Conference Coverage

SAN ANTONIO — Researchers have likely solved the key problem with using olanzapine to prevent nausea and vomiting in chemotherapy patients.

Although it’s highly effective in combination with standard antiemetic therapy, olanzapine at the standard dose of 10 mg makes people too drowsy. “This has prevented its widespread use in clinical practice,” medical oncologist Jyoti Bajpai, DM, of Tata Memorial Cancer Centre, Mumbai, India, explained at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

She and her colleagues had a simple idea: Reduce the dose to 2.5 mg instead of 10 mg to prevent the problem. In a randomized trial with 267 patients that Dr. Bajpai presented at the meeting, they found that the lower dose was just as effective for nausea and vomiting prophylaxis, and it greatly reduced daytime somnolence.

“This merits consideration as an antiemetic regimen of choice for highly emetogenic chemotherapy.” The findings are “practice changing,” Dr. Bajpai, the lead investigator, said.

Laura Huppert, MD, a breast oncologist at the University of California, San Francisco, wasn’t surprised by the finding.

She said she and her colleagues at UCSF use a lot of olanzapine for nausea and vomiting prophylaxis. Like the team in India, they have found that 2.5 mg is effective and causes far less sleepiness. Some patients require 5 mg, but the full 10-mg dose is rarely needed.

Although the approach is familiar at UCSF, Dr. Huppert said she doesn’t think a lot of oncologists outside of academic centers know that olanzapine is “really helpful” and that “you don’t need a high dose.” It’s “a very good clinical pearl” and “definitely a new message for some,” she said in an interview.

Over 90% of the subjects in the study were women with breast cancer. Other cancers included sarcoma, germ cell tumors, and head and neck cancer. Subjects were scheduled for their first chemotherapy session with anthracycline-cyclophosphamide and high-dose cisplatin.

The trial randomized 135 patients to 10 mg of olanzapine and 132 to 2.5mg for 5 days, starting the day of their session. They were also on standard triple-antiemetic therapy (selective serotonin receptor (5-HT3) antagonist, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, and single-dose dexamethasone).

There were no significant differences between the two arms regarding nausea and vomiting, which patients tracked in daily journals using symptom severity and visual analog scales.

For instance, 44.7% in the 2.5-mg arm and 43.7% in the 10-mg arm reported no vomiting, no use of rescue medications, and no or only mild nausea (P = .87). Results were similar in the first 24 hours as well as on subsequent days.

There was also no difference in the proportion of patients who did have an emetic episode or needed rescue medication: 49.2% in the 2.5-mg arm versus 48.9% with 10 mg (P = .954).

Where the two groups split was on the incidence of daytime somnolence, which was reported by 65.2% of patients in the low-dose arm but 89.6% in the standard-dose group (P < .001). During the first 24 hours, 4.5% of low-dose patients reported severe somnolence versus 40% with 10-mg dosing (P < .001).

The overall incidence declined over the remaining study days, but the differences between the two groups were comparable. On day 5, for instance, 0.8% of low-dose patients but 8.1% of standard-dose patients reported severe somnolence (P = .004).

Low-dose patients also reported less appetite suppression.

The work was supported by the Progressive Ladies Welfare Association. Dr. Bajpai didn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Huppert is an adviser for AstraZeneca.

SAN ANTONIO — Researchers have likely solved the key problem with using olanzapine to prevent nausea and vomiting in chemotherapy patients.

Although it’s highly effective in combination with standard antiemetic therapy, olanzapine at the standard dose of 10 mg makes people too drowsy. “This has prevented its widespread use in clinical practice,” medical oncologist Jyoti Bajpai, DM, of Tata Memorial Cancer Centre, Mumbai, India, explained at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

She and her colleagues had a simple idea: Reduce the dose to 2.5 mg instead of 10 mg to prevent the problem. In a randomized trial with 267 patients that Dr. Bajpai presented at the meeting, they found that the lower dose was just as effective for nausea and vomiting prophylaxis, and it greatly reduced daytime somnolence.

“This merits consideration as an antiemetic regimen of choice for highly emetogenic chemotherapy.” The findings are “practice changing,” Dr. Bajpai, the lead investigator, said.

Laura Huppert, MD, a breast oncologist at the University of California, San Francisco, wasn’t surprised by the finding.

She said she and her colleagues at UCSF use a lot of olanzapine for nausea and vomiting prophylaxis. Like the team in India, they have found that 2.5 mg is effective and causes far less sleepiness. Some patients require 5 mg, but the full 10-mg dose is rarely needed.

Although the approach is familiar at UCSF, Dr. Huppert said she doesn’t think a lot of oncologists outside of academic centers know that olanzapine is “really helpful” and that “you don’t need a high dose.” It’s “a very good clinical pearl” and “definitely a new message for some,” she said in an interview.

Over 90% of the subjects in the study were women with breast cancer. Other cancers included sarcoma, germ cell tumors, and head and neck cancer. Subjects were scheduled for their first chemotherapy session with anthracycline-cyclophosphamide and high-dose cisplatin.

The trial randomized 135 patients to 10 mg of olanzapine and 132 to 2.5mg for 5 days, starting the day of their session. They were also on standard triple-antiemetic therapy (selective serotonin receptor (5-HT3) antagonist, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, and single-dose dexamethasone).

There were no significant differences between the two arms regarding nausea and vomiting, which patients tracked in daily journals using symptom severity and visual analog scales.

For instance, 44.7% in the 2.5-mg arm and 43.7% in the 10-mg arm reported no vomiting, no use of rescue medications, and no or only mild nausea (P = .87). Results were similar in the first 24 hours as well as on subsequent days.

There was also no difference in the proportion of patients who did have an emetic episode or needed rescue medication: 49.2% in the 2.5-mg arm versus 48.9% with 10 mg (P = .954).

Where the two groups split was on the incidence of daytime somnolence, which was reported by 65.2% of patients in the low-dose arm but 89.6% in the standard-dose group (P < .001). During the first 24 hours, 4.5% of low-dose patients reported severe somnolence versus 40% with 10-mg dosing (P < .001).

The overall incidence declined over the remaining study days, but the differences between the two groups were comparable. On day 5, for instance, 0.8% of low-dose patients but 8.1% of standard-dose patients reported severe somnolence (P = .004).

Low-dose patients also reported less appetite suppression.

The work was supported by the Progressive Ladies Welfare Association. Dr. Bajpai didn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Huppert is an adviser for AstraZeneca.

SAN ANTONIO — Researchers have likely solved the key problem with using olanzapine to prevent nausea and vomiting in chemotherapy patients.

Although it’s highly effective in combination with standard antiemetic therapy, olanzapine at the standard dose of 10 mg makes people too drowsy. “This has prevented its widespread use in clinical practice,” medical oncologist Jyoti Bajpai, DM, of Tata Memorial Cancer Centre, Mumbai, India, explained at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

She and her colleagues had a simple idea: Reduce the dose to 2.5 mg instead of 10 mg to prevent the problem. In a randomized trial with 267 patients that Dr. Bajpai presented at the meeting, they found that the lower dose was just as effective for nausea and vomiting prophylaxis, and it greatly reduced daytime somnolence.

“This merits consideration as an antiemetic regimen of choice for highly emetogenic chemotherapy.” The findings are “practice changing,” Dr. Bajpai, the lead investigator, said.

Laura Huppert, MD, a breast oncologist at the University of California, San Francisco, wasn’t surprised by the finding.

She said she and her colleagues at UCSF use a lot of olanzapine for nausea and vomiting prophylaxis. Like the team in India, they have found that 2.5 mg is effective and causes far less sleepiness. Some patients require 5 mg, but the full 10-mg dose is rarely needed.

Although the approach is familiar at UCSF, Dr. Huppert said she doesn’t think a lot of oncologists outside of academic centers know that olanzapine is “really helpful” and that “you don’t need a high dose.” It’s “a very good clinical pearl” and “definitely a new message for some,” she said in an interview.

Over 90% of the subjects in the study were women with breast cancer. Other cancers included sarcoma, germ cell tumors, and head and neck cancer. Subjects were scheduled for their first chemotherapy session with anthracycline-cyclophosphamide and high-dose cisplatin.

The trial randomized 135 patients to 10 mg of olanzapine and 132 to 2.5mg for 5 days, starting the day of their session. They were also on standard triple-antiemetic therapy (selective serotonin receptor (5-HT3) antagonist, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, and single-dose dexamethasone).

There were no significant differences between the two arms regarding nausea and vomiting, which patients tracked in daily journals using symptom severity and visual analog scales.

For instance, 44.7% in the 2.5-mg arm and 43.7% in the 10-mg arm reported no vomiting, no use of rescue medications, and no or only mild nausea (P = .87). Results were similar in the first 24 hours as well as on subsequent days.

There was also no difference in the proportion of patients who did have an emetic episode or needed rescue medication: 49.2% in the 2.5-mg arm versus 48.9% with 10 mg (P = .954).

Where the two groups split was on the incidence of daytime somnolence, which was reported by 65.2% of patients in the low-dose arm but 89.6% in the standard-dose group (P < .001). During the first 24 hours, 4.5% of low-dose patients reported severe somnolence versus 40% with 10-mg dosing (P < .001).

The overall incidence declined over the remaining study days, but the differences between the two groups were comparable. On day 5, for instance, 0.8% of low-dose patients but 8.1% of standard-dose patients reported severe somnolence (P = .004).

Low-dose patients also reported less appetite suppression.

The work was supported by the Progressive Ladies Welfare Association. Dr. Bajpai didn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Huppert is an adviser for AstraZeneca.

SAN DIEGO — Two proposed new multiple myeloma staging systems offer similar prognostic accuracy compared with the standard staging system, but the new systems provide more refined risk classifications across different disease stages. 

The findings should encourage greater use of these newer staging systems in routine clinical practice, first author Manni Mohyuddin, MD, said during a presentation at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.

Dr. Mohyuddin and his colleagues retrospectively compared the standard Revised International Staging System (R-ISS) with two newer systems, the Second Revision of the R-ISS (R2-ISS) and the Mayo Additive Staging System (MASS), using real-world data from nearly 500 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

The R-ISS, the most common multiple myeloma staging system, incorporates a range of prognostic features, including high-risk genetic markers assessed using fluorescence in situ hybridization as well as levels of lactate dehydrogenase, albumin, and beta-2 microglobulin, explained Dr. Mohyuddin, assistant professor at the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

R2-ISS and MASS include additional factors that reflect experts’ growing understanding of multiple myeloma. Specifically, the systems also evaluate a gain of chromosome 1q, in which patients have an extra copy of chromosome 1q, as well as the additive effects of multiple high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, both of which indicate worse prognosis in multiple myeloma, Dr. Mohyuddin said in an interview.

To compare the three staging systems, the investigators used information on newly diagnosed patients in the Flatiron Health EHR–derived deidentified database, which includes data from cancer clinics across the United States. Patients were followed from first-line treatment initiation until death, the end of the study period, or last recorded activity.

The patients from the database had a median age of 70 years, and most had not received a transplant. The most common cytogenetic abnormality was gain 1q, present in about one third of patients. 

Given that the R2-ISS originated from patients in clinical trials, Dr. Mohyuddin noted the importance of assessing how the system would perform in a real-world setting. 

Of the 497 patients in the analysis, the R-ISS staging system classified 24% as stage I, 63% as stage II, and 13% as stage III. Overall survival differed across these R-ISS stages, indicating the system was prognostic for survival. Median overall survival was not reached for those with stage I disease, was 62.9 months for those with stage II disease, and 37.6 months for those with stage III disease.

Because the R-ISS doesn’t consider the additive effect of multiple cytogenetic abnormalities, many patients end up in the R-ISS stage II category but ultimately may have vastly different outcomes, Dr. Mohyuddin said.

The R2-ISS includes four risk categories, which provide more granularity to the stage II classification: Stage I is low risk, stage II is low-intermediate, stage III is intermediate, and stage IV is high risk. Using this staging system, 20% of patients were stage I, 25% were stage II, 46% were stage III, and 9% were stage IV.

The R2-ISS was also prognostic for survival, which generally worsened from stage I to stage IV: Median overall survival was not reached in stage I patients, was 69.3 months for stage II, 50.0 months for stage III, and 50.6 months for stage IV patients. However, Dr. Mohyuddin noted that there was some overlap in the survival curves for stages I and II and for stages III and IV.

When applying MASS, 34% of patients were categorized as stage I, 35% as stage II, and 31% as stage III disease. This system was prognostic for survival as well, with median overall survival of 76.9 months for stage I, 61.2 months for stage II, and 45.0 months for stage III.

With R2-ISS, many of those in R-ISS stage II are moved into stage I and III. With MASS, the R-ISS stage II patients are more evenly distributed across stages I, II, and III.

In other words, “we show that both these newer staging systems basically recategorize patients into different stages,” essentially “decreasing the number of people in the large, ambiguous (R-ISS) stage II category,” said Dr. Mohyuddin. 

Dr. Mohyuddin and colleagues also evaluated the staging systems in fully adjusted analyses that controlled for age, race/ethnicity, sex, practice type, and diagnosis year. 

Using R2-ISS, stage I patients had a similar risk for death compared with stage II patients (hazard ratio [HR], 1.2). Compared with stage I patients, stage III and IV patients had comparable risks for death, both about 2.5-fold higher than in those with stage I disease (HR, 2.4 and 2.6, respectively). 

Compared with stage I MASS patients, those with stage II had a twofold higher risk for death (HR, 2.0), and those with stage III had an almost threefold higher risk (HR, 2.7). 

Although no system considers all factors associated with myeloma outcomes, R2-ISS and MASS do offer a benefit over R-ISS, Dr. Mohyuddin said.

He added that the R2-ISS and MASS are similar from a statistical standpoint, but he gave MASS a slight edge for use in clinical practice.

MASS “more cleanly demarcated [patients] into prognostic subsets,” plus it is “a little easier to remember by heart,” he explained. MASS also puts more emphasis on the presence of multiple high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, which is a worse prognostic in this era of quadruplet therapy for multiple myeloma, he added.

Because the study largely took place in an era when triplet therapy dominated, “we would be curious to see, with longer follow-up and more use of quadruplets, how these staging systems would perform,” he said. 

Despite the benefits of these newer staging systems, many factors play a role in multiple myeloma outcomes, Dr. Mohyuddin explained. Staging systems are “only a piece of the puzzle.”

Dr. Mohyuddin reported having no financial interests to disclose.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Two proposed new multiple myeloma staging systems offer similar prognostic accuracy compared with the standard staging system, but the new systems provide more refined risk classifications across different disease stages. 

The findings should encourage greater use of these newer staging systems in routine clinical practice, first author Manni Mohyuddin, MD, said during a presentation at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.

Dr. Mohyuddin and his colleagues retrospectively compared the standard Revised International Staging System (R-ISS) with two newer systems, the Second Revision of the R-ISS (R2-ISS) and the Mayo Additive Staging System (MASS), using real-world data from nearly 500 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

The R-ISS, the most common multiple myeloma staging system, incorporates a range of prognostic features, including high-risk genetic markers assessed using fluorescence in situ hybridization as well as levels of lactate dehydrogenase, albumin, and beta-2 microglobulin, explained Dr. Mohyuddin, assistant professor at the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

R2-ISS and MASS include additional factors that reflect experts’ growing understanding of multiple myeloma. Specifically, the systems also evaluate a gain of chromosome 1q, in which patients have an extra copy of chromosome 1q, as well as the additive effects of multiple high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, both of which indicate worse prognosis in multiple myeloma, Dr. Mohyuddin said in an interview.

To compare the three staging systems, the investigators used information on newly diagnosed patients in the Flatiron Health EHR–derived deidentified database, which includes data from cancer clinics across the United States. Patients were followed from first-line treatment initiation until death, the end of the study period, or last recorded activity.

The patients from the database had a median age of 70 years, and most had not received a transplant. The most common cytogenetic abnormality was gain 1q, present in about one third of patients. 

Given that the R2-ISS originated from patients in clinical trials, Dr. Mohyuddin noted the importance of assessing how the system would perform in a real-world setting. 

Of the 497 patients in the analysis, the R-ISS staging system classified 24% as stage I, 63% as stage II, and 13% as stage III. Overall survival differed across these R-ISS stages, indicating the system was prognostic for survival. Median overall survival was not reached for those with stage I disease, was 62.9 months for those with stage II disease, and 37.6 months for those with stage III disease.

Because the R-ISS doesn’t consider the additive effect of multiple cytogenetic abnormalities, many patients end up in the R-ISS stage II category but ultimately may have vastly different outcomes, Dr. Mohyuddin said.

The R2-ISS includes four risk categories, which provide more granularity to the stage II classification: Stage I is low risk, stage II is low-intermediate, stage III is intermediate, and stage IV is high risk. Using this staging system, 20% of patients were stage I, 25% were stage II, 46% were stage III, and 9% were stage IV.

The R2-ISS was also prognostic for survival, which generally worsened from stage I to stage IV: Median overall survival was not reached in stage I patients, was 69.3 months for stage II, 50.0 months for stage III, and 50.6 months for stage IV patients. However, Dr. Mohyuddin noted that there was some overlap in the survival curves for stages I and II and for stages III and IV.

When applying MASS, 34% of patients were categorized as stage I, 35% as stage II, and 31% as stage III disease. This system was prognostic for survival as well, with median overall survival of 76.9 months for stage I, 61.2 months for stage II, and 45.0 months for stage III.

With R2-ISS, many of those in R-ISS stage II are moved into stage I and III. With MASS, the R-ISS stage II patients are more evenly distributed across stages I, II, and III.

In other words, “we show that both these newer staging systems basically recategorize patients into different stages,” essentially “decreasing the number of people in the large, ambiguous (R-ISS) stage II category,” said Dr. Mohyuddin. 

Dr. Mohyuddin and colleagues also evaluated the staging systems in fully adjusted analyses that controlled for age, race/ethnicity, sex, practice type, and diagnosis year. 

Using R2-ISS, stage I patients had a similar risk for death compared with stage II patients (hazard ratio [HR], 1.2). Compared with stage I patients, stage III and IV patients had comparable risks for death, both about 2.5-fold higher than in those with stage I disease (HR, 2.4 and 2.6, respectively). 

Compared with stage I MASS patients, those with stage II had a twofold higher risk for death (HR, 2.0), and those with stage III had an almost threefold higher risk (HR, 2.7). 

Although no system considers all factors associated with myeloma outcomes, R2-ISS and MASS do offer a benefit over R-ISS, Dr. Mohyuddin said.

He added that the R2-ISS and MASS are similar from a statistical standpoint, but he gave MASS a slight edge for use in clinical practice.

MASS “more cleanly demarcated [patients] into prognostic subsets,” plus it is “a little easier to remember by heart,” he explained. MASS also puts more emphasis on the presence of multiple high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, which is a worse prognostic in this era of quadruplet therapy for multiple myeloma, he added.

Because the study largely took place in an era when triplet therapy dominated, “we would be curious to see, with longer follow-up and more use of quadruplets, how these staging systems would perform,” he said. 

Despite the benefits of these newer staging systems, many factors play a role in multiple myeloma outcomes, Dr. Mohyuddin explained. Staging systems are “only a piece of the puzzle.”

Dr. Mohyuddin reported having no financial interests to disclose.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Two proposed new multiple myeloma staging systems offer similar prognostic accuracy compared with the standard staging system, but the new systems provide more refined risk classifications across different disease stages. 

The findings should encourage greater use of these newer staging systems in routine clinical practice, first author Manni Mohyuddin, MD, said during a presentation at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.

Dr. Mohyuddin and his colleagues retrospectively compared the standard Revised International Staging System (R-ISS) with two newer systems, the Second Revision of the R-ISS (R2-ISS) and the Mayo Additive Staging System (MASS), using real-world data from nearly 500 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

The R-ISS, the most common multiple myeloma staging system, incorporates a range of prognostic features, including high-risk genetic markers assessed using fluorescence in situ hybridization as well as levels of lactate dehydrogenase, albumin, and beta-2 microglobulin, explained Dr. Mohyuddin, assistant professor at the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

R2-ISS and MASS include additional factors that reflect experts’ growing understanding of multiple myeloma. Specifically, the systems also evaluate a gain of chromosome 1q, in which patients have an extra copy of chromosome 1q, as well as the additive effects of multiple high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, both of which indicate worse prognosis in multiple myeloma, Dr. Mohyuddin said in an interview.

To compare the three staging systems, the investigators used information on newly diagnosed patients in the Flatiron Health EHR–derived deidentified database, which includes data from cancer clinics across the United States. Patients were followed from first-line treatment initiation until death, the end of the study period, or last recorded activity.

The patients from the database had a median age of 70 years, and most had not received a transplant. The most common cytogenetic abnormality was gain 1q, present in about one third of patients. 

Given that the R2-ISS originated from patients in clinical trials, Dr. Mohyuddin noted the importance of assessing how the system would perform in a real-world setting. 

Of the 497 patients in the analysis, the R-ISS staging system classified 24% as stage I, 63% as stage II, and 13% as stage III. Overall survival differed across these R-ISS stages, indicating the system was prognostic for survival. Median overall survival was not reached for those with stage I disease, was 62.9 months for those with stage II disease, and 37.6 months for those with stage III disease.

Because the R-ISS doesn’t consider the additive effect of multiple cytogenetic abnormalities, many patients end up in the R-ISS stage II category but ultimately may have vastly different outcomes, Dr. Mohyuddin said.

The R2-ISS includes four risk categories, which provide more granularity to the stage II classification: Stage I is low risk, stage II is low-intermediate, stage III is intermediate, and stage IV is high risk. Using this staging system, 20% of patients were stage I, 25% were stage II, 46% were stage III, and 9% were stage IV.

The R2-ISS was also prognostic for survival, which generally worsened from stage I to stage IV: Median overall survival was not reached in stage I patients, was 69.3 months for stage II, 50.0 months for stage III, and 50.6 months for stage IV patients. However, Dr. Mohyuddin noted that there was some overlap in the survival curves for stages I and II and for stages III and IV.

When applying MASS, 34% of patients were categorized as stage I, 35% as stage II, and 31% as stage III disease. This system was prognostic for survival as well, with median overall survival of 76.9 months for stage I, 61.2 months for stage II, and 45.0 months for stage III.

With R2-ISS, many of those in R-ISS stage II are moved into stage I and III. With MASS, the R-ISS stage II patients are more evenly distributed across stages I, II, and III.

In other words, “we show that both these newer staging systems basically recategorize patients into different stages,” essentially “decreasing the number of people in the large, ambiguous (R-ISS) stage II category,” said Dr. Mohyuddin. 

Dr. Mohyuddin and colleagues also evaluated the staging systems in fully adjusted analyses that controlled for age, race/ethnicity, sex, practice type, and diagnosis year. 

Using R2-ISS, stage I patients had a similar risk for death compared with stage II patients (hazard ratio [HR], 1.2). Compared with stage I patients, stage III and IV patients had comparable risks for death, both about 2.5-fold higher than in those with stage I disease (HR, 2.4 and 2.6, respectively). 

Compared with stage I MASS patients, those with stage II had a twofold higher risk for death (HR, 2.0), and those with stage III had an almost threefold higher risk (HR, 2.7). 

Although no system considers all factors associated with myeloma outcomes, R2-ISS and MASS do offer a benefit over R-ISS, Dr. Mohyuddin said.

He added that the R2-ISS and MASS are similar from a statistical standpoint, but he gave MASS a slight edge for use in clinical practice.

MASS “more cleanly demarcated [patients] into prognostic subsets,” plus it is “a little easier to remember by heart,” he explained. MASS also puts more emphasis on the presence of multiple high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, which is a worse prognostic in this era of quadruplet therapy for multiple myeloma, he added.

Because the study largely took place in an era when triplet therapy dominated, “we would be curious to see, with longer follow-up and more use of quadruplets, how these staging systems would perform,” he said. 

Despite the benefits of these newer staging systems, many factors play a role in multiple myeloma outcomes, Dr. Mohyuddin explained. Staging systems are “only a piece of the puzzle.”

Dr. Mohyuddin reported having no financial interests to disclose.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO — Among women interested in aesthetic treatments, Hispanic/Latinx women are more concerned about submental fat and under-eye hollowing, which differed from the top concerns in White women, according to the results of a study that involved a survey of almost 4000 women.

To date, the aesthetic needs of Hispanic/Latinx patients, the second largest ethnic group in the United States, have been poorly understood. “Most [aesthetic] marketing materials are gauged toward Caucasian patients,” Sabrina Fabi, MD, a dermatologist and dermatologic cosmetic surgeon in San Diego, California, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery (ASDS), where she presented the study results.

In addition, Dr. Fabi noted that current studies of facial and body aesthetics are limited in terms of representation. “When we look at studies, they are more Fitzpatrick type IIs and IIIs,” she said. Addressing this gap, she and her colleagues conducted the large multicenter study to learn more about cosmetic concerns unique to Hispanic/Latinx women, across different ethnic groups, and how they may differ by age.

In the study, an online survey was administered to aesthetically-inclined adults across different demographic groups in the United States. Specifically, respondents were surveyed regarding 41 facial and 31 body characteristics, identifying those they found bothersome. Maximum difference scaling was used to generate their most and least bothersome characteristics in each respective category.

Of the 3974 women surveyed, 748 self-identified as Hispanic/Latinx and female. Most participants (86%) were born in the United States and were interested in aesthetic treatments (93%). The majority of patients identified as Generation X (42-57 years, 40.0%), followed by older Millennials (31-41 years, 33.0%), Generation Z/young Millennials (under 30 years, 16.7%), and Baby Boomers and older (over 57 years, 10.3%). Participants most commonly reported Fitzpatrick skin types III (24%) and IV (56%), and BMIs of 18.5 kg/m² to <25 kg/m² (42%) and 25 to <30 kg/m² (27%).

Among Hispanic/Latinx women, the top facial concerns were related to submental fat (36%) and under-eye hollowing (35%). This is in contrast to White counterparts, who tended to find wrinkles more bothersome, according to Dr. Fabi. Among Hispanic/Latinx women, the top body concerns were related to stubborn fat involving the stomach (50%), sides (44%), and bra or the back area (40%).

Despite the shared concern of stubborn body fat across age groups, facial concerns shifted from skin quality (50%) and under-eye issues (43%) in the younger generations to upper facial lines (52%) and jowls/sagging skin (57%) in the older generations.

Dr. Fabi stated that approximately 30% of the population she sees is Hispanic/Latinx, and the results of this study substantiate what she sees in her practice. “This magnifies the things we need to be talking to them more about specifically.” The findings from this survey may aid in the customization of treatment plans to better serve this population, she said.

The study was sponsored by Allergan Aesthetics, which participated in the trial design, research, analysis, data collection, interpretation of data, and the review and approval of the publication. Dr. Fabi and three other authors are speakers, consultants, and investigators for Allergan. Other authors are on the advisory board, or are employees of Abbvie, Allergan’s parent company, and may own stock.

CHICAGO — Among women interested in aesthetic treatments, Hispanic/Latinx women are more concerned about submental fat and under-eye hollowing, which differed from the top concerns in White women, according to the results of a study that involved a survey of almost 4000 women.

To date, the aesthetic needs of Hispanic/Latinx patients, the second largest ethnic group in the United States, have been poorly understood. “Most [aesthetic] marketing materials are gauged toward Caucasian patients,” Sabrina Fabi, MD, a dermatologist and dermatologic cosmetic surgeon in San Diego, California, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery (ASDS), where she presented the study results.

In addition, Dr. Fabi noted that current studies of facial and body aesthetics are limited in terms of representation. “When we look at studies, they are more Fitzpatrick type IIs and IIIs,” she said. Addressing this gap, she and her colleagues conducted the large multicenter study to learn more about cosmetic concerns unique to Hispanic/Latinx women, across different ethnic groups, and how they may differ by age.

In the study, an online survey was administered to aesthetically-inclined adults across different demographic groups in the United States. Specifically, respondents were surveyed regarding 41 facial and 31 body characteristics, identifying those they found bothersome. Maximum difference scaling was used to generate their most and least bothersome characteristics in each respective category.

Of the 3974 women surveyed, 748 self-identified as Hispanic/Latinx and female. Most participants (86%) were born in the United States and were interested in aesthetic treatments (93%). The majority of patients identified as Generation X (42-57 years, 40.0%), followed by older Millennials (31-41 years, 33.0%), Generation Z/young Millennials (under 30 years, 16.7%), and Baby Boomers and older (over 57 years, 10.3%). Participants most commonly reported Fitzpatrick skin types III (24%) and IV (56%), and BMIs of 18.5 kg/m² to <25 kg/m² (42%) and 25 to <30 kg/m² (27%).

Among Hispanic/Latinx women, the top facial concerns were related to submental fat (36%) and under-eye hollowing (35%). This is in contrast to White counterparts, who tended to find wrinkles more bothersome, according to Dr. Fabi. Among Hispanic/Latinx women, the top body concerns were related to stubborn fat involving the stomach (50%), sides (44%), and bra or the back area (40%).

Despite the shared concern of stubborn body fat across age groups, facial concerns shifted from skin quality (50%) and under-eye issues (43%) in the younger generations to upper facial lines (52%) and jowls/sagging skin (57%) in the older generations.

Dr. Fabi stated that approximately 30% of the population she sees is Hispanic/Latinx, and the results of this study substantiate what she sees in her practice. “This magnifies the things we need to be talking to them more about specifically.” The findings from this survey may aid in the customization of treatment plans to better serve this population, she said.

The study was sponsored by Allergan Aesthetics, which participated in the trial design, research, analysis, data collection, interpretation of data, and the review and approval of the publication. Dr. Fabi and three other authors are speakers, consultants, and investigators for Allergan. Other authors are on the advisory board, or are employees of Abbvie, Allergan’s parent company, and may own stock.

CHICAGO — Among women interested in aesthetic treatments, Hispanic/Latinx women are more concerned about submental fat and under-eye hollowing, which differed from the top concerns in White women, according to the results of a study that involved a survey of almost 4000 women.

To date, the aesthetic needs of Hispanic/Latinx patients, the second largest ethnic group in the United States, have been poorly understood. “Most [aesthetic] marketing materials are gauged toward Caucasian patients,” Sabrina Fabi, MD, a dermatologist and dermatologic cosmetic surgeon in San Diego, California, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery (ASDS), where she presented the study results.

In addition, Dr. Fabi noted that current studies of facial and body aesthetics are limited in terms of representation. “When we look at studies, they are more Fitzpatrick type IIs and IIIs,” she said. Addressing this gap, she and her colleagues conducted the large multicenter study to learn more about cosmetic concerns unique to Hispanic/Latinx women, across different ethnic groups, and how they may differ by age.

In the study, an online survey was administered to aesthetically-inclined adults across different demographic groups in the United States. Specifically, respondents were surveyed regarding 41 facial and 31 body characteristics, identifying those they found bothersome. Maximum difference scaling was used to generate their most and least bothersome characteristics in each respective category.

Of the 3974 women surveyed, 748 self-identified as Hispanic/Latinx and female. Most participants (86%) were born in the United States and were interested in aesthetic treatments (93%). The majority of patients identified as Generation X (42-57 years, 40.0%), followed by older Millennials (31-41 years, 33.0%), Generation Z/young Millennials (under 30 years, 16.7%), and Baby Boomers and older (over 57 years, 10.3%). Participants most commonly reported Fitzpatrick skin types III (24%) and IV (56%), and BMIs of 18.5 kg/m² to <25 kg/m² (42%) and 25 to <30 kg/m² (27%).

Among Hispanic/Latinx women, the top facial concerns were related to submental fat (36%) and under-eye hollowing (35%). This is in contrast to White counterparts, who tended to find wrinkles more bothersome, according to Dr. Fabi. Among Hispanic/Latinx women, the top body concerns were related to stubborn fat involving the stomach (50%), sides (44%), and bra or the back area (40%).

Despite the shared concern of stubborn body fat across age groups, facial concerns shifted from skin quality (50%) and under-eye issues (43%) in the younger generations to upper facial lines (52%) and jowls/sagging skin (57%) in the older generations.

Dr. Fabi stated that approximately 30% of the population she sees is Hispanic/Latinx, and the results of this study substantiate what she sees in her practice. “This magnifies the things we need to be talking to them more about specifically.” The findings from this survey may aid in the customization of treatment plans to better serve this population, she said.

The study was sponsored by Allergan Aesthetics, which participated in the trial design, research, analysis, data collection, interpretation of data, and the review and approval of the publication. Dr. Fabi and three other authors are speakers, consultants, and investigators for Allergan. Other authors are on the advisory board, or are employees of Abbvie, Allergan’s parent company, and may own stock.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved two gene-editing therapies for patients aged 12 years or older with severe sickle cell disease.

One therapy — exagamglogene autotemcel or exa-cel (Casgevy) — is the first to use CRISPR gene-editing technology, and could “provide a one-time functional cure to patients with sickle cell disease,” said Haydar Frangoul, MD, of The Children’s Hospital at TriStar Centennial, Nashville, Tennessee.

Dr. Frangoul, who presented a recent interim analysis on the therapy at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) annual meeting earlier this month, reported that one infusion of exa-cel prompted rapid increases in total hemoglobin levels and almost completely eliminated a common and painful complication of sickle cell disease that can lead to irreversible organ damage, known as vaso-occlusive crisis.

Overall, the gene therapy led to “a rapid, robust, and durable increase in total hemoglobin to normal or near normal levels,” Dr. Frangoul said.

Exa-cel, from Vertex Pharmaceuticals and CRISPR Therapeutics, is a single-dose infusion containing a patient’s modified cells. First, a patient’s stem cells are harvested and then genetically modified to produce fetal hemoglobin. 

The development of exa-cel was “grounded in human genetics, which show that fetal hemoglobin can substitute for sickle hemoglobin,” Dr. Frangoul explained. Patients receive these edited cells, which then help restore normal hemoglobin production.

The analysis showed that a one-time infusion of exa-cel following myeloablative conditioning prevented vaso-occlusive crisis in all but one patient with severe sickle cell disease. The therapy also prevented inpatient hospitalizations for vaso-occlusive crisis in all patients and led to sustained improvements in quality of life.

The results are “really striking,” said Sarah H. O’Brien, MD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, who was not involved in the research. “The majority of our admissions on the hematology service are our patients with sickle cell. They’re uncomfortable, they’re in pain, they’re missing school, and they’re missing their activities,” which makes these interim findings quite “impactful.”

To examine the impact of exa-cel on vaso-occlusive crisis, the phase 3 trial included individuals aged 12 to 35 years with severe sickle cell disease and a history of at least two vaso-occlusive crises per year over the past 2 years.

Participants underwent cell CD34+ stem cell collection. These cells then underwent gene editing using CRISPR technology, explained Dr. Frangoul.

At the transplant center, patients received myeloablative conditioning chemotherapy with busulfan for 4 days before receiving an exa-cel infusion.

At the data cutoff in June 2023, 44 patients had been enrolled, of whom 30 were available for efficacy analysis. The mean age at screening was 22.1 years, and almost half (46.7%) were female. Prior to study recruitment, patients had a mean of 3.9 vaso-occlusive crises per year and a mean of 2.7 inpatient hospitalizations per year for severe vaso-occlusive crisis.

All but one patient (96.7%) met the primary endpoint of freedom from severe vaso-occlusive crisis for at least 12 consecutive months. The mean duration of freedom from vaso-occlusive crisis was 22.4 months, ranging from 14.8 months to 45.5 months. Moreover, 28 of the 29 patients who remained crisis-free at 12 months did not have a further vaso-occlusive crisis throughout the rest of the follow-up period.

Dr. Frangoul noted that results were similar for both adults and adolescents.

Exa-cel also led to a significant increase in freedom from inpatient hospitalizations, with 100% of patients achieving that goal, as well as early and sustained increases in both total and fetal hemoglobin levels, suggesting a “long-term meaningful benefit” from the therapy.

All 44 patients experienced adverse events related to myeloablative conditioning with busulfan, but only 29.5% had events linked to exa-cel. The most common adverse events overall were nausea (70.5%), stomatitis (63.6%), vomiting (56.8%), and febrile neutropenia (54.5%).

In a separate poster presented at ASH, Akshay Sharma, MBBS, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, Dr. Frangoul, and colleagues reported that exa-cel also led to better health-related quality of life. 

Patients showed “substantial improvements” in measures of quality of life, which included physical, emotional, social, and functional well-being as well as pain at a 6-month follow-up through year 2.

Typical outcomes studied in most trials are “emergency room visits and hospitalizations but what people may not appreciate as much is how much these patients are dealing with pain and discomfort at home,” Dr. O’Brien said. These recently reported quality-of-life metrics “are so key and really help us understand the impact” of this new therapy.

Dr. O’Brien noted, however, that “patients may be reluctant to undergo” this therapy because of the impact myeloablative conditioning has on fertility. That is why ongoing research on how stem cell transplants can be delivered “without impacting fertility is very important.”

It is “hard to know,” Dr. O’Brien explained, whether exa-cel will be a one-time treatment in practice, as many of the patients “already have end-organ damage from their disease.” 

To that end, Dr. Frangoul noted that patients who complete the current trial can enroll in one that will include 13 years of additional follow-up.

Finally, Dr. O’Brien cautioned, gene therapies such as exa-cel “are only going to apply to a small segment of the population” — patients with the most severe form of the disease. That’s why “it’s important that we still prioritize hydroxyurea [and] multidisciplinary care for patients with sickle cell disease,” she said.

The study was sponsored by Vertex Pharmaceuticals in collaboration with CRISPR Therapeutics. Dr. Frangoul declared relationships with Editas Medicine, Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, CRISPR Therapeutics, Bluebird Bio, and others. Dr. Sharma declared relationships with Vertex Pharmaceuticals, CRISPR Therapeutics, and others. Other authors declare numerous financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved two gene-editing therapies for patients aged 12 years or older with severe sickle cell disease.

One therapy — exagamglogene autotemcel or exa-cel (Casgevy) — is the first to use CRISPR gene-editing technology, and could “provide a one-time functional cure to patients with sickle cell disease,” said Haydar Frangoul, MD, of The Children’s Hospital at TriStar Centennial, Nashville, Tennessee.

Dr. Frangoul, who presented a recent interim analysis on the therapy at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) annual meeting earlier this month, reported that one infusion of exa-cel prompted rapid increases in total hemoglobin levels and almost completely eliminated a common and painful complication of sickle cell disease that can lead to irreversible organ damage, known as vaso-occlusive crisis.

Overall, the gene therapy led to “a rapid, robust, and durable increase in total hemoglobin to normal or near normal levels,” Dr. Frangoul said.

Exa-cel, from Vertex Pharmaceuticals and CRISPR Therapeutics, is a single-dose infusion containing a patient’s modified cells. First, a patient’s stem cells are harvested and then genetically modified to produce fetal hemoglobin. 

The development of exa-cel was “grounded in human genetics, which show that fetal hemoglobin can substitute for sickle hemoglobin,” Dr. Frangoul explained. Patients receive these edited cells, which then help restore normal hemoglobin production.

The analysis showed that a one-time infusion of exa-cel following myeloablative conditioning prevented vaso-occlusive crisis in all but one patient with severe sickle cell disease. The therapy also prevented inpatient hospitalizations for vaso-occlusive crisis in all patients and led to sustained improvements in quality of life.

The results are “really striking,” said Sarah H. O’Brien, MD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, who was not involved in the research. “The majority of our admissions on the hematology service are our patients with sickle cell. They’re uncomfortable, they’re in pain, they’re missing school, and they’re missing their activities,” which makes these interim findings quite “impactful.”

To examine the impact of exa-cel on vaso-occlusive crisis, the phase 3 trial included individuals aged 12 to 35 years with severe sickle cell disease and a history of at least two vaso-occlusive crises per year over the past 2 years.

Participants underwent cell CD34+ stem cell collection. These cells then underwent gene editing using CRISPR technology, explained Dr. Frangoul.

At the transplant center, patients received myeloablative conditioning chemotherapy with busulfan for 4 days before receiving an exa-cel infusion.

At the data cutoff in June 2023, 44 patients had been enrolled, of whom 30 were available for efficacy analysis. The mean age at screening was 22.1 years, and almost half (46.7%) were female. Prior to study recruitment, patients had a mean of 3.9 vaso-occlusive crises per year and a mean of 2.7 inpatient hospitalizations per year for severe vaso-occlusive crisis.

All but one patient (96.7%) met the primary endpoint of freedom from severe vaso-occlusive crisis for at least 12 consecutive months. The mean duration of freedom from vaso-occlusive crisis was 22.4 months, ranging from 14.8 months to 45.5 months. Moreover, 28 of the 29 patients who remained crisis-free at 12 months did not have a further vaso-occlusive crisis throughout the rest of the follow-up period.

Dr. Frangoul noted that results were similar for both adults and adolescents.

Exa-cel also led to a significant increase in freedom from inpatient hospitalizations, with 100% of patients achieving that goal, as well as early and sustained increases in both total and fetal hemoglobin levels, suggesting a “long-term meaningful benefit” from the therapy.

All 44 patients experienced adverse events related to myeloablative conditioning with busulfan, but only 29.5% had events linked to exa-cel. The most common adverse events overall were nausea (70.5%), stomatitis (63.6%), vomiting (56.8%), and febrile neutropenia (54.5%).

In a separate poster presented at ASH, Akshay Sharma, MBBS, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, Dr. Frangoul, and colleagues reported that exa-cel also led to better health-related quality of life. 

Patients showed “substantial improvements” in measures of quality of life, which included physical, emotional, social, and functional well-being as well as pain at a 6-month follow-up through year 2.

Typical outcomes studied in most trials are “emergency room visits and hospitalizations but what people may not appreciate as much is how much these patients are dealing with pain and discomfort at home,” Dr. O’Brien said. These recently reported quality-of-life metrics “are so key and really help us understand the impact” of this new therapy.

Dr. O’Brien noted, however, that “patients may be reluctant to undergo” this therapy because of the impact myeloablative conditioning has on fertility. That is why ongoing research on how stem cell transplants can be delivered “without impacting fertility is very important.”

It is “hard to know,” Dr. O’Brien explained, whether exa-cel will be a one-time treatment in practice, as many of the patients “already have end-organ damage from their disease.” 

To that end, Dr. Frangoul noted that patients who complete the current trial can enroll in one that will include 13 years of additional follow-up.

Finally, Dr. O’Brien cautioned, gene therapies such as exa-cel “are only going to apply to a small segment of the population” — patients with the most severe form of the disease. That’s why “it’s important that we still prioritize hydroxyurea [and] multidisciplinary care for patients with sickle cell disease,” she said.

The study was sponsored by Vertex Pharmaceuticals in collaboration with CRISPR Therapeutics. Dr. Frangoul declared relationships with Editas Medicine, Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, CRISPR Therapeutics, Bluebird Bio, and others. Dr. Sharma declared relationships with Vertex Pharmaceuticals, CRISPR Therapeutics, and others. Other authors declare numerous financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved two gene-editing therapies for patients aged 12 years or older with severe sickle cell disease.

One therapy — exagamglogene autotemcel or exa-cel (Casgevy) — is the first to use CRISPR gene-editing technology, and could “provide a one-time functional cure to patients with sickle cell disease,” said Haydar Frangoul, MD, of The Children’s Hospital at TriStar Centennial, Nashville, Tennessee.

Dr. Frangoul, who presented a recent interim analysis on the therapy at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) annual meeting earlier this month, reported that one infusion of exa-cel prompted rapid increases in total hemoglobin levels and almost completely eliminated a common and painful complication of sickle cell disease that can lead to irreversible organ damage, known as vaso-occlusive crisis.

Overall, the gene therapy led to “a rapid, robust, and durable increase in total hemoglobin to normal or near normal levels,” Dr. Frangoul said.

Exa-cel, from Vertex Pharmaceuticals and CRISPR Therapeutics, is a single-dose infusion containing a patient’s modified cells. First, a patient’s stem cells are harvested and then genetically modified to produce fetal hemoglobin. 

The development of exa-cel was “grounded in human genetics, which show that fetal hemoglobin can substitute for sickle hemoglobin,” Dr. Frangoul explained. Patients receive these edited cells, which then help restore normal hemoglobin production.

The analysis showed that a one-time infusion of exa-cel following myeloablative conditioning prevented vaso-occlusive crisis in all but one patient with severe sickle cell disease. The therapy also prevented inpatient hospitalizations for vaso-occlusive crisis in all patients and led to sustained improvements in quality of life.

The results are “really striking,” said Sarah H. O’Brien, MD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, who was not involved in the research. “The majority of our admissions on the hematology service are our patients with sickle cell. They’re uncomfortable, they’re in pain, they’re missing school, and they’re missing their activities,” which makes these interim findings quite “impactful.”

To examine the impact of exa-cel on vaso-occlusive crisis, the phase 3 trial included individuals aged 12 to 35 years with severe sickle cell disease and a history of at least two vaso-occlusive crises per year over the past 2 years.

Participants underwent cell CD34+ stem cell collection. These cells then underwent gene editing using CRISPR technology, explained Dr. Frangoul.

At the transplant center, patients received myeloablative conditioning chemotherapy with busulfan for 4 days before receiving an exa-cel infusion.

At the data cutoff in June 2023, 44 patients had been enrolled, of whom 30 were available for efficacy analysis. The mean age at screening was 22.1 years, and almost half (46.7%) were female. Prior to study recruitment, patients had a mean of 3.9 vaso-occlusive crises per year and a mean of 2.7 inpatient hospitalizations per year for severe vaso-occlusive crisis.

All but one patient (96.7%) met the primary endpoint of freedom from severe vaso-occlusive crisis for at least 12 consecutive months. The mean duration of freedom from vaso-occlusive crisis was 22.4 months, ranging from 14.8 months to 45.5 months. Moreover, 28 of the 29 patients who remained crisis-free at 12 months did not have a further vaso-occlusive crisis throughout the rest of the follow-up period.

Dr. Frangoul noted that results were similar for both adults and adolescents.

Exa-cel also led to a significant increase in freedom from inpatient hospitalizations, with 100% of patients achieving that goal, as well as early and sustained increases in both total and fetal hemoglobin levels, suggesting a “long-term meaningful benefit” from the therapy.

All 44 patients experienced adverse events related to myeloablative conditioning with busulfan, but only 29.5% had events linked to exa-cel. The most common adverse events overall were nausea (70.5%), stomatitis (63.6%), vomiting (56.8%), and febrile neutropenia (54.5%).

In a separate poster presented at ASH, Akshay Sharma, MBBS, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, Dr. Frangoul, and colleagues reported that exa-cel also led to better health-related quality of life. 

Patients showed “substantial improvements” in measures of quality of life, which included physical, emotional, social, and functional well-being as well as pain at a 6-month follow-up through year 2.

Typical outcomes studied in most trials are “emergency room visits and hospitalizations but what people may not appreciate as much is how much these patients are dealing with pain and discomfort at home,” Dr. O’Brien said. These recently reported quality-of-life metrics “are so key and really help us understand the impact” of this new therapy.

Dr. O’Brien noted, however, that “patients may be reluctant to undergo” this therapy because of the impact myeloablative conditioning has on fertility. That is why ongoing research on how stem cell transplants can be delivered “without impacting fertility is very important.”

It is “hard to know,” Dr. O’Brien explained, whether exa-cel will be a one-time treatment in practice, as many of the patients “already have end-organ damage from their disease.” 

To that end, Dr. Frangoul noted that patients who complete the current trial can enroll in one that will include 13 years of additional follow-up.

Finally, Dr. O’Brien cautioned, gene therapies such as exa-cel “are only going to apply to a small segment of the population” — patients with the most severe form of the disease. That’s why “it’s important that we still prioritize hydroxyurea [and] multidisciplinary care for patients with sickle cell disease,” she said.

The study was sponsored by Vertex Pharmaceuticals in collaboration with CRISPR Therapeutics. Dr. Frangoul declared relationships with Editas Medicine, Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, CRISPR Therapeutics, Bluebird Bio, and others. Dr. Sharma declared relationships with Vertex Pharmaceuticals, CRISPR Therapeutics, and others. Other authors declare numerous financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VANCOUVER — Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, like semaglutide, liraglutide, and the newly US Food and Drug Administration–approved tirzepatide, not only are gaining popularity among the public for weight loss but also are the focus of considerable attention from gastroenterology researchers.

The robust interest in GLP-1 agonists was on full display here at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology, with investigators sharing results on which agent is most effective for weight loss, how they compare to bariatric surgery for weight loss or prevention of metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease, and their potential role to prevent regain after weight-loss surgery.
 

Head-to-Head Comparison

Tirzepatide 15 mg emerged as superior to other GLP-1 agonists for weight loss, for example, in a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials looking into obesity management.

Tirzepatide 15 mg was associated with the most effective mean weight loss at just over 15% when Jena Velji-Ibrahim, MD, and colleagues combined data from 14 studies with 18,714 participants with overweight or obesity but without diabetes.

Next up in order of weight-loss efficacy was tirzepatide 10 mg with 13% mean weight loss, semaglutide 2.4 mg with just over 11% mean weight loss, and tirzepatide 5 mg with almost 10% mean weight loss. The only outlier was dulaglutide 0.75 mg, which was linked to about 8% weight gain.

“While clinical trials have been conducted to assess the weight-loss efficacy of GLP-1 agonists, there has been limited head-to-head comparisons, and the data that has been obtained has been quite inconsistent,” Dr. Velji-Ibrahim said when presenting results at the meeting.

Researchers found little difference in efficacies between tirzepatide 15 mg and 10 mg, suggesting both are a viable option for weight loss, said Dr. Velji-Ibrahim of Prisma Health Greenville Memorial Hospital and University of South Carolina School of Medicine in Greenville.

She also reported similar efficacies between oral semaglutide 50 mg and subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg, “meaning that we have another option for weight management.”

Side effects among the different GLP-1 agonists, and among the same agent at different doses, were not significantly different.
 

Comparison With Bariatric Surgery for Reducing Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events (MACE)

For many years, bariatric surgeons have pointed to the health benefits of weight-loss surgery in the right candidates, including a reduced risk for adverse cardiovascular events.

The weight loss associated with GLP-1 agonists has likewise shown benefits in reducing MACE. However, it remains unclear if one of these weight-loss strategies is better than the other in reducing these outcomes.

To determine this, researchers compared 118,828 people who had bariatric surgery to another propensity-matched group of 118,828 others prescribed GLP-1 agonists. They included adults with a body mass index (BMI) of 35 or higher in the national TriNetX database.

The multicenter, retrospective study revealed bariatric surgery was superior in reducing the risk for heart failure, MACE, and cerebrovascular disease at 3, 5, 7, and 10 years. At 10 years, for example, bariatric surgery was associated with 31% fewer composite cardiovascular events than the GLP-1 agonists.

“Our results suggest that bariatric surgery is more effective than GLP-1 analogs in preventing adverse cardiovascular events in obese patients,” Ayowumi A. Adekolu, MD, an internal medicine resident at West Virginia School of Medicine in Morgantown, said in audio comments accompanying his ePoster at the meeting. “Although these findings highlight the benefit of bariatric surgery in mitigating adverse cardiovascular events, well-designed prospective studies are necessary to confirm these benefits in this patient population.”

Possible Role in Fatty Liver Disease Prevention
 

In another large multicenter study from the same institution, Ethan M. Cohen, MD, along with co-author Dr. Adekolu and others, compared the effectiveness of bariatric surgery to GLP-1 agonists for preventing nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Since the study was conducted, the official name of NAFLD has changed to metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease.

Dr. Cohen and colleagues evaluated data from the TriNetX database and included adults with a BMI of 35 or higher. They propensity matched 124,022 people who had sleeve gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass to another 124,022 others prescribed GLP-1 agonists. Again, they looked at outcomes at 3, 5, 7, and 10 years.

They found bariatric surgery superior to GLP-1 agonists for reducing the risk of developing NAFLD. Relative risk reduction was 25% at 3 years, 28% at 5 years, 27% at 7 years, and 26% at 10 years.

Although not to the same extent as surgery in this study, GLP-1–associated weight loss did reduce risks as well.

“An important aspect of this is that for some of these people, bariatric surgery is not even an option,” Dr. Cohen said in an interview, citing as an example those who do not meet the criteria for surgery.

Dr. Cohen and colleagues plan to continue the study with a larger number of participants.
 

Real-World Weight Regain

In another instance where a surgical procedure trumped GLP-1 agonists, revisional endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) offered significantly higher weight loss than GLP-1 agonists among people who regained weight following initial weight-loss surgery, according to a case-control real-world study presented at the meeting.

“Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy [LSG] is a frequently performed bariatric surgery worldwide resulting in significant weight loss and improvement in obesity-related comorbidities,” said Firas Bahdi, MD, gastroenterology fellow at the David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles. “Despite its success, around one third of patients, unfortunately, develop weight regain warranting intervention.”

Dr. Bahdi and colleagues retrospectively studied 68 adults prescribed subcutaneous semaglutide or tirzepatide after LSG, another 20 who had ESG for weight regain after LSG, and 87 controls with intact stomachs who also took GLP-1 agonists for weight loss.

They found that the ESG group experienced a significantly higher percentage of total body weight loss at 3 months than the GLP-1 group (10% vs 4.3%, respectively; P = .0001). Similarly, at the 6-month follow-up, the ESG group experienced 11.5% total body weight loss compared to 6.8% in the GLP-1 group (P = .03).

The GLP-1 after LSG group still fared better than the GLP-1 control group of people who never had surgery. Total body weight loss was 4.3% vs 5.7% at 3 months (P = .02), 6.8% vs 9.2% at 6 months (P = .02), and 9.2% vs 12.7% at 12 months (P = .03).

“In this real-world experience, revisional ESG offers significantly more weight loss than GLP-1 agonists for patients with weight regain, while also avoiding the challenges of medication refills, making it an attractive option,” Dr. Bahdi said.

Future multicenter studies are warranted to confirm these results and explore physiological explanations, he added.

The study received an Outstanding Research Award in the Obesity Category (Trainee).

Dr. Velji-Ibrahim, Dr. Adekolu, Dr. Cohen, and Dr. Bahdi indicated no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VANCOUVER — Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, like semaglutide, liraglutide, and the newly US Food and Drug Administration–approved tirzepatide, not only are gaining popularity among the public for weight loss but also are the focus of considerable attention from gastroenterology researchers.

The robust interest in GLP-1 agonists was on full display here at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology, with investigators sharing results on which agent is most effective for weight loss, how they compare to bariatric surgery for weight loss or prevention of metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease, and their potential role to prevent regain after weight-loss surgery.
 

Head-to-Head Comparison

Tirzepatide 15 mg emerged as superior to other GLP-1 agonists for weight loss, for example, in a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials looking into obesity management.

Tirzepatide 15 mg was associated with the most effective mean weight loss at just over 15% when Jena Velji-Ibrahim, MD, and colleagues combined data from 14 studies with 18,714 participants with overweight or obesity but without diabetes.

Next up in order of weight-loss efficacy was tirzepatide 10 mg with 13% mean weight loss, semaglutide 2.4 mg with just over 11% mean weight loss, and tirzepatide 5 mg with almost 10% mean weight loss. The only outlier was dulaglutide 0.75 mg, which was linked to about 8% weight gain.

“While clinical trials have been conducted to assess the weight-loss efficacy of GLP-1 agonists, there has been limited head-to-head comparisons, and the data that has been obtained has been quite inconsistent,” Dr. Velji-Ibrahim said when presenting results at the meeting.

Researchers found little difference in efficacies between tirzepatide 15 mg and 10 mg, suggesting both are a viable option for weight loss, said Dr. Velji-Ibrahim of Prisma Health Greenville Memorial Hospital and University of South Carolina School of Medicine in Greenville.

She also reported similar efficacies between oral semaglutide 50 mg and subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg, “meaning that we have another option for weight management.”

Side effects among the different GLP-1 agonists, and among the same agent at different doses, were not significantly different.
 

Comparison With Bariatric Surgery for Reducing Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events (MACE)

For many years, bariatric surgeons have pointed to the health benefits of weight-loss surgery in the right candidates, including a reduced risk for adverse cardiovascular events.

The weight loss associated with GLP-1 agonists has likewise shown benefits in reducing MACE. However, it remains unclear if one of these weight-loss strategies is better than the other in reducing these outcomes.

To determine this, researchers compared 118,828 people who had bariatric surgery to another propensity-matched group of 118,828 others prescribed GLP-1 agonists. They included adults with a body mass index (BMI) of 35 or higher in the national TriNetX database.

The multicenter, retrospective study revealed bariatric surgery was superior in reducing the risk for heart failure, MACE, and cerebrovascular disease at 3, 5, 7, and 10 years. At 10 years, for example, bariatric surgery was associated with 31% fewer composite cardiovascular events than the GLP-1 agonists.

“Our results suggest that bariatric surgery is more effective than GLP-1 analogs in preventing adverse cardiovascular events in obese patients,” Ayowumi A. Adekolu, MD, an internal medicine resident at West Virginia School of Medicine in Morgantown, said in audio comments accompanying his ePoster at the meeting. “Although these findings highlight the benefit of bariatric surgery in mitigating adverse cardiovascular events, well-designed prospective studies are necessary to confirm these benefits in this patient population.”

Possible Role in Fatty Liver Disease Prevention
 

In another large multicenter study from the same institution, Ethan M. Cohen, MD, along with co-author Dr. Adekolu and others, compared the effectiveness of bariatric surgery to GLP-1 agonists for preventing nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Since the study was conducted, the official name of NAFLD has changed to metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease.

Dr. Cohen and colleagues evaluated data from the TriNetX database and included adults with a BMI of 35 or higher. They propensity matched 124,022 people who had sleeve gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass to another 124,022 others prescribed GLP-1 agonists. Again, they looked at outcomes at 3, 5, 7, and 10 years.

They found bariatric surgery superior to GLP-1 agonists for reducing the risk of developing NAFLD. Relative risk reduction was 25% at 3 years, 28% at 5 years, 27% at 7 years, and 26% at 10 years.

Although not to the same extent as surgery in this study, GLP-1–associated weight loss did reduce risks as well.

“An important aspect of this is that for some of these people, bariatric surgery is not even an option,” Dr. Cohen said in an interview, citing as an example those who do not meet the criteria for surgery.

Dr. Cohen and colleagues plan to continue the study with a larger number of participants.
 

Real-World Weight Regain

In another instance where a surgical procedure trumped GLP-1 agonists, revisional endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) offered significantly higher weight loss than GLP-1 agonists among people who regained weight following initial weight-loss surgery, according to a case-control real-world study presented at the meeting.

“Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy [LSG] is a frequently performed bariatric surgery worldwide resulting in significant weight loss and improvement in obesity-related comorbidities,” said Firas Bahdi, MD, gastroenterology fellow at the David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles. “Despite its success, around one third of patients, unfortunately, develop weight regain warranting intervention.”

Dr. Bahdi and colleagues retrospectively studied 68 adults prescribed subcutaneous semaglutide or tirzepatide after LSG, another 20 who had ESG for weight regain after LSG, and 87 controls with intact stomachs who also took GLP-1 agonists for weight loss.

They found that the ESG group experienced a significantly higher percentage of total body weight loss at 3 months than the GLP-1 group (10% vs 4.3%, respectively; P = .0001). Similarly, at the 6-month follow-up, the ESG group experienced 11.5% total body weight loss compared to 6.8% in the GLP-1 group (P = .03).

The GLP-1 after LSG group still fared better than the GLP-1 control group of people who never had surgery. Total body weight loss was 4.3% vs 5.7% at 3 months (P = .02), 6.8% vs 9.2% at 6 months (P = .02), and 9.2% vs 12.7% at 12 months (P = .03).

“In this real-world experience, revisional ESG offers significantly more weight loss than GLP-1 agonists for patients with weight regain, while also avoiding the challenges of medication refills, making it an attractive option,” Dr. Bahdi said.

Future multicenter studies are warranted to confirm these results and explore physiological explanations, he added.

The study received an Outstanding Research Award in the Obesity Category (Trainee).

Dr. Velji-Ibrahim, Dr. Adekolu, Dr. Cohen, and Dr. Bahdi indicated no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VANCOUVER — Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, like semaglutide, liraglutide, and the newly US Food and Drug Administration–approved tirzepatide, not only are gaining popularity among the public for weight loss but also are the focus of considerable attention from gastroenterology researchers.

The robust interest in GLP-1 agonists was on full display here at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology, with investigators sharing results on which agent is most effective for weight loss, how they compare to bariatric surgery for weight loss or prevention of metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease, and their potential role to prevent regain after weight-loss surgery.
 

Head-to-Head Comparison

Tirzepatide 15 mg emerged as superior to other GLP-1 agonists for weight loss, for example, in a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials looking into obesity management.

Tirzepatide 15 mg was associated with the most effective mean weight loss at just over 15% when Jena Velji-Ibrahim, MD, and colleagues combined data from 14 studies with 18,714 participants with overweight or obesity but without diabetes.

Next up in order of weight-loss efficacy was tirzepatide 10 mg with 13% mean weight loss, semaglutide 2.4 mg with just over 11% mean weight loss, and tirzepatide 5 mg with almost 10% mean weight loss. The only outlier was dulaglutide 0.75 mg, which was linked to about 8% weight gain.

“While clinical trials have been conducted to assess the weight-loss efficacy of GLP-1 agonists, there has been limited head-to-head comparisons, and the data that has been obtained has been quite inconsistent,” Dr. Velji-Ibrahim said when presenting results at the meeting.

Researchers found little difference in efficacies between tirzepatide 15 mg and 10 mg, suggesting both are a viable option for weight loss, said Dr. Velji-Ibrahim of Prisma Health Greenville Memorial Hospital and University of South Carolina School of Medicine in Greenville.

She also reported similar efficacies between oral semaglutide 50 mg and subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg, “meaning that we have another option for weight management.”

Side effects among the different GLP-1 agonists, and among the same agent at different doses, were not significantly different.
 

Comparison With Bariatric Surgery for Reducing Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events (MACE)

For many years, bariatric surgeons have pointed to the health benefits of weight-loss surgery in the right candidates, including a reduced risk for adverse cardiovascular events.

The weight loss associated with GLP-1 agonists has likewise shown benefits in reducing MACE. However, it remains unclear if one of these weight-loss strategies is better than the other in reducing these outcomes.

To determine this, researchers compared 118,828 people who had bariatric surgery to another propensity-matched group of 118,828 others prescribed GLP-1 agonists. They included adults with a body mass index (BMI) of 35 or higher in the national TriNetX database.

The multicenter, retrospective study revealed bariatric surgery was superior in reducing the risk for heart failure, MACE, and cerebrovascular disease at 3, 5, 7, and 10 years. At 10 years, for example, bariatric surgery was associated with 31% fewer composite cardiovascular events than the GLP-1 agonists.

“Our results suggest that bariatric surgery is more effective than GLP-1 analogs in preventing adverse cardiovascular events in obese patients,” Ayowumi A. Adekolu, MD, an internal medicine resident at West Virginia School of Medicine in Morgantown, said in audio comments accompanying his ePoster at the meeting. “Although these findings highlight the benefit of bariatric surgery in mitigating adverse cardiovascular events, well-designed prospective studies are necessary to confirm these benefits in this patient population.”

Possible Role in Fatty Liver Disease Prevention
 

In another large multicenter study from the same institution, Ethan M. Cohen, MD, along with co-author Dr. Adekolu and others, compared the effectiveness of bariatric surgery to GLP-1 agonists for preventing nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Since the study was conducted, the official name of NAFLD has changed to metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease.

Dr. Cohen and colleagues evaluated data from the TriNetX database and included adults with a BMI of 35 or higher. They propensity matched 124,022 people who had sleeve gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass to another 124,022 others prescribed GLP-1 agonists. Again, they looked at outcomes at 3, 5, 7, and 10 years.

They found bariatric surgery superior to GLP-1 agonists for reducing the risk of developing NAFLD. Relative risk reduction was 25% at 3 years, 28% at 5 years, 27% at 7 years, and 26% at 10 years.

Although not to the same extent as surgery in this study, GLP-1–associated weight loss did reduce risks as well.

“An important aspect of this is that for some of these people, bariatric surgery is not even an option,” Dr. Cohen said in an interview, citing as an example those who do not meet the criteria for surgery.

Dr. Cohen and colleagues plan to continue the study with a larger number of participants.
 

Real-World Weight Regain

In another instance where a surgical procedure trumped GLP-1 agonists, revisional endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) offered significantly higher weight loss than GLP-1 agonists among people who regained weight following initial weight-loss surgery, according to a case-control real-world study presented at the meeting.

“Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy [LSG] is a frequently performed bariatric surgery worldwide resulting in significant weight loss and improvement in obesity-related comorbidities,” said Firas Bahdi, MD, gastroenterology fellow at the David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles. “Despite its success, around one third of patients, unfortunately, develop weight regain warranting intervention.”

Dr. Bahdi and colleagues retrospectively studied 68 adults prescribed subcutaneous semaglutide or tirzepatide after LSG, another 20 who had ESG for weight regain after LSG, and 87 controls with intact stomachs who also took GLP-1 agonists for weight loss.

They found that the ESG group experienced a significantly higher percentage of total body weight loss at 3 months than the GLP-1 group (10% vs 4.3%, respectively; P = .0001). Similarly, at the 6-month follow-up, the ESG group experienced 11.5% total body weight loss compared to 6.8% in the GLP-1 group (P = .03).

The GLP-1 after LSG group still fared better than the GLP-1 control group of people who never had surgery. Total body weight loss was 4.3% vs 5.7% at 3 months (P = .02), 6.8% vs 9.2% at 6 months (P = .02), and 9.2% vs 12.7% at 12 months (P = .03).

“In this real-world experience, revisional ESG offers significantly more weight loss than GLP-1 agonists for patients with weight regain, while also avoiding the challenges of medication refills, making it an attractive option,” Dr. Bahdi said.

Future multicenter studies are warranted to confirm these results and explore physiological explanations, he added.

The study received an Outstanding Research Award in the Obesity Category (Trainee).

Dr. Velji-Ibrahim, Dr. Adekolu, Dr. Cohen, and Dr. Bahdi indicated no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Pediatric rheumatologists are calling a “Code (p)RED” — a pediatric rheumatology educational deficit.

There are too few pediatric rheumatologists to meet patient demand in the United States, and projections suggest that gap will continue to widen. Disappointing match trends also reflect issues with recruitment: Since 2019, only 50%-75% of pediatric rheumatology fellowship positions have been filled each year. For 2024, the subspecialty filled 32 of 52 positions.

University of Minnesota

Lack of exposure during medical school and residency, financial concerns, and a lengthy, research-focused fellowship are seen as major contributors to the workforce shortage, and novel solutions are needed to close the gap, experts argued in a recent presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“It’s so important now to get ahead of this because what I’m afraid of is in 10-20 years, we’re not going to have a field,” Colleen Correll, MD, MPH, an associate professor in the division of pediatric rheumatology at the University of Minnesota Medical School in Minneapolis, told this news organization.
 

Growing Demand, Falling Supply

Because the subspecialty was officially recognized by the American Board of Pediatrics in 1991, “it’s always been a small group of providers,” Dr. Correll said. “It’s honestly always been a recognized issue in our field.”

But a 2022 report by the ACR on the pediatric workforce has brought more attention to the issue. Dr. Correll led the study and is the chair of ACR›s Pediatric Rheumatology Committee. According to the report, an estimated 287 pediatric rheumatologists were working as full-time clinicians in 2015, while the estimated demand was 382 providers. By 2030, this projected supply of pediatric rheumatologists fell to 261, while demand rose to 461 full-time providers.

The distribution of pediatric rheumatologists is also an issue. It’s generally thought that there should be at least one pediatric rheumatologist per 100,000 children, Dr. Correll explained. According to ACR estimates, the northeast region had approximately 0.83 pediatric rheumatologists per 100,000 in 2015, while the south central and southwest regions had 0.17 and 0.20 providers per 100,000 children, respectively. Projected estimates for 2030 dipped to 0.04 or lower for the south central, southwest, and southeast regions.

A separate study from the American Board of Pediatrics, also led by Dr. Correll, that is still under review offered more optimistic projections, suggesting that there would be a 75% increase in pediatric rheumatologists from 0.27 per 100,000 children in 2020 to 0.47 per 100,000 children in 2040.

“This does look better than the ACR study, though 0.47 is still a really small number and an inadequate number to treat our children in need,” she said during her presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
 

Lack of Exposure During Medical Education

Few medical schools have pediatric rheumatology built into their curriculum, whether that is a whole course or a single lecture, said Jay Mehta, MD, who directs the pediatric rheumatology fellowship at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Dr. Mehta, for example, did not know that pediatric rheumatology was a field before entering residency, he said. But residencies can also lack exposure: An estimated one third of residencies do not have a single pediatric rheumatologist on staff, he said.

Children&#039;s Hospital of Philadelphia

“Those are places where people aren’t necessarily getting exposure to pediatric rheumatology,” he told this news organization, “and we know that if you’re not exposed to a field, it’s very, very unlikely that you will go into that field.”

The ACR’s Pediatric Rheumatology Residency Program is one way that the organization is working to address this issue. The program sends pediatric residents with an interest in rheumatology to the ACR annual meeting. The Rheumatology Research Foundation also runs a visiting professorship program, where a pediatric rheumatologist conducts a rheumatology education forum at an institution with no pediatric rheumatology program.

“I’ve done it a couple of times,” Dr. Mehta said during his presentation at the annual meeting. “It’s one of the most rewarding things I’ve done.”
 

Financial Concerns

Additionally, although pediatric rheumatology requires more training, these subspecialists will likely make less than their general pediatric colleagues over their career. According to one study in Pediatrics, a pediatric resident pursuing rheumatology is projected to make $1.2 million dollars less over the course of their career compared with someone who started their career in general pediatrics immediately after residency. (Negative financial returns were also found for all pediatric subspecialities except for cardiology, critical care, and neonatology.)

This lower earning potential is likely a deterrent, especially for those with educational debt. In one analysis published in October, medical students with at least $200,000 in education debt were 43% more likely to go into higher-paying pediatric subspecialities than those with no debt. Nearly three out of four medical graduates have education debt, according to the American Association of Medical Colleges, with a median debt of $200,000.

While the Pediatric Specialty Loan Repayment Program was specifically designed to aid pediatric subspecialists with their educational debt, qualifying for the program is difficult for pediatric rheumatologists, explained Kristen N. Hayward, MD, of Seattle Children’s in Washington. The program provides up to $100,000 in loan forgiveness in exchange for 3 years of practicing in an underserved area; however, the program stipulates that providers must provide full-time (40 hours per week) clinical care. At academic institutions, where most pediatric rheumatologists practice, there is usually a research component to their position, and even if a provider works the equivalent of 40 hours per week in a clinic in addition to their research, they don’t qualify for the program, Dr. Hayward said.

“It’s very difficult to find someone who’s actually only doing clinical work,” she said.

The ACR has worked to combat some of these economic constraints by demonstrating the direct and downstream value of rheumatologic care, Dr. Hayward said. In a recent white paper, it was estimated that including office visits, consultations, lab testing, and radiology services, one full-time equivalent rheumatologist generates $3.5 million in revenue every year and saves health systems more than $2700 per patient per year.

In addition to placing greater value on rheumatologic care, the healthcare system also needs to recognize the current nonbillable hours that pediatric rheumatologists spend taking care of patients, Dr. Hayward noted.

Especially with electronic medical records (EMRs) and online communication with patients, “there is increasingly a lot of patient care that happens outside of clinic and that takes a lot of time,” Dr. Hayward said. For example, she spends between 1 and 2 hours every day in the EMR refilling medications and responding to patient concerns, and “that all is done in my spare time,” she said. “That’s not billed to the patient in anyway.”
 

Length of Fellowship

The pediatric rheumatology fellowship is a 3-year program — like other pediatric subspecialities — with a research requirement. By comparison, adult rheumatology fellowships are 2 years, and fellows can pursue additional research training if they have a strong interest.

“It sounds like just 1 more year, but I think it’s coming at a really pivotal point in people’s lives, and that 1 year can make a huge difference,” Dr. Hayward explained.

The 2 years of research might also be a deterrent for individuals who know they are only interested in clinical work, she added. About half of pediatric subspecialists only pursue clinical work after graduation, according to a recent report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) focused on the future pediatric physician workforce.

Additionally, only 17% of pediatric rheumatologists spend more than half of their time in research, said Fred Rivara, MD, MPH, chair of the NASEM report, in a statement included in Dr. Hayward’s ACR presentation. The report, which recommended strategies to bolster the pediatric workforce, argued that the American Board of Pediatrics should develop alternative training pathways, including 2-year, clinically heavy fellowships.

The ACR workforce team is also exploring alternative training models like competency-based education, Dr. Hayward said. The Education in Pediatrics Across the Continuum project is already using this approach from medical school to pediatric residency. While this type of outcome-based program has not been tried at the fellowship level, «this has been done, it could be done, and I think we could learn from our colleagues about how they have done this successfully,» she noted.

Ultimately, Dr. Hayward emphasized that there needs to be a “sea change” to close the workforce gap — with multiple interventions addressing these individual challenges.

“Unless we all pitch in and find one way that we can all move this issue forward, we are going to be drowning in a sea of Epic inbox messages,” she said, “and never get to see the patients we want to see.”

Dr. Hayward previously owned stock/stock options for AbbVie/Abbott, Cigna/Express Scripts, Merck, and Teva and has received an educational grant from Pfizer. Dr. Correll and Dr. Mehta had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Pediatric rheumatologists are calling a “Code (p)RED” — a pediatric rheumatology educational deficit.

There are too few pediatric rheumatologists to meet patient demand in the United States, and projections suggest that gap will continue to widen. Disappointing match trends also reflect issues with recruitment: Since 2019, only 50%-75% of pediatric rheumatology fellowship positions have been filled each year. For 2024, the subspecialty filled 32 of 52 positions.

University of Minnesota

Lack of exposure during medical school and residency, financial concerns, and a lengthy, research-focused fellowship are seen as major contributors to the workforce shortage, and novel solutions are needed to close the gap, experts argued in a recent presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“It’s so important now to get ahead of this because what I’m afraid of is in 10-20 years, we’re not going to have a field,” Colleen Correll, MD, MPH, an associate professor in the division of pediatric rheumatology at the University of Minnesota Medical School in Minneapolis, told this news organization.
 

Growing Demand, Falling Supply

Because the subspecialty was officially recognized by the American Board of Pediatrics in 1991, “it’s always been a small group of providers,” Dr. Correll said. “It’s honestly always been a recognized issue in our field.”

But a 2022 report by the ACR on the pediatric workforce has brought more attention to the issue. Dr. Correll led the study and is the chair of ACR›s Pediatric Rheumatology Committee. According to the report, an estimated 287 pediatric rheumatologists were working as full-time clinicians in 2015, while the estimated demand was 382 providers. By 2030, this projected supply of pediatric rheumatologists fell to 261, while demand rose to 461 full-time providers.

The distribution of pediatric rheumatologists is also an issue. It’s generally thought that there should be at least one pediatric rheumatologist per 100,000 children, Dr. Correll explained. According to ACR estimates, the northeast region had approximately 0.83 pediatric rheumatologists per 100,000 in 2015, while the south central and southwest regions had 0.17 and 0.20 providers per 100,000 children, respectively. Projected estimates for 2030 dipped to 0.04 or lower for the south central, southwest, and southeast regions.

A separate study from the American Board of Pediatrics, also led by Dr. Correll, that is still under review offered more optimistic projections, suggesting that there would be a 75% increase in pediatric rheumatologists from 0.27 per 100,000 children in 2020 to 0.47 per 100,000 children in 2040.

“This does look better than the ACR study, though 0.47 is still a really small number and an inadequate number to treat our children in need,” she said during her presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
 

Lack of Exposure During Medical Education

Few medical schools have pediatric rheumatology built into their curriculum, whether that is a whole course or a single lecture, said Jay Mehta, MD, who directs the pediatric rheumatology fellowship at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Dr. Mehta, for example, did not know that pediatric rheumatology was a field before entering residency, he said. But residencies can also lack exposure: An estimated one third of residencies do not have a single pediatric rheumatologist on staff, he said.

Children&#039;s Hospital of Philadelphia

“Those are places where people aren’t necessarily getting exposure to pediatric rheumatology,” he told this news organization, “and we know that if you’re not exposed to a field, it’s very, very unlikely that you will go into that field.”

The ACR’s Pediatric Rheumatology Residency Program is one way that the organization is working to address this issue. The program sends pediatric residents with an interest in rheumatology to the ACR annual meeting. The Rheumatology Research Foundation also runs a visiting professorship program, where a pediatric rheumatologist conducts a rheumatology education forum at an institution with no pediatric rheumatology program.

“I’ve done it a couple of times,” Dr. Mehta said during his presentation at the annual meeting. “It’s one of the most rewarding things I’ve done.”
 

Financial Concerns

Additionally, although pediatric rheumatology requires more training, these subspecialists will likely make less than their general pediatric colleagues over their career. According to one study in Pediatrics, a pediatric resident pursuing rheumatology is projected to make $1.2 million dollars less over the course of their career compared with someone who started their career in general pediatrics immediately after residency. (Negative financial returns were also found for all pediatric subspecialities except for cardiology, critical care, and neonatology.)

This lower earning potential is likely a deterrent, especially for those with educational debt. In one analysis published in October, medical students with at least $200,000 in education debt were 43% more likely to go into higher-paying pediatric subspecialities than those with no debt. Nearly three out of four medical graduates have education debt, according to the American Association of Medical Colleges, with a median debt of $200,000.

While the Pediatric Specialty Loan Repayment Program was specifically designed to aid pediatric subspecialists with their educational debt, qualifying for the program is difficult for pediatric rheumatologists, explained Kristen N. Hayward, MD, of Seattle Children’s in Washington. The program provides up to $100,000 in loan forgiveness in exchange for 3 years of practicing in an underserved area; however, the program stipulates that providers must provide full-time (40 hours per week) clinical care. At academic institutions, where most pediatric rheumatologists practice, there is usually a research component to their position, and even if a provider works the equivalent of 40 hours per week in a clinic in addition to their research, they don’t qualify for the program, Dr. Hayward said.

“It’s very difficult to find someone who’s actually only doing clinical work,” she said.

The ACR has worked to combat some of these economic constraints by demonstrating the direct and downstream value of rheumatologic care, Dr. Hayward said. In a recent white paper, it was estimated that including office visits, consultations, lab testing, and radiology services, one full-time equivalent rheumatologist generates $3.5 million in revenue every year and saves health systems more than $2700 per patient per year.

In addition to placing greater value on rheumatologic care, the healthcare system also needs to recognize the current nonbillable hours that pediatric rheumatologists spend taking care of patients, Dr. Hayward noted.

Especially with electronic medical records (EMRs) and online communication with patients, “there is increasingly a lot of patient care that happens outside of clinic and that takes a lot of time,” Dr. Hayward said. For example, she spends between 1 and 2 hours every day in the EMR refilling medications and responding to patient concerns, and “that all is done in my spare time,” she said. “That’s not billed to the patient in anyway.”
 

Length of Fellowship

The pediatric rheumatology fellowship is a 3-year program — like other pediatric subspecialities — with a research requirement. By comparison, adult rheumatology fellowships are 2 years, and fellows can pursue additional research training if they have a strong interest.

“It sounds like just 1 more year, but I think it’s coming at a really pivotal point in people’s lives, and that 1 year can make a huge difference,” Dr. Hayward explained.

The 2 years of research might also be a deterrent for individuals who know they are only interested in clinical work, she added. About half of pediatric subspecialists only pursue clinical work after graduation, according to a recent report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) focused on the future pediatric physician workforce.

Additionally, only 17% of pediatric rheumatologists spend more than half of their time in research, said Fred Rivara, MD, MPH, chair of the NASEM report, in a statement included in Dr. Hayward’s ACR presentation. The report, which recommended strategies to bolster the pediatric workforce, argued that the American Board of Pediatrics should develop alternative training pathways, including 2-year, clinically heavy fellowships.

The ACR workforce team is also exploring alternative training models like competency-based education, Dr. Hayward said. The Education in Pediatrics Across the Continuum project is already using this approach from medical school to pediatric residency. While this type of outcome-based program has not been tried at the fellowship level, «this has been done, it could be done, and I think we could learn from our colleagues about how they have done this successfully,» she noted.

Ultimately, Dr. Hayward emphasized that there needs to be a “sea change” to close the workforce gap — with multiple interventions addressing these individual challenges.

“Unless we all pitch in and find one way that we can all move this issue forward, we are going to be drowning in a sea of Epic inbox messages,” she said, “and never get to see the patients we want to see.”

Dr. Hayward previously owned stock/stock options for AbbVie/Abbott, Cigna/Express Scripts, Merck, and Teva and has received an educational grant from Pfizer. Dr. Correll and Dr. Mehta had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Pediatric rheumatologists are calling a “Code (p)RED” — a pediatric rheumatology educational deficit.

There are too few pediatric rheumatologists to meet patient demand in the United States, and projections suggest that gap will continue to widen. Disappointing match trends also reflect issues with recruitment: Since 2019, only 50%-75% of pediatric rheumatology fellowship positions have been filled each year. For 2024, the subspecialty filled 32 of 52 positions.

University of Minnesota

Lack of exposure during medical school and residency, financial concerns, and a lengthy, research-focused fellowship are seen as major contributors to the workforce shortage, and novel solutions are needed to close the gap, experts argued in a recent presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“It’s so important now to get ahead of this because what I’m afraid of is in 10-20 years, we’re not going to have a field,” Colleen Correll, MD, MPH, an associate professor in the division of pediatric rheumatology at the University of Minnesota Medical School in Minneapolis, told this news organization.
 

Growing Demand, Falling Supply

Because the subspecialty was officially recognized by the American Board of Pediatrics in 1991, “it’s always been a small group of providers,” Dr. Correll said. “It’s honestly always been a recognized issue in our field.”

But a 2022 report by the ACR on the pediatric workforce has brought more attention to the issue. Dr. Correll led the study and is the chair of ACR›s Pediatric Rheumatology Committee. According to the report, an estimated 287 pediatric rheumatologists were working as full-time clinicians in 2015, while the estimated demand was 382 providers. By 2030, this projected supply of pediatric rheumatologists fell to 261, while demand rose to 461 full-time providers.

The distribution of pediatric rheumatologists is also an issue. It’s generally thought that there should be at least one pediatric rheumatologist per 100,000 children, Dr. Correll explained. According to ACR estimates, the northeast region had approximately 0.83 pediatric rheumatologists per 100,000 in 2015, while the south central and southwest regions had 0.17 and 0.20 providers per 100,000 children, respectively. Projected estimates for 2030 dipped to 0.04 or lower for the south central, southwest, and southeast regions.

A separate study from the American Board of Pediatrics, also led by Dr. Correll, that is still under review offered more optimistic projections, suggesting that there would be a 75% increase in pediatric rheumatologists from 0.27 per 100,000 children in 2020 to 0.47 per 100,000 children in 2040.

“This does look better than the ACR study, though 0.47 is still a really small number and an inadequate number to treat our children in need,” she said during her presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
 

Lack of Exposure During Medical Education

Few medical schools have pediatric rheumatology built into their curriculum, whether that is a whole course or a single lecture, said Jay Mehta, MD, who directs the pediatric rheumatology fellowship at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Dr. Mehta, for example, did not know that pediatric rheumatology was a field before entering residency, he said. But residencies can also lack exposure: An estimated one third of residencies do not have a single pediatric rheumatologist on staff, he said.

Children&#039;s Hospital of Philadelphia

“Those are places where people aren’t necessarily getting exposure to pediatric rheumatology,” he told this news organization, “and we know that if you’re not exposed to a field, it’s very, very unlikely that you will go into that field.”

The ACR’s Pediatric Rheumatology Residency Program is one way that the organization is working to address this issue. The program sends pediatric residents with an interest in rheumatology to the ACR annual meeting. The Rheumatology Research Foundation also runs a visiting professorship program, where a pediatric rheumatologist conducts a rheumatology education forum at an institution with no pediatric rheumatology program.

“I’ve done it a couple of times,” Dr. Mehta said during his presentation at the annual meeting. “It’s one of the most rewarding things I’ve done.”
 

Financial Concerns

Additionally, although pediatric rheumatology requires more training, these subspecialists will likely make less than their general pediatric colleagues over their career. According to one study in Pediatrics, a pediatric resident pursuing rheumatology is projected to make $1.2 million dollars less over the course of their career compared with someone who started their career in general pediatrics immediately after residency. (Negative financial returns were also found for all pediatric subspecialities except for cardiology, critical care, and neonatology.)

This lower earning potential is likely a deterrent, especially for those with educational debt. In one analysis published in October, medical students with at least $200,000 in education debt were 43% more likely to go into higher-paying pediatric subspecialities than those with no debt. Nearly three out of four medical graduates have education debt, according to the American Association of Medical Colleges, with a median debt of $200,000.

While the Pediatric Specialty Loan Repayment Program was specifically designed to aid pediatric subspecialists with their educational debt, qualifying for the program is difficult for pediatric rheumatologists, explained Kristen N. Hayward, MD, of Seattle Children’s in Washington. The program provides up to $100,000 in loan forgiveness in exchange for 3 years of practicing in an underserved area; however, the program stipulates that providers must provide full-time (40 hours per week) clinical care. At academic institutions, where most pediatric rheumatologists practice, there is usually a research component to their position, and even if a provider works the equivalent of 40 hours per week in a clinic in addition to their research, they don’t qualify for the program, Dr. Hayward said.

“It’s very difficult to find someone who’s actually only doing clinical work,” she said.

The ACR has worked to combat some of these economic constraints by demonstrating the direct and downstream value of rheumatologic care, Dr. Hayward said. In a recent white paper, it was estimated that including office visits, consultations, lab testing, and radiology services, one full-time equivalent rheumatologist generates $3.5 million in revenue every year and saves health systems more than $2700 per patient per year.

In addition to placing greater value on rheumatologic care, the healthcare system also needs to recognize the current nonbillable hours that pediatric rheumatologists spend taking care of patients, Dr. Hayward noted.

Especially with electronic medical records (EMRs) and online communication with patients, “there is increasingly a lot of patient care that happens outside of clinic and that takes a lot of time,” Dr. Hayward said. For example, she spends between 1 and 2 hours every day in the EMR refilling medications and responding to patient concerns, and “that all is done in my spare time,” she said. “That’s not billed to the patient in anyway.”
 

Length of Fellowship

The pediatric rheumatology fellowship is a 3-year program — like other pediatric subspecialities — with a research requirement. By comparison, adult rheumatology fellowships are 2 years, and fellows can pursue additional research training if they have a strong interest.

“It sounds like just 1 more year, but I think it’s coming at a really pivotal point in people’s lives, and that 1 year can make a huge difference,” Dr. Hayward explained.

The 2 years of research might also be a deterrent for individuals who know they are only interested in clinical work, she added. About half of pediatric subspecialists only pursue clinical work after graduation, according to a recent report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) focused on the future pediatric physician workforce.

Additionally, only 17% of pediatric rheumatologists spend more than half of their time in research, said Fred Rivara, MD, MPH, chair of the NASEM report, in a statement included in Dr. Hayward’s ACR presentation. The report, which recommended strategies to bolster the pediatric workforce, argued that the American Board of Pediatrics should develop alternative training pathways, including 2-year, clinically heavy fellowships.

The ACR workforce team is also exploring alternative training models like competency-based education, Dr. Hayward said. The Education in Pediatrics Across the Continuum project is already using this approach from medical school to pediatric residency. While this type of outcome-based program has not been tried at the fellowship level, «this has been done, it could be done, and I think we could learn from our colleagues about how they have done this successfully,» she noted.

Ultimately, Dr. Hayward emphasized that there needs to be a “sea change” to close the workforce gap — with multiple interventions addressing these individual challenges.

“Unless we all pitch in and find one way that we can all move this issue forward, we are going to be drowning in a sea of Epic inbox messages,” she said, “and never get to see the patients we want to see.”

Dr. Hayward previously owned stock/stock options for AbbVie/Abbott, Cigna/Express Scripts, Merck, and Teva and has received an educational grant from Pfizer. Dr. Correll and Dr. Mehta had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO — The antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) does not improve survival outcomes compared with the standard of care in older patients with advanced human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive (HER2+) breast cancer, although toxicity is much lower, results from the HERB TEA study show.

Overall, the standard-of-care triple regimen of monoclonal antibodies pertuzumab and trastuzumab plus docetaxel remains the “first-line treatment for HER2-positive advanced breast cancer, regardless of age,” said study author Akihiko Shimomura, MD, PhD, who presented the findings (abstract RF02-04) on December 7 at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

However, he noted that the standard-of-care regimen appears to be “intolerable mentally and physically” in those older than 65 years, and “impairs” quality of life. 

Therefore a “new standard treatment with less toxicity and noninferior efficacy for older patients is needed,” said Dr. Shimomura, Department of Breast and Medical Oncology, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Tokyo.

Dr. Shimomura and colleagues recruited patients aged 65 years or older with advanced HER2+ breast cancer who had received no prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer and had a good performance status.

Patients were randomly assigned to either pertuzumab and trastuzumab plus docetaxel or T-DM1 until disease progression. The planned sample size was 250 patients, but the study was terminated after 148 participants were recruited because an interim analysis showed that T-DM1 failed to show noninferiority.

Among 75 patients assigned to the standard-of-care regimen, the mean age was 71 years, with 64% aged 65-74 years. Sixty-five percent had stage IV disease, and 35% had relapsed. These baseline characteristics were similar among the 73 patients given T-DM1.

At the data cutoff of June 15, 2023, the median progression-free survival was comparable between the two groups, at 15.6 months with the triple therapy vs 11.3 months with T-DM1 (hazard ratio [HR], 1.358; P =.1236).

There was also no significant difference in overall survival between the two groups (HR, 1.263; P =.95322).

However, T-DM1 failed to meet its primary endpoint of noninferiority to pertuzumab and trastuzumab plus docetaxel, defined as a hazard ratio for overall survival of 1.35.

Nevertheless, T-DM1 was associated with significantly less toxicity than the standard-of care-regimen, with rates of grade 3 or worse adverse events of 36.1% vs 56.8%, Shimomura reported.

The most common hematologic adverse events with the triple therapy were leukopenia (34.2%) and neutropenia (52.0%), whereas thrombocytopenia was the most common event with T-DM1 (16.7%).

Liver toxicities were also increased with the antibody-drug conjugate, whereas fatigue, diarrhea, and appetite loss were more frequently seen with the standard-of-care regimen.

Although T-DM1 did not achieve noninferiority, given its lower toxicity profile, a “detailed analysis, including geriatric assessment, is needed to identify the patient population for whom T-DM1 may be used as first line treatment,” said Shimomura.

Virginia Kaklamani, MD, codirector of the SABCS and leader of the Breast Cancer Program at the UT Health San Antonio Cancer Center, Texas, said in an interview that the trial shows T-DM1 could be “a good alternative to our first line therapy in HER2+ metastatic breast cancer” for some patients.

“It is, however, unlikely to change the standard of care due to several changes in the field including the results from the KATHERINE trial and the DESTINY-Breast trials,” she said. 

The study was funded by the Japanese National Cancer Center. Dr. Shimomura declares relationships with Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, AstraZeneca K.K., Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, Eli Lilly Japan K.K., MSD Co. Ltd, Eisai Co. Ltd, Gilead Sciences, and Taiho Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO — The antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) does not improve survival outcomes compared with the standard of care in older patients with advanced human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive (HER2+) breast cancer, although toxicity is much lower, results from the HERB TEA study show.

Overall, the standard-of-care triple regimen of monoclonal antibodies pertuzumab and trastuzumab plus docetaxel remains the “first-line treatment for HER2-positive advanced breast cancer, regardless of age,” said study author Akihiko Shimomura, MD, PhD, who presented the findings (abstract RF02-04) on December 7 at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

However, he noted that the standard-of-care regimen appears to be “intolerable mentally and physically” in those older than 65 years, and “impairs” quality of life. 

Therefore a “new standard treatment with less toxicity and noninferior efficacy for older patients is needed,” said Dr. Shimomura, Department of Breast and Medical Oncology, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Tokyo.

Dr. Shimomura and colleagues recruited patients aged 65 years or older with advanced HER2+ breast cancer who had received no prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer and had a good performance status.

Patients were randomly assigned to either pertuzumab and trastuzumab plus docetaxel or T-DM1 until disease progression. The planned sample size was 250 patients, but the study was terminated after 148 participants were recruited because an interim analysis showed that T-DM1 failed to show noninferiority.

Among 75 patients assigned to the standard-of-care regimen, the mean age was 71 years, with 64% aged 65-74 years. Sixty-five percent had stage IV disease, and 35% had relapsed. These baseline characteristics were similar among the 73 patients given T-DM1.

At the data cutoff of June 15, 2023, the median progression-free survival was comparable between the two groups, at 15.6 months with the triple therapy vs 11.3 months with T-DM1 (hazard ratio [HR], 1.358; P =.1236).

There was also no significant difference in overall survival between the two groups (HR, 1.263; P =.95322).

However, T-DM1 failed to meet its primary endpoint of noninferiority to pertuzumab and trastuzumab plus docetaxel, defined as a hazard ratio for overall survival of 1.35.

Nevertheless, T-DM1 was associated with significantly less toxicity than the standard-of care-regimen, with rates of grade 3 or worse adverse events of 36.1% vs 56.8%, Shimomura reported.

The most common hematologic adverse events with the triple therapy were leukopenia (34.2%) and neutropenia (52.0%), whereas thrombocytopenia was the most common event with T-DM1 (16.7%).

Liver toxicities were also increased with the antibody-drug conjugate, whereas fatigue, diarrhea, and appetite loss were more frequently seen with the standard-of-care regimen.

Although T-DM1 did not achieve noninferiority, given its lower toxicity profile, a “detailed analysis, including geriatric assessment, is needed to identify the patient population for whom T-DM1 may be used as first line treatment,” said Shimomura.

Virginia Kaklamani, MD, codirector of the SABCS and leader of the Breast Cancer Program at the UT Health San Antonio Cancer Center, Texas, said in an interview that the trial shows T-DM1 could be “a good alternative to our first line therapy in HER2+ metastatic breast cancer” for some patients.

“It is, however, unlikely to change the standard of care due to several changes in the field including the results from the KATHERINE trial and the DESTINY-Breast trials,” she said. 

The study was funded by the Japanese National Cancer Center. Dr. Shimomura declares relationships with Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, AstraZeneca K.K., Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, Eli Lilly Japan K.K., MSD Co. Ltd, Eisai Co. Ltd, Gilead Sciences, and Taiho Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO — The antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) does not improve survival outcomes compared with the standard of care in older patients with advanced human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive (HER2+) breast cancer, although toxicity is much lower, results from the HERB TEA study show.

Overall, the standard-of-care triple regimen of monoclonal antibodies pertuzumab and trastuzumab plus docetaxel remains the “first-line treatment for HER2-positive advanced breast cancer, regardless of age,” said study author Akihiko Shimomura, MD, PhD, who presented the findings (abstract RF02-04) on December 7 at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

However, he noted that the standard-of-care regimen appears to be “intolerable mentally and physically” in those older than 65 years, and “impairs” quality of life. 

Therefore a “new standard treatment with less toxicity and noninferior efficacy for older patients is needed,” said Dr. Shimomura, Department of Breast and Medical Oncology, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Tokyo.

Dr. Shimomura and colleagues recruited patients aged 65 years or older with advanced HER2+ breast cancer who had received no prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer and had a good performance status.

Patients were randomly assigned to either pertuzumab and trastuzumab plus docetaxel or T-DM1 until disease progression. The planned sample size was 250 patients, but the study was terminated after 148 participants were recruited because an interim analysis showed that T-DM1 failed to show noninferiority.

Among 75 patients assigned to the standard-of-care regimen, the mean age was 71 years, with 64% aged 65-74 years. Sixty-five percent had stage IV disease, and 35% had relapsed. These baseline characteristics were similar among the 73 patients given T-DM1.

At the data cutoff of June 15, 2023, the median progression-free survival was comparable between the two groups, at 15.6 months with the triple therapy vs 11.3 months with T-DM1 (hazard ratio [HR], 1.358; P =.1236).

There was also no significant difference in overall survival between the two groups (HR, 1.263; P =.95322).

However, T-DM1 failed to meet its primary endpoint of noninferiority to pertuzumab and trastuzumab plus docetaxel, defined as a hazard ratio for overall survival of 1.35.

Nevertheless, T-DM1 was associated with significantly less toxicity than the standard-of care-regimen, with rates of grade 3 or worse adverse events of 36.1% vs 56.8%, Shimomura reported.

The most common hematologic adverse events with the triple therapy were leukopenia (34.2%) and neutropenia (52.0%), whereas thrombocytopenia was the most common event with T-DM1 (16.7%).

Liver toxicities were also increased with the antibody-drug conjugate, whereas fatigue, diarrhea, and appetite loss were more frequently seen with the standard-of-care regimen.

Although T-DM1 did not achieve noninferiority, given its lower toxicity profile, a “detailed analysis, including geriatric assessment, is needed to identify the patient population for whom T-DM1 may be used as first line treatment,” said Shimomura.

Virginia Kaklamani, MD, codirector of the SABCS and leader of the Breast Cancer Program at the UT Health San Antonio Cancer Center, Texas, said in an interview that the trial shows T-DM1 could be “a good alternative to our first line therapy in HER2+ metastatic breast cancer” for some patients.

“It is, however, unlikely to change the standard of care due to several changes in the field including the results from the KATHERINE trial and the DESTINY-Breast trials,” she said. 

The study was funded by the Japanese National Cancer Center. Dr. Shimomura declares relationships with Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, AstraZeneca K.K., Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, Eli Lilly Japan K.K., MSD Co. Ltd, Eisai Co. Ltd, Gilead Sciences, and Taiho Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO — New research provides some reassuring news for young women hoping to become pregnant after a diagnosis of BRCA-mutated breast cancer.

As with other breast cancers, we can now say to BRCA carriers: “Don’t worry. You can get pregnant. You’ll be okay,” said Jame Abraham, MD, chair of Hematology & Medical Oncology at the Cleveland Clinic, who was not involved in the research. 

The analysis, presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, revealed no issue with women becoming pregnant and carrying a healthy baby to term and reported no sign of worse disease outcomes among BRCA carriers following diagnosis and treatment. 

“The final and most important conclusion from our study is that conceiving after proper breast cancer treatment and follow-up should not be contraindicated anymore in young BRCA carriers,” a message of particular importance for oncofertility counseling, lead investigator Matteo Lambertini, MD, a breast cancer oncologist at the University of Genova, Italy, said during his SABCS presentation. 

The study was published December 7 in JAMA to coincide with his presentation.

Although pregnancy after breast cancer is generally considered safe, limited data exist for BRCA carriers in particular, Dr. Lambertini said.

The current analysis represents the largest look into the matter to date. The study included 4732 young women from across the globe who had been diagnosed with stage I-III invasive breast cancer. These women, all BRCA carriers, were 40 years or younger (median age at diagnosis, 35 years).

The team compared outcomes between 659 patients who had at least one pregnancy over a median follow-up of almost 8 years with 4073 women who did not become pregnant. 

Dr. Lambertini and colleagues reported a median time of 3.5 years from breast cancer diagnosis to conception. Overall, about 1 in 5 young BRCA carriers (22%) conceived within 10 years after their breast cancer diagnosis. Of the 80% of patients with a completed pregnancy, 91% delivered at term and only 4 infants (0.9%) had documented congenital anomalies.

In short, “the rate of pregnancy, fetal, and obstetric complications was low and in line with the expectations in a population of women with similar age and no history of breast cancer,” Dr. Lambertini said. The team cautioned, however, that the data was extracted from oncology medical records, which might have underreported maternal and fetal outcomes. 

Disease-free survival was similar among women who became pregnant and those who did not after breast cancer (adjusted HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.81-1.20). 

When looking at the specific BRCA gene, differences did emerge. BRCA1 carriers had better disease-free survival after pregnancy (aHR, 0.80), while BRCA2 carriers appeared to have worse disease-free survival after pregnancy (aHR, 1.55). 

For reasons that remain unclear, the researchers also found that BRCA1 carriers who got pregnant had significantly better breast cancer-specific survival (aHR, 0.59; P < .01) and overall survival (aHR, 0.58; P < .01). These women tended to have HR-negative breast cancer, which the authors also found was associated with improved survival after pregnancy (aHR, 0.76).

It’s possible, the team posited, that hormone receptor status played a role in the observed survival benefit. It’s also possible that these women were healthier overall. 

The overall survival advantage, however, did not extend to BRCA2 carriers, who tended to have hormone receptor-positive disease. Hormone receptor-positive status did not appear to have a significant impact on survival (aHR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.95-1.76).

“While the results appear reassuring for BRCA1 carriers, more caution is needed to counsel BRCA2 carriers, “ the investigators wrote.

The study was funded by the Italian Association for Cancer Research, Gilead, and others. Investigators had numerous ties to industry, including Dr. Lambertini, who is an adviser and speaker for Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, and others. The full list of disclosures can be found with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO — New research provides some reassuring news for young women hoping to become pregnant after a diagnosis of BRCA-mutated breast cancer.

As with other breast cancers, we can now say to BRCA carriers: “Don’t worry. You can get pregnant. You’ll be okay,” said Jame Abraham, MD, chair of Hematology & Medical Oncology at the Cleveland Clinic, who was not involved in the research. 

The analysis, presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, revealed no issue with women becoming pregnant and carrying a healthy baby to term and reported no sign of worse disease outcomes among BRCA carriers following diagnosis and treatment. 

“The final and most important conclusion from our study is that conceiving after proper breast cancer treatment and follow-up should not be contraindicated anymore in young BRCA carriers,” a message of particular importance for oncofertility counseling, lead investigator Matteo Lambertini, MD, a breast cancer oncologist at the University of Genova, Italy, said during his SABCS presentation. 

The study was published December 7 in JAMA to coincide with his presentation.

Although pregnancy after breast cancer is generally considered safe, limited data exist for BRCA carriers in particular, Dr. Lambertini said.

The current analysis represents the largest look into the matter to date. The study included 4732 young women from across the globe who had been diagnosed with stage I-III invasive breast cancer. These women, all BRCA carriers, were 40 years or younger (median age at diagnosis, 35 years).

The team compared outcomes between 659 patients who had at least one pregnancy over a median follow-up of almost 8 years with 4073 women who did not become pregnant. 

Dr. Lambertini and colleagues reported a median time of 3.5 years from breast cancer diagnosis to conception. Overall, about 1 in 5 young BRCA carriers (22%) conceived within 10 years after their breast cancer diagnosis. Of the 80% of patients with a completed pregnancy, 91% delivered at term and only 4 infants (0.9%) had documented congenital anomalies.

In short, “the rate of pregnancy, fetal, and obstetric complications was low and in line with the expectations in a population of women with similar age and no history of breast cancer,” Dr. Lambertini said. The team cautioned, however, that the data was extracted from oncology medical records, which might have underreported maternal and fetal outcomes. 

Disease-free survival was similar among women who became pregnant and those who did not after breast cancer (adjusted HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.81-1.20). 

When looking at the specific BRCA gene, differences did emerge. BRCA1 carriers had better disease-free survival after pregnancy (aHR, 0.80), while BRCA2 carriers appeared to have worse disease-free survival after pregnancy (aHR, 1.55). 

For reasons that remain unclear, the researchers also found that BRCA1 carriers who got pregnant had significantly better breast cancer-specific survival (aHR, 0.59; P < .01) and overall survival (aHR, 0.58; P < .01). These women tended to have HR-negative breast cancer, which the authors also found was associated with improved survival after pregnancy (aHR, 0.76).

It’s possible, the team posited, that hormone receptor status played a role in the observed survival benefit. It’s also possible that these women were healthier overall. 

The overall survival advantage, however, did not extend to BRCA2 carriers, who tended to have hormone receptor-positive disease. Hormone receptor-positive status did not appear to have a significant impact on survival (aHR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.95-1.76).

“While the results appear reassuring for BRCA1 carriers, more caution is needed to counsel BRCA2 carriers, “ the investigators wrote.

The study was funded by the Italian Association for Cancer Research, Gilead, and others. Investigators had numerous ties to industry, including Dr. Lambertini, who is an adviser and speaker for Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, and others. The full list of disclosures can be found with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO — New research provides some reassuring news for young women hoping to become pregnant after a diagnosis of BRCA-mutated breast cancer.

As with other breast cancers, we can now say to BRCA carriers: “Don’t worry. You can get pregnant. You’ll be okay,” said Jame Abraham, MD, chair of Hematology & Medical Oncology at the Cleveland Clinic, who was not involved in the research. 

The analysis, presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, revealed no issue with women becoming pregnant and carrying a healthy baby to term and reported no sign of worse disease outcomes among BRCA carriers following diagnosis and treatment. 

“The final and most important conclusion from our study is that conceiving after proper breast cancer treatment and follow-up should not be contraindicated anymore in young BRCA carriers,” a message of particular importance for oncofertility counseling, lead investigator Matteo Lambertini, MD, a breast cancer oncologist at the University of Genova, Italy, said during his SABCS presentation. 

The study was published December 7 in JAMA to coincide with his presentation.

Although pregnancy after breast cancer is generally considered safe, limited data exist for BRCA carriers in particular, Dr. Lambertini said.

The current analysis represents the largest look into the matter to date. The study included 4732 young women from across the globe who had been diagnosed with stage I-III invasive breast cancer. These women, all BRCA carriers, were 40 years or younger (median age at diagnosis, 35 years).

The team compared outcomes between 659 patients who had at least one pregnancy over a median follow-up of almost 8 years with 4073 women who did not become pregnant. 

Dr. Lambertini and colleagues reported a median time of 3.5 years from breast cancer diagnosis to conception. Overall, about 1 in 5 young BRCA carriers (22%) conceived within 10 years after their breast cancer diagnosis. Of the 80% of patients with a completed pregnancy, 91% delivered at term and only 4 infants (0.9%) had documented congenital anomalies.

In short, “the rate of pregnancy, fetal, and obstetric complications was low and in line with the expectations in a population of women with similar age and no history of breast cancer,” Dr. Lambertini said. The team cautioned, however, that the data was extracted from oncology medical records, which might have underreported maternal and fetal outcomes. 

Disease-free survival was similar among women who became pregnant and those who did not after breast cancer (adjusted HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.81-1.20). 

When looking at the specific BRCA gene, differences did emerge. BRCA1 carriers had better disease-free survival after pregnancy (aHR, 0.80), while BRCA2 carriers appeared to have worse disease-free survival after pregnancy (aHR, 1.55). 

For reasons that remain unclear, the researchers also found that BRCA1 carriers who got pregnant had significantly better breast cancer-specific survival (aHR, 0.59; P < .01) and overall survival (aHR, 0.58; P < .01). These women tended to have HR-negative breast cancer, which the authors also found was associated with improved survival after pregnancy (aHR, 0.76).

It’s possible, the team posited, that hormone receptor status played a role in the observed survival benefit. It’s also possible that these women were healthier overall. 

The overall survival advantage, however, did not extend to BRCA2 carriers, who tended to have hormone receptor-positive disease. Hormone receptor-positive status did not appear to have a significant impact on survival (aHR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.95-1.76).

“While the results appear reassuring for BRCA1 carriers, more caution is needed to counsel BRCA2 carriers, “ the investigators wrote.

The study was funded by the Italian Association for Cancer Research, Gilead, and others. Investigators had numerous ties to industry, including Dr. Lambertini, who is an adviser and speaker for Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, and others. The full list of disclosures can be found with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lebrikizumab, an investigational interleukin-13 inhibitor, showed significant efficacy compared with placebo across racial and ethnic subgroups in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis.

The finding comes from an analysis of the 16-week induction periods of the phase 3 ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials, which Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, presented during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference. The efficacy of lebrikizumab monotherapy to treat moderate-to-severe AD has been established in phase 3 studies, “but disease characteristic and efficacy outcomes may vary among racial and ethnic subgroups,” said Dr. Chovatiya, assistant professor in the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. “The goal of the current study is to report the week 16 efficacy of lebrikizumab-treated patients in racial and ethnic subgroups from ADvocate1 and ADvocate2.”

Dr. Chovatiya

Key eligibility criteria for both trials included adults or adolescents with a diagnosis of AD as defined by the American Academy of Dermatology Consensus Criteria, for at least 1 year prior to screening. They had moderate-to-severe AD, were candidates for systemic therapy, and were dupilumab- and tralokinumab-naive. Outcomes of interest were the Investigator’s Global Assessment 0 or 1, with at least a 2-point improvement; and the proportions of patients who achieved Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI75) and EASI90 responses, and an improvement of 4 points or more on the Pruritus Numeric Rating Scale (NRS).

For statistical analysis, the researchers pooled data from Advocate1 and Advocate2 and applied imputation methodology to the 16-week induction period. Subsequent data from patients who received topical or systemic rescue medication or discontinued treatment due to lack of efficacy were imputed as nonresponders. Subsequent data from patients who discontinued treatment for other reasons were set to missing, and the researchers handled missing data with multiple imputation. They used logistic regression to test the interaction between the treatment and subgroup and the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method to evaluate the treatment effect within each subgroup after adjusting for stratification factors.

Dr. Chovatiya reported findings from the 851 study participants in the combined studies. Of these, 542 were White, 192 were Asian, 84 were Black, and 33 were from other racial subgroups. By ethnic subgroup, 748 were not Hispanic or Latino, 91 were Hispanic or Latino, and ethnicity was unknown or not reported for 12 subjects. At baseline, the mean body mass index was slightly higher among Blacks (30.4 kg/m²) and Hispanics (29.4 kg/m²) compared with other racial and ethnic groups, “which reflects general epidemiologic data among these groups in the United States,” Dr. Chovatiya said. “You can also see a difference in the balance of IGA scores — they were a little bit more severe in the Black or African American and Hispanic groups as well.” The researchers also observed differences in the baseline EASI score across some of these groups, particularly in the Asian individuals, who had higher EASI scores. Prior use of systemic therapy was lower in the Black and “other” subgroups, compared with other racial subgroups.

At week 16, key efficacy endpoints were generally similar between the different racial subgroups. Specifically, 25.1% of Asians in the lebrikizumab treatment group achieved an IGA of 0/1, compared with 4.1% of those in the placebo group (P < .001), while 33.2% of Blacks in the lebrikizumab treatment group achieved an IGA of 0/1, compared with 13.2% of those in the placebo group (no P value was established because this subgroup represented less than 10% of the entire study population). In addition, 43.3% of Whites in the lebrikizumab treatment group achieved an IGA of 0/1, compared with 14.1% of those in the placebo group (P < .001).

In other findings, 45.5% of Asians in the lebrikizumab treatment group achieved an EASI75, compared with 8.5% of those in the placebo group (P < .001), while 51.7% of Blacks in the lebrikizumab treatment group achieved an EASI75, compared with 18.8% of those in the placebo group. Among whites in the lebrikizumab treatment group, 59.7% of achieved an EASI75, compared with 20.4% of those in the placebo group (P < .001).

Dr. Chovatiya said that 26.5% of Asians in the lebrikizumab treatment group achieved an EASI90, compared with 4.3% of those in the placebo group (P < .001), while 26.9% of Blacks in the lebrikizumab treatment group achieved an EASI90, compared with 13.2% of those in the placebo group. In addition, 38.3% of Whites in the lebrikizumab treatment group achieved an EASI90, compared with 10.9% of those in the placebo group (P < .001).

Finally, 36.4% of Asians in the lebrikizumab treatment group achieved a 4-point or greater improvement on the NRS, compared with 5.7% of those in the placebo group (P <. 001), while 41.7% of Blacks in the lebrikizumab treatment group achieved a 4-point or greater improvement on the NRS, compared with 17.4% of those in the placebo group. In addition, 45.9% of Whites in the lebrikizumab treatment group achieved a 4-point or greater improvement on the NRS, compared with 14.8% of those in the placebo group (P < .001). Statistical analyses of efficacy endpoints conducted by ethnic group yielded similar results.

Dr. Chovatiya acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that differences in baseline demographics and disease characteristics limit direct comparison across racial and ethnic subgroups. “Due to the relatively small sample size of some racial and ethnic subgroups and the post hoc nature of this analysis, additional studies are needed to verify these results,” he concluded. But for now, he said, the data available indicate that “lebrikizumab is effective across racial and ethnic subgroups for the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD after 16 weeks of monotherapy treatment.”

The study was funded by Dermira, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly and Company. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he is speaker for and/or a consult and advisory board member to many pharmaceutical companies, including Eli Lilly.

Lebrikizumab, an investigational interleukin-13 inhibitor, showed significant efficacy compared with placebo across racial and ethnic subgroups in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis.

The finding comes from an analysis of the 16-week induction periods of the phase 3 ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials, which Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, presented during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference. The efficacy of lebrikizumab monotherapy to treat moderate-to-severe AD has been established in phase 3 studies, “but disease characteristic and efficacy outcomes may vary among racial and ethnic subgroups,” said Dr. Chovatiya, assistant professor in the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. “The goal of the current study is to report the week 16 efficacy of lebrikizumab-treated patients in racial and ethnic subgroups from ADvocate1 and ADvocate2.”

Dr. Chovatiya

Key eligibility criteria for both trials included adults or adolescents with a diagnosis of AD as defined by the American Academy of Dermatology Consensus Criteria, for at least 1 year prior to screening. They had moderate-to-severe AD, were candidates for systemic therapy, and were dupilumab- and tralokinumab-naive. Outcomes of interest were the Investigator’s Global Assessment 0 or 1, with at least a 2-point improvement; and the proportions of patients who achieved Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI75) and EASI90 responses, and an improvement of 4 points or more on the Pruritus Numeric Rating Scale (NRS).

For statistical analysis, the researchers pooled data from Advocate1 and Advocate2 and applied imputation methodology to the 16-week induction period. Subsequent data from patients who received topical or systemic rescue medication or discontinued treatment due to lack of efficacy were imputed as nonresponders. Subsequent data from patients who discontinued treatment for other reasons were set to missing, and the researchers handled missing data with multiple imputation. They used logistic regression to test the interaction between the treatment and subgroup and the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method to evaluate the treatment effect within each subgroup after adjusting for stratification factors.

Dr. Chovatiya reported findings from the 851 study participants in the combined studies. Of these, 542 were White, 192 were Asian, 84 were Black, and 33 were from other racial subgroups. By ethnic subgroup, 748 were not Hispanic or Latino, 91 were Hispanic or Latino, and ethnicity was unknown or not reported for 12 subjects. At baseline, the mean body mass index was slightly higher among Blacks (30.4 kg/m²) and Hispanics (29.4 kg/m²) compared with other racial and ethnic groups, “which reflects general epidemiologic data among these groups in the United States,” Dr. Chovatiya said. “You can also see a difference in the balance of IGA scores — they were a little bit more severe in the Black or African American and Hispanic groups as well.” The researchers also observed differences in the baseline EASI score across some of these groups, particularly in the Asian individuals, who had higher EASI scores. Prior use of systemic therapy was lower in the Black and “other” subgroups, compared with other racial subgroups.

At week 16, key efficacy endpoints were generally similar between the different racial subgroups. Specifically, 25.1% of Asians in the lebrikizumab treatment group achieved an IGA of 0/1, compared with 4.1% of those in the placebo group (P < .001), while 33.2% of Blacks in the lebrikizumab treatment group achieved an IGA of 0/1, compared with 13.2% of those in the placebo group (no P value was established because this subgroup represented less than 10% of the entire study population). In addition, 43.3% of Whites in the lebrikizumab treatment group achieved an IGA of 0/1, compared with 14.1% of those in the placebo group (P < .001).

In other findings, 45.5% of Asians in the lebrikizumab treatment group achieved an EASI75, compared with 8.5% of those in the placebo group (P < .001), while 51.7% of Blacks in the lebrikizumab treatment group achieved an EASI75, compared with 18.8% of those in the placebo group. Among whites in the lebrikizumab treatment group, 59.7% of achieved an EASI75, compared with 20.4% of those in the placebo group (P < .001).

Dr. Chovatiya said that 26.5% of Asians in the lebrikizumab treatment group achieved an EASI90, compared with 4.3% of those in the placebo group (P < .001), while 26.9% of Blacks in the lebrikizumab treatment group achieved an EASI90, compared with 13.2% of those in the placebo group. In addition, 38.3% of Whites in the lebrikizumab treatment group achieved an EASI90, compared with 10.9% of those in the placebo group (P < .001).

Finally, 36.4% of Asians in the lebrikizumab treatment group achieved a 4-point or greater improvement on the NRS, compared with 5.7% of those in the placebo group (P <. 001), while 41.7% of Blacks in the lebrikizumab treatment group achieved a 4-point or greater improvement on the NRS, compared with 17.4% of those in the placebo group. In addition, 45.9% of Whites in the lebrikizumab treatment group achieved a 4-point or greater improvement on the NRS, compared with 14.8% of those in the placebo group (P < .001). Statistical analyses of efficacy endpoints conducted by ethnic group yielded similar results.

Dr. Chovatiya acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that differences in baseline demographics and disease characteristics limit direct comparison across racial and ethnic subgroups. “Due to the relatively small sample size of some racial and ethnic subgroups and the post hoc nature of this analysis, additional studies are needed to verify these results,” he concluded. But for now, he said, the data available indicate that “lebrikizumab is effective across racial and ethnic subgroups for the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD after 16 weeks of monotherapy treatment.”

The study was funded by Dermira, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly and Company. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he is speaker for and/or a consult and advisory board member to many pharmaceutical companies, including Eli Lilly.

Lebrikizumab, an investigational interleukin-13 inhibitor, showed significant efficacy compared with placebo across racial and ethnic subgroups in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis.

The finding comes from an analysis of the 16-week induction periods of the phase 3 ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials, which Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, presented during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference. The efficacy of lebrikizumab monotherapy to treat moderate-to-severe AD has been established in phase 3 studies, “but disease characteristic and efficacy outcomes may vary among racial and ethnic subgroups,” said Dr. Chovatiya, assistant professor in the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. “The goal of the current study is to report the week 16 efficacy of lebrikizumab-treated patients in racial and ethnic subgroups from ADvocate1 and ADvocate2.”

Dr. Chovatiya

Key eligibility criteria for both trials included adults or adolescents with a diagnosis of AD as defined by the American Academy of Dermatology Consensus Criteria, for at least 1 year prior to screening. They had moderate-to-severe AD, were candidates for systemic therapy, and were dupilumab- and tralokinumab-naive. Outcomes of interest were the Investigator’s Global Assessment 0 or 1, with at least a 2-point improvement; and the proportions of patients who achieved Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI75) and EASI90 responses, and an improvement of 4 points or more on the Pruritus Numeric Rating Scale (NRS).

For statistical analysis, the researchers pooled data from Advocate1 and Advocate2 and applied imputation methodology to the 16-week induction period. Subsequent data from patients who received topical or systemic rescue medication or discontinued treatment due to lack of efficacy were imputed as nonresponders. Subsequent data from patients who discontinued treatment for other reasons were set to missing, and the researchers handled missing data with multiple imputation. They used logistic regression to test the interaction between the treatment and subgroup and the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method to evaluate the treatment effect within each subgroup after adjusting for stratification factors.

Dr. Chovatiya reported findings from the 851 study participants in the combined studies. Of these, 542 were White, 192 were Asian, 84 were Black, and 33 were from other racial subgroups. By ethnic subgroup, 748 were not Hispanic or Latino, 91 were Hispanic or Latino, and ethnicity was unknown or not reported for 12 subjects. At baseline, the mean body mass index was slightly higher among Blacks (30.4 kg/m²) and Hispanics (29.4 kg/m²) compared with other racial and ethnic groups, “which reflects general epidemiologic data among these groups in the United States,” Dr. Chovatiya said. “You can also see a difference in the balance of IGA scores — they were a little bit more severe in the Black or African American and Hispanic groups as well.” The researchers also observed differences in the baseline EASI score across some of these groups, particularly in the Asian individuals, who had higher EASI scores. Prior use of systemic therapy was lower in the Black and “other” subgroups, compared with other racial subgroups.

At week 16, key efficacy endpoints were generally similar between the different racial subgroups. Specifically, 25.1% of Asians in the lebrikizumab treatment group achieved an IGA of 0/1, compared with 4.1% of those in the placebo group (P < .001), while 33.2% of Blacks in the lebrikizumab treatment group achieved an IGA of 0/1, compared with 13.2% of those in the placebo group (no P value was established because this subgroup represented less than 10% of the entire study population). In addition, 43.3% of Whites in the lebrikizumab treatment group achieved an IGA of 0/1, compared with 14.1% of those in the placebo group (P < .001).

In other findings, 45.5% of Asians in the lebrikizumab treatment group achieved an EASI75, compared with 8.5% of those in the placebo group (P < .001), while 51.7% of Blacks in the lebrikizumab treatment group achieved an EASI75, compared with 18.8% of those in the placebo group. Among whites in the lebrikizumab treatment group, 59.7% of achieved an EASI75, compared with 20.4% of those in the placebo group (P < .001).

Dr. Chovatiya said that 26.5% of Asians in the lebrikizumab treatment group achieved an EASI90, compared with 4.3% of those in the placebo group (P < .001), while 26.9% of Blacks in the lebrikizumab treatment group achieved an EASI90, compared with 13.2% of those in the placebo group. In addition, 38.3% of Whites in the lebrikizumab treatment group achieved an EASI90, compared with 10.9% of those in the placebo group (P < .001).

Finally, 36.4% of Asians in the lebrikizumab treatment group achieved a 4-point or greater improvement on the NRS, compared with 5.7% of those in the placebo group (P <. 001), while 41.7% of Blacks in the lebrikizumab treatment group achieved a 4-point or greater improvement on the NRS, compared with 17.4% of those in the placebo group. In addition, 45.9% of Whites in the lebrikizumab treatment group achieved a 4-point or greater improvement on the NRS, compared with 14.8% of those in the placebo group (P < .001). Statistical analyses of efficacy endpoints conducted by ethnic group yielded similar results.

Dr. Chovatiya acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that differences in baseline demographics and disease characteristics limit direct comparison across racial and ethnic subgroups. “Due to the relatively small sample size of some racial and ethnic subgroups and the post hoc nature of this analysis, additional studies are needed to verify these results,” he concluded. But for now, he said, the data available indicate that “lebrikizumab is effective across racial and ethnic subgroups for the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD after 16 weeks of monotherapy treatment.”

The study was funded by Dermira, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly and Company. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he is speaker for and/or a consult and advisory board member to many pharmaceutical companies, including Eli Lilly.

Sabine Roman, MD, PhD, associate professor of gastroenterology and physiology at Lyon University Hospital in France, took the floor at the United European Gastroenterology Week to discuss the link between a chronic cough and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). During a session on extraesophageal symptoms, Dr. Roman relayed two key messages: In patients with a chronic cough, reflux absolutely must be documented, and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) must only be prescribed when a diagnosis of GERD has been made.
 

Overestimated Cause

Chronic cough is a widespread problem with a prevalence of between 9% and 33%, according to clinical studies. The root causes of this cough are varied; they’re mainly related to the respiratory system (eg, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, respiratory infections, or smoking) and the ear, nose, and throat field (eg, postnasal drip). What’s more, taking certain medicines, notably angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, can also be at the root of this condition.

GERD is also a possible cause of a chronic cough but one that is likely overestimated. A 2023 Spanish study provides evidence of this; GERD was suspected to be linked to cough in 46% of patients (compared with 32% for asthma and 15% for postnasal drip).

The treatments most commonly prescribed include PPIs (79.6%) and respiratory medicines (87.8%). Note that antibiotics are administered empirically to 28.6% of patients. For Roman, “the blame for a chronic cough is too often assigned to GERD, especially considering that in this study, only 43% of patients had seen a gastroenterologist, 27% had an endoscopy, and 24% had undergone esophageal pH monitoring.”

Added to this observation is the difficulty of establishing a causal link between a cough and GERD when the latter is present, even when the patient has had a diagnosis of GERD. Of course, a link between the two does not necessarily imply a cause–effect relationship, especially given that studies have shown that a cough itself can induce GERD. Studies using automatic cough detection to count cough events have shown that GERD certainly preceded a cough in 48% of patients, but in 56% of cases, it was the cough that came before the GERD. What’s more, both mechanisms were present in one third of patients.
 

Prescribing PPIs Effectively

PPIs are commonly prescribed as a test treatment. However, their efficacy is in no way proof of the existence of underlying GERD. In reality, all placebo-controlled studies have shown that in cases where no prior diagnosis of GERD has been made, PPIs have no superior efficacy.

If reflux has been proven, then the improvement provided by PPIs, compared with placebo, is between 12% and 35%. Therefore, it is essential that the presence of GERD be demonstrated, particularly if the patient has no characteristic symptoms of GERD, such as heartburn and acid reflux.

Response factors to PPIs were evaluated in 178 Italian patients with a chronic cough who presented with suspected GERD. Of those, 45% responded to treatment. It has been shown that typical symptoms, severe esophagitis (grade C/D), abnormal acid exposure, and low levels of nocturnal baseline impedance were independent factors of response to treatment.

In conclusion, patients with a chronic cough must be comprehensively tested for GERD before a long-term prescription of PPIs can be considered.
 

Cough Reflex Threshold

Various studies have also revealed that patients with GERD and presenting with a chronic cough have an increased sensitivity to the cough reflex. This hypersensitivity to the cough reflex has inspired several trials involving gabapentin and baclofen. A randomized controlled trial found the two treatments to be equally effective, achieving improvement of around 50%.

Lesogaberan, a new GABA(B) receptor agonist acting on the peripheral nervous system which is better tolerated than baclofen, a drug belonging to the same therapeutic class, showed a 26% benefit over placebo, but it was not statistically significant; lesogaberan has not been developed further.

Anti-reflux surgery is an option. A 2021 meta-analysis revealed that 84% of patients enrolled in these studies saw an improvement in their symptoms. However, these results must be regarded with caution because none of these studies were controlled, most of them were retrospective with very heterogeneous patient populations, and the data obtained on postoperative reflux control were often found to be lacking.

A retrospective study showed that among the factors for nonresponse or recurrence of symptoms after anti-reflux surgery, lack of response to medical treatment and extraesophageal symptoms such as a cough were significant factors. Consequently, potential candidates for surgery must be rigorously screened before being considered for such a procedure.

The recent recommendations for good practice published by the American Gastroenterological Association also insist that lack of response to medical treatment is a major factor for failure of surgical treatment.

In sum, patients with a chronic cough can be prescribed PPIs as first-line treatment if they have typical symptoms of GERD. In the event of treatment failure or isolated cough without typical symptoms, tests to confirm or rule out GERD are essential (such as endoscopy, esophageal pH monitoring, or impedance-pH monitoring).
 

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sabine Roman, MD, PhD, associate professor of gastroenterology and physiology at Lyon University Hospital in France, took the floor at the United European Gastroenterology Week to discuss the link between a chronic cough and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). During a session on extraesophageal symptoms, Dr. Roman relayed two key messages: In patients with a chronic cough, reflux absolutely must be documented, and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) must only be prescribed when a diagnosis of GERD has been made.
 

Overestimated Cause

Chronic cough is a widespread problem with a prevalence of between 9% and 33%, according to clinical studies. The root causes of this cough are varied; they’re mainly related to the respiratory system (eg, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, respiratory infections, or smoking) and the ear, nose, and throat field (eg, postnasal drip). What’s more, taking certain medicines, notably angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, can also be at the root of this condition.

GERD is also a possible cause of a chronic cough but one that is likely overestimated. A 2023 Spanish study provides evidence of this; GERD was suspected to be linked to cough in 46% of patients (compared with 32% for asthma and 15% for postnasal drip).

The treatments most commonly prescribed include PPIs (79.6%) and respiratory medicines (87.8%). Note that antibiotics are administered empirically to 28.6% of patients. For Roman, “the blame for a chronic cough is too often assigned to GERD, especially considering that in this study, only 43% of patients had seen a gastroenterologist, 27% had an endoscopy, and 24% had undergone esophageal pH monitoring.”

Added to this observation is the difficulty of establishing a causal link between a cough and GERD when the latter is present, even when the patient has had a diagnosis of GERD. Of course, a link between the two does not necessarily imply a cause–effect relationship, especially given that studies have shown that a cough itself can induce GERD. Studies using automatic cough detection to count cough events have shown that GERD certainly preceded a cough in 48% of patients, but in 56% of cases, it was the cough that came before the GERD. What’s more, both mechanisms were present in one third of patients.
 

Prescribing PPIs Effectively

PPIs are commonly prescribed as a test treatment. However, their efficacy is in no way proof of the existence of underlying GERD. In reality, all placebo-controlled studies have shown that in cases where no prior diagnosis of GERD has been made, PPIs have no superior efficacy.

If reflux has been proven, then the improvement provided by PPIs, compared with placebo, is between 12% and 35%. Therefore, it is essential that the presence of GERD be demonstrated, particularly if the patient has no characteristic symptoms of GERD, such as heartburn and acid reflux.

Response factors to PPIs were evaluated in 178 Italian patients with a chronic cough who presented with suspected GERD. Of those, 45% responded to treatment. It has been shown that typical symptoms, severe esophagitis (grade C/D), abnormal acid exposure, and low levels of nocturnal baseline impedance were independent factors of response to treatment.

In conclusion, patients with a chronic cough must be comprehensively tested for GERD before a long-term prescription of PPIs can be considered.
 

Cough Reflex Threshold

Various studies have also revealed that patients with GERD and presenting with a chronic cough have an increased sensitivity to the cough reflex. This hypersensitivity to the cough reflex has inspired several trials involving gabapentin and baclofen. A randomized controlled trial found the two treatments to be equally effective, achieving improvement of around 50%.

Lesogaberan, a new GABA(B) receptor agonist acting on the peripheral nervous system which is better tolerated than baclofen, a drug belonging to the same therapeutic class, showed a 26% benefit over placebo, but it was not statistically significant; lesogaberan has not been developed further.

Anti-reflux surgery is an option. A 2021 meta-analysis revealed that 84% of patients enrolled in these studies saw an improvement in their symptoms. However, these results must be regarded with caution because none of these studies were controlled, most of them were retrospective with very heterogeneous patient populations, and the data obtained on postoperative reflux control were often found to be lacking.

A retrospective study showed that among the factors for nonresponse or recurrence of symptoms after anti-reflux surgery, lack of response to medical treatment and extraesophageal symptoms such as a cough were significant factors. Consequently, potential candidates for surgery must be rigorously screened before being considered for such a procedure.

The recent recommendations for good practice published by the American Gastroenterological Association also insist that lack of response to medical treatment is a major factor for failure of surgical treatment.

In sum, patients with a chronic cough can be prescribed PPIs as first-line treatment if they have typical symptoms of GERD. In the event of treatment failure or isolated cough without typical symptoms, tests to confirm or rule out GERD are essential (such as endoscopy, esophageal pH monitoring, or impedance-pH monitoring).
 

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sabine Roman, MD, PhD, associate professor of gastroenterology and physiology at Lyon University Hospital in France, took the floor at the United European Gastroenterology Week to discuss the link between a chronic cough and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). During a session on extraesophageal symptoms, Dr. Roman relayed two key messages: In patients with a chronic cough, reflux absolutely must be documented, and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) must only be prescribed when a diagnