is a viable alternative to intramuscular administration, and draft guidelines advise HIV screening for most teens and adults.

Amazon Alexa

Apple Podcasts

Google Podcasts

Spotify

Clinical question: Is the combination of aspirin and clopidogrel effective in reducing stroke recurrence?

Background: The risk of recurrent stroke varies from 3% to 15% in the 3 months after a minor ischemic stroke (NIH Stroke Scale score of 3 or less) or high-risk transient ischemic attack (ABCD2 score of 4 or less). Dual-antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel reduces recurrent coronary syndrome; therefore, this strategy can prevent recurrent stroke.

Study design: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled trial.

Setting: 269 sites in 10 countries, mostly in the United States, from May 28, 2010, to Dec. 19, 2017.

Synopsis: The POINT (­Platelet-Oriented Inhibition in New TIA and Minor Ischemic Stroke) trial enrolled 4,881 patients older than 18 years of age randomized to a loading dose of 600 mg of clopidogrel followed by 75 mg per day or placebo, and aspirin 162 mg daily for 5 days followed by 81 mg daily. The primary outcome was the risk of major ischemic events, including ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, or death from ischemic vascular causes. Major ischemic events were observed in 5.0% receiving dual therapy and in 6.5% of those receiving aspirin alone (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.95; P = .02) with most occurring within a week after the initial stroke. Major hemorrhage occurred in only 23 patients (0.9%), most of which were extracranial and nonfatal. One of the main limitations is the difficulty in objectively diagnosing TIAs, accounting for 43% of the patients in the study.

Bottom line: Dual-antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel is beneficial, mainly in the first week after a minor stroke or high-risk TIA with low risk of major bleeding.

Citation: Johnston SC et al. Clopidogrel and aspirin in acute ischemic stroke and high-risk TIA. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:215-25.

Dr. Vela-Duarte is assistant professor of neurology at the University of Colorado, Denver.

Clinical question: Is the combination of aspirin and clopidogrel effective in reducing stroke recurrence?

Background: The risk of recurrent stroke varies from 3% to 15% in the 3 months after a minor ischemic stroke (NIH Stroke Scale score of 3 or less) or high-risk transient ischemic attack (ABCD2 score of 4 or less). Dual-antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel reduces recurrent coronary syndrome; therefore, this strategy can prevent recurrent stroke.

Study design: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled trial.

Setting: 269 sites in 10 countries, mostly in the United States, from May 28, 2010, to Dec. 19, 2017.

Synopsis: The POINT (­Platelet-Oriented Inhibition in New TIA and Minor Ischemic Stroke) trial enrolled 4,881 patients older than 18 years of age randomized to a loading dose of 600 mg of clopidogrel followed by 75 mg per day or placebo, and aspirin 162 mg daily for 5 days followed by 81 mg daily. The primary outcome was the risk of major ischemic events, including ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, or death from ischemic vascular causes. Major ischemic events were observed in 5.0% receiving dual therapy and in 6.5% of those receiving aspirin alone (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.95; P = .02) with most occurring within a week after the initial stroke. Major hemorrhage occurred in only 23 patients (0.9%), most of which were extracranial and nonfatal. One of the main limitations is the difficulty in objectively diagnosing TIAs, accounting for 43% of the patients in the study.

Bottom line: Dual-antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel is beneficial, mainly in the first week after a minor stroke or high-risk TIA with low risk of major bleeding.

Citation: Johnston SC et al. Clopidogrel and aspirin in acute ischemic stroke and high-risk TIA. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:215-25.

Dr. Vela-Duarte is assistant professor of neurology at the University of Colorado, Denver.

Clinical question: Is the combination of aspirin and clopidogrel effective in reducing stroke recurrence?

Background: The risk of recurrent stroke varies from 3% to 15% in the 3 months after a minor ischemic stroke (NIH Stroke Scale score of 3 or less) or high-risk transient ischemic attack (ABCD2 score of 4 or less). Dual-antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel reduces recurrent coronary syndrome; therefore, this strategy can prevent recurrent stroke.

Study design: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled trial.

Setting: 269 sites in 10 countries, mostly in the United States, from May 28, 2010, to Dec. 19, 2017.

Synopsis: The POINT (­Platelet-Oriented Inhibition in New TIA and Minor Ischemic Stroke) trial enrolled 4,881 patients older than 18 years of age randomized to a loading dose of 600 mg of clopidogrel followed by 75 mg per day or placebo, and aspirin 162 mg daily for 5 days followed by 81 mg daily. The primary outcome was the risk of major ischemic events, including ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, or death from ischemic vascular causes. Major ischemic events were observed in 5.0% receiving dual therapy and in 6.5% of those receiving aspirin alone (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.95; P = .02) with most occurring within a week after the initial stroke. Major hemorrhage occurred in only 23 patients (0.9%), most of which were extracranial and nonfatal. One of the main limitations is the difficulty in objectively diagnosing TIAs, accounting for 43% of the patients in the study.

Bottom line: Dual-antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel is beneficial, mainly in the first week after a minor stroke or high-risk TIA with low risk of major bleeding.

Citation: Johnston SC et al. Clopidogrel and aspirin in acute ischemic stroke and high-risk TIA. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:215-25.

Dr. Vela-Duarte is assistant professor of neurology at the University of Colorado, Denver.

Two probiotic products containing strains of Lactobacillus rhamnosus failed to prevent moderate-to-severe gastroenteritis in children, according to the results of large, randomized trials published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Neither probiotic formulation significantly reduced duration of diarrhea or vomiting, or improved endpoints such as daycare absenteeism in the double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, which together included 1,857 infants or children with acute infectious gastroenteritis treated in the United States or Canada.

In one of the two trials, conducted at 10 U.S. pediatric emergency departments, a 5-day course of L. rhamnosus GG did not improve outcomes, versus placebo, according to investigators, led by David Schnadower, MD, of Cincinnati (Ohio) Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

Results of the trial, which comprised 971 children aged 3 months to 4 years, sharply contrast with results of previous studies and meta-analyses suggesting probiotics do improve outcomes in children with acute gastroenteritis.

However, those studies were hampered by small sample sizes, lack of probiotic quality control, and endpoints “of questionable relevance,” among other limitations, according to Dr. Schnadower and his coauthors.

“The rigor of our research design calls into question recommendations to use L. rhamnosus GG in the treatment of children with acute gastroenteritis,” the authors said in their published report.

Moderate to severe gastroenteritis within 14 days of enrollment, the trial’s primary endpoint, occurred in 11.8% of children who received the probiotic, and in 12.6% of those who received placebo (P = .83).

Diarrhea duration was similar, at 49.7 hours and 50.9 hours in the probiotic and placebo groups, respectively (P = .26). Likewise, there were no significant differences in duration of vomiting, daycare absenteeism, or rate of household transmission between the study arms, investigators reported.

In the Canadian trial, which was similar to the U.S. trial but conducted independently, a probiotic product containing L. rhamnosus R0011 and L. helveticus R0052 also showed no significant benefit over placebo in reducing incidence of moderate to severe gastroenteritis within 14 days of enrollment.

That endpoint occurred in 26.1% of children assigned to probiotics, and 24.7% assigned to placebo (P = .72). The trial comprised 886 children 3-48 months presenting to one of six pediatric emergency departments in Canada.

As in the U.S. trial, investigators said there were no significant differences in diarrhea duration, at 52.5 and 55.5 hours in the probiotic and placebo groups, respectively (P = .31). And there were no significant differences in duration of vomiting, unscheduled health care provider visits, or adverse events.

Both trials used a modified Vesikari scale symptom score of 9 or higher (range, 0-20) to define moderate to severe gastroenteritis.

Rather than focusing on a single symptom such as diarrhea, the modified Vesikari scale score shows a “constellation of symptoms” associated with gastroenteritis, according to the Canadian investigators, led by Stephen B. Freedman, MDCM, of the department of pediatrics at Alberta Children’s Hospital and Research Institute, University of Calgary.

Although the use of composite measures has been questioned, the modified Vesikari scale is externally validated and produced consistent findings for individual symptoms, according to the authors. “Analysis of all individual score elements supported the conclusions based on our primary outcome,” they wrote.

Despite the findings, the conclusions about the particular probiotic product evaluated in the trial cannot be generalized to others in the market, according to Dr. Freedman and his colleagues. Other “large, well conducted trials have aroused similar concerns regarding the effectiveness of probiotics for other conditions,” they added. “Nonetheless, there may be specific indications and populations that will benefit from alternative probiotic agents.”

The U.S. study was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, among other sources. Dr. Schnadower reported that he received grants from the NICHD and nonfinancial support from iHealth.

The Canadian study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, among other sources. Dr. Freedman reported that he received nonfinancial support from Calgary Laboratory Services, Copan Italia, Lallemand Health Solutions, Luminex, and ProvLab Alberta, along with grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Alberta Children’s Hospital Foundation.

Visit the AGA GI Patient Center for information that you can share with your patients about probiotics. 

SOURCES: Schnadower D et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 22;379(21):2002-14; Freedman SB et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 22;379(21);2015-26.

Two probiotic products containing strains of Lactobacillus rhamnosus failed to prevent moderate-to-severe gastroenteritis in children, according to the results of large, randomized trials published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Neither probiotic formulation significantly reduced duration of diarrhea or vomiting, or improved endpoints such as daycare absenteeism in the double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, which together included 1,857 infants or children with acute infectious gastroenteritis treated in the United States or Canada.

In one of the two trials, conducted at 10 U.S. pediatric emergency departments, a 5-day course of L. rhamnosus GG did not improve outcomes, versus placebo, according to investigators, led by David Schnadower, MD, of Cincinnati (Ohio) Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

Results of the trial, which comprised 971 children aged 3 months to 4 years, sharply contrast with results of previous studies and meta-analyses suggesting probiotics do improve outcomes in children with acute gastroenteritis.

However, those studies were hampered by small sample sizes, lack of probiotic quality control, and endpoints “of questionable relevance,” among other limitations, according to Dr. Schnadower and his coauthors.

“The rigor of our research design calls into question recommendations to use L. rhamnosus GG in the treatment of children with acute gastroenteritis,” the authors said in their published report.

Moderate to severe gastroenteritis within 14 days of enrollment, the trial’s primary endpoint, occurred in 11.8% of children who received the probiotic, and in 12.6% of those who received placebo (P = .83).

Diarrhea duration was similar, at 49.7 hours and 50.9 hours in the probiotic and placebo groups, respectively (P = .26). Likewise, there were no significant differences in duration of vomiting, daycare absenteeism, or rate of household transmission between the study arms, investigators reported.

In the Canadian trial, which was similar to the U.S. trial but conducted independently, a probiotic product containing L. rhamnosus R0011 and L. helveticus R0052 also showed no significant benefit over placebo in reducing incidence of moderate to severe gastroenteritis within 14 days of enrollment.

That endpoint occurred in 26.1% of children assigned to probiotics, and 24.7% assigned to placebo (P = .72). The trial comprised 886 children 3-48 months presenting to one of six pediatric emergency departments in Canada.

As in the U.S. trial, investigators said there were no significant differences in diarrhea duration, at 52.5 and 55.5 hours in the probiotic and placebo groups, respectively (P = .31). And there were no significant differences in duration of vomiting, unscheduled health care provider visits, or adverse events.

Both trials used a modified Vesikari scale symptom score of 9 or higher (range, 0-20) to define moderate to severe gastroenteritis.

Rather than focusing on a single symptom such as diarrhea, the modified Vesikari scale score shows a “constellation of symptoms” associated with gastroenteritis, according to the Canadian investigators, led by Stephen B. Freedman, MDCM, of the department of pediatrics at Alberta Children’s Hospital and Research Institute, University of Calgary.

Although the use of composite measures has been questioned, the modified Vesikari scale is externally validated and produced consistent findings for individual symptoms, according to the authors. “Analysis of all individual score elements supported the conclusions based on our primary outcome,” they wrote.

Despite the findings, the conclusions about the particular probiotic product evaluated in the trial cannot be generalized to others in the market, according to Dr. Freedman and his colleagues. Other “large, well conducted trials have aroused similar concerns regarding the effectiveness of probiotics for other conditions,” they added. “Nonetheless, there may be specific indications and populations that will benefit from alternative probiotic agents.”

The U.S. study was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, among other sources. Dr. Schnadower reported that he received grants from the NICHD and nonfinancial support from iHealth.

The Canadian study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, among other sources. Dr. Freedman reported that he received nonfinancial support from Calgary Laboratory Services, Copan Italia, Lallemand Health Solutions, Luminex, and ProvLab Alberta, along with grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Alberta Children’s Hospital Foundation.

Visit the AGA GI Patient Center for information that you can share with your patients about probiotics. 

SOURCES: Schnadower D et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 22;379(21):2002-14; Freedman SB et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 22;379(21);2015-26.

Two probiotic products containing strains of Lactobacillus rhamnosus failed to prevent moderate-to-severe gastroenteritis in children, according to the results of large, randomized trials published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Neither probiotic formulation significantly reduced duration of diarrhea or vomiting, or improved endpoints such as daycare absenteeism in the double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, which together included 1,857 infants or children with acute infectious gastroenteritis treated in the United States or Canada.

In one of the two trials, conducted at 10 U.S. pediatric emergency departments, a 5-day course of L. rhamnosus GG did not improve outcomes, versus placebo, according to investigators, led by David Schnadower, MD, of Cincinnati (Ohio) Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

Results of the trial, which comprised 971 children aged 3 months to 4 years, sharply contrast with results of previous studies and meta-analyses suggesting probiotics do improve outcomes in children with acute gastroenteritis.

However, those studies were hampered by small sample sizes, lack of probiotic quality control, and endpoints “of questionable relevance,” among other limitations, according to Dr. Schnadower and his coauthors.

“The rigor of our research design calls into question recommendations to use L. rhamnosus GG in the treatment of children with acute gastroenteritis,” the authors said in their published report.

Moderate to severe gastroenteritis within 14 days of enrollment, the trial’s primary endpoint, occurred in 11.8% of children who received the probiotic, and in 12.6% of those who received placebo (P = .83).

Diarrhea duration was similar, at 49.7 hours and 50.9 hours in the probiotic and placebo groups, respectively (P = .26). Likewise, there were no significant differences in duration of vomiting, daycare absenteeism, or rate of household transmission between the study arms, investigators reported.

In the Canadian trial, which was similar to the U.S. trial but conducted independently, a probiotic product containing L. rhamnosus R0011 and L. helveticus R0052 also showed no significant benefit over placebo in reducing incidence of moderate to severe gastroenteritis within 14 days of enrollment.

That endpoint occurred in 26.1% of children assigned to probiotics, and 24.7% assigned to placebo (P = .72). The trial comprised 886 children 3-48 months presenting to one of six pediatric emergency departments in Canada.

As in the U.S. trial, investigators said there were no significant differences in diarrhea duration, at 52.5 and 55.5 hours in the probiotic and placebo groups, respectively (P = .31). And there were no significant differences in duration of vomiting, unscheduled health care provider visits, or adverse events.

Both trials used a modified Vesikari scale symptom score of 9 or higher (range, 0-20) to define moderate to severe gastroenteritis.

Rather than focusing on a single symptom such as diarrhea, the modified Vesikari scale score shows a “constellation of symptoms” associated with gastroenteritis, according to the Canadian investigators, led by Stephen B. Freedman, MDCM, of the department of pediatrics at Alberta Children’s Hospital and Research Institute, University of Calgary.

Although the use of composite measures has been questioned, the modified Vesikari scale is externally validated and produced consistent findings for individual symptoms, according to the authors. “Analysis of all individual score elements supported the conclusions based on our primary outcome,” they wrote.

Despite the findings, the conclusions about the particular probiotic product evaluated in the trial cannot be generalized to others in the market, according to Dr. Freedman and his colleagues. Other “large, well conducted trials have aroused similar concerns regarding the effectiveness of probiotics for other conditions,” they added. “Nonetheless, there may be specific indications and populations that will benefit from alternative probiotic agents.”

The U.S. study was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, among other sources. Dr. Schnadower reported that he received grants from the NICHD and nonfinancial support from iHealth.

The Canadian study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, among other sources. Dr. Freedman reported that he received nonfinancial support from Calgary Laboratory Services, Copan Italia, Lallemand Health Solutions, Luminex, and ProvLab Alberta, along with grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Alberta Children’s Hospital Foundation.

Visit the AGA GI Patient Center for information that you can share with your patients about probiotics. 

SOURCES: Schnadower D et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 22;379(21):2002-14; Freedman SB et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 22;379(21);2015-26.

Two probiotic products containing strains of Lactobacillus rhamnosus failed to prevent moderate-to-severe gastroenteritis in children, according to the results of large, randomized trials published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Neither probiotic formulation significantly reduced duration of diarrhea or vomiting, or improved endpoints such as daycare absenteeism in the double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, which together included 1,857 infants or children with acute infectious gastroenteritis treated in the United States or Canada.

In one of the two trials, conducted at 10 U.S. pediatric emergency departments, a 5-day course of L. rhamnosus GG did not improve outcomes, versus placebo, according to investigators, led by David Schnadower, MD, of Cincinnati (Ohio) Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

Results of the trial, which comprised 971 children aged 3 months to 4 years, sharply contrast with results of previous studies and meta-analyses suggesting probiotics do improve outcomes in children with acute gastroenteritis.

However, those studies were hampered by small sample sizes, lack of probiotic quality control, and endpoints “of questionable relevance,” among other limitations, according to Dr. Schnadower and his coauthors.

“The rigor of our research design calls into question recommendations to use L. rhamnosus GG in the treatment of children with acute gastroenteritis,” the authors said in their published report.

Moderate to severe gastroenteritis within 14 days of enrollment, the trial’s primary endpoint, occurred in 11.8% of children who received the probiotic, and in 12.6% of those who received placebo (P = .83).

Diarrhea duration was similar, at 49.7 hours and 50.9 hours in the probiotic and placebo groups, respectively (P = .26). Likewise, there were no significant differences in duration of vomiting, daycare absenteeism, or rate of household transmission between the study arms, investigators reported.

In the Canadian trial, which was similar to the U.S. trial but conducted independently, a probiotic product containing L. rhamnosus R0011 and L. helveticus R0052 also showed no significant benefit over placebo in reducing incidence of moderate to severe gastroenteritis within 14 days of enrollment.

That endpoint occurred in 26.1% of children assigned to probiotics, and 24.7% assigned to placebo (P = .72). The trial comprised 886 children 3-48 months presenting to one of six pediatric emergency departments in Canada.

As in the U.S. trial, investigators said there were no significant differences in diarrhea duration, at 52.5 and 55.5 hours in the probiotic and placebo groups, respectively (P = .31). And there were no significant differences in duration of vomiting, unscheduled health care provider visits, or adverse events.

Both trials used a modified Vesikari scale symptom score of 9 or higher (range, 0-20) to define moderate to severe gastroenteritis.

Rather than focusing on a single symptom such as diarrhea, the modified Vesikari scale score shows a “constellation of symptoms” associated with gastroenteritis, according to the Canadian investigators, led by Stephen B. Freedman, MDCM, of the department of pediatrics at Alberta Children’s Hospital and Research Institute, University of Calgary.

Although the use of composite measures has been questioned, the modified Vesikari scale is externally validated and produced consistent findings for individual symptoms, according to the authors. “Analysis of all individual score elements supported the conclusions based on our primary outcome,” they wrote.

Despite the findings, the conclusions about the particular probiotic product evaluated in the trial cannot be generalized to others in the market, according to Dr. Freedman and his colleagues. Other “large, well conducted trials have aroused similar concerns regarding the effectiveness of probiotics for other conditions,” they added. “Nonetheless, there may be specific indications and populations that will benefit from alternative probiotic agents.”

The U.S. study was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, among other sources. Dr. Schnadower reported that he received grants from the NICHD and nonfinancial support from iHealth.

The Canadian study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, among other sources. Dr. Freedman reported that he received nonfinancial support from Calgary Laboratory Services, Copan Italia, Lallemand Health Solutions, Luminex, and ProvLab Alberta, along with grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Alberta Children’s Hospital Foundation.

SOURCES: Schnadower D et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 22;379(21):2002-14; Freedman SB et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 22;379(21);2015-26.

Two probiotic products containing strains of Lactobacillus rhamnosus failed to prevent moderate-to-severe gastroenteritis in children, according to the results of large, randomized trials published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Neither probiotic formulation significantly reduced duration of diarrhea or vomiting, or improved endpoints such as daycare absenteeism in the double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, which together included 1,857 infants or children with acute infectious gastroenteritis treated in the United States or Canada.

In one of the two trials, conducted at 10 U.S. pediatric emergency departments, a 5-day course of L. rhamnosus GG did not improve outcomes, versus placebo, according to investigators, led by David Schnadower, MD, of Cincinnati (Ohio) Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

Results of the trial, which comprised 971 children aged 3 months to 4 years, sharply contrast with results of previous studies and meta-analyses suggesting probiotics do improve outcomes in children with acute gastroenteritis.

However, those studies were hampered by small sample sizes, lack of probiotic quality control, and endpoints “of questionable relevance,” among other limitations, according to Dr. Schnadower and his coauthors.

“The rigor of our research design calls into question recommendations to use L. rhamnosus GG in the treatment of children with acute gastroenteritis,” the authors said in their published report.

Moderate to severe gastroenteritis within 14 days of enrollment, the trial’s primary endpoint, occurred in 11.8% of children who received the probiotic, and in 12.6% of those who received placebo (P = .83).

Diarrhea duration was similar, at 49.7 hours and 50.9 hours in the probiotic and placebo groups, respectively (P = .26). Likewise, there were no significant differences in duration of vomiting, daycare absenteeism, or rate of household transmission between the study arms, investigators reported.

In the Canadian trial, which was similar to the U.S. trial but conducted independently, a probiotic product containing L. rhamnosus R0011 and L. helveticus R0052 also showed no significant benefit over placebo in reducing incidence of moderate to severe gastroenteritis within 14 days of enrollment.

That endpoint occurred in 26.1% of children assigned to probiotics, and 24.7% assigned to placebo (P = .72). The trial comprised 886 children 3-48 months presenting to one of six pediatric emergency departments in Canada.

As in the U.S. trial, investigators said there were no significant differences in diarrhea duration, at 52.5 and 55.5 hours in the probiotic and placebo groups, respectively (P = .31). And there were no significant differences in duration of vomiting, unscheduled health care provider visits, or adverse events.

Both trials used a modified Vesikari scale symptom score of 9 or higher (range, 0-20) to define moderate to severe gastroenteritis.

Rather than focusing on a single symptom such as diarrhea, the modified Vesikari scale score shows a “constellation of symptoms” associated with gastroenteritis, according to the Canadian investigators, led by Stephen B. Freedman, MDCM, of the department of pediatrics at Alberta Children’s Hospital and Research Institute, University of Calgary.

Although the use of composite measures has been questioned, the modified Vesikari scale is externally validated and produced consistent findings for individual symptoms, according to the authors. “Analysis of all individual score elements supported the conclusions based on our primary outcome,” they wrote.

Despite the findings, the conclusions about the particular probiotic product evaluated in the trial cannot be generalized to others in the market, according to Dr. Freedman and his colleagues. Other “large, well conducted trials have aroused similar concerns regarding the effectiveness of probiotics for other conditions,” they added. “Nonetheless, there may be specific indications and populations that will benefit from alternative probiotic agents.”

The U.S. study was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, among other sources. Dr. Schnadower reported that he received grants from the NICHD and nonfinancial support from iHealth.

The Canadian study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, among other sources. Dr. Freedman reported that he received nonfinancial support from Calgary Laboratory Services, Copan Italia, Lallemand Health Solutions, Luminex, and ProvLab Alberta, along with grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Alberta Children’s Hospital Foundation.

SOURCES: Schnadower D et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 22;379(21):2002-14; Freedman SB et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 22;379(21);2015-26.

Two probiotic products containing strains of Lactobacillus rhamnosus failed to prevent moderate-to-severe gastroenteritis in children, according to the results of large, randomized trials published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Neither probiotic formulation significantly reduced duration of diarrhea or vomiting, or improved endpoints such as daycare absenteeism in the double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, which together included 1,857 infants or children with acute infectious gastroenteritis treated in the United States or Canada.

In one of the two trials, conducted at 10 U.S. pediatric emergency departments, a 5-day course of L. rhamnosus GG did not improve outcomes, versus placebo, according to investigators, led by David Schnadower, MD, of Cincinnati (Ohio) Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

Results of the trial, which comprised 971 children aged 3 months to 4 years, sharply contrast with results of previous studies and meta-analyses suggesting probiotics do improve outcomes in children with acute gastroenteritis.

However, those studies were hampered by small sample sizes, lack of probiotic quality control, and endpoints “of questionable relevance,” among other limitations, according to Dr. Schnadower and his coauthors.

“The rigor of our research design calls into question recommendations to use L. rhamnosus GG in the treatment of children with acute gastroenteritis,” the authors said in their published report.

Moderate to severe gastroenteritis within 14 days of enrollment, the trial’s primary endpoint, occurred in 11.8% of children who received the probiotic, and in 12.6% of those who received placebo (P = .83).

Diarrhea duration was similar, at 49.7 hours and 50.9 hours in the probiotic and placebo groups, respectively (P = .26). Likewise, there were no significant differences in duration of vomiting, daycare absenteeism, or rate of household transmission between the study arms, investigators reported.

In the Canadian trial, which was similar to the U.S. trial but conducted independently, a probiotic product containing L. rhamnosus R0011 and L. helveticus R0052 also showed no significant benefit over placebo in reducing incidence of moderate to severe gastroenteritis within 14 days of enrollment.

That endpoint occurred in 26.1% of children assigned to probiotics, and 24.7% assigned to placebo (P = .72). The trial comprised 886 children 3-48 months presenting to one of six pediatric emergency departments in Canada.

As in the U.S. trial, investigators said there were no significant differences in diarrhea duration, at 52.5 and 55.5 hours in the probiotic and placebo groups, respectively (P = .31). And there were no significant differences in duration of vomiting, unscheduled health care provider visits, or adverse events.

Both trials used a modified Vesikari scale symptom score of 9 or higher (range, 0-20) to define moderate to severe gastroenteritis.

Rather than focusing on a single symptom such as diarrhea, the modified Vesikari scale score shows a “constellation of symptoms” associated with gastroenteritis, according to the Canadian investigators, led by Stephen B. Freedman, MDCM, of the department of pediatrics at Alberta Children’s Hospital and Research Institute, University of Calgary.

Although the use of composite measures has been questioned, the modified Vesikari scale is externally validated and produced consistent findings for individual symptoms, according to the authors. “Analysis of all individual score elements supported the conclusions based on our primary outcome,” they wrote.

Despite the findings, the conclusions about the particular probiotic product evaluated in the trial cannot be generalized to others in the market, according to Dr. Freedman and his colleagues. Other “large, well conducted trials have aroused similar concerns regarding the effectiveness of probiotics for other conditions,” they added. “Nonetheless, there may be specific indications and populations that will benefit from alternative probiotic agents.”

The U.S. study was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, among other sources. Dr. Schnadower reported that he received grants from the NICHD and nonfinancial support from iHealth.

The Canadian study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, among other sources. Dr. Freedman reported that he received nonfinancial support from Calgary Laboratory Services, Copan Italia, Lallemand Health Solutions, Luminex, and ProvLab Alberta, along with grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Alberta Children’s Hospital Foundation.

SOURCES: Schnadower D et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 22;379(21):2002-14; Freedman SB et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 22;379(21);2015-26.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the hedgehog pathway inhibitor glasdegib (Daurismo) for use in combination with low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) to treat adults with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia who are aged 75 years and older or who are ineligible for intensive chemotherapy.

jensmith@mdedge.com

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the hedgehog pathway inhibitor glasdegib (Daurismo) for use in combination with low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) to treat adults with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia who are aged 75 years and older or who are ineligible for intensive chemotherapy.

jensmith@mdedge.com

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the hedgehog pathway inhibitor glasdegib (Daurismo) for use in combination with low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) to treat adults with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia who are aged 75 years and older or who are ineligible for intensive chemotherapy.

jensmith@mdedge.com

Photo courtesy of Abbvie

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval to venetoclax (Venclexta®) for use in acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

The BCL-2 inhibitor is now approved for use in combination with azacitidine, decitabine, or low-dose cytarabine to treat adults with newly diagnosed AML who are age 75 and older or who are ineligible for intensive chemotherapy.

The FDA grants accelerated approval based on a surrogate or intermediate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit.

Therefore, continued approval of venetoclax in AML may be contingent upon verification of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.

The approval is based on data from two studies—the phase 1 b M14-358 trial (NCT02203773) and the phase 1/2 M14-387 trial (NCT02287233).

M14-358 trial

In M14-358, newly diagnosed AML patients received venetoclax in combination with azacitidine (n=84) or decitabine (n=31). There were 67 patients in the azacitidine arm and 13 in the decitabine arm who were 75 or older or were ineligible for intensive induction chemotherapy.

Patients received venetoclax via a daily ramp-up to a final dose of 400 mg once daily. They received prophylaxis for tumor lysis syndrome and were hospitalized for monitoring during the ramp-up.

They received azacitidine at 75 mg/m² on days 1-7 of each 28-day cycle or decitabine at 20 mg/m² on days 1-5 of each cycle. Patients continued treatment until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The median follow-up was 7.9 months for the azacitidine arm and 11 months for the decitabine arm.

The complete response (CR) rate was 37% (25/67) in the azacitidine arm and 54% (7/13) in the decitabine arm. The rates of CR with partial hematologic recovery were 24% (16/67) and 7.7% (1/13), respectively.

The most common adverse events (AEs)—occurring in at least 30% of patients in both arms—were nausea, diarrhea, constipation, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, hemorrhage, peripheral edema, vomiting, fatigue, febrile neutropenia, rash, and anemia.

The incidence of serious AEs was 75% overall. The most frequent serious AEs (occurring in at least 5% of patients) were febrile neutropenia, pneumonia (excluding fungal), sepsis (excluding fungal), respiratory failure, and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome.

The incidence of fatal AEs was 1.5% within 30 days of treatment initiation.

M14-387 trial

The M14-387 trial included 82 AML patients who received venetoclax plus low-dose cytarabine. Patients were newly diagnosed with AML, but some had previous exposure to a hypomethylating agent for an antecedent hematologic disorder.

There were 61 patients who were 75 or older or were ineligible for intensive induction chemotherapy.

Patients received venetoclax via daily ramp-up to a final dose of 600 mg once daily. They received prophylaxis for tumor lysis syndrome and were hospitalized for monitoring during the ramp-up.

Cytarabine was given at 20 mg/m² on days 1-10 of each 28-day cycle. Patients continued to receive treatment until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

At a median follow-up of 6.5 months, the CR rate was 21% (13/61), and the rate of CR with partial hematologic recovery was 21% (13/61).

The most common AEs (occurring in at least 30% of patients) were nausea, thrombocytopenia, hemorrhage, febrile neutropenia, neutropenia, diarrhea, fatigue, constipation, and dyspnea.

The incidence of serious AEs was 95%. The most frequent serious AEs (occurring in at least 5% of patients) were febrile neutropenia, sepsis (excluding fungal), hemorrhage, pneumonia (excluding fungal), and device-related infection.

The incidence of fatal AEs was 4.9% within 30 days of treatment initiation.

Additional details from the M14-358 and M14-387 trials are available in the prescribing information for venetoclax.

Venetoclax is being developed by AbbVie and Roche. It is jointly commercialized by AbbVie and Genentech, a member of the Roche Group, in the United States and by AbbVie elsewhere.

Photo courtesy of Abbvie

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval to venetoclax (Venclexta®) for use in acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

The BCL-2 inhibitor is now approved for use in combination with azacitidine, decitabine, or low-dose cytarabine to treat adults with newly diagnosed AML who are age 75 and older or who are ineligible for intensive chemotherapy.

The FDA grants accelerated approval based on a surrogate or intermediate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit.

Therefore, continued approval of venetoclax in AML may be contingent upon verification of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.

The approval is based on data from two studies—the phase 1 b M14-358 trial (NCT02203773) and the phase 1/2 M14-387 trial (NCT02287233).

M14-358 trial

In M14-358, newly diagnosed AML patients received venetoclax in combination with azacitidine (n=84) or decitabine (n=31). There were 67 patients in the azacitidine arm and 13 in the decitabine arm who were 75 or older or were ineligible for intensive induction chemotherapy.

Patients received venetoclax via a daily ramp-up to a final dose of 400 mg once daily. They received prophylaxis for tumor lysis syndrome and were hospitalized for monitoring during the ramp-up.

They received azacitidine at 75 mg/m² on days 1-7 of each 28-day cycle or decitabine at 20 mg/m² on days 1-5 of each cycle. Patients continued treatment until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The median follow-up was 7.9 months for the azacitidine arm and 11 months for the decitabine arm.

The complete response (CR) rate was 37% (25/67) in the azacitidine arm and 54% (7/13) in the decitabine arm. The rates of CR with partial hematologic recovery were 24% (16/67) and 7.7% (1/13), respectively.

The most common adverse events (AEs)—occurring in at least 30% of patients in both arms—were nausea, diarrhea, constipation, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, hemorrhage, peripheral edema, vomiting, fatigue, febrile neutropenia, rash, and anemia.

The incidence of serious AEs was 75% overall. The most frequent serious AEs (occurring in at least 5% of patients) were febrile neutropenia, pneumonia (excluding fungal), sepsis (excluding fungal), respiratory failure, and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome.

The incidence of fatal AEs was 1.5% within 30 days of treatment initiation.

M14-387 trial

The M14-387 trial included 82 AML patients who received venetoclax plus low-dose cytarabine. Patients were newly diagnosed with AML, but some had previous exposure to a hypomethylating agent for an antecedent hematologic disorder.

There were 61 patients who were 75 or older or were ineligible for intensive induction chemotherapy.

Patients received venetoclax via daily ramp-up to a final dose of 600 mg once daily. They received prophylaxis for tumor lysis syndrome and were hospitalized for monitoring during the ramp-up.

Cytarabine was given at 20 mg/m² on days 1-10 of each 28-day cycle. Patients continued to receive treatment until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

At a median follow-up of 6.5 months, the CR rate was 21% (13/61), and the rate of CR with partial hematologic recovery was 21% (13/61).

The most common AEs (occurring in at least 30% of patients) were nausea, thrombocytopenia, hemorrhage, febrile neutropenia, neutropenia, diarrhea, fatigue, constipation, and dyspnea.

The incidence of serious AEs was 95%. The most frequent serious AEs (occurring in at least 5% of patients) were febrile neutropenia, sepsis (excluding fungal), hemorrhage, pneumonia (excluding fungal), and device-related infection.

The incidence of fatal AEs was 4.9% within 30 days of treatment initiation.

Additional details from the M14-358 and M14-387 trials are available in the prescribing information for venetoclax.

Venetoclax is being developed by AbbVie and Roche. It is jointly commercialized by AbbVie and Genentech, a member of the Roche Group, in the United States and by AbbVie elsewhere.

Photo courtesy of Abbvie

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval to venetoclax (Venclexta®) for use in acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

The BCL-2 inhibitor is now approved for use in combination with azacitidine, decitabine, or low-dose cytarabine to treat adults with newly diagnosed AML who are age 75 and older or who are ineligible for intensive chemotherapy.

The FDA grants accelerated approval based on a surrogate or intermediate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit.

Therefore, continued approval of venetoclax in AML may be contingent upon verification of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.

The approval is based on data from two studies—the phase 1 b M14-358 trial (NCT02203773) and the phase 1/2 M14-387 trial (NCT02287233).

M14-358 trial

In M14-358, newly diagnosed AML patients received venetoclax in combination with azacitidine (n=84) or decitabine (n=31). There were 67 patients in the azacitidine arm and 13 in the decitabine arm who were 75 or older or were ineligible for intensive induction chemotherapy.

Patients received venetoclax via a daily ramp-up to a final dose of 400 mg once daily. They received prophylaxis for tumor lysis syndrome and were hospitalized for monitoring during the ramp-up.

They received azacitidine at 75 mg/m² on days 1-7 of each 28-day cycle or decitabine at 20 mg/m² on days 1-5 of each cycle. Patients continued treatment until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The median follow-up was 7.9 months for the azacitidine arm and 11 months for the decitabine arm.

The complete response (CR) rate was 37% (25/67) in the azacitidine arm and 54% (7/13) in the decitabine arm. The rates of CR with partial hematologic recovery were 24% (16/67) and 7.7% (1/13), respectively.

The most common adverse events (AEs)—occurring in at least 30% of patients in both arms—were nausea, diarrhea, constipation, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, hemorrhage, peripheral edema, vomiting, fatigue, febrile neutropenia, rash, and anemia.

The incidence of serious AEs was 75% overall. The most frequent serious AEs (occurring in at least 5% of patients) were febrile neutropenia, pneumonia (excluding fungal), sepsis (excluding fungal), respiratory failure, and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome.

The incidence of fatal AEs was 1.5% within 30 days of treatment initiation.

M14-387 trial

The M14-387 trial included 82 AML patients who received venetoclax plus low-dose cytarabine. Patients were newly diagnosed with AML, but some had previous exposure to a hypomethylating agent for an antecedent hematologic disorder.

There were 61 patients who were 75 or older or were ineligible for intensive induction chemotherapy.

Patients received venetoclax via daily ramp-up to a final dose of 600 mg once daily. They received prophylaxis for tumor lysis syndrome and were hospitalized for monitoring during the ramp-up.

Cytarabine was given at 20 mg/m² on days 1-10 of each 28-day cycle. Patients continued to receive treatment until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

At a median follow-up of 6.5 months, the CR rate was 21% (13/61), and the rate of CR with partial hematologic recovery was 21% (13/61).

The most common AEs (occurring in at least 30% of patients) were nausea, thrombocytopenia, hemorrhage, febrile neutropenia, neutropenia, diarrhea, fatigue, constipation, and dyspnea.

The incidence of serious AEs was 95%. The most frequent serious AEs (occurring in at least 5% of patients) were febrile neutropenia, sepsis (excluding fungal), hemorrhage, pneumonia (excluding fungal), and device-related infection.

The incidence of fatal AEs was 4.9% within 30 days of treatment initiation.

Additional details from the M14-358 and M14-387 trials are available in the prescribing information for venetoclax.

Venetoclax is being developed by AbbVie and Roche. It is jointly commercialized by AbbVie and Genentech, a member of the Roche Group, in the United States and by AbbVie elsewhere.

Image by Lance Liotta

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the hedgehog pathway inhibitor glasdegib (Daurismo™) to treat certain patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

Glasdegib is approved for use in combination with low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) to treat adults with newly diagnosed AML who are age 75 and older or who are ineligible for intensive chemotherapy.

Glasdegib was approved under priority review and also received orphan drug designation from the FDA.

The prescribing information for glasdegib includes a boxed warning detailing the risk of embryo-fetal death or severe birth defects associated with the drug.

The FDA’s approval of glasdegib is based on results from the phase 2 BRIGHT AML 1003 trial (NCT01546038).

This trial included 111 adults with newly diagnosed AML and 14 patients with other conditions.

The patients were randomized to receive glasdegib (at 100 mg daily) in combination with LDAC (n=84) or LDAC alone (n=41).

The complete response rate among the AML patients was 18.2% (14/77) in the glasdegib arm and 2.6% (1/38) in the LDAC arm.

The median overall survival was 8.3 months in the glasdegib arm and 4.3 months in the LDAC arm (hazard ratio=0.46; P=0.0002).

The most common adverse events (AEs) in the first 90 days of treatment—occurring in at least 30% of patients in either arm (glasdegib-LDAC and LDAC alone, respectively)—were:

• Anemia (43% and 42%)
• Fatigue (36% and 32%)
• Hemorrhage (36% and 42%)
• Febrile neutropenia (31% and 22%)
• Musculoskeletal pain (30% and 17%)
• Edema (30% and 20%)
• Thrombocytopenia (30% and 27%).

The incidence of serious AEs was 79% in the glasdegib arm. The most common serious AEs occurring in at least 5% of patients in this arm were febrile neutropenia (29%), pneumonia (23%), hemorrhage (12%), anemia (7%), and sepsis (7%).

Additional data from this trial are included in the prescribing information for glasdegib. Glasdegib is a product of Pfizer.

Image by Lance Liotta

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the hedgehog pathway inhibitor glasdegib (Daurismo™) to treat certain patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

Glasdegib is approved for use in combination with low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) to treat adults with newly diagnosed AML who are age 75 and older or who are ineligible for intensive chemotherapy.

Glasdegib was approved under priority review and also received orphan drug designation from the FDA.

The prescribing information for glasdegib includes a boxed warning detailing the risk of embryo-fetal death or severe birth defects associated with the drug.

The FDA’s approval of glasdegib is based on results from the phase 2 BRIGHT AML 1003 trial (NCT01546038).

This trial included 111 adults with newly diagnosed AML and 14 patients with other conditions.

The patients were randomized to receive glasdegib (at 100 mg daily) in combination with LDAC (n=84) or LDAC alone (n=41).

The complete response rate among the AML patients was 18.2% (14/77) in the glasdegib arm and 2.6% (1/38) in the LDAC arm.

The median overall survival was 8.3 months in the glasdegib arm and 4.3 months in the LDAC arm (hazard ratio=0.46; P=0.0002).

The most common adverse events (AEs) in the first 90 days of treatment—occurring in at least 30% of patients in either arm (glasdegib-LDAC and LDAC alone, respectively)—were:

• Anemia (43% and 42%)
• Fatigue (36% and 32%)
• Hemorrhage (36% and 42%)
• Febrile neutropenia (31% and 22%)
• Musculoskeletal pain (30% and 17%)
• Edema (30% and 20%)
• Thrombocytopenia (30% and 27%).

The incidence of serious AEs was 79% in the glasdegib arm. The most common serious AEs occurring in at least 5% of patients in this arm were febrile neutropenia (29%), pneumonia (23%), hemorrhage (12%), anemia (7%), and sepsis (7%).

Additional data from this trial are included in the prescribing information for glasdegib. Glasdegib is a product of Pfizer.

Image by Lance Liotta

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the hedgehog pathway inhibitor glasdegib (Daurismo™) to treat certain patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

Glasdegib is approved for use in combination with low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) to treat adults with newly diagnosed AML who are age 75 and older or who are ineligible for intensive chemotherapy.

Glasdegib was approved under priority review and also received orphan drug designation from the FDA.

The prescribing information for glasdegib includes a boxed warning detailing the risk of embryo-fetal death or severe birth defects associated with the drug.

The FDA’s approval of glasdegib is based on results from the phase 2 BRIGHT AML 1003 trial (NCT01546038).

This trial included 111 adults with newly diagnosed AML and 14 patients with other conditions.

The patients were randomized to receive glasdegib (at 100 mg daily) in combination with LDAC (n=84) or LDAC alone (n=41).

The complete response rate among the AML patients was 18.2% (14/77) in the glasdegib arm and 2.6% (1/38) in the LDAC arm.

The median overall survival was 8.3 months in the glasdegib arm and 4.3 months in the LDAC arm (hazard ratio=0.46; P=0.0002).

The most common adverse events (AEs) in the first 90 days of treatment—occurring in at least 30% of patients in either arm (glasdegib-LDAC and LDAC alone, respectively)—were:

• Anemia (43% and 42%)
• Fatigue (36% and 32%)
• Hemorrhage (36% and 42%)
• Febrile neutropenia (31% and 22%)
• Musculoskeletal pain (30% and 17%)
• Edema (30% and 20%)
• Thrombocytopenia (30% and 27%).

The incidence of serious AEs was 79% in the glasdegib arm. The most common serious AEs occurring in at least 5% of patients in this arm were febrile neutropenia (29%), pneumonia (23%), hemorrhage (12%), anemia (7%), and sepsis (7%).

Additional data from this trial are included in the prescribing information for glasdegib. Glasdegib is a product of Pfizer.