Conference Coverage

PARIS – Desmoid tumors are rare, locally aggressive, soft-tissue tumors for which there is no approved systemic therapy – but a novel drug may become the first.

Nirogacestat, under development by Connecticut-based SpringWorks Therapeutics, is an oral, selective, small-molecule gamma secretase inhibitor that targets the Notch signaling pathway, which is involved in cell differentiation. Desmoid tumors express high levels of Notch, so there is a “clear mechanistic rationale” for using such drugs in these patients.

Now, nirogacestat has shown a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and also a reduction in symptoms and better quality of life, when compared with placebo in the phase 3 DeFi trial.

The company has said that, by the end of this year, it will file these data for U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of the drug for use in desmoid tumors.

Trial results were presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Overall, nirogacestat demonstrated “rapid, sustained, and statistically significant improvements in all primary and secondary endpoints,” study presenter Bernd Kasper, MD, PhD, sarcoma unit, Mannheim (Germany) Cancer Center, told a press conference.

There were “really impressive” reductions in pain scores and symptom burden, as well as improvements in health-related quality of life.

Dr. Kasper highlighted that this is the “first phase 3 trial … to demonstrate a clinical benefit with a gamma secretase inhibitor in any indication.”

With the drug showing a “manageable safety profile,” despite a high rate of ovarian dysfunction, Dr. Kasper believes it “has the potential to become the standard of care for patients with desmoid tumors requiring systemic treatment.”

Asked how long patients could take the drug, he replied, “Usually you take a drug as long as the patient benefits” from it.

“That means as long as there is no progression,” Dr. Kasper said, noting that there are patients from the earlier phase trials of nirogacestat who have been taking the drug “for years.”

However, there is a “very important question that is not answered” by the current study: “How long should we treat our patients?”

Dr. Kasper said to answer that question will require further trials, including those focused on treatment discontinuation.
 

Large trial in rare cancer

DeFi is a “unique study” and “very important in many aspects,” commented Jean-Yves Blay, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University Claude Bernard in Lyon, France, in an ESMO press release. Dr. Blay was not involved with the DeFi research.

“The results show benefit for the first time with a novel treatment with a new mode of action in patients where treatment options are currently limited,” he said, adding that the findings are “practice changing.”

Dr. Blay also praised the study for being “smart,” as it showed that large, placebo-controlled trials can be conducted in a rare cancer, and demonstrated the “importance of targeting the right patients with right drug.”

“The success of this study puts even more emphasis on the concept of having patients with rare cancers referred into reference centers, where clinical studies can be accomplished in record times, with the potential to deliver new treatments to patients with orphan diseases,” he said.

Discussing the results following their presentation, Dr. Blay said there are nevertheless a number of different treatment options for desmoid tumors, including sorafenib (Nexavar), and it is not clear whether patients with nonprogressive disease would experience any symptomatic benefit with nirogacestat.

Biomarkers of treatment efficacy and resistance are also required, he continued, and the drug’s long-term toxicity profile needs to be understood. In addition, its impact on ovarian dysfunction, as well as on future pregnancies, is currently unclear.
 

Details of the results

Presenting the study, Dr. Kasper explained that desmoid tumors have a variable presentation and an “unpredictable disease course,” and this together with the lack of approved therapies means they are “challenging to manage.”

Moreover, “due to local and aggressive growth, desmoid tumors can cause pain, disfigurement, and functional problems that can be a real burden for patients,” Dr. Kasper stressed.

Treatment should therefore be individualized to each patient to “optimize tumor control and improve the symptom burden,” he told the audience, including the impact on pain, physical function, and overall quality of life.

Indeed, a recent global consensus-based guideline for the management of desmoid tumors recommended a five-step model for treatment selection based on the level of evidence, overall response rate, PFS rate, ease of administration, and expected toxicity.

The DeFi trial enrolled patients with progressive desmoid tumors, stratified by target tumor location (intra-/extra-abdominal), who either were treatment-naive and not amenable to surgery, or were treatment refractory, or had recurrent disease after one prior line of therapy.

Dr. Kasper said in an interview that they required the patient to have at least 20% disease progression at the tumor sites so that they would include only those “who are in need of treatment.”

He explained that requirement was “quite strict” to ensure they excluded patients with “smaller-scale disease” and those with spontaneous regression, which can occur in desmoid tumors.

In all, 142 patients from 37 sites worldwide were randomly assigned to receive either nirogacestat 150 mg or placebo twice daily in 28-day cycles until radiographic progression, at which point patients were moved into an open-label phase and placebo patients could switch to nirogacestat.

The median age of the patients was 34 years, and two-thirds were female. Dr. Kasper underlined that there was a “rather high” prevalence of multifocal disease, at around 40%.

At the data cutoff for the primary analysis on April 7, nirogacestat was associated with a significant reduction in disease progression, at a median PFS that was not reached vs. 15.1 months for placebo, or a hazard ratio of 0.29 (P < .001).

This effect was seen across all subgroups included in the analysis, including when stratifying patients by age, gender, tumor characteristics, and prior treatment.

The objective response rate was also significantly higher with nirogacestat, at 41% vs. 8% in patients assigned to placebo (P < .001). A complete response was seen in 7% of patients given active treatment vs. 0% of those in the placebo group.

The median time to response was 5.6 months with nirogacestat and 11.1 months for patients given placebo.

Dr. Kasper also showed that nirogacestat was associated with significant reductions in pain severity, compared with placebo at treatment cycle 10, as measured on the Brief Pain Index-Short Form of –1.5 (P < .001).

There were also significant improvements with nirogacestat over placebo in the DT Symptom and DT Impact Scales (P < .001 for both), and on the global health status/quality of life scale (P = .007), physical functioning scale (P < .001), and role functioning scale (P < .001) of the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30.

After a median exposure of 20.6 months, grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events were observed in 57% of patients treated with nirogacestat vs. 17% of those given placebo, who had a median treatment exposure of 11.4 months.

The most commonly reported adverse events of any grade with the active drug were diarrhea (84%), nausea (54%), fatigue (51%), and hypophosphatemia (42%), but Dr. Kasper noted that 95% of treatment-emergent adverse events were grade 1 or 2, with the first onset typically during cycle 1.

Ovarian dysfunction was observed in 75% of women of childbearing age, at a median onset at 9 weeks and a median duration of 21 weeks. However, the dysfunction resolved in 74% of patients, including those who continued active therapy.

The study was funded by SpringWorks Therapeutics. Dr. Kasper declares relationships with Bayer, Blueprint, Boehringer Ingelheim, SpringWorks, GSK, PharmaMar, and Ayala.

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

PARIS – Desmoid tumors are rare, locally aggressive, soft-tissue tumors for which there is no approved systemic therapy – but a novel drug may become the first.

Nirogacestat, under development by Connecticut-based SpringWorks Therapeutics, is an oral, selective, small-molecule gamma secretase inhibitor that targets the Notch signaling pathway, which is involved in cell differentiation. Desmoid tumors express high levels of Notch, so there is a “clear mechanistic rationale” for using such drugs in these patients.

Now, nirogacestat has shown a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and also a reduction in symptoms and better quality of life, when compared with placebo in the phase 3 DeFi trial.

The company has said that, by the end of this year, it will file these data for U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of the drug for use in desmoid tumors.

Trial results were presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Overall, nirogacestat demonstrated “rapid, sustained, and statistically significant improvements in all primary and secondary endpoints,” study presenter Bernd Kasper, MD, PhD, sarcoma unit, Mannheim (Germany) Cancer Center, told a press conference.

There were “really impressive” reductions in pain scores and symptom burden, as well as improvements in health-related quality of life.

Dr. Kasper highlighted that this is the “first phase 3 trial … to demonstrate a clinical benefit with a gamma secretase inhibitor in any indication.”

With the drug showing a “manageable safety profile,” despite a high rate of ovarian dysfunction, Dr. Kasper believes it “has the potential to become the standard of care for patients with desmoid tumors requiring systemic treatment.”

Asked how long patients could take the drug, he replied, “Usually you take a drug as long as the patient benefits” from it.

“That means as long as there is no progression,” Dr. Kasper said, noting that there are patients from the earlier phase trials of nirogacestat who have been taking the drug “for years.”

However, there is a “very important question that is not answered” by the current study: “How long should we treat our patients?”

Dr. Kasper said to answer that question will require further trials, including those focused on treatment discontinuation.
 

Large trial in rare cancer

DeFi is a “unique study” and “very important in many aspects,” commented Jean-Yves Blay, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University Claude Bernard in Lyon, France, in an ESMO press release. Dr. Blay was not involved with the DeFi research.

“The results show benefit for the first time with a novel treatment with a new mode of action in patients where treatment options are currently limited,” he said, adding that the findings are “practice changing.”

Dr. Blay also praised the study for being “smart,” as it showed that large, placebo-controlled trials can be conducted in a rare cancer, and demonstrated the “importance of targeting the right patients with right drug.”

“The success of this study puts even more emphasis on the concept of having patients with rare cancers referred into reference centers, where clinical studies can be accomplished in record times, with the potential to deliver new treatments to patients with orphan diseases,” he said.

Discussing the results following their presentation, Dr. Blay said there are nevertheless a number of different treatment options for desmoid tumors, including sorafenib (Nexavar), and it is not clear whether patients with nonprogressive disease would experience any symptomatic benefit with nirogacestat.

Biomarkers of treatment efficacy and resistance are also required, he continued, and the drug’s long-term toxicity profile needs to be understood. In addition, its impact on ovarian dysfunction, as well as on future pregnancies, is currently unclear.
 

Details of the results

Presenting the study, Dr. Kasper explained that desmoid tumors have a variable presentation and an “unpredictable disease course,” and this together with the lack of approved therapies means they are “challenging to manage.”

Moreover, “due to local and aggressive growth, desmoid tumors can cause pain, disfigurement, and functional problems that can be a real burden for patients,” Dr. Kasper stressed.

Treatment should therefore be individualized to each patient to “optimize tumor control and improve the symptom burden,” he told the audience, including the impact on pain, physical function, and overall quality of life.

Indeed, a recent global consensus-based guideline for the management of desmoid tumors recommended a five-step model for treatment selection based on the level of evidence, overall response rate, PFS rate, ease of administration, and expected toxicity.

The DeFi trial enrolled patients with progressive desmoid tumors, stratified by target tumor location (intra-/extra-abdominal), who either were treatment-naive and not amenable to surgery, or were treatment refractory, or had recurrent disease after one prior line of therapy.

Dr. Kasper said in an interview that they required the patient to have at least 20% disease progression at the tumor sites so that they would include only those “who are in need of treatment.”

He explained that requirement was “quite strict” to ensure they excluded patients with “smaller-scale disease” and those with spontaneous regression, which can occur in desmoid tumors.

In all, 142 patients from 37 sites worldwide were randomly assigned to receive either nirogacestat 150 mg or placebo twice daily in 28-day cycles until radiographic progression, at which point patients were moved into an open-label phase and placebo patients could switch to nirogacestat.

The median age of the patients was 34 years, and two-thirds were female. Dr. Kasper underlined that there was a “rather high” prevalence of multifocal disease, at around 40%.

At the data cutoff for the primary analysis on April 7, nirogacestat was associated with a significant reduction in disease progression, at a median PFS that was not reached vs. 15.1 months for placebo, or a hazard ratio of 0.29 (P < .001).

This effect was seen across all subgroups included in the analysis, including when stratifying patients by age, gender, tumor characteristics, and prior treatment.

The objective response rate was also significantly higher with nirogacestat, at 41% vs. 8% in patients assigned to placebo (P < .001). A complete response was seen in 7% of patients given active treatment vs. 0% of those in the placebo group.

The median time to response was 5.6 months with nirogacestat and 11.1 months for patients given placebo.

Dr. Kasper also showed that nirogacestat was associated with significant reductions in pain severity, compared with placebo at treatment cycle 10, as measured on the Brief Pain Index-Short Form of –1.5 (P < .001).

There were also significant improvements with nirogacestat over placebo in the DT Symptom and DT Impact Scales (P < .001 for both), and on the global health status/quality of life scale (P = .007), physical functioning scale (P < .001), and role functioning scale (P < .001) of the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30.

After a median exposure of 20.6 months, grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events were observed in 57% of patients treated with nirogacestat vs. 17% of those given placebo, who had a median treatment exposure of 11.4 months.

The most commonly reported adverse events of any grade with the active drug were diarrhea (84%), nausea (54%), fatigue (51%), and hypophosphatemia (42%), but Dr. Kasper noted that 95% of treatment-emergent adverse events were grade 1 or 2, with the first onset typically during cycle 1.

Ovarian dysfunction was observed in 75% of women of childbearing age, at a median onset at 9 weeks and a median duration of 21 weeks. However, the dysfunction resolved in 74% of patients, including those who continued active therapy.

The study was funded by SpringWorks Therapeutics. Dr. Kasper declares relationships with Bayer, Blueprint, Boehringer Ingelheim, SpringWorks, GSK, PharmaMar, and Ayala.

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

PARIS – Desmoid tumors are rare, locally aggressive, soft-tissue tumors for which there is no approved systemic therapy – but a novel drug may become the first.

Nirogacestat, under development by Connecticut-based SpringWorks Therapeutics, is an oral, selective, small-molecule gamma secretase inhibitor that targets the Notch signaling pathway, which is involved in cell differentiation. Desmoid tumors express high levels of Notch, so there is a “clear mechanistic rationale” for using such drugs in these patients.

Now, nirogacestat has shown a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and also a reduction in symptoms and better quality of life, when compared with placebo in the phase 3 DeFi trial.

The company has said that, by the end of this year, it will file these data for U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of the drug for use in desmoid tumors.

Trial results were presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Overall, nirogacestat demonstrated “rapid, sustained, and statistically significant improvements in all primary and secondary endpoints,” study presenter Bernd Kasper, MD, PhD, sarcoma unit, Mannheim (Germany) Cancer Center, told a press conference.

There were “really impressive” reductions in pain scores and symptom burden, as well as improvements in health-related quality of life.

Dr. Kasper highlighted that this is the “first phase 3 trial … to demonstrate a clinical benefit with a gamma secretase inhibitor in any indication.”

With the drug showing a “manageable safety profile,” despite a high rate of ovarian dysfunction, Dr. Kasper believes it “has the potential to become the standard of care for patients with desmoid tumors requiring systemic treatment.”

Asked how long patients could take the drug, he replied, “Usually you take a drug as long as the patient benefits” from it.

“That means as long as there is no progression,” Dr. Kasper said, noting that there are patients from the earlier phase trials of nirogacestat who have been taking the drug “for years.”

However, there is a “very important question that is not answered” by the current study: “How long should we treat our patients?”

Dr. Kasper said to answer that question will require further trials, including those focused on treatment discontinuation.
 

Large trial in rare cancer

DeFi is a “unique study” and “very important in many aspects,” commented Jean-Yves Blay, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University Claude Bernard in Lyon, France, in an ESMO press release. Dr. Blay was not involved with the DeFi research.

“The results show benefit for the first time with a novel treatment with a new mode of action in patients where treatment options are currently limited,” he said, adding that the findings are “practice changing.”

Dr. Blay also praised the study for being “smart,” as it showed that large, placebo-controlled trials can be conducted in a rare cancer, and demonstrated the “importance of targeting the right patients with right drug.”

“The success of this study puts even more emphasis on the concept of having patients with rare cancers referred into reference centers, where clinical studies can be accomplished in record times, with the potential to deliver new treatments to patients with orphan diseases,” he said.

Discussing the results following their presentation, Dr. Blay said there are nevertheless a number of different treatment options for desmoid tumors, including sorafenib (Nexavar), and it is not clear whether patients with nonprogressive disease would experience any symptomatic benefit with nirogacestat.

Biomarkers of treatment efficacy and resistance are also required, he continued, and the drug’s long-term toxicity profile needs to be understood. In addition, its impact on ovarian dysfunction, as well as on future pregnancies, is currently unclear.
 

Details of the results

Presenting the study, Dr. Kasper explained that desmoid tumors have a variable presentation and an “unpredictable disease course,” and this together with the lack of approved therapies means they are “challenging to manage.”

Moreover, “due to local and aggressive growth, desmoid tumors can cause pain, disfigurement, and functional problems that can be a real burden for patients,” Dr. Kasper stressed.

Treatment should therefore be individualized to each patient to “optimize tumor control and improve the symptom burden,” he told the audience, including the impact on pain, physical function, and overall quality of life.

Indeed, a recent global consensus-based guideline for the management of desmoid tumors recommended a five-step model for treatment selection based on the level of evidence, overall response rate, PFS rate, ease of administration, and expected toxicity.

The DeFi trial enrolled patients with progressive desmoid tumors, stratified by target tumor location (intra-/extra-abdominal), who either were treatment-naive and not amenable to surgery, or were treatment refractory, or had recurrent disease after one prior line of therapy.

Dr. Kasper said in an interview that they required the patient to have at least 20% disease progression at the tumor sites so that they would include only those “who are in need of treatment.”

He explained that requirement was “quite strict” to ensure they excluded patients with “smaller-scale disease” and those with spontaneous regression, which can occur in desmoid tumors.

In all, 142 patients from 37 sites worldwide were randomly assigned to receive either nirogacestat 150 mg or placebo twice daily in 28-day cycles until radiographic progression, at which point patients were moved into an open-label phase and placebo patients could switch to nirogacestat.

The median age of the patients was 34 years, and two-thirds were female. Dr. Kasper underlined that there was a “rather high” prevalence of multifocal disease, at around 40%.

At the data cutoff for the primary analysis on April 7, nirogacestat was associated with a significant reduction in disease progression, at a median PFS that was not reached vs. 15.1 months for placebo, or a hazard ratio of 0.29 (P < .001).

This effect was seen across all subgroups included in the analysis, including when stratifying patients by age, gender, tumor characteristics, and prior treatment.

The objective response rate was also significantly higher with nirogacestat, at 41% vs. 8% in patients assigned to placebo (P < .001). A complete response was seen in 7% of patients given active treatment vs. 0% of those in the placebo group.

The median time to response was 5.6 months with nirogacestat and 11.1 months for patients given placebo.

Dr. Kasper also showed that nirogacestat was associated with significant reductions in pain severity, compared with placebo at treatment cycle 10, as measured on the Brief Pain Index-Short Form of –1.5 (P < .001).

There were also significant improvements with nirogacestat over placebo in the DT Symptom and DT Impact Scales (P < .001 for both), and on the global health status/quality of life scale (P = .007), physical functioning scale (P < .001), and role functioning scale (P < .001) of the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30.

After a median exposure of 20.6 months, grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events were observed in 57% of patients treated with nirogacestat vs. 17% of those given placebo, who had a median treatment exposure of 11.4 months.

The most commonly reported adverse events of any grade with the active drug were diarrhea (84%), nausea (54%), fatigue (51%), and hypophosphatemia (42%), but Dr. Kasper noted that 95% of treatment-emergent adverse events were grade 1 or 2, with the first onset typically during cycle 1.

Ovarian dysfunction was observed in 75% of women of childbearing age, at a median onset at 9 weeks and a median duration of 21 weeks. However, the dysfunction resolved in 74% of patients, including those who continued active therapy.

The study was funded by SpringWorks Therapeutics. Dr. Kasper declares relationships with Bayer, Blueprint, Boehringer Ingelheim, SpringWorks, GSK, PharmaMar, and Ayala.

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

After 8 weeks, eight out of ten people with seborrheic dermatitis saw their symptoms cleared or improved with once-daily treatment with roflumilast 0.3% foam, according to the results of the phase 3 STRATUM trial.

More than half experienced clearance of their symptoms, and three out of five achieved a significant improvement in pruritus, it was revealed during a late-breaking session at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
 

Common condition led to rapid recruitment

“Seborrheic dermatitis is a disease that’s very common, yet in my opinion, undertreated in dermatology,” said Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, who presented the findings.

“It’s so common that when we did this trial, I was very surprised to see how easy it was to recruit,” said Dr. Blauvelt, a dermatologist who is president of the Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland. “Patients came in rapidly, out of the woodwork – they were desperate.”

While there are several tried and tested treatments for the condition, such as topical steroids and antifungal agents, he noted that they have their limitations: “Sometimes efficacy, sometimes the ability to be used on hair-bearing areas.”

Roflumilast is a phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitor that is available for topical use in a 0.3% cream formulation (Zoryve). This formulation gained FDA approval for plaque psoriasis for patients ages 12 and older this summer and is also under investigation as a treatment for atopic dermatitis.

It’s the same product in both preparations, Dr. Blauvelt said during the discussion period. “The only major difference between the cream and the foam is the propellant used to make it into a foam. Otherwise, they have the exact same list of ingredients.”

Dr. Blauvelt reported that just over 450 patients had been recruited at 53 U.S. centers into the 8-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.  

For inclusion, patients had to have moderate seborrheic dermatitis, defined as an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of three or more. Dr. Blauvelt noted that patients as young as 9 years old could be recruited, and there was no upper age limit. The average age of participating patients, however, was around 42 years. 

Multiple improvements seen in ‘happy trial’

The primary endpoint was an IGA score of 0 or 1 with at least a 2-grade improvement (IGA success) after 8 weeks of treatment. This was achieved by 80% of patients who were treated with roflumilast 0.3% foam, compared with 60% of those who were treated with the vehicle (P less than .0001).

Dr. Blauvelt pointed out that significant improvements had also been seen after 2 weeks (about 42% vs. about 26%; P = .0003) and 4 weeks (about 72% vs. about 49%; P less than .0001) of treatment.

“Now if we raise the bar a little higher” and ask how many patients were completely clear of their seborrheic dermatitis, Dr. Blauvelt said, it was 50% at 8 weeks, more than a third at 4 weeks, over 15% at 2 weeks with the foam, and significantly lower at just under 30%, 15%, and 7% in the vehicle group.

A 4-point or more improvement in the Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale (WI-NRS) – accepted as the minimally clinically important difference – was achieved by more than 60% of patients treated with the foam at week 8, just under 50% at week 4, and just over 30% at week 2. Corresponding rates in the vehicle group were around 40%, 30%, and 15%.

“Many patients responded in this trial. So much so that when I was doing it, I called it the ‘happy trial.’ Every time I saw patients in this trial, they seemed to be happy,” Dr. Blauvelt said anecdotally.

“In terms of adverse events, the drug turned out to be very safe, and there didn’t seem to be any issues with any things that we see with, for example, oral phosphodiesterase inhibitors,” he added.

The tolerability findings suggest that the foam vehicle “was an excellent vehicle to be used for this particular drug,” with no signs of skin irritation, as rated by patients or investigators.
 

Lesson for practice: Advise patients to moisturize?

“It seems like the vehicle would be a good skincare product for patients,” observed the session’s cochair, Jo Lambert, MD, PhD, professor and academic head of the department of dermatology at Ghent University Hospital, Belgium.

It was “a pretty dramatic vehicle response, right?” Dr. Blauvelt responded. “We normally don’t think of telling seborrheic dermatitis patients to moisturize,” he added.

“I think one of the interesting findings is perhaps we should be telling them to moisturize their scalp or moisturize their face, or it could be something unique to this particular foam.”

The study was funded by Arcutis Biotherapeutics. Dr. Blauvelt disclosed that he was an investigator for the trial and acted as consultant to the company, receiving grants/research funding and/or honoraria. Several of the study’s co-investigators are employees of Arcutis. Dr. Lambert was not involved in the study and cochaired the late-breaking session during which the STRATUM trial findings were reported.

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

After 8 weeks, eight out of ten people with seborrheic dermatitis saw their symptoms cleared or improved with once-daily treatment with roflumilast 0.3% foam, according to the results of the phase 3 STRATUM trial.

More than half experienced clearance of their symptoms, and three out of five achieved a significant improvement in pruritus, it was revealed during a late-breaking session at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
 

Common condition led to rapid recruitment

“Seborrheic dermatitis is a disease that’s very common, yet in my opinion, undertreated in dermatology,” said Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, who presented the findings.

“It’s so common that when we did this trial, I was very surprised to see how easy it was to recruit,” said Dr. Blauvelt, a dermatologist who is president of the Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland. “Patients came in rapidly, out of the woodwork – they were desperate.”

While there are several tried and tested treatments for the condition, such as topical steroids and antifungal agents, he noted that they have their limitations: “Sometimes efficacy, sometimes the ability to be used on hair-bearing areas.”

Roflumilast is a phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitor that is available for topical use in a 0.3% cream formulation (Zoryve). This formulation gained FDA approval for plaque psoriasis for patients ages 12 and older this summer and is also under investigation as a treatment for atopic dermatitis.

It’s the same product in both preparations, Dr. Blauvelt said during the discussion period. “The only major difference between the cream and the foam is the propellant used to make it into a foam. Otherwise, they have the exact same list of ingredients.”

Dr. Blauvelt reported that just over 450 patients had been recruited at 53 U.S. centers into the 8-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.  

For inclusion, patients had to have moderate seborrheic dermatitis, defined as an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of three or more. Dr. Blauvelt noted that patients as young as 9 years old could be recruited, and there was no upper age limit. The average age of participating patients, however, was around 42 years. 

Multiple improvements seen in ‘happy trial’

The primary endpoint was an IGA score of 0 or 1 with at least a 2-grade improvement (IGA success) after 8 weeks of treatment. This was achieved by 80% of patients who were treated with roflumilast 0.3% foam, compared with 60% of those who were treated with the vehicle (P less than .0001).

Dr. Blauvelt pointed out that significant improvements had also been seen after 2 weeks (about 42% vs. about 26%; P = .0003) and 4 weeks (about 72% vs. about 49%; P less than .0001) of treatment.

“Now if we raise the bar a little higher” and ask how many patients were completely clear of their seborrheic dermatitis, Dr. Blauvelt said, it was 50% at 8 weeks, more than a third at 4 weeks, over 15% at 2 weeks with the foam, and significantly lower at just under 30%, 15%, and 7% in the vehicle group.

A 4-point or more improvement in the Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale (WI-NRS) – accepted as the minimally clinically important difference – was achieved by more than 60% of patients treated with the foam at week 8, just under 50% at week 4, and just over 30% at week 2. Corresponding rates in the vehicle group were around 40%, 30%, and 15%.

“Many patients responded in this trial. So much so that when I was doing it, I called it the ‘happy trial.’ Every time I saw patients in this trial, they seemed to be happy,” Dr. Blauvelt said anecdotally.

“In terms of adverse events, the drug turned out to be very safe, and there didn’t seem to be any issues with any things that we see with, for example, oral phosphodiesterase inhibitors,” he added.

The tolerability findings suggest that the foam vehicle “was an excellent vehicle to be used for this particular drug,” with no signs of skin irritation, as rated by patients or investigators.
 

Lesson for practice: Advise patients to moisturize?

“It seems like the vehicle would be a good skincare product for patients,” observed the session’s cochair, Jo Lambert, MD, PhD, professor and academic head of the department of dermatology at Ghent University Hospital, Belgium.

It was “a pretty dramatic vehicle response, right?” Dr. Blauvelt responded. “We normally don’t think of telling seborrheic dermatitis patients to moisturize,” he added.

“I think one of the interesting findings is perhaps we should be telling them to moisturize their scalp or moisturize their face, or it could be something unique to this particular foam.”

The study was funded by Arcutis Biotherapeutics. Dr. Blauvelt disclosed that he was an investigator for the trial and acted as consultant to the company, receiving grants/research funding and/or honoraria. Several of the study’s co-investigators are employees of Arcutis. Dr. Lambert was not involved in the study and cochaired the late-breaking session during which the STRATUM trial findings were reported.

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

After 8 weeks, eight out of ten people with seborrheic dermatitis saw their symptoms cleared or improved with once-daily treatment with roflumilast 0.3% foam, according to the results of the phase 3 STRATUM trial.

More than half experienced clearance of their symptoms, and three out of five achieved a significant improvement in pruritus, it was revealed during a late-breaking session at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
 

Common condition led to rapid recruitment

“Seborrheic dermatitis is a disease that’s very common, yet in my opinion, undertreated in dermatology,” said Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, who presented the findings.

“It’s so common that when we did this trial, I was very surprised to see how easy it was to recruit,” said Dr. Blauvelt, a dermatologist who is president of the Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland. “Patients came in rapidly, out of the woodwork – they were desperate.”

While there are several tried and tested treatments for the condition, such as topical steroids and antifungal agents, he noted that they have their limitations: “Sometimes efficacy, sometimes the ability to be used on hair-bearing areas.”

Roflumilast is a phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitor that is available for topical use in a 0.3% cream formulation (Zoryve). This formulation gained FDA approval for plaque psoriasis for patients ages 12 and older this summer and is also under investigation as a treatment for atopic dermatitis.

It’s the same product in both preparations, Dr. Blauvelt said during the discussion period. “The only major difference between the cream and the foam is the propellant used to make it into a foam. Otherwise, they have the exact same list of ingredients.”

Dr. Blauvelt reported that just over 450 patients had been recruited at 53 U.S. centers into the 8-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.  

For inclusion, patients had to have moderate seborrheic dermatitis, defined as an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of three or more. Dr. Blauvelt noted that patients as young as 9 years old could be recruited, and there was no upper age limit. The average age of participating patients, however, was around 42 years. 

Multiple improvements seen in ‘happy trial’

The primary endpoint was an IGA score of 0 or 1 with at least a 2-grade improvement (IGA success) after 8 weeks of treatment. This was achieved by 80% of patients who were treated with roflumilast 0.3% foam, compared with 60% of those who were treated with the vehicle (P less than .0001).

Dr. Blauvelt pointed out that significant improvements had also been seen after 2 weeks (about 42% vs. about 26%; P = .0003) and 4 weeks (about 72% vs. about 49%; P less than .0001) of treatment.

“Now if we raise the bar a little higher” and ask how many patients were completely clear of their seborrheic dermatitis, Dr. Blauvelt said, it was 50% at 8 weeks, more than a third at 4 weeks, over 15% at 2 weeks with the foam, and significantly lower at just under 30%, 15%, and 7% in the vehicle group.

A 4-point or more improvement in the Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale (WI-NRS) – accepted as the minimally clinically important difference – was achieved by more than 60% of patients treated with the foam at week 8, just under 50% at week 4, and just over 30% at week 2. Corresponding rates in the vehicle group were around 40%, 30%, and 15%.

“Many patients responded in this trial. So much so that when I was doing it, I called it the ‘happy trial.’ Every time I saw patients in this trial, they seemed to be happy,” Dr. Blauvelt said anecdotally.

“In terms of adverse events, the drug turned out to be very safe, and there didn’t seem to be any issues with any things that we see with, for example, oral phosphodiesterase inhibitors,” he added.

The tolerability findings suggest that the foam vehicle “was an excellent vehicle to be used for this particular drug,” with no signs of skin irritation, as rated by patients or investigators.
 

Lesson for practice: Advise patients to moisturize?

“It seems like the vehicle would be a good skincare product for patients,” observed the session’s cochair, Jo Lambert, MD, PhD, professor and academic head of the department of dermatology at Ghent University Hospital, Belgium.

It was “a pretty dramatic vehicle response, right?” Dr. Blauvelt responded. “We normally don’t think of telling seborrheic dermatitis patients to moisturize,” he added.

“I think one of the interesting findings is perhaps we should be telling them to moisturize their scalp or moisturize their face, or it could be something unique to this particular foam.”

The study was funded by Arcutis Biotherapeutics. Dr. Blauvelt disclosed that he was an investigator for the trial and acted as consultant to the company, receiving grants/research funding and/or honoraria. Several of the study’s co-investigators are employees of Arcutis. Dr. Lambert was not involved in the study and cochaired the late-breaking session during which the STRATUM trial findings were reported.

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

Patients with prurigo nodularis (PN) who had severe itch and high lesion counts and whose condition was inadequately controlled with prior therapies experienced significant improvements with dupilumab (Dupixent), indicate results from the phase 2 LIBERTY-PN PRIME trial.

The research was presented at the annual Congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

More than 150 patients with severe PN whose quality of life was impaired were randomly assigned to receive dupilumab (Dupixent) or placebo for 24 weeks. Use of the monoclonal antibody was associated with significant improvements in itch scores.

The researchers also found that the percentage of patients who had no or few PN lesions increased substantially with use of dupilumab, and there were no new safety signals, confirming results from previous studies. Dupilumab, an interleukin-4 receptor alpha antagonist administered by injection, was initially approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating atopic dermatitis in 2022.

Study presenter Gil Yosipovitch, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Miami, emphasized that the improvements in itch and skin lesions seen in these patients were “clinically meaningful.”

Among 151 patients in the study, the mean age was 50.1 years, and 66.2% were women. The majority (53.0%) were White; 7.3% were Black; and 35.8% were Asian; 40.4% of patients had a history of atopy. The mean WI-NRS was 8.5, and the mean skin pain score on a 10-point scale was 7.2.

The Investigator’s Global Assessment for PN stage of disease (IGA PN-S) was also employed in the trial. That measure uses a 5-point scale to assess disease severity, with 0 indicating no lesions and 4 indicating more than 100 lesions. At baseline, 28.7% of patients had a score of 4, and the remainder had a score of 3, indicating the presence of 20-100 PN lesions.

Dr. Yosipovitch said that quality of life for these patients was “low” and that scores on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale indicated that the participants, many of whom had previously received topical and systemic medications for their PN, indicated they were depressed.

He showed that at week 24, the proportion of patients who had experienced an improvement in the WI-NRS score of greater than or equal to 4 (the study’s primary endpoint) was significantly greater with dupilumab, at 60.0% versus 18.4% among patients given placebo (P < .0001).

Moreover, the proportion of patients at week 24 with an IGA PN-S score of 0 or 1 (the secondary endpoint) was 48.0% in the active treatment group, versus 18.4% with placebo (P =.0004).

With regard to safety, rates of any treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between the groups, at 70.7% for dupilumab and 62.7% for placebo, as were rates for severe treatment-emergent adverse events, at 6.7% and 10.7%, respectively.

Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events of interest, such as skin infections, conjunctivitis, herpes viral infections, and injection site reactions, also suggested that there was no increased risk with active treatment.

Dupilumab is currently under review at the FDA and in Europe for the treatment of PN, according to dupilumab manufacturers Regeneron and Sanofi.

The study was sponsored by Sanofi in collaboration with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Yosipovitch has relationships with Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Bellus Health, Eli Lilly, Galderma, GSK, Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and Trevi Therapeutics.

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

Patients with prurigo nodularis (PN) who had severe itch and high lesion counts and whose condition was inadequately controlled with prior therapies experienced significant improvements with dupilumab (Dupixent), indicate results from the phase 2 LIBERTY-PN PRIME trial.

The research was presented at the annual Congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

More than 150 patients with severe PN whose quality of life was impaired were randomly assigned to receive dupilumab (Dupixent) or placebo for 24 weeks. Use of the monoclonal antibody was associated with significant improvements in itch scores.

The researchers also found that the percentage of patients who had no or few PN lesions increased substantially with use of dupilumab, and there were no new safety signals, confirming results from previous studies. Dupilumab, an interleukin-4 receptor alpha antagonist administered by injection, was initially approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating atopic dermatitis in 2022.

Study presenter Gil Yosipovitch, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Miami, emphasized that the improvements in itch and skin lesions seen in these patients were “clinically meaningful.”

Among 151 patients in the study, the mean age was 50.1 years, and 66.2% were women. The majority (53.0%) were White; 7.3% were Black; and 35.8% were Asian; 40.4% of patients had a history of atopy. The mean WI-NRS was 8.5, and the mean skin pain score on a 10-point scale was 7.2.

The Investigator’s Global Assessment for PN stage of disease (IGA PN-S) was also employed in the trial. That measure uses a 5-point scale to assess disease severity, with 0 indicating no lesions and 4 indicating more than 100 lesions. At baseline, 28.7% of patients had a score of 4, and the remainder had a score of 3, indicating the presence of 20-100 PN lesions.

Dr. Yosipovitch said that quality of life for these patients was “low” and that scores on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale indicated that the participants, many of whom had previously received topical and systemic medications for their PN, indicated they were depressed.

He showed that at week 24, the proportion of patients who had experienced an improvement in the WI-NRS score of greater than or equal to 4 (the study’s primary endpoint) was significantly greater with dupilumab, at 60.0% versus 18.4% among patients given placebo (P < .0001).

Moreover, the proportion of patients at week 24 with an IGA PN-S score of 0 or 1 (the secondary endpoint) was 48.0% in the active treatment group, versus 18.4% with placebo (P =.0004).

With regard to safety, rates of any treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between the groups, at 70.7% for dupilumab and 62.7% for placebo, as were rates for severe treatment-emergent adverse events, at 6.7% and 10.7%, respectively.

Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events of interest, such as skin infections, conjunctivitis, herpes viral infections, and injection site reactions, also suggested that there was no increased risk with active treatment.

Dupilumab is currently under review at the FDA and in Europe for the treatment of PN, according to dupilumab manufacturers Regeneron and Sanofi.

The study was sponsored by Sanofi in collaboration with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Yosipovitch has relationships with Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Bellus Health, Eli Lilly, Galderma, GSK, Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and Trevi Therapeutics.

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

Patients with prurigo nodularis (PN) who had severe itch and high lesion counts and whose condition was inadequately controlled with prior therapies experienced significant improvements with dupilumab (Dupixent), indicate results from the phase 2 LIBERTY-PN PRIME trial.

The research was presented at the annual Congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

More than 150 patients with severe PN whose quality of life was impaired were randomly assigned to receive dupilumab (Dupixent) or placebo for 24 weeks. Use of the monoclonal antibody was associated with significant improvements in itch scores.

The researchers also found that the percentage of patients who had no or few PN lesions increased substantially with use of dupilumab, and there were no new safety signals, confirming results from previous studies. Dupilumab, an interleukin-4 receptor alpha antagonist administered by injection, was initially approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating atopic dermatitis in 2022.

Study presenter Gil Yosipovitch, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Miami, emphasized that the improvements in itch and skin lesions seen in these patients were “clinically meaningful.”

Among 151 patients in the study, the mean age was 50.1 years, and 66.2% were women. The majority (53.0%) were White; 7.3% were Black; and 35.8% were Asian; 40.4% of patients had a history of atopy. The mean WI-NRS was 8.5, and the mean skin pain score on a 10-point scale was 7.2.

The Investigator’s Global Assessment for PN stage of disease (IGA PN-S) was also employed in the trial. That measure uses a 5-point scale to assess disease severity, with 0 indicating no lesions and 4 indicating more than 100 lesions. At baseline, 28.7% of patients had a score of 4, and the remainder had a score of 3, indicating the presence of 20-100 PN lesions.

Dr. Yosipovitch said that quality of life for these patients was “low” and that scores on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale indicated that the participants, many of whom had previously received topical and systemic medications for their PN, indicated they were depressed.

He showed that at week 24, the proportion of patients who had experienced an improvement in the WI-NRS score of greater than or equal to 4 (the study’s primary endpoint) was significantly greater with dupilumab, at 60.0% versus 18.4% among patients given placebo (P < .0001).

Moreover, the proportion of patients at week 24 with an IGA PN-S score of 0 or 1 (the secondary endpoint) was 48.0% in the active treatment group, versus 18.4% with placebo (P =.0004).

With regard to safety, rates of any treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between the groups, at 70.7% for dupilumab and 62.7% for placebo, as were rates for severe treatment-emergent adverse events, at 6.7% and 10.7%, respectively.

Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events of interest, such as skin infections, conjunctivitis, herpes viral infections, and injection site reactions, also suggested that there was no increased risk with active treatment.

Dupilumab is currently under review at the FDA and in Europe for the treatment of PN, according to dupilumab manufacturers Regeneron and Sanofi.

The study was sponsored by Sanofi in collaboration with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Yosipovitch has relationships with Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Bellus Health, Eli Lilly, Galderma, GSK, Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and Trevi Therapeutics.

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

PARIS – New results from a large prospective trial give a better idea of how a blood test that can detect multiple cancers performs in a “real-life” setting.

“As this technology develops, people must continue with their standard cancer screening, but this is a glimpse of what the future may hold,” commented study investigator Deborah Schrag, MD, MPH, chair, department of medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

For the PATHFINDER study, the Galleri blood test (developed by Grail) was used in 6,621 healthy individuals aged over 50, with or without additional cancer risk factors (such as history of smoking or genetic risk).

It found a positive cancer signal in 92 individuals (1.4%). 

None of the individuals who tested positive was known to have cancer at the time of testing. Subsequent workup, which could include scans and/or biopsy, found cancer in 38% of those with a positive test.

“When the test was positive, the workups were typically done in less than 3 months,” Dr. Schrag commented, adding that “the blood test typically predicted the origin of the cancer.”

Dr. Schrag presented the findings at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO).

Approached for comment, Anthony J. Olszanski, MD, RPh, vice chair of research at the Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, noted that the use of a blood test to “find” cancer has long been on the minds of patients. “It is not uncommon to hear oncology patients ask: ‘Why didn’t my doctor find my cancer earlier, on blood tests?’ ”

As this study suggests, finding a malignancy before it becomes apparent on imaging or because of symptoms is one step closer to becoming a reality. “But although this is an important study, it must be noted that only about 40% of patients with a positive test result were actually found to have cancer,” Dr. Olszanski said. “Conversely, about 60% of patients with a positive test result likely suffered from a considerable amount of anxiety that may persist even after further testing did not reveal a malignancy.”

Another important issue is that such testing may incur substantial health care cost. “Less than 2 participants per 100 had a positive test result, and those patients underwent further testing to interrogate the result,” he added. “It also remains unclear if detecting cancer early will lead to better outcomes.”

Whether or not the test will be cost-effective remains unknown, as Dr. Schrag emphasized they do not have a formal cost analysis at this time. “This technology is not ready for population-wide screening, but as the technology improves, costs will go down,” she said.

Dr. Schrag also added that this is a new concept and the trial shows it is feasible to detect cancer using a blood test. “It was not designed to determine if the test can decrease cancer mortality, which is obviously the purpose of screening, but it’s premature for that,” she said.
 

Details of the results

The Galleri test uses cell-free DNA and machine learning to detect a common cancer signal across more than 50 cancer types as well as to predict cancer signal origin.

Overall, the test detected a cancer signal in 1.4% (n = 92) of participants with analyzable samples.

A total of 90 participants underwent diagnostic testing (33 true positives and 57 false positives). Of the true positives, 81.8% underwent more than one invasive diagnostic test, as did 29.8% of false positives.

Specificity was 99.1%, positive predictive value (PPV) was approximately 40%, and 73% of those who were true positives had diagnostic resolution in less than 3 months.

Of the cancers that were diagnosed, 19 were solid tumors and 17 were hematologic cancers; 7 were diagnosed in a person with a history of cancer, 26 were cancer types without standard screening, and 14 were diagnosed at an early stage.

“What is exciting about this new paradigm is that many of these were cancers for which we don’t have standard screening,” said Dr. Schrag.

Dr. Schrag noted that given the immense interest in this study, the manufacturer is working toward refining the assay and improving the test. A reanalysis was conducted on all specimens using a refined version of the test.

“Importantly, the new analysis identified fewer patients with having positive signals, from 1.4% to 0.9%,” she said. “Specificity improved to 99.5% as did PPV – from 38% to 43.1% – and more people need to be screened to find a cancer – up to 263 from 189.”
 

False positives concerning

Previous, and very similar, results from the PATHFINDER trial were presented last year at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Max Diehn, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Stanford (Calif.) University, was an invited discussant for the study.

He pointed out that there were more false positives than true positives and noted that “there were a significant number of invasive procedures in false positives, which could cause harm to these patients who don’t have cancer.”

Dr. Diehn also explained that most true positives were for lymphoid malignancies, not solid tumors, and it is not known whether early detection of lymphoid malignancy has clinical utility. 

The Galleri test is already available in the United States and is being offered by a number of U.S. health networks. However, it is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and is not covered by medical insurance, so individuals have to pay around $950 for it out of pocket. 

Although some experts are excited by its potential, describing it as a “game-changer,” others are concerned that there are no clinical pathways in place yet to deal with the results of such a blood test, and say it is not ready for prime time. 

The study was funded by Grail, a subsidiary of Illumina. Dr. Shrag has reported relationships with Grail, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and Pfizer. Several coauthors also have disclosed relationships with industry. Dr. Olszanski has reported participating in advisory boards for BMS, Merck, and Instil Bio, and running trials for them.

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

PARIS – New results from a large prospective trial give a better idea of how a blood test that can detect multiple cancers performs in a “real-life” setting.

“As this technology develops, people must continue with their standard cancer screening, but this is a glimpse of what the future may hold,” commented study investigator Deborah Schrag, MD, MPH, chair, department of medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

For the PATHFINDER study, the Galleri blood test (developed by Grail) was used in 6,621 healthy individuals aged over 50, with or without additional cancer risk factors (such as history of smoking or genetic risk).

It found a positive cancer signal in 92 individuals (1.4%). 

None of the individuals who tested positive was known to have cancer at the time of testing. Subsequent workup, which could include scans and/or biopsy, found cancer in 38% of those with a positive test.

“When the test was positive, the workups were typically done in less than 3 months,” Dr. Schrag commented, adding that “the blood test typically predicted the origin of the cancer.”

Dr. Schrag presented the findings at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO).

Approached for comment, Anthony J. Olszanski, MD, RPh, vice chair of research at the Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, noted that the use of a blood test to “find” cancer has long been on the minds of patients. “It is not uncommon to hear oncology patients ask: ‘Why didn’t my doctor find my cancer earlier, on blood tests?’ ”

As this study suggests, finding a malignancy before it becomes apparent on imaging or because of symptoms is one step closer to becoming a reality. “But although this is an important study, it must be noted that only about 40% of patients with a positive test result were actually found to have cancer,” Dr. Olszanski said. “Conversely, about 60% of patients with a positive test result likely suffered from a considerable amount of anxiety that may persist even after further testing did not reveal a malignancy.”

Another important issue is that such testing may incur substantial health care cost. “Less than 2 participants per 100 had a positive test result, and those patients underwent further testing to interrogate the result,” he added. “It also remains unclear if detecting cancer early will lead to better outcomes.”

Whether or not the test will be cost-effective remains unknown, as Dr. Schrag emphasized they do not have a formal cost analysis at this time. “This technology is not ready for population-wide screening, but as the technology improves, costs will go down,” she said.

Dr. Schrag also added that this is a new concept and the trial shows it is feasible to detect cancer using a blood test. “It was not designed to determine if the test can decrease cancer mortality, which is obviously the purpose of screening, but it’s premature for that,” she said.
 

Details of the results

The Galleri test uses cell-free DNA and machine learning to detect a common cancer signal across more than 50 cancer types as well as to predict cancer signal origin.

Overall, the test detected a cancer signal in 1.4% (n = 92) of participants with analyzable samples.

A total of 90 participants underwent diagnostic testing (33 true positives and 57 false positives). Of the true positives, 81.8% underwent more than one invasive diagnostic test, as did 29.8% of false positives.

Specificity was 99.1%, positive predictive value (PPV) was approximately 40%, and 73% of those who were true positives had diagnostic resolution in less than 3 months.

Of the cancers that were diagnosed, 19 were solid tumors and 17 were hematologic cancers; 7 were diagnosed in a person with a history of cancer, 26 were cancer types without standard screening, and 14 were diagnosed at an early stage.

“What is exciting about this new paradigm is that many of these were cancers for which we don’t have standard screening,” said Dr. Schrag.

Dr. Schrag noted that given the immense interest in this study, the manufacturer is working toward refining the assay and improving the test. A reanalysis was conducted on all specimens using a refined version of the test.

“Importantly, the new analysis identified fewer patients with having positive signals, from 1.4% to 0.9%,” she said. “Specificity improved to 99.5% as did PPV – from 38% to 43.1% – and more people need to be screened to find a cancer – up to 263 from 189.”
 

False positives concerning

Previous, and very similar, results from the PATHFINDER trial were presented last year at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Max Diehn, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Stanford (Calif.) University, was an invited discussant for the study.

He pointed out that there were more false positives than true positives and noted that “there were a significant number of invasive procedures in false positives, which could cause harm to these patients who don’t have cancer.”

Dr. Diehn also explained that most true positives were for lymphoid malignancies, not solid tumors, and it is not known whether early detection of lymphoid malignancy has clinical utility. 

The Galleri test is already available in the United States and is being offered by a number of U.S. health networks. However, it is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and is not covered by medical insurance, so individuals have to pay around $950 for it out of pocket. 

Although some experts are excited by its potential, describing it as a “game-changer,” others are concerned that there are no clinical pathways in place yet to deal with the results of such a blood test, and say it is not ready for prime time. 

The study was funded by Grail, a subsidiary of Illumina. Dr. Shrag has reported relationships with Grail, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and Pfizer. Several coauthors also have disclosed relationships with industry. Dr. Olszanski has reported participating in advisory boards for BMS, Merck, and Instil Bio, and running trials for them.

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

PARIS – New results from a large prospective trial give a better idea of how a blood test that can detect multiple cancers performs in a “real-life” setting.

“As this technology develops, people must continue with their standard cancer screening, but this is a glimpse of what the future may hold,” commented study investigator Deborah Schrag, MD, MPH, chair, department of medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

For the PATHFINDER study, the Galleri blood test (developed by Grail) was used in 6,621 healthy individuals aged over 50, with or without additional cancer risk factors (such as history of smoking or genetic risk).

It found a positive cancer signal in 92 individuals (1.4%). 

None of the individuals who tested positive was known to have cancer at the time of testing. Subsequent workup, which could include scans and/or biopsy, found cancer in 38% of those with a positive test.

“When the test was positive, the workups were typically done in less than 3 months,” Dr. Schrag commented, adding that “the blood test typically predicted the origin of the cancer.”

Dr. Schrag presented the findings at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO).

Approached for comment, Anthony J. Olszanski, MD, RPh, vice chair of research at the Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, noted that the use of a blood test to “find” cancer has long been on the minds of patients. “It is not uncommon to hear oncology patients ask: ‘Why didn’t my doctor find my cancer earlier, on blood tests?’ ”

As this study suggests, finding a malignancy before it becomes apparent on imaging or because of symptoms is one step closer to becoming a reality. “But although this is an important study, it must be noted that only about 40% of patients with a positive test result were actually found to have cancer,” Dr. Olszanski said. “Conversely, about 60% of patients with a positive test result likely suffered from a considerable amount of anxiety that may persist even after further testing did not reveal a malignancy.”

Another important issue is that such testing may incur substantial health care cost. “Less than 2 participants per 100 had a positive test result, and those patients underwent further testing to interrogate the result,” he added. “It also remains unclear if detecting cancer early will lead to better outcomes.”

Whether or not the test will be cost-effective remains unknown, as Dr. Schrag emphasized they do not have a formal cost analysis at this time. “This technology is not ready for population-wide screening, but as the technology improves, costs will go down,” she said.

Dr. Schrag also added that this is a new concept and the trial shows it is feasible to detect cancer using a blood test. “It was not designed to determine if the test can decrease cancer mortality, which is obviously the purpose of screening, but it’s premature for that,” she said.
 

Details of the results

The Galleri test uses cell-free DNA and machine learning to detect a common cancer signal across more than 50 cancer types as well as to predict cancer signal origin.

Overall, the test detected a cancer signal in 1.4% (n = 92) of participants with analyzable samples.

A total of 90 participants underwent diagnostic testing (33 true positives and 57 false positives). Of the true positives, 81.8% underwent more than one invasive diagnostic test, as did 29.8% of false positives.

Specificity was 99.1%, positive predictive value (PPV) was approximately 40%, and 73% of those who were true positives had diagnostic resolution in less than 3 months.

Of the cancers that were diagnosed, 19 were solid tumors and 17 were hematologic cancers; 7 were diagnosed in a person with a history of cancer, 26 were cancer types without standard screening, and 14 were diagnosed at an early stage.

“What is exciting about this new paradigm is that many of these were cancers for which we don’t have standard screening,” said Dr. Schrag.

Dr. Schrag noted that given the immense interest in this study, the manufacturer is working toward refining the assay and improving the test. A reanalysis was conducted on all specimens using a refined version of the test.

“Importantly, the new analysis identified fewer patients with having positive signals, from 1.4% to 0.9%,” she said. “Specificity improved to 99.5% as did PPV – from 38% to 43.1% – and more people need to be screened to find a cancer – up to 263 from 189.”
 

False positives concerning

Previous, and very similar, results from the PATHFINDER trial were presented last year at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Max Diehn, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Stanford (Calif.) University, was an invited discussant for the study.

He pointed out that there were more false positives than true positives and noted that “there were a significant number of invasive procedures in false positives, which could cause harm to these patients who don’t have cancer.”

Dr. Diehn also explained that most true positives were for lymphoid malignancies, not solid tumors, and it is not known whether early detection of lymphoid malignancy has clinical utility. 

The Galleri test is already available in the United States and is being offered by a number of U.S. health networks. However, it is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and is not covered by medical insurance, so individuals have to pay around $950 for it out of pocket. 

Although some experts are excited by its potential, describing it as a “game-changer,” others are concerned that there are no clinical pathways in place yet to deal with the results of such a blood test, and say it is not ready for prime time. 

The study was funded by Grail, a subsidiary of Illumina. Dr. Shrag has reported relationships with Grail, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and Pfizer. Several coauthors also have disclosed relationships with industry. Dr. Olszanski has reported participating in advisory boards for BMS, Merck, and Instil Bio, and running trials for them.

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

The Crystal Bone (Amgen) novel algorithm predicted 2-year risk of osteoporotic fractures in a large dataset with an accuracy that was consistent with FRAX 10-year risk predictions, researchers report.  

The algorithm was built using machine learning and artificial intelligence to predict fracture risk based on International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes, as described in an article published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research.

The current validation study was presented September 9 as a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

The scientists validated the algorithm in more than 100,000 patients aged 50 and older (that is, at risk of fracture) who were part of the Reliant Medical Group dataset (a subset of Optum Care).

Importantly, the algorithm predicted increased fracture in many patients who did not have a diagnosis of osteoporosis.

The next steps are validation in other datasets to support the generalizability of Crystal Bone across U.S. health care systems, Elinor Mody, MD, Reliant Medical Group, and colleagues report.

“Implementation research, in which patients identified by Crystal Bone undergo a bone health assessment and receive ongoing management, will help inform the clinical utility of this novel algorithm,” they conclude.

At the poster session, Tina Kelley, Optum Life Sciences, explained: “It’s a screening tool that says: ‘These are your patients that maybe you should spend a little extra time with, ask a few extra questions.’ ”

However, further study is needed before it should be used in clinical practice, she emphasized to this news organization.

‘A very useful advance’ but needs further validation

Invited to comment, Peter R. Ebeling, MD, outgoing president of the ASBMR, noted that “many clinicians now use FRAX to calculate absolute fracture risk and select patients who should initiate anti-osteoporosis drugs.”

With FRAX, clinicians input a patient’s age, sex, weight, height, previous fracture, [history of] parent with fractured hip, current smoking status, glucocorticoids, rheumatoid arthritis, secondary osteoporosis, alcohol (3 units/day or more), and bone mineral density (by DXA at the femoral neck) into the tool, to obtain a 10-year probability of fracture.

“Crystal Bone takes a different approach,” Dr. Ebeling, from Monash University, Melbourne, who was not involved with the research but who disclosed receiving funding from Amgen, told this news organization in an email.

The algorithm uses electronic health records (EHRs) to identify patients who are likely to have a fracture within the next 2 years, he explained, based on diagnoses and medications associated with osteoporosis and fractures. These include ICD-10 codes for fractures at various sites and secondary causes of osteoporosis (such as rheumatoid and other inflammatory arthritis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, celiac disease, and inflammatory bowel disease).

“This is a very useful advance,” Dr. Ebeling summarized, “in that it would alert the clinician to patients in their practice who have a high fracture risk and need to be investigated for osteoporosis and initiated on treatment. Otherwise, the patients would be missed, as currently often occurs.”

“It would need to be adaptable to other [EMR] systems and to be validated in a large separate population to be ready to enter clinical practice,” he said, “but these data look very promising with a good [positive predictive value (PPV)].”

Similarly, Juliet Compston, MD, said: “It provides a novel, fully automated approach to population-based screening for osteoporosis using EHRs to identify people at high imminent risk of fracture.”

Dr. Compston, emeritus professor of bone medicine, University of Cambridge, England, who was not involved with the research but who also disclosed being a consultant for Amgen, selected the study as one of the top clinical science highlights abstracts at the meeting.

“The algorithm looks at ICD codes for previous history of fracture, medications that have adverse effects on bone – for example glucocorticoids, aromatase inhibitors, and anti-androgens – as well as chronic diseases that increase the risk of fracture,” she explained.

“FRAX is the most commonly used tool to estimate fracture probability in clinical practice and to guide treatment decisions,” she noted. However, “currently it requires human input of data into the FRAX website and is generally only performed on individuals who are selected on the basis of clinical risk factors.”

“The Crystal Bone algorithm offers the potential for fully automated population-based screening in older adults to identify those at high risk of fracture, for whom effective therapies are available to reduce fracture risk,” she summarized.

“It needs further validation,” she noted, “and implementation into clinical practice requires the availability of high-quality EHRs.”
 

Algorithm validated in 106,328 patients aged 50 and older

Despite guidelines that recommend screening for osteoporosis in women aged 65 and older, men older than 70, and adults aged 50-79 with risk factors, real-world data suggest such screening is low, the researchers note.

The current validation study identified 106,328 patients aged 50 and older who had at least 2 years of consecutive medical history with the Reliant Medical Group from December 2014 to November 2020 as well as at least two EHR codes.

The accuracy of predicting a fracture within 2 years, expressed as area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC), was 0.77, where 1 is perfect, 0.5 is no better than random selection, 0.7 to 0.8 is acceptable, and 0.8 to 0.9 indicates excellent predictive accuracy.

In the entire Optum Reliant population older than 50, the risk of fracture within 2 years was 1.95%.

The algorithm identified four groups with a greater risk: 19,100 patients had a threefold higher risk of fracture within 2 years, 9,246 patients had a fourfold higher risk, 3,533 patients had a sevenfold higher risk, and 1,735 patients had a ninefold higher risk.

Many of these patients had no prior diagnosis of osteoporosis

For example, in the 19,100 patients with a threefold greater risk of fracture in 2 years, 69% of patients had not been diagnosed with osteoporosis (49% of them had no history of fracture and 20% did have a history of fracture).

The algorithm had a positive predictive value of 6%-18%, a negative predictive value of 98%-99%, a specificity of 81%-98%, and a sensitivity of 18%-59%, for the four groups.

The study was funded by Amgen. Dr. Mody and another author are Reliant Medical Group employees. Ms. Kelley and another author are Optum Life Sciences employees. One author is an employee at Landing AI. Two authors are Amgen employees and own Amgen stock. Dr. Ebeling has disclosed receiving research funding from Amgen, Sanofi, and Alexion, and his institution has received honoraria from Amgen and Kyowa Kirin. Dr. Compston has disclosed receiving speaking and consultancy fees from Amgen and UCB.

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

The Crystal Bone (Amgen) novel algorithm predicted 2-year risk of osteoporotic fractures in a large dataset with an accuracy that was consistent with FRAX 10-year risk predictions, researchers report.  

The algorithm was built using machine learning and artificial intelligence to predict fracture risk based on International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes, as described in an article published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research.

The current validation study was presented September 9 as a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

The scientists validated the algorithm in more than 100,000 patients aged 50 and older (that is, at risk of fracture) who were part of the Reliant Medical Group dataset (a subset of Optum Care).

Importantly, the algorithm predicted increased fracture in many patients who did not have a diagnosis of osteoporosis.

The next steps are validation in other datasets to support the generalizability of Crystal Bone across U.S. health care systems, Elinor Mody, MD, Reliant Medical Group, and colleagues report.

“Implementation research, in which patients identified by Crystal Bone undergo a bone health assessment and receive ongoing management, will help inform the clinical utility of this novel algorithm,” they conclude.

At the poster session, Tina Kelley, Optum Life Sciences, explained: “It’s a screening tool that says: ‘These are your patients that maybe you should spend a little extra time with, ask a few extra questions.’ ”

However, further study is needed before it should be used in clinical practice, she emphasized to this news organization.

‘A very useful advance’ but needs further validation

Invited to comment, Peter R. Ebeling, MD, outgoing president of the ASBMR, noted that “many clinicians now use FRAX to calculate absolute fracture risk and select patients who should initiate anti-osteoporosis drugs.”

With FRAX, clinicians input a patient’s age, sex, weight, height, previous fracture, [history of] parent with fractured hip, current smoking status, glucocorticoids, rheumatoid arthritis, secondary osteoporosis, alcohol (3 units/day or more), and bone mineral density (by DXA at the femoral neck) into the tool, to obtain a 10-year probability of fracture.

“Crystal Bone takes a different approach,” Dr. Ebeling, from Monash University, Melbourne, who was not involved with the research but who disclosed receiving funding from Amgen, told this news organization in an email.

The algorithm uses electronic health records (EHRs) to identify patients who are likely to have a fracture within the next 2 years, he explained, based on diagnoses and medications associated with osteoporosis and fractures. These include ICD-10 codes for fractures at various sites and secondary causes of osteoporosis (such as rheumatoid and other inflammatory arthritis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, celiac disease, and inflammatory bowel disease).

“This is a very useful advance,” Dr. Ebeling summarized, “in that it would alert the clinician to patients in their practice who have a high fracture risk and need to be investigated for osteoporosis and initiated on treatment. Otherwise, the patients would be missed, as currently often occurs.”

“It would need to be adaptable to other [EMR] systems and to be validated in a large separate population to be ready to enter clinical practice,” he said, “but these data look very promising with a good [positive predictive value (PPV)].”

Similarly, Juliet Compston, MD, said: “It provides a novel, fully automated approach to population-based screening for osteoporosis using EHRs to identify people at high imminent risk of fracture.”

Dr. Compston, emeritus professor of bone medicine, University of Cambridge, England, who was not involved with the research but who also disclosed being a consultant for Amgen, selected the study as one of the top clinical science highlights abstracts at the meeting.

“The algorithm looks at ICD codes for previous history of fracture, medications that have adverse effects on bone – for example glucocorticoids, aromatase inhibitors, and anti-androgens – as well as chronic diseases that increase the risk of fracture,” she explained.

“FRAX is the most commonly used tool to estimate fracture probability in clinical practice and to guide treatment decisions,” she noted. However, “currently it requires human input of data into the FRAX website and is generally only performed on individuals who are selected on the basis of clinical risk factors.”

“The Crystal Bone algorithm offers the potential for fully automated population-based screening in older adults to identify those at high risk of fracture, for whom effective therapies are available to reduce fracture risk,” she summarized.

“It needs further validation,” she noted, “and implementation into clinical practice requires the availability of high-quality EHRs.”
 

Algorithm validated in 106,328 patients aged 50 and older

Despite guidelines that recommend screening for osteoporosis in women aged 65 and older, men older than 70, and adults aged 50-79 with risk factors, real-world data suggest such screening is low, the researchers note.

The current validation study identified 106,328 patients aged 50 and older who had at least 2 years of consecutive medical history with the Reliant Medical Group from December 2014 to November 2020 as well as at least two EHR codes.

The accuracy of predicting a fracture within 2 years, expressed as area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC), was 0.77, where 1 is perfect, 0.5 is no better than random selection, 0.7 to 0.8 is acceptable, and 0.8 to 0.9 indicates excellent predictive accuracy.

In the entire Optum Reliant population older than 50, the risk of fracture within 2 years was 1.95%.

The algorithm identified four groups with a greater risk: 19,100 patients had a threefold higher risk of fracture within 2 years, 9,246 patients had a fourfold higher risk, 3,533 patients had a sevenfold higher risk, and 1,735 patients had a ninefold higher risk.

Many of these patients had no prior diagnosis of osteoporosis

For example, in the 19,100 patients with a threefold greater risk of fracture in 2 years, 69% of patients had not been diagnosed with osteoporosis (49% of them had no history of fracture and 20% did have a history of fracture).

The algorithm had a positive predictive value of 6%-18%, a negative predictive value of 98%-99%, a specificity of 81%-98%, and a sensitivity of 18%-59%, for the four groups.

The study was funded by Amgen. Dr. Mody and another author are Reliant Medical Group employees. Ms. Kelley and another author are Optum Life Sciences employees. One author is an employee at Landing AI. Two authors are Amgen employees and own Amgen stock. Dr. Ebeling has disclosed receiving research funding from Amgen, Sanofi, and Alexion, and his institution has received honoraria from Amgen and Kyowa Kirin. Dr. Compston has disclosed receiving speaking and consultancy fees from Amgen and UCB.

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

The Crystal Bone (Amgen) novel algorithm predicted 2-year risk of osteoporotic fractures in a large dataset with an accuracy that was consistent with FRAX 10-year risk predictions, researchers report.  

The algorithm was built using machine learning and artificial intelligence to predict fracture risk based on International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes, as described in an article published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research.

The current validation study was presented September 9 as a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

The scientists validated the algorithm in more than 100,000 patients aged 50 and older (that is, at risk of fracture) who were part of the Reliant Medical Group dataset (a subset of Optum Care).

Importantly, the algorithm predicted increased fracture in many patients who did not have a diagnosis of osteoporosis.

The next steps are validation in other datasets to support the generalizability of Crystal Bone across U.S. health care systems, Elinor Mody, MD, Reliant Medical Group, and colleagues report.

“Implementation research, in which patients identified by Crystal Bone undergo a bone health assessment and receive ongoing management, will help inform the clinical utility of this novel algorithm,” they conclude.

At the poster session, Tina Kelley, Optum Life Sciences, explained: “It’s a screening tool that says: ‘These are your patients that maybe you should spend a little extra time with, ask a few extra questions.’ ”

However, further study is needed before it should be used in clinical practice, she emphasized to this news organization.

‘A very useful advance’ but needs further validation

Invited to comment, Peter R. Ebeling, MD, outgoing president of the ASBMR, noted that “many clinicians now use FRAX to calculate absolute fracture risk and select patients who should initiate anti-osteoporosis drugs.”

With FRAX, clinicians input a patient’s age, sex, weight, height, previous fracture, [history of] parent with fractured hip, current smoking status, glucocorticoids, rheumatoid arthritis, secondary osteoporosis, alcohol (3 units/day or more), and bone mineral density (by DXA at the femoral neck) into the tool, to obtain a 10-year probability of fracture.

“Crystal Bone takes a different approach,” Dr. Ebeling, from Monash University, Melbourne, who was not involved with the research but who disclosed receiving funding from Amgen, told this news organization in an email.

The algorithm uses electronic health records (EHRs) to identify patients who are likely to have a fracture within the next 2 years, he explained, based on diagnoses and medications associated with osteoporosis and fractures. These include ICD-10 codes for fractures at various sites and secondary causes of osteoporosis (such as rheumatoid and other inflammatory arthritis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, celiac disease, and inflammatory bowel disease).

“This is a very useful advance,” Dr. Ebeling summarized, “in that it would alert the clinician to patients in their practice who have a high fracture risk and need to be investigated for osteoporosis and initiated on treatment. Otherwise, the patients would be missed, as currently often occurs.”

“It would need to be adaptable to other [EMR] systems and to be validated in a large separate population to be ready to enter clinical practice,” he said, “but these data look very promising with a good [positive predictive value (PPV)].”

Similarly, Juliet Compston, MD, said: “It provides a novel, fully automated approach to population-based screening for osteoporosis using EHRs to identify people at high imminent risk of fracture.”

Dr. Compston, emeritus professor of bone medicine, University of Cambridge, England, who was not involved with the research but who also disclosed being a consultant for Amgen, selected the study as one of the top clinical science highlights abstracts at the meeting.

“The algorithm looks at ICD codes for previous history of fracture, medications that have adverse effects on bone – for example glucocorticoids, aromatase inhibitors, and anti-androgens – as well as chronic diseases that increase the risk of fracture,” she explained.

“FRAX is the most commonly used tool to estimate fracture probability in clinical practice and to guide treatment decisions,” she noted. However, “currently it requires human input of data into the FRAX website and is generally only performed on individuals who are selected on the basis of clinical risk factors.”

“The Crystal Bone algorithm offers the potential for fully automated population-based screening in older adults to identify those at high risk of fracture, for whom effective therapies are available to reduce fracture risk,” she summarized.

“It needs further validation,” she noted, “and implementation into clinical practice requires the availability of high-quality EHRs.”
 

Algorithm validated in 106,328 patients aged 50 and older

Despite guidelines that recommend screening for osteoporosis in women aged 65 and older, men older than 70, and adults aged 50-79 with risk factors, real-world data suggest such screening is low, the researchers note.

The current validation study identified 106,328 patients aged 50 and older who had at least 2 years of consecutive medical history with the Reliant Medical Group from December 2014 to November 2020 as well as at least two EHR codes.

The accuracy of predicting a fracture within 2 years, expressed as area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC), was 0.77, where 1 is perfect, 0.5 is no better than random selection, 0.7 to 0.8 is acceptable, and 0.8 to 0.9 indicates excellent predictive accuracy.

In the entire Optum Reliant population older than 50, the risk of fracture within 2 years was 1.95%.

The algorithm identified four groups with a greater risk: 19,100 patients had a threefold higher risk of fracture within 2 years, 9,246 patients had a fourfold higher risk, 3,533 patients had a sevenfold higher risk, and 1,735 patients had a ninefold higher risk.

Many of these patients had no prior diagnosis of osteoporosis

For example, in the 19,100 patients with a threefold greater risk of fracture in 2 years, 69% of patients had not been diagnosed with osteoporosis (49% of them had no history of fracture and 20% did have a history of fracture).

The algorithm had a positive predictive value of 6%-18%, a negative predictive value of 98%-99%, a specificity of 81%-98%, and a sensitivity of 18%-59%, for the four groups.

The study was funded by Amgen. Dr. Mody and another author are Reliant Medical Group employees. Ms. Kelley and another author are Optum Life Sciences employees. One author is an employee at Landing AI. Two authors are Amgen employees and own Amgen stock. Dr. Ebeling has disclosed receiving research funding from Amgen, Sanofi, and Alexion, and his institution has received honoraria from Amgen and Kyowa Kirin. Dr. Compston has disclosed receiving speaking and consultancy fees from Amgen and UCB.

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

Patients with melanoma who are deficient in vitamin D have significantly worse overall survival than those with higher levels, according to research presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Whereas the 5-year overall survival was 90% when vitamin D serum levels were above a 10 ng/mL threshold, it was 84% when levels fell below it. Notably, the gap in overall survival between those above and below the threshold appeared to widen as time went on.

The research adds to existing evidence that “vitamin D levels can play an important and independent role in patients’ survival outcomes,” study investigator Inés Gracia-Darder, MD, told this news organization. “The important application in clinical practice would be to know if vitamin D supplementation influences the survival of melanoma patients,” said Dr. Gracia-Darder, a clinical specialist in dermatology at the Hospital Universitari Son Espases, Mallorca, Spain.

Dr. Inés Gracia-Darder

Known association, but not much data

“It is not a new finding,” but there are limited data, especially in melanoma, said Julie De Smedt, MD, of KU Leuven, Belgium, who was asked to comment on the results. Other groups have shown, certainly for cancer in general, that vitamin D can have an effect on overall survival.

“Low levels of vitamin D are associated with the pathological parameters of the melanoma, such as the thickness of the tumor,” Dr. De Smedt said in an interview, indicating that it’s not just overall survival that might be affected.

“So we assume that also has an effect on melanoma-specific survival,” she added.

That assumption, however, is not supported by the data Dr. Gracia-Darder presented, as there was no difference in melanoma-specific survival among the two groups of patients that had been studied.
 

Retrospective cohort analysis

Vitamin D levels had been studied in 264 patients who were included in the retrospective cohort analysis. All had invasive melanomas, and all had been seen at the Hospital Clinic of Barcelona between January 1998 and June 2021. Their mean age was 57 years, and the median follow-up was 6.7 years.

For inclusion, all patients had to have had their vitamin D levels measured after being diagnosed with melanoma; those with a 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 serum level of less than 10 ng/mL were deemed to be vitamin D deficient, whereas those with levels of 10 ng/mL and above were deemed normal or insufficient.

A measurement less than 10 ng/mL is considered vitamin D deficiency, Dr. De Smedt said. “But there is a difference between countries, and there’s also a difference between societies,” noting the cut-off used in the lab where she works is 20 ng/mL. This makes it difficult to compare studies, she said.
 

Independent association with overall survival

Seasonal variation in vitamin D levels were considered as a possible confounding factor, but Dr. Gracia-Darder noted that there was a similar distribution of measurements taken between October to March and April to September.

Univariate and multivariate analyses established vitamin D deficiency as being independently associated with overall survival with hazard ratios of 2.34 and 2.45, respectively.

Other predictive factors were having a higher Breslow index, as well as older age and gender.
 

Time to recommend vitamin D supplementation?

So should patients with melanoma have their vitamin D levels routinely checked? And what about advising them to take vitamin D supplements?

“In our practice, we analyze the vitamin D levels of our patients,” Dr. Gracia-Darder said. Patients are told to limit their exposure to the sun because of their skin cancer, so they are very likely to become vitamin D deficient.

While dietary changes or supplements might be suggested, there’s no real evidence to support upping vitamin D levels to date, so “future prospective studies are needed,” Dr. Gracia-Darder added.

Such studies have already started, including one in Italy, one in Australia, and another study that Dr. De Smedt has been involved with for the past few years.

Called the ViDMe study, it’s a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial in which patients are being given a high-dose oral vitamin D supplement or placebo once a month for at least 1 year. About 430 patients with a first cutaneous malignant melanoma have been included in the trial, which started in December 2012.

It is hoped that the results will show that the supplementation will have had a protective effect on the risk of relapse and that there will be a correlation between vitamin D levels in the blood and vitamin D receptor immunoreactivity in the tumor.

“The study is still blinded,” Dr. De Smedt said. “We will unblind in the coming months and then at the end of the year, maybe next year, we will have the results.”

The study reported by Dr. Gracia-Darder did not receive any specific funding. Dr. Gracia-Darder disclosed that the melanoma unit where the study was performed receives many grants and funds to carry out research. She reported no other relevant financial relationships. Dr. De Smedt had no relevant financial relationships. The ViDMe study is sponsored by the Universitaire Ziekenhuizen Leuven.

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

Patients with melanoma who are deficient in vitamin D have significantly worse overall survival than those with higher levels, according to research presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Whereas the 5-year overall survival was 90% when vitamin D serum levels were above a 10 ng/mL threshold, it was 84% when levels fell below it. Notably, the gap in overall survival between those above and below the threshold appeared to widen as time went on.

The research adds to existing evidence that “vitamin D levels can play an important and independent role in patients’ survival outcomes,” study investigator Inés Gracia-Darder, MD, told this news organization. “The important application in clinical practice would be to know if vitamin D supplementation influences the survival of melanoma patients,” said Dr. Gracia-Darder, a clinical specialist in dermatology at the Hospital Universitari Son Espases, Mallorca, Spain.

Dr. Inés Gracia-Darder

Known association, but not much data

“It is not a new finding,” but there are limited data, especially in melanoma, said Julie De Smedt, MD, of KU Leuven, Belgium, who was asked to comment on the results. Other groups have shown, certainly for cancer in general, that vitamin D can have an effect on overall survival.

“Low levels of vitamin D are associated with the pathological parameters of the melanoma, such as the thickness of the tumor,” Dr. De Smedt said in an interview, indicating that it’s not just overall survival that might be affected.

“So we assume that also has an effect on melanoma-specific survival,” she added.

That assumption, however, is not supported by the data Dr. Gracia-Darder presented, as there was no difference in melanoma-specific survival among the two groups of patients that had been studied.
 

Retrospective cohort analysis

Vitamin D levels had been studied in 264 patients who were included in the retrospective cohort analysis. All had invasive melanomas, and all had been seen at the Hospital Clinic of Barcelona between January 1998 and June 2021. Their mean age was 57 years, and the median follow-up was 6.7 years.

For inclusion, all patients had to have had their vitamin D levels measured after being diagnosed with melanoma; those with a 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 serum level of less than 10 ng/mL were deemed to be vitamin D deficient, whereas those with levels of 10 ng/mL and above were deemed normal or insufficient.

A measurement less than 10 ng/mL is considered vitamin D deficiency, Dr. De Smedt said. “But there is a difference between countries, and there’s also a difference between societies,” noting the cut-off used in the lab where she works is 20 ng/mL. This makes it difficult to compare studies, she said.
 

Independent association with overall survival

Seasonal variation in vitamin D levels were considered as a possible confounding factor, but Dr. Gracia-Darder noted that there was a similar distribution of measurements taken between October to March and April to September.

Univariate and multivariate analyses established vitamin D deficiency as being independently associated with overall survival with hazard ratios of 2.34 and 2.45, respectively.

Other predictive factors were having a higher Breslow index, as well as older age and gender.
 

Time to recommend vitamin D supplementation?

So should patients with melanoma have their vitamin D levels routinely checked? And what about advising them to take vitamin D supplements?

“In our practice, we analyze the vitamin D levels of our patients,” Dr. Gracia-Darder said. Patients are told to limit their exposure to the sun because of their skin cancer, so they are very likely to become vitamin D deficient.

While dietary changes or supplements might be suggested, there’s no real evidence to support upping vitamin D levels to date, so “future prospective studies are needed,” Dr. Gracia-Darder added.

Such studies have already started, including one in Italy, one in Australia, and another study that Dr. De Smedt has been involved with for the past few years.

Called the ViDMe study, it’s a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial in which patients are being given a high-dose oral vitamin D supplement or placebo once a month for at least 1 year. About 430 patients with a first cutaneous malignant melanoma have been included in the trial, which started in December 2012.

It is hoped that the results will show that the supplementation will have had a protective effect on the risk of relapse and that there will be a correlation between vitamin D levels in the blood and vitamin D receptor immunoreactivity in the tumor.

“The study is still blinded,” Dr. De Smedt said. “We will unblind in the coming months and then at the end of the year, maybe next year, we will have the results.”

The study reported by Dr. Gracia-Darder did not receive any specific funding. Dr. Gracia-Darder disclosed that the melanoma unit where the study was performed receives many grants and funds to carry out research. She reported no other relevant financial relationships. Dr. De Smedt had no relevant financial relationships. The ViDMe study is sponsored by the Universitaire Ziekenhuizen Leuven.

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

Patients with melanoma who are deficient in vitamin D have significantly worse overall survival than those with higher levels, according to research presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Whereas the 5-year overall survival was 90% when vitamin D serum levels were above a 10 ng/mL threshold, it was 84% when levels fell below it. Notably, the gap in overall survival between those above and below the threshold appeared to widen as time went on.

The research adds to existing evidence that “vitamin D levels can play an important and independent role in patients’ survival outcomes,” study investigator Inés Gracia-Darder, MD, told this news organization. “The important application in clinical practice would be to know if vitamin D supplementation influences the survival of melanoma patients,” said Dr. Gracia-Darder, a clinical specialist in dermatology at the Hospital Universitari Son Espases, Mallorca, Spain.

Dr. Inés Gracia-Darder

Known association, but not much data

“It is not a new finding,” but there are limited data, especially in melanoma, said Julie De Smedt, MD, of KU Leuven, Belgium, who was asked to comment on the results. Other groups have shown, certainly for cancer in general, that vitamin D can have an effect on overall survival.

“Low levels of vitamin D are associated with the pathological parameters of the melanoma, such as the thickness of the tumor,” Dr. De Smedt said in an interview, indicating that it’s not just overall survival that might be affected.

“So we assume that also has an effect on melanoma-specific survival,” she added.

That assumption, however, is not supported by the data Dr. Gracia-Darder presented, as there was no difference in melanoma-specific survival among the two groups of patients that had been studied.
 

Retrospective cohort analysis

Vitamin D levels had been studied in 264 patients who were included in the retrospective cohort analysis. All had invasive melanomas, and all had been seen at the Hospital Clinic of Barcelona between January 1998 and June 2021. Their mean age was 57 years, and the median follow-up was 6.7 years.

For inclusion, all patients had to have had their vitamin D levels measured after being diagnosed with melanoma; those with a 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 serum level of less than 10 ng/mL were deemed to be vitamin D deficient, whereas those with levels of 10 ng/mL and above were deemed normal or insufficient.

A measurement less than 10 ng/mL is considered vitamin D deficiency, Dr. De Smedt said. “But there is a difference between countries, and there’s also a difference between societies,” noting the cut-off used in the lab where she works is 20 ng/mL. This makes it difficult to compare studies, she said.
 

Independent association with overall survival

Seasonal variation in vitamin D levels were considered as a possible confounding factor, but Dr. Gracia-Darder noted that there was a similar distribution of measurements taken between October to March and April to September.

Univariate and multivariate analyses established vitamin D deficiency as being independently associated with overall survival with hazard ratios of 2.34 and 2.45, respectively.

Other predictive factors were having a higher Breslow index, as well as older age and gender.
 

Time to recommend vitamin D supplementation?

So should patients with melanoma have their vitamin D levels routinely checked? And what about advising them to take vitamin D supplements?

“In our practice, we analyze the vitamin D levels of our patients,” Dr. Gracia-Darder said. Patients are told to limit their exposure to the sun because of their skin cancer, so they are very likely to become vitamin D deficient.

While dietary changes or supplements might be suggested, there’s no real evidence to support upping vitamin D levels to date, so “future prospective studies are needed,” Dr. Gracia-Darder added.

Such studies have already started, including one in Italy, one in Australia, and another study that Dr. De Smedt has been involved with for the past few years.

Called the ViDMe study, it’s a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial in which patients are being given a high-dose oral vitamin D supplement or placebo once a month for at least 1 year. About 430 patients with a first cutaneous malignant melanoma have been included in the trial, which started in December 2012.

It is hoped that the results will show that the supplementation will have had a protective effect on the risk of relapse and that there will be a correlation between vitamin D levels in the blood and vitamin D receptor immunoreactivity in the tumor.

“The study is still blinded,” Dr. De Smedt said. “We will unblind in the coming months and then at the end of the year, maybe next year, we will have the results.”

The study reported by Dr. Gracia-Darder did not receive any specific funding. Dr. Gracia-Darder disclosed that the melanoma unit where the study was performed receives many grants and funds to carry out research. She reported no other relevant financial relationships. Dr. De Smedt had no relevant financial relationships. The ViDMe study is sponsored by the Universitaire Ziekenhuizen Leuven.

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

BARCELONA – Hospitalized patients in the ICU because of an acute COVID-19 infection had significantly fewer thrombotic events and complications when treated with full-dose anticoagulation, compared with patients who received standard-dose anticoagulation prophylaxis, but full-dose anticoagulation also triggered an excess of moderate and severe bleeding events, randomized trial results show.

The new findings from the COVID-PACT trial in an exclusively U.S.-based cohort of 382 on-treatment patients in the ICU with COVID-19 infection may lead to a change in existing guidelines, which currently recommend standard-dose prophylaxis based on results from prior head-to-head comparisons, such as guidelines posted March 2022 from the American Society of Hematology.

The new findings suggest “full-dose anticoagulation should be considered to prevent thrombotic complications in selected critically ill patients with COVID-19” after weighing an individual patient’s risk for both thrombotic events and bleeding, David D. Berg, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. Simultaneous with his report at the congress, the results also appeared online in the journal Circulation.

“What the results tell us is that full-dose anticoagulation in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is highly effective for reducing thrombotic complications,” said Dr. Berg, a cardiologist and critical care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The report’s designated discussant agreed with Dr. Berg’s conclusions.
 

‘Need to replace the guidelines’

“We probably need to replace the guidelines,” said Eduardo Ramacciotti, MD, PhD, MPH, a professor of vascular surgery at Santa Casa School of Medicine, São Paulo. Dr. Ramacciotti praised the study’s design, the endpoints, and the fact that the design excluded patients at high risk for bleeding complications, particularly those with a fibrinogen level below 200 mg/dL (2 g/L).

But other experts questioned the significance of the COVID-PACT results given that the outcomes did not show that full-dose anticoagulation produced incremental improvement in patient survival.

“We should abandon the thought that intensified anticoagulation should be routine, because it did not overall increase the number of patients discharged from the hospital alive,” commented John W. Eikelboom, MBBS, a professor of hematology and thromboembolism at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

“Preventing venous thrombosis is a good thing, but the money is in saving lives and stopping need for ventilation, and we haven’t been successful doing that with an antithrombotic strategy,” said Dr. Eikelboom. “It is useful to prevent venous thrombosis, but we need to look elsewhere to improve the outcomes of [critically ill] patients with COVID-19.”
 

Reducing thromboembolism is a ‘valid goal’

Dr. Berg took a different view. “It’s a valid goal to try to reduce venous thromboembolism complications,” the major benefit seen in his study, he said. “There is clinical significance to reducing thrombotic events in terms of how people feel, their functional status, and their complications. There are a lot of clinically relevant consequences of thrombosis beyond mortality.”

COVID-PACT ran at 34 U.S. centers from August 2020 to March 2022 but stopped short of its enrollment goal of 750 patients because of waning numbers of patients with COVID-19 admitted to ICUs. In addition to randomly assigning patients within 96 hours of their ICU admission to full-dose anticoagulation or to standard-dose antithrombotic prophylaxis, the study included a second, concurrent randomization to the antiplatelet agent clopidogrel (Plavix) or to no antiplatelet drug. Both randomizations used an open-label design.

The results failed to show a discernable effect from adding clopidogrel on both the primary efficacy and primary safety endpoints, adding to accumulated evidence that treatment with an antiplatelet agent, including aspirin, confers no antithrombotic benefit in patients with COVID-19.

The trial’s participants averaged 61 years old, 68% were obese, 59% had hypertension, and 32% had diabetes. The median time after ICU admission when randomized treatment began was 2.1 days, and researchers followed patients for a median of 13 days, including a median time on anticoagulation of 10.6 days.

The trial design allowed clinicians to use either low molecular weight heparin or unfractionated heparin for anticoagulation, and 82% of patients received low molecular weight heparin as their initial treatment. The prespecified design called for an on-treatment analysis because of an anticipated high crossover rate. During the trial, 34% of patients who started on the prophylactic dose switched to full dose, and 17% had the reverse crossover.
 

95% increased win ratio with full dose

The study’s primary efficacy endpoint used a win-ratio analysis that included seven different adverse outcomes that ranged from death from venous or arterial thrombosis to clinically silent deep vein thrombosis. Treatment with full-dose anticoagulation led to a significant 95% increase in win ratio.

Researchers also applied a more conventional time-to-first-event secondary efficacy analysis, which showed that full-dose anticoagulation cut the incidence of an adverse outcome by a significant 44% relative to prophylactic dosing.

The two study groups showed no difference in all-cause death rates. The efficacy advantage of the full-dose regimen was driven by reduced rates of venous thrombotic events, especially a reduction in clinically evident deep vein thrombotic events.

The primary safety endpoint was the rate of fatal or life-threatening bleeding episodes, and while life-threatening bleeds were numerically more common among the full-dose recipients (four events, compared with one event on prophylaxis dosing) the difference was not significant, and no patients died from a bleeding event.
 

More secondary safety bleeds

The safety difference showed up in a secondary measure of bleeding severity, the rate of GUSTO moderate or severe bleeds. These occurred in 15 of the full-dose recipients, compared with 1 patient on the prophylactic dose.

Dr. Berg highlighted that several prior studies have assessed various anticoagulation regimens in critically ill (ICU-admitted and on respiratory or cardiovascular support) patients with COVID-19. For example, two influential reports published in 2021 by the same team of investigators in the New England Journal of Medicine had sharply divergent results.

One multicenter study, which tested full-dose heparin against prophylactic treatment in more than 1,000 critically ill patients, was stopped prematurely because it had not shown a significant difference between the treatment arms. The second study, in more than 2,000 multicenter patients with COVID-19 who did not require critical-level organ support, showed clear superiority of the full-dose heparin regimen.

Notably, both previous studies used a different primary efficacy endpoint than the COVID-PACT study. The earlier reports both measured efficacy in terms of patients being alive and off organ support by 21 days from randomization.
 

Patients to exclude

Although Dr. Berg stressed the clear positive result, he also cautioned that they should not apply to patients excluded from the study: those with severe coagulopathies, those with severe thrombocytopenia, and patients already maintained on dual antiplatelet therapy. He also cautioned against using the full-dose strategy in elderly patients, because in COVID-PACT, those who developed bleeding complications tended to be older.

Dr. Berg also noted that heparin prophylaxis is a well-established intervention for ICU-admitted patients without COVID-19 for the purpose of preventing venous thromboembolisms without evidence that this approach reduces deaths or organ failure.

But he conceded that “the priority of treatment depends on whether it saves lives, so anticoagulation is probably not as high a priority as other effective treatments” that reduce mortality. “Preventing venous thromboembolism has rarely been shown to have a mortality benefit,” Dr. Berg noted.

COVID-PACT received no direct commercial funding. Dr. Berg has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Mobility Bio, and Youngene Therapeutics, and he participated in a trial sponsored by Kowa. Dr. Ramacciotti has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Aspen, Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Mylan, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and he has received research support from Bayer, Esperon, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr. Eikelboom has received honoraria and research support from Bayer.

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

BARCELONA – Hospitalized patients in the ICU because of an acute COVID-19 infection had significantly fewer thrombotic events and complications when treated with full-dose anticoagulation, compared with patients who received standard-dose anticoagulation prophylaxis, but full-dose anticoagulation also triggered an excess of moderate and severe bleeding events, randomized trial results show.

The new findings from the COVID-PACT trial in an exclusively U.S.-based cohort of 382 on-treatment patients in the ICU with COVID-19 infection may lead to a change in existing guidelines, which currently recommend standard-dose prophylaxis based on results from prior head-to-head comparisons, such as guidelines posted March 2022 from the American Society of Hematology.

The new findings suggest “full-dose anticoagulation should be considered to prevent thrombotic complications in selected critically ill patients with COVID-19” after weighing an individual patient’s risk for both thrombotic events and bleeding, David D. Berg, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. Simultaneous with his report at the congress, the results also appeared online in the journal Circulation.

“What the results tell us is that full-dose anticoagulation in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is highly effective for reducing thrombotic complications,” said Dr. Berg, a cardiologist and critical care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The report’s designated discussant agreed with Dr. Berg’s conclusions.
 

‘Need to replace the guidelines’

“We probably need to replace the guidelines,” said Eduardo Ramacciotti, MD, PhD, MPH, a professor of vascular surgery at Santa Casa School of Medicine, São Paulo. Dr. Ramacciotti praised the study’s design, the endpoints, and the fact that the design excluded patients at high risk for bleeding complications, particularly those with a fibrinogen level below 200 mg/dL (2 g/L).

But other experts questioned the significance of the COVID-PACT results given that the outcomes did not show that full-dose anticoagulation produced incremental improvement in patient survival.

“We should abandon the thought that intensified anticoagulation should be routine, because it did not overall increase the number of patients discharged from the hospital alive,” commented John W. Eikelboom, MBBS, a professor of hematology and thromboembolism at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

“Preventing venous thrombosis is a good thing, but the money is in saving lives and stopping need for ventilation, and we haven’t been successful doing that with an antithrombotic strategy,” said Dr. Eikelboom. “It is useful to prevent venous thrombosis, but we need to look elsewhere to improve the outcomes of [critically ill] patients with COVID-19.”
 

Reducing thromboembolism is a ‘valid goal’

Dr. Berg took a different view. “It’s a valid goal to try to reduce venous thromboembolism complications,” the major benefit seen in his study, he said. “There is clinical significance to reducing thrombotic events in terms of how people feel, their functional status, and their complications. There are a lot of clinically relevant consequences of thrombosis beyond mortality.”

COVID-PACT ran at 34 U.S. centers from August 2020 to March 2022 but stopped short of its enrollment goal of 750 patients because of waning numbers of patients with COVID-19 admitted to ICUs. In addition to randomly assigning patients within 96 hours of their ICU admission to full-dose anticoagulation or to standard-dose antithrombotic prophylaxis, the study included a second, concurrent randomization to the antiplatelet agent clopidogrel (Plavix) or to no antiplatelet drug. Both randomizations used an open-label design.

The results failed to show a discernable effect from adding clopidogrel on both the primary efficacy and primary safety endpoints, adding to accumulated evidence that treatment with an antiplatelet agent, including aspirin, confers no antithrombotic benefit in patients with COVID-19.

The trial’s participants averaged 61 years old, 68% were obese, 59% had hypertension, and 32% had diabetes. The median time after ICU admission when randomized treatment began was 2.1 days, and researchers followed patients for a median of 13 days, including a median time on anticoagulation of 10.6 days.

The trial design allowed clinicians to use either low molecular weight heparin or unfractionated heparin for anticoagulation, and 82% of patients received low molecular weight heparin as their initial treatment. The prespecified design called for an on-treatment analysis because of an anticipated high crossover rate. During the trial, 34% of patients who started on the prophylactic dose switched to full dose, and 17% had the reverse crossover.
 

95% increased win ratio with full dose

The study’s primary efficacy endpoint used a win-ratio analysis that included seven different adverse outcomes that ranged from death from venous or arterial thrombosis to clinically silent deep vein thrombosis. Treatment with full-dose anticoagulation led to a significant 95% increase in win ratio.

Researchers also applied a more conventional time-to-first-event secondary efficacy analysis, which showed that full-dose anticoagulation cut the incidence of an adverse outcome by a significant 44% relative to prophylactic dosing.

The two study groups showed no difference in all-cause death rates. The efficacy advantage of the full-dose regimen was driven by reduced rates of venous thrombotic events, especially a reduction in clinically evident deep vein thrombotic events.

The primary safety endpoint was the rate of fatal or life-threatening bleeding episodes, and while life-threatening bleeds were numerically more common among the full-dose recipients (four events, compared with one event on prophylaxis dosing) the difference was not significant, and no patients died from a bleeding event.
 

More secondary safety bleeds

The safety difference showed up in a secondary measure of bleeding severity, the rate of GUSTO moderate or severe bleeds. These occurred in 15 of the full-dose recipients, compared with 1 patient on the prophylactic dose.

Dr. Berg highlighted that several prior studies have assessed various anticoagulation regimens in critically ill (ICU-admitted and on respiratory or cardiovascular support) patients with COVID-19. For example, two influential reports published in 2021 by the same team of investigators in the New England Journal of Medicine had sharply divergent results.

One multicenter study, which tested full-dose heparin against prophylactic treatment in more than 1,000 critically ill patients, was stopped prematurely because it had not shown a significant difference between the treatment arms. The second study, in more than 2,000 multicenter patients with COVID-19 who did not require critical-level organ support, showed clear superiority of the full-dose heparin regimen.

Notably, both previous studies used a different primary efficacy endpoint than the COVID-PACT study. The earlier reports both measured efficacy in terms of patients being alive and off organ support by 21 days from randomization.
 

Patients to exclude

Although Dr. Berg stressed the clear positive result, he also cautioned that they should not apply to patients excluded from the study: those with severe coagulopathies, those with severe thrombocytopenia, and patients already maintained on dual antiplatelet therapy. He also cautioned against using the full-dose strategy in elderly patients, because in COVID-PACT, those who developed bleeding complications tended to be older.

Dr. Berg also noted that heparin prophylaxis is a well-established intervention for ICU-admitted patients without COVID-19 for the purpose of preventing venous thromboembolisms without evidence that this approach reduces deaths or organ failure.

But he conceded that “the priority of treatment depends on whether it saves lives, so anticoagulation is probably not as high a priority as other effective treatments” that reduce mortality. “Preventing venous thromboembolism has rarely been shown to have a mortality benefit,” Dr. Berg noted.

COVID-PACT received no direct commercial funding. Dr. Berg has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Mobility Bio, and Youngene Therapeutics, and he participated in a trial sponsored by Kowa. Dr. Ramacciotti has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Aspen, Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Mylan, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and he has received research support from Bayer, Esperon, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr. Eikelboom has received honoraria and research support from Bayer.

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

BARCELONA – Hospitalized patients in the ICU because of an acute COVID-19 infection had significantly fewer thrombotic events and complications when treated with full-dose anticoagulation, compared with patients who received standard-dose anticoagulation prophylaxis, but full-dose anticoagulation also triggered an excess of moderate and severe bleeding events, randomized trial results show.

The new findings from the COVID-PACT trial in an exclusively U.S.-based cohort of 382 on-treatment patients in the ICU with COVID-19 infection may lead to a change in existing guidelines, which currently recommend standard-dose prophylaxis based on results from prior head-to-head comparisons, such as guidelines posted March 2022 from the American Society of Hematology.

The new findings suggest “full-dose anticoagulation should be considered to prevent thrombotic complications in selected critically ill patients with COVID-19” after weighing an individual patient’s risk for both thrombotic events and bleeding, David D. Berg, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. Simultaneous with his report at the congress, the results also appeared online in the journal Circulation.

“What the results tell us is that full-dose anticoagulation in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is highly effective for reducing thrombotic complications,” said Dr. Berg, a cardiologist and critical care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The report’s designated discussant agreed with Dr. Berg’s conclusions.
 

‘Need to replace the guidelines’

“We probably need to replace the guidelines,” said Eduardo Ramacciotti, MD, PhD, MPH, a professor of vascular surgery at Santa Casa School of Medicine, São Paulo. Dr. Ramacciotti praised the study’s design, the endpoints, and the fact that the design excluded patients at high risk for bleeding complications, particularly those with a fibrinogen level below 200 mg/dL (2 g/L).

But other experts questioned the significance of the COVID-PACT results given that the outcomes did not show that full-dose anticoagulation produced incremental improvement in patient survival.

“We should abandon the thought that intensified anticoagulation should be routine, because it did not overall increase the number of patients discharged from the hospital alive,” commented John W. Eikelboom, MBBS, a professor of hematology and thromboembolism at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

“Preventing venous thrombosis is a good thing, but the money is in saving lives and stopping need for ventilation, and we haven’t been successful doing that with an antithrombotic strategy,” said Dr. Eikelboom. “It is useful to prevent venous thrombosis, but we need to look elsewhere to improve the outcomes of [critically ill] patients with COVID-19.”
 

Reducing thromboembolism is a ‘valid goal’

Dr. Berg took a different view. “It’s a valid goal to try to reduce venous thromboembolism complications,” the major benefit seen in his study, he said. “There is clinical significance to reducing thrombotic events in terms of how people feel, their functional status, and their complications. There are a lot of clinically relevant consequences of thrombosis beyond mortality.”

COVID-PACT ran at 34 U.S. centers from August 2020 to March 2022 but stopped short of its enrollment goal of 750 patients because of waning numbers of patients with COVID-19 admitted to ICUs. In addition to randomly assigning patients within 96 hours of their ICU admission to full-dose anticoagulation or to standard-dose antithrombotic prophylaxis, the study included a second, concurrent randomization to the antiplatelet agent clopidogrel (Plavix) or to no antiplatelet drug. Both randomizations used an open-label design.

The results failed to show a discernable effect from adding clopidogrel on both the primary efficacy and primary safety endpoints, adding to accumulated evidence that treatment with an antiplatelet agent, including aspirin, confers no antithrombotic benefit in patients with COVID-19.

The trial’s participants averaged 61 years old, 68% were obese, 59% had hypertension, and 32% had diabetes. The median time after ICU admission when randomized treatment began was 2.1 days, and researchers followed patients for a median of 13 days, including a median time on anticoagulation of 10.6 days.

The trial design allowed clinicians to use either low molecular weight heparin or unfractionated heparin for anticoagulation, and 82% of patients received low molecular weight heparin as their initial treatment. The prespecified design called for an on-treatment analysis because of an anticipated high crossover rate. During the trial, 34% of patients who started on the prophylactic dose switched to full dose, and 17% had the reverse crossover.
 

95% increased win ratio with full dose

The study’s primary efficacy endpoint used a win-ratio analysis that included seven different adverse outcomes that ranged from death from venous or arterial thrombosis to clinically silent deep vein thrombosis. Treatment with full-dose anticoagulation led to a significant 95% increase in win ratio.

Researchers also applied a more conventional time-to-first-event secondary efficacy analysis, which showed that full-dose anticoagulation cut the incidence of an adverse outcome by a significant 44% relative to prophylactic dosing.

The two study groups showed no difference in all-cause death rates. The efficacy advantage of the full-dose regimen was driven by reduced rates of venous thrombotic events, especially a reduction in clinically evident deep vein thrombotic events.

The primary safety endpoint was the rate of fatal or life-threatening bleeding episodes, and while life-threatening bleeds were numerically more common among the full-dose recipients (four events, compared with one event on prophylaxis dosing) the difference was not significant, and no patients died from a bleeding event.
 

More secondary safety bleeds

The safety difference showed up in a secondary measure of bleeding severity, the rate of GUSTO moderate or severe bleeds. These occurred in 15 of the full-dose recipients, compared with 1 patient on the prophylactic dose.

Dr. Berg highlighted that several prior studies have assessed various anticoagulation regimens in critically ill (ICU-admitted and on respiratory or cardiovascular support) patients with COVID-19. For example, two influential reports published in 2021 by the same team of investigators in the New England Journal of Medicine had sharply divergent results.

One multicenter study, which tested full-dose heparin against prophylactic treatment in more than 1,000 critically ill patients, was stopped prematurely because it had not shown a significant difference between the treatment arms. The second study, in more than 2,000 multicenter patients with COVID-19 who did not require critical-level organ support, showed clear superiority of the full-dose heparin regimen.

Notably, both previous studies used a different primary efficacy endpoint than the COVID-PACT study. The earlier reports both measured efficacy in terms of patients being alive and off organ support by 21 days from randomization.
 

Patients to exclude

Although Dr. Berg stressed the clear positive result, he also cautioned that they should not apply to patients excluded from the study: those with severe coagulopathies, those with severe thrombocytopenia, and patients already maintained on dual antiplatelet therapy. He also cautioned against using the full-dose strategy in elderly patients, because in COVID-PACT, those who developed bleeding complications tended to be older.

Dr. Berg also noted that heparin prophylaxis is a well-established intervention for ICU-admitted patients without COVID-19 for the purpose of preventing venous thromboembolisms without evidence that this approach reduces deaths or organ failure.

But he conceded that “the priority of treatment depends on whether it saves lives, so anticoagulation is probably not as high a priority as other effective treatments” that reduce mortality. “Preventing venous thromboembolism has rarely been shown to have a mortality benefit,” Dr. Berg noted.

COVID-PACT received no direct commercial funding. Dr. Berg has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Mobility Bio, and Youngene Therapeutics, and he participated in a trial sponsored by Kowa. Dr. Ramacciotti has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Aspen, Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Mylan, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and he has received research support from Bayer, Esperon, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr. Eikelboom has received honoraria and research support from Bayer.

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

GHENT, BELGIUM – A strong numerical signal suggests the addition of a selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor to a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor can reduce spinal radiographic progression in patients with active radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) over 2 years, although results are not statistically significant.

Becky McCall/MDedge News

Lead researcher and rheumatologist, Fabian Proft, MD, based at Charité University Medicine, Berlin, presented the findings of the study at the 13th International Congress on Spondyloarthritides.

Only 97 patients completed the study, and its follow-up period lasted 2 years, which is a relatively short period of time in which to determine the effects of an intervention that might affect structural progression of the spine, Dr. Proft said.

“Based on these data, I won’t treat all my patients with celecoxib,” he told this news organization. However, he added that, “If I have a patient with residual symptoms under biological DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs], and I feel they are at high risk of radiographic spinal progression and they still have symptoms, then I would add in an NSAID – and for that I’d choose a selective COX-2 inhibitor based on radiographic spinal progression data.”

Walter P. Maksymowych, MD, rheumatologist from the University of Alberta, Calgary, commented on the study findings in an interview. “This is an important clinical question because we want to know whether we should be adding an anti-inflammatory in patients who are on biologic therapies. There’s been a long debate and investigation into whether anti-inflammatories might prevent new bone formation and thereby prevent disease progression.”

He went on by acknowledging that there was no statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint (change in modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score [mSASSS]) between the groups, but added that, “there was a sizable numerical difference, and I think this leaves the community somewhat hanging dry without a definitive answer. However, I do have concerns about whether there was an adequate sample size to address the study question.”
 

To add or not to add a selective COX-2 inhibitor to TNF inhibitor in axSpA treatment

The study aimed to investigate the effect of a selective COX-2 inhibitor when added to anti-TNF therapy with golimumab (Simponi), compared with golimumab therapy alone, on the progression of spinal structural damage over 2 years in patients with active radiographic axSpA.

“To date, we don’t have many treatments with evidence of reducing spinal radiographic progression in axSpA,” Dr. Proft said. “There was one study showing an effect of celecoxib, but another with diclofenac that failed to show any effect. As a result, there was a hypothesis that perhaps there was a selective COX-2 inhibitor effect.”

To investigate this further, Dr. Proft selected patients with high radiographic axSpA disease activity (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index [BASDAI] ≥ 4) and with existing structural changes – both recognized risk factors for further progression. Participants had to have either an elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) > 5 mg/L and/or ≥ 1 syndesmophyte at screening, as well as a history of inadequate response to at least two DMARDs. Other patient risk factors for radiographic spinal progression included male gender and smoking. Duration of axSpA was unlimited.

Three radiographic readers were blinded for all clinical data and chronology. The primary endpoint was the change in mSASSS, while secondary endpoints were the presence of new syndesmophytes and clinical outcomes including activity, function, mobility, and health-related quality of life, as well as safety assessments.

Patients were treated with only golimumab (50 mg subcutaneous every 4 weeks) for the first 12 weeks and then only those patients with a good clinical response (n = 109) went into phase two of the study, at which point they were randomized 1:1 to golimumab monotherapy (control, 50 mg subcutaneous every 4 weeks), or golimumab (50 mg subcutaneous every 4 weeks) plus celecoxib (400 mg once daily) for 2 years. Radiographs were taken at baseline (week 0) and after 2 years. A total of 45 patients completed the combination therapy and 52 completed the monotherapy.
 

No statistical significance but a numerical difference found

“The primary outcome, which was change in mSASSS score, clearly shows a numerical difference between the combination arm at 1.1 and the monotherapy arm at 1.7 points, showing more structural progression in the monotherapy arm, compared to the combination arm,” Dr. Proft reported. However, he stressed that this difference did not reach statistical significance.

New syndesmophytes occurred in 25% with monotherapy and 11.1% with combination treatment. Again, this difference did not reach statistical significance.

“This might be due to sample size but also to the length of follow-up because a longer follow-up [given structural changes occur relatively slowly] might have shown a greater difference,” Dr. Proft pointed out.

Clinical data, according to Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score with CRP and BASDAI, showed that both groups responded very well to therapy, and there were no differences seen between the two groups in terms of clinical parameters.

“It is important when we add a drug – and we know that NSAIDs can have safety concerns – that we do not see any statistically significant serious adverse events between patient groups,” Dr. Proft noted.

There were no significant differences in adverse events between monotherapy and combination therapy. There were 162 infections in the combination arm and 150 in the monotherapy arm. Combination therapy led to seven serious adverse events, and monotherapy occurred with five adverse events.

Dr. Proft added that four patients discontinued in the combination arm, compared with only one in the monotherapy arm, with a variety of different reasons for the discontinuations.

The study was supported by a grant from the German Ministry of Education and Research, and golimumab was provided free of charge by Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Proft reported serving on speakers bureaus for Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB; serving as a consultant to Novartis; and receiving grant or research support from Novartis, UCB, and Lilly. Dr. Maksymowych declared having no relevant conflicts of interest.

GHENT, BELGIUM – A strong numerical signal suggests the addition of a selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor to a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor can reduce spinal radiographic progression in patients with active radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) over 2 years, although results are not statistically significant.

Becky McCall/MDedge News

Lead researcher and rheumatologist, Fabian Proft, MD, based at Charité University Medicine, Berlin, presented the findings of the study at the 13th International Congress on Spondyloarthritides.

Only 97 patients completed the study, and its follow-up period lasted 2 years, which is a relatively short period of time in which to determine the effects of an intervention that might affect structural progression of the spine, Dr. Proft said.

“Based on these data, I won’t treat all my patients with celecoxib,” he told this news organization. However, he added that, “If I have a patient with residual symptoms under biological DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs], and I feel they are at high risk of radiographic spinal progression and they still have symptoms, then I would add in an NSAID – and for that I’d choose a selective COX-2 inhibitor based on radiographic spinal progression data.”

Walter P. Maksymowych, MD, rheumatologist from the University of Alberta, Calgary, commented on the study findings in an interview. “This is an important clinical question because we want to know whether we should be adding an anti-inflammatory in patients who are on biologic therapies. There’s been a long debate and investigation into whether anti-inflammatories might prevent new bone formation and thereby prevent disease progression.”

He went on by acknowledging that there was no statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint (change in modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score [mSASSS]) between the groups, but added that, “there was a sizable numerical difference, and I think this leaves the community somewhat hanging dry without a definitive answer. However, I do have concerns about whether there was an adequate sample size to address the study question.”
 

To add or not to add a selective COX-2 inhibitor to TNF inhibitor in axSpA treatment

The study aimed to investigate the effect of a selective COX-2 inhibitor when added to anti-TNF therapy with golimumab (Simponi), compared with golimumab therapy alone, on the progression of spinal structural damage over 2 years in patients with active radiographic axSpA.

“To date, we don’t have many treatments with evidence of reducing spinal radiographic progression in axSpA,” Dr. Proft said. “There was one study showing an effect of celecoxib, but another with diclofenac that failed to show any effect. As a result, there was a hypothesis that perhaps there was a selective COX-2 inhibitor effect.”

To investigate this further, Dr. Proft selected patients with high radiographic axSpA disease activity (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index [BASDAI] ≥ 4) and with existing structural changes – both recognized risk factors for further progression. Participants had to have either an elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) > 5 mg/L and/or ≥ 1 syndesmophyte at screening, as well as a history of inadequate response to at least two DMARDs. Other patient risk factors for radiographic spinal progression included male gender and smoking. Duration of axSpA was unlimited.

Three radiographic readers were blinded for all clinical data and chronology. The primary endpoint was the change in mSASSS, while secondary endpoints were the presence of new syndesmophytes and clinical outcomes including activity, function, mobility, and health-related quality of life, as well as safety assessments.

Patients were treated with only golimumab (50 mg subcutaneous every 4 weeks) for the first 12 weeks and then only those patients with a good clinical response (n = 109) went into phase two of the study, at which point they were randomized 1:1 to golimumab monotherapy (control, 50 mg subcutaneous every 4 weeks), or golimumab (50 mg subcutaneous every 4 weeks) plus celecoxib (400 mg once daily) for 2 years. Radiographs were taken at baseline (week 0) and after 2 years. A total of 45 patients completed the combination therapy and 52 completed the monotherapy.
 

No statistical significance but a numerical difference found

“The primary outcome, which was change in mSASSS score, clearly shows a numerical difference between the combination arm at 1.1 and the monotherapy arm at 1.7 points, showing more structural progression in the monotherapy arm, compared to the combination arm,” Dr. Proft reported. However, he stressed that this difference did not reach statistical significance.

New syndesmophytes occurred in 25% with monotherapy and 11.1% with combination treatment. Again, this difference did not reach statistical significance.

“This might be due to sample size but also to the length of follow-up because a longer follow-up [given structural changes occur relatively slowly] might have shown a greater difference,” Dr. Proft pointed out.

Clinical data, according to Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score with CRP and BASDAI, showed that both groups responded very well to therapy, and there were no differences seen between the two groups in terms of clinical parameters.

“It is important when we add a drug – and we know that NSAIDs can have safety concerns – that we do not see any statistically significant serious adverse events between patient groups,” Dr. Proft noted.

There were no significant differences in adverse events between monotherapy and combination therapy. There were 162 infections in the combination arm and 150 in the monotherapy arm. Combination therapy led to seven serious adverse events, and monotherapy occurred with five adverse events.

Dr. Proft added that four patients discontinued in the combination arm, compared with only one in the monotherapy arm, with a variety of different reasons for the discontinuations.

The study was supported by a grant from the German Ministry of Education and Research, and golimumab was provided free of charge by Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Proft reported serving on speakers bureaus for Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB; serving as a consultant to Novartis; and receiving grant or research support from Novartis, UCB, and Lilly. Dr. Maksymowych declared having no relevant conflicts of interest.

GHENT, BELGIUM – A strong numerical signal suggests the addition of a selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor to a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor can reduce spinal radiographic progression in patients with active radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) over 2 years, although results are not statistically significant.

Becky McCall/MDedge News

Lead researcher and rheumatologist, Fabian Proft, MD, based at Charité University Medicine, Berlin, presented the findings of the study at the 13th International Congress on Spondyloarthritides.

Only 97 patients completed the study, and its follow-up period lasted 2 years, which is a relatively short period of time in which to determine the effects of an intervention that might affect structural progression of the spine, Dr. Proft said.

“Based on these data, I won’t treat all my patients with celecoxib,” he told this news organization. However, he added that, “If I have a patient with residual symptoms under biological DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs], and I feel they are at high risk of radiographic spinal progression and they still have symptoms, then I would add in an NSAID – and for that I’d choose a selective COX-2 inhibitor based on radiographic spinal progression data.”

Walter P. Maksymowych, MD, rheumatologist from the University of Alberta, Calgary, commented on the study findings in an interview. “This is an important clinical question because we want to know whether we should be adding an anti-inflammatory in patients who are on biologic therapies. There’s been a long debate and investigation into whether anti-inflammatories might prevent new bone formation and thereby prevent disease progression.”

He went on by acknowledging that there was no statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint (change in modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score [mSASSS]) between the groups, but added that, “there was a sizable numerical difference, and I think this leaves the community somewhat hanging dry without a definitive answer. However, I do have concerns about whether there was an adequate sample size to address the study question.”
 

To add or not to add a selective COX-2 inhibitor to TNF inhibitor in axSpA treatment

The study aimed to investigate the effect of a selective COX-2 inhibitor when added to anti-TNF therapy with golimumab (Simponi), compared with golimumab therapy alone, on the progression of spinal structural damage over 2 years in patients with active radiographic axSpA.

“To date, we don’t have many treatments with evidence of reducing spinal radiographic progression in axSpA,” Dr. Proft said. “There was one study showing an effect of celecoxib, but another with diclofenac that failed to show any effect. As a result, there was a hypothesis that perhaps there was a selective COX-2 inhibitor effect.”

To investigate this further, Dr. Proft selected patients with high radiographic axSpA disease activity (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index [BASDAI] ≥ 4) and with existing structural changes – both recognized risk factors for further progression. Participants had to have either an elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) > 5 mg/L and/or ≥ 1 syndesmophyte at screening, as well as a history of inadequate response to at least two DMARDs. Other patient risk factors for radiographic spinal progression included male gender and smoking. Duration of axSpA was unlimited.

Three radiographic readers were blinded for all clinical data and chronology. The primary endpoint was the change in mSASSS, while secondary endpoints were the presence of new syndesmophytes and clinical outcomes including activity, function, mobility, and health-related quality of life, as well as safety assessments.

Patients were treated with only golimumab (50 mg subcutaneous every 4 weeks) for the first 12 weeks and then only those patients with a good clinical response (n = 109) went into phase two of the study, at which point they were randomized 1:1 to golimumab monotherapy (control, 50 mg subcutaneous every 4 weeks), or golimumab (50 mg subcutaneous every 4 weeks) plus celecoxib (400 mg once daily) for 2 years. Radiographs were taken at baseline (week 0) and after 2 years. A total of 45 patients completed the combination therapy and 52 completed the monotherapy.
 

No statistical significance but a numerical difference found

“The primary outcome, which was change in mSASSS score, clearly shows a numerical difference between the combination arm at 1.1 and the monotherapy arm at 1.7 points, showing more structural progression in the monotherapy arm, compared to the combination arm,” Dr. Proft reported. However, he stressed that this difference did not reach statistical significance.

New syndesmophytes occurred in 25% with monotherapy and 11.1% with combination treatment. Again, this difference did not reach statistical significance.

“This might be due to sample size but also to the length of follow-up because a longer follow-up [given structural changes occur relatively slowly] might have shown a greater difference,” Dr. Proft pointed out.

Clinical data, according to Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score with CRP and BASDAI, showed that both groups responded very well to therapy, and there were no differences seen between the two groups in terms of clinical parameters.

“It is important when we add a drug – and we know that NSAIDs can have safety concerns – that we do not see any statistically significant serious adverse events between patient groups,” Dr. Proft noted.

There were no significant differences in adverse events between monotherapy and combination therapy. There were 162 infections in the combination arm and 150 in the monotherapy arm. Combination therapy led to seven serious adverse events, and monotherapy occurred with five adverse events.

Dr. Proft added that four patients discontinued in the combination arm, compared with only one in the monotherapy arm, with a variety of different reasons for the discontinuations.

The study was supported by a grant from the German Ministry of Education and Research, and golimumab was provided free of charge by Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Proft reported serving on speakers bureaus for Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB; serving as a consultant to Novartis; and receiving grant or research support from Novartis, UCB, and Lilly. Dr. Maksymowych declared having no relevant conflicts of interest.

MILAN – Application of topical or both topical and oral polypodium leucotomos extract (PLE) was associated with significant reversal of adverse skin changes in patients with severe actinic keratoses (AKs) treated over 12 months, in a randomized, blinded study presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

At 12 months, the percentage of patients with a normal or almost normal honeycomb pattern when evaluated blindly with reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) was about twice as great in either of the two groups that received PLE relative to those treated with topical photoprotection alone, according to Giovanni Pellacani, MD, PhD, chair of dermatology, University of Sapienza, Rome.

“In patients with severe actinic keratosis, the 12-month use of a PLE-based topical or oral photoprotection is associated with positive clinical and anatomical outcomes,” Dr. Pellacani said.

PLE, which is already commonly used in sun protection products, is derived from a South American species of fern and has been proposed for a broad array of dermatologic diseases. According to Dr. Pellacani, in vivo studies associating PLE with immune photoprotection make this agent particularly promising for severe AKs.

In this study involving two clinical research centers in Italy, 131 patients with photoaging and at least three AKs were randomized to one of three treatment arms. The control arm received topical photoprotection with an SPF of 100 or higher applied twice daily to all sun-exposed areas. The two treatment arms received the same topical photoprotection plus either a PLE-containing topical cream alone or a PLE-containing topical cream plus PLE in an oral form (240 mg) once daily

Patients were evaluated at 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year with several measures, including the Actinic Keratosis Area Score Index (AKASI) and the AK Field Assessment Scale Area (AK-FAS). They were also assessed with RCM. All clinical assessments and RCM evaluations, which assessed seven different parameters, such as honeycomb pattern, mottled pigmentation, and reticulated collagen, were performed by dermatologists blinded to the treatment assignment.

Complete data were available for 116 patients who completed all three evaluations over the 12 months of follow-up. On RCM, 50% of those receiving the oral and topical forms of PLE and 45% of those receiving topical PLE had normalization of the honeycomb pattern. These responses were significantly greater (P = .04 for both) than the 26% with normalization in the control group.

Although there were no significant differences in any of the other parameters evaluated by RCM, the improvement in the honeycomb pattern was accompanied by a 7% improvement in the AKASI score in patients taking PLE, either topically or orally and topically, while there was a 6% worsening (P < .001) among controls.

The AK-FAS score improved at 12 months by 26% in the group on oral/topical PLE and by 4% in the group on topical PLE. The score worsened by 13% among controls.

Over the course of the study, patients were permitted to take an appropriate therapy, such as imiquimod, cryotherapy, or 5-flourouracil if there was worsening of the AK-FAS score or if new lesions appeared.

On this measure, 38% of controls and 11% of those randomized to topical PLE had progressive disease versus only 2% of those randomized to take both topical and oral PLE, Dr. Pellacani reported.

The lower rate of new lesions or a start of a new drug over the course of the study in the group receiving both the topical and the oral formulations of PLE relative to those receiving topical PLE alone did not reach statistical significance, but Dr. Pellacani concluded that the addition of PLE to topical photoprotection without PLE seemed to provide a potentially clinically meaningful advantage.

Larger studies and longer term studies are needed, according to Dr. Pellacani, who noted that the substantial body of clinical studies associating PLE with benefit in a variety of dermatologic disorders has been weakened by the absence of well-designed studies that are adequately powered to guide clinical use.

Salvador González, MD, PhD, a dermatology specialist at Alcalá University, Madrid, also believes that PLE deserves further evaluation not just for photoprotection but for reinvigorating damaged skin due to its antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. He was the senior author of a 2020 paper in Photochemical and Photobiological Sciences that summarized the potential benefits of PLE in preventing damage related to sun exposure.

Among its mechanism, PLE generates reactive oxygen species (ROS) and prevents depletion of Langerhans cells induced by ultraviolet (UV) light, Dr. González explained in an interview. “At the cellular level, PLE activates tumor suppression p53, inhibits UV-induced COX-2 expression, reduces inflammation, and preventions immunosuppression,” he continued. In addition, he said PLE also prevents UV-A-induced common deletions related to mitochondrial damage and MMP1 expression induced by various UV wavelengths. 
“These molecular and cellular effects may translate into long-term inhibition of carcinogenesis including actinic keratosis,” he said, noting that all of these findings “justify the work by Pellacani and collaborators.”

Dr. Pellacani reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. González has a financial relationship with Cantabria Laboratories.

MILAN – Application of topical or both topical and oral polypodium leucotomos extract (PLE) was associated with significant reversal of adverse skin changes in patients with severe actinic keratoses (AKs) treated over 12 months, in a randomized, blinded study presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

At 12 months, the percentage of patients with a normal or almost normal honeycomb pattern when evaluated blindly with reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) was about twice as great in either of the two groups that received PLE relative to those treated with topical photoprotection alone, according to Giovanni Pellacani, MD, PhD, chair of dermatology, University of Sapienza, Rome.

“In patients with severe actinic keratosis, the 12-month use of a PLE-based topical or oral photoprotection is associated with positive clinical and anatomical outcomes,” Dr. Pellacani said.

PLE, which is already commonly used in sun protection products, is derived from a South American species of fern and has been proposed for a broad array of dermatologic diseases. According to Dr. Pellacani, in vivo studies associating PLE with immune photoprotection make this agent particularly promising for severe AKs.

In this study involving two clinical research centers in Italy, 131 patients with photoaging and at least three AKs were randomized to one of three treatment arms. The control arm received topical photoprotection with an SPF of 100 or higher applied twice daily to all sun-exposed areas. The two treatment arms received the same topical photoprotection plus either a PLE-containing topical cream alone or a PLE-containing topical cream plus PLE in an oral form (240 mg) once daily

Patients were evaluated at 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year with several measures, including the Actinic Keratosis Area Score Index (AKASI) and the AK Field Assessment Scale Area (AK-FAS). They were also assessed with RCM. All clinical assessments and RCM evaluations, which assessed seven different parameters, such as honeycomb pattern, mottled pigmentation, and reticulated collagen, were performed by dermatologists blinded to the treatment assignment.

Complete data were available for 116 patients who completed all three evaluations over the 12 months of follow-up. On RCM, 50% of those receiving the oral and topical forms of PLE and 45% of those receiving topical PLE had normalization of the honeycomb pattern. These responses were significantly greater (P = .04 for both) than the 26% with normalization in the control group.

Although there were no significant differences in any of the other parameters evaluated by RCM, the improvement in the honeycomb pattern was accompanied by a 7% improvement in the AKASI score in patients taking PLE, either topically or orally and topically, while there was a 6% worsening (P < .001) among controls.

The AK-FAS score improved at 12 months by 26% in the group on oral/topical PLE and by 4% in the group on topical PLE. The score worsened by 13% among controls.

Over the course of the study, patients were permitted to take an appropriate therapy, such as imiquimod, cryotherapy, or 5-flourouracil if there was worsening of the AK-FAS score or if new lesions appeared.

On this measure, 38% of controls and 11% of those randomized to topical PLE had progressive disease versus only 2% of those randomized to take both topical and oral PLE, Dr. Pellacani reported.

The lower rate of new lesions or a start of a new drug over the course of the study in the group receiving both the topical and the oral formulations of PLE relative to those receiving topical PLE alone did not reach statistical significance, but Dr. Pellacani concluded that the addition of PLE to topical photoprotection without PLE seemed to provide a potentially clinically meaningful advantage.

Larger studies and longer term studies are needed, according to Dr. Pellacani, who noted that the substantial body of clinical studies associating PLE with benefit in a variety of dermatologic disorders has been weakened by the absence of well-designed studies that are adequately powered to guide clinical use.

Salvador González, MD, PhD, a dermatology specialist at Alcalá University, Madrid, also believes that PLE deserves further evaluation not just for photoprotection but for reinvigorating damaged skin due to its antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. He was the senior author of a 2020 paper in Photochemical and Photobiological Sciences that summarized the potential benefits of PLE in preventing damage related to sun exposure.

Among its mechanism, PLE generates reactive oxygen species (ROS) and prevents depletion of Langerhans cells induced by ultraviolet (UV) light, Dr. González explained in an interview. “At the cellular level, PLE activates tumor suppression p53, inhibits UV-induced COX-2 expression, reduces inflammation, and preventions immunosuppression,” he continued. In addition, he said PLE also prevents UV-A-induced common deletions related to mitochondrial damage and MMP1 expression induced by various UV wavelengths. 
“These molecular and cellular effects may translate into long-term inhibition of carcinogenesis including actinic keratosis,” he said, noting that all of these findings “justify the work by Pellacani and collaborators.”

Dr. Pellacani reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. González has a financial relationship with Cantabria Laboratories.

MILAN – Application of topical or both topical and oral polypodium leucotomos extract (PLE) was associated with significant reversal of adverse skin changes in patients with severe actinic keratoses (AKs) treated over 12 months, in a randomized, blinded study presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

At 12 months, the percentage of patients with a normal or almost normal honeycomb pattern when evaluated blindly with reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) was about twice as great in either of the two groups that received PLE relative to those treated with topical photoprotection alone, according to Giovanni Pellacani, MD, PhD, chair of dermatology, University of Sapienza, Rome.

“In patients with severe actinic keratosis, the 12-month use of a PLE-based topical or oral photoprotection is associated with positive clinical and anatomical outcomes,” Dr. Pellacani said.

PLE, which is already commonly used in sun protection products, is derived from a South American species of fern and has been proposed for a broad array of dermatologic diseases. According to Dr. Pellacani, in vivo studies associating PLE with immune photoprotection make this agent particularly promising for severe AKs.

In this study involving two clinical research centers in Italy, 131 patients with photoaging and at least three AKs were randomized to one of three treatment arms. The control arm received topical photoprotection with an SPF of 100 or higher applied twice daily to all sun-exposed areas. The two treatment arms received the same topical photoprotection plus either a PLE-containing topical cream alone or a PLE-containing topical cream plus PLE in an oral form (240 mg) once daily

Patients were evaluated at 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year with several measures, including the Actinic Keratosis Area Score Index (AKASI) and the AK Field Assessment Scale Area (AK-FAS). They were also assessed with RCM. All clinical assessments and RCM evaluations, which assessed seven different parameters, such as honeycomb pattern, mottled pigmentation, and reticulated collagen, were performed by dermatologists blinded to the treatment assignment.

Complete data were available for 116 patients who completed all three evaluations over the 12 months of follow-up. On RCM, 50% of those receiving the oral and topical forms of PLE and 45% of those receiving topical PLE had normalization of the honeycomb pattern. These responses were significantly greater (P = .04 for both) than the 26% with normalization in the control group.

Although there were no significant differences in any of the other parameters evaluated by RCM, the improvement in the honeycomb pattern was accompanied by a 7% improvement in the AKASI score in patients taking PLE, either topically or orally and topically, while there was a 6% worsening (P < .001) among controls.

The AK-FAS score improved at 12 months by 26% in the group on oral/topical PLE and by 4% in the group on topical PLE. The score worsened by 13% among controls.

Over the course of the study, patients were permitted to take an appropriate therapy, such as imiquimod, cryotherapy, or 5-flourouracil if there was worsening of the AK-FAS score or if new lesions appeared.

On this measure, 38% of controls and 11% of those randomized to topical PLE had progressive disease versus only 2% of those randomized to take both topical and oral PLE, Dr. Pellacani reported.

The lower rate of new lesions or a start of a new drug over the course of the study in the group receiving both the topical and the oral formulations of PLE relative to those receiving topical PLE alone did not reach statistical significance, but Dr. Pellacani concluded that the addition of PLE to topical photoprotection without PLE seemed to provide a potentially clinically meaningful advantage.

Larger studies and longer term studies are needed, according to Dr. Pellacani, who noted that the substantial body of clinical studies associating PLE with benefit in a variety of dermatologic disorders has been weakened by the absence of well-designed studies that are adequately powered to guide clinical use.

Salvador González, MD, PhD, a dermatology specialist at Alcalá University, Madrid, also believes that PLE deserves further evaluation not just for photoprotection but for reinvigorating damaged skin due to its antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. He was the senior author of a 2020 paper in Photochemical and Photobiological Sciences that summarized the potential benefits of PLE in preventing damage related to sun exposure.

Among its mechanism, PLE generates reactive oxygen species (ROS) and prevents depletion of Langerhans cells induced by ultraviolet (UV) light, Dr. González explained in an interview. “At the cellular level, PLE activates tumor suppression p53, inhibits UV-induced COX-2 expression, reduces inflammation, and preventions immunosuppression,” he continued. In addition, he said PLE also prevents UV-A-induced common deletions related to mitochondrial damage and MMP1 expression induced by various UV wavelengths. 
“These molecular and cellular effects may translate into long-term inhibition of carcinogenesis including actinic keratosis,” he said, noting that all of these findings “justify the work by Pellacani and collaborators.”

Dr. Pellacani reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. González has a financial relationship with Cantabria Laboratories.

A trip to the cath lab for possible revascularization after a positive stress test, compared with a wait-and-see approach backed by optimal medications, did not improve 5-year survival for patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial’s extension study, ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND.

The long-term results, from the same 777 patients followed for an average of 2.2 years in the main trial, are consistent with the overall findings of no survival advantage with an initially invasive strategy, compared with one that is initially conservative. The finding applies to patients like those in the trial who had moderate to severe ischemia at stress testing and whose CKD put them in an especially high-risk and little-studied coronary artery disease (CAD) category.

Indeed, in a reflection of that high-risk status, 5-year all-cause mortality reached about 40% and cardiovascular (CV) mortality approached 30%, with no significant differences between patients in the invasive- and conservative-strategy groups.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

Those numbers arguably put CKD’s effect on CAD survival in about the same league as an ejection fraction (EF) of 35% or less. For context, all-cause mortality over 3-4 years was about 32% in the REVIVED-BCIS2 trial of such patients with ischemic reduced-EF cardiomyopathy, whether or not they were revascularized, observed Sripal Bangalore, MD, MHA.

Yet in ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND, “you’re seeing in a group of patients, with largely preserved EF but advanced CKD, a mortality rate close to 40% at 5 years,” said Dr. Bangalore of New York University.

Although the study doesn’t show benefit from the initially invasive approach in CKD patients with stable CAD, for those with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), it seems to suggest that “at least the invasive strategy is safe,” Dr. Bangalore said during a press conference preceding his presentation of the study Aug. 29 at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, held in Barcelona.

REVIVED-BCIS2 was also presented at the ESC sessions on Aug. 27, as reported by this news organization.

ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND “is a large trial and a very well-done trial. The results are robust, and they should influence clinical practice,” Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston, said as the invited discussant after Dr. Bangalore’s presentation.

“The main message here, really, is don’t just go looking for ischemia, at least with the modalities used in this trial, in your CKD patients as a routine practice, and then try to stomp out that ischemia with revascularization,” Dr. Bhatt said. “The right thing to do in these high-risk patients is to focus on lifestyle modification and intensive medical therapy.”

A caveat, he said, is that the trial’s results don’t apply to the types of patients excluded from it, including those with recent ACS and those who are highly symptomatic or have an EF of less than 35%.

“Those CKD patients likely benefit from an invasive strategy with anatomically appropriate revascularization,” whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary bypass surgery, Dr. Bhatt said.

At a median follow-up of 5 years in the extension study, the rates of death from any cause were 40.6% for patients in the invasive-strategy group and 37.4% for those in the conservative-strategy group. That yielded a hazard ratio of 1.12 (95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.41; P = .32) after adjustment for age, sex, diabetes status, EF, dialysis status, and – for patients not on dialysis – baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate.

The rates of CV death were 29% for patients managed invasively and 27% for those initially managed conservatively, for a similarly adjusted HR of 1.04 (95% CI, 0.80-1.37; P = .75).

In subgroup analyses, Dr. Bangalore reported, there were no significant differences in all-cause or CV mortality by diabetes status, by severity of baseline ischemia, or by whether the patient had recently experienced new or more frequent angina at study entry, was on guideline-directed medical therapy at baseline, or was on dialysis.

Among the contributions of ISCHEMIA-CKD and its 5-year extension study, Dr. Bangalore told this news organization, is that the relative safety of revascularization they showed may help to counter “renalism,” that is, the aversion to invasive intervention in patients with advanced CKD in clinical practice.

For example, if a patient with advanced CKD presents with an acute myocardial infarction, “people are hesitant to take them to the cath lab,” Dr. Bangalore said. But “if you follow protocols, if you follow strategies to minimize the risk, you can safely go ahead and do it.”

But in patients with stable CAD, as the ISCHEMIA-CKD studies show, “routinely revascularizing them may not have significant benefits.”

ISCHEMIC-CKD and its extension study were funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Bangalore discloses receiving research grants from NHLBI and serving as a consultant for Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Amgen, Pfizer, Merck, and Reata. Dr. Bhatt has disclosed grants and/or personal fees from many companies; personal fees from WebMD and other publications or organizations; and having other relationships with Medscape Cardiology and other publications or organizations.

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

A trip to the cath lab for possible revascularization after a positive stress test, compared with a wait-and-see approach backed by optimal medications, did not improve 5-year survival for patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial’s extension study, ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND.

The long-term results, from the same 777 patients followed for an average of 2.2 years in the main trial, are consistent with the overall findings of no survival advantage with an initially invasive strategy, compared with one that is initially conservative. The finding applies to patients like those in the trial who had moderate to severe ischemia at stress testing and whose CKD put them in an especially high-risk and little-studied coronary artery disease (CAD) category.

Indeed, in a reflection of that high-risk status, 5-year all-cause mortality reached about 40% and cardiovascular (CV) mortality approached 30%, with no significant differences between patients in the invasive- and conservative-strategy groups.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

Those numbers arguably put CKD’s effect on CAD survival in about the same league as an ejection fraction (EF) of 35% or less. For context, all-cause mortality over 3-4 years was about 32% in the REVIVED-BCIS2 trial of such patients with ischemic reduced-EF cardiomyopathy, whether or not they were revascularized, observed Sripal Bangalore, MD, MHA.

Yet in ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND, “you’re seeing in a group of patients, with largely preserved EF but advanced CKD, a mortality rate close to 40% at 5 years,” said Dr. Bangalore of New York University.

Although the study doesn’t show benefit from the initially invasive approach in CKD patients with stable CAD, for those with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), it seems to suggest that “at least the invasive strategy is safe,” Dr. Bangalore said during a press conference preceding his presentation of the study Aug. 29 at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, held in Barcelona.

REVIVED-BCIS2 was also presented at the ESC sessions on Aug. 27, as reported by this news organization.

ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND “is a large trial and a very well-done trial. The results are robust, and they should influence clinical practice,” Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston, said as the invited discussant after Dr. Bangalore’s presentation.

“The main message here, really, is don’t just go looking for ischemia, at least with the modalities used in this trial, in your CKD patients as a routine practice, and then try to stomp out that ischemia with revascularization,” Dr. Bhatt said. “The right thing to do in these high-risk patients is to focus on lifestyle modification and intensive medical therapy.”

A caveat, he said, is that the trial’s results don’t apply to the types of patients excluded from it, including those with recent ACS and those who are highly symptomatic or have an EF of less than 35%.

“Those CKD patients likely benefit from an invasive strategy with anatomically appropriate revascularization,” whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary bypass surgery, Dr. Bhatt said.

At a median follow-up of 5 years in the extension study, the rates of death from any cause were 40.6% for patients in the invasive-strategy group and 37.4% for those in the conservative-strategy group. That yielded a hazard ratio of 1.12 (95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.41; P = .32) after adjustment for age, sex, diabetes status, EF, dialysis status, and – for patients not on dialysis – baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate.

The rates of CV death were 29% for patients managed invasively and 27% for those initially managed conservatively, for a similarly adjusted HR of 1.04 (95% CI, 0.80-1.37; P = .75).

In subgroup analyses, Dr. Bangalore reported, there were no significant differences in all-cause or CV mortality by diabetes status, by severity of baseline ischemia, or by whether the patient had recently experienced new or more frequent angina at study entry, was on guideline-directed medical therapy at baseline, or was on dialysis.

Among the contributions of ISCHEMIA-CKD and its 5-year extension study, Dr. Bangalore told this news organization, is that the relative safety of revascularization they showed may help to counter “renalism,” that is, the aversion to invasive intervention in patients with advanced CKD in clinical practice.

For example, if a patient with advanced CKD presents with an acute myocardial infarction, “people are hesitant to take them to the cath lab,” Dr. Bangalore said. But “if you follow protocols, if you follow strategies to minimize the risk, you can safely go ahead and do it.”

But in patients with stable CAD, as the ISCHEMIA-CKD studies show, “routinely revascularizing them may not have significant benefits.”

ISCHEMIC-CKD and its extension study were funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Bangalore discloses receiving research grants from NHLBI and serving as a consultant for Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Amgen, Pfizer, Merck, and Reata. Dr. Bhatt has disclosed grants and/or personal fees from many companies; personal fees from WebMD and other publications or organizations; and having other relationships with Medscape Cardiology and other publications or organizations.

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

A trip to the cath lab for possible revascularization after a positive stress test, compared with a wait-and-see approach backed by optimal medications, did not improve 5-year survival for patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial’s extension study, ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND.

The long-term results, from the same 777 patients followed for an average of 2.2 years in the main trial, are consistent with the overall findings of no survival advantage with an initially invasive strategy, compared with one that is initially conservative. The finding applies to patients like those in the trial who had moderate to severe ischemia at stress testing and whose CKD put them in an especially high-risk and little-studied coronary artery disease (CAD) category.

Indeed, in a reflection of that high-risk status, 5-year all-cause mortality reached about 40% and cardiovascular (CV) mortality approached 30%, with no significant differences between patients in the invasive- and conservative-strategy groups.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

Those numbers arguably put CKD’s effect on CAD survival in about the same league as an ejection fraction (EF) of 35% or less. For context, all-cause mortality over 3-4 years was about 32% in the REVIVED-BCIS2 trial of such patients with ischemic reduced-EF cardiomyopathy, whether or not they were revascularized, observed Sripal Bangalore, MD, MHA.

Yet in ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND, “you’re seeing in a group of patients, with largely preserved EF but advanced CKD, a mortality rate close to 40% at 5 years,” said Dr. Bangalore of New York University.

Although the study doesn’t show benefit from the initially invasive approach in CKD patients with stable CAD, for those with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), it seems to suggest that “at least the invasive strategy is safe,” Dr. Bangalore said during a press conference preceding his presentation of the study Aug. 29 at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, held in Barcelona.

REVIVED-BCIS2 was also presented at the ESC sessions on Aug. 27, as reported by this news organization.

ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND “is a large trial and a very well-done trial. The results are robust, and they should influence clinical practice,” Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston, said as the invited discussant after Dr. Bangalore’s presentation.

“The main message here, really, is don’t just go looking for ischemia, at least with the modalities used in this trial, in your CKD patients as a routine practice, and then try to stomp out that ischemia with revascularization,” Dr. Bhatt said. “The right thing to do in these high-risk patients is to focus on lifestyle modification and intensive medical therapy.”

A caveat, he said, is that the trial’s results don’t apply to the types of patients excluded from it, including those with recent ACS and those who are highly symptomatic or have an EF of less than 35%.

“Those CKD patients likely benefit from an invasive strategy with anatomically appropriate revascularization,” whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary bypass surgery, Dr. Bhatt said.

At a median follow-up of 5 years in the extension study, the rates of death from any cause were 40.6% for patients in the invasive-strategy group and 37.4% for those in the conservative-strategy group. That yielded a hazard ratio of 1.12 (95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.41; P = .32) after adjustment for age, sex, diabetes status, EF, dialysis status, and – for patients not on dialysis – baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate.

The rates of CV death were 29% for patients managed invasively and 27% for those initially managed conservatively, for a similarly adjusted HR of 1.04 (95% CI, 0.80-1.37; P = .75).

In subgroup analyses, Dr. Bangalore reported, there were no significant differences in all-cause or CV mortality by diabetes status, by severity of baseline ischemia, or by whether the patient had recently experienced new or more frequent angina at study entry, was on guideline-directed medical therapy at baseline, or was on dialysis.

Among the contributions of ISCHEMIA-CKD and its 5-year extension study, Dr. Bangalore told this news organization, is that the relative safety of revascularization they showed may help to counter “renalism,” that is, the aversion to invasive intervention in patients with advanced CKD in clinical practice.

For example, if a patient with advanced CKD presents with an acute myocardial infarction, “people are hesitant to take them to the cath lab,” Dr. Bangalore said. But “if you follow protocols, if you follow strategies to minimize the risk, you can safely go ahead and do it.”

But in patients with stable CAD, as the ISCHEMIA-CKD studies show, “routinely revascularizing them may not have significant benefits.”

ISCHEMIC-CKD and its extension study were funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Bangalore discloses receiving research grants from NHLBI and serving as a consultant for Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Amgen, Pfizer, Merck, and Reata. Dr. Bhatt has disclosed grants and/or personal fees from many companies; personal fees from WebMD and other publications or organizations; and having other relationships with Medscape Cardiology and other publications or organizations.

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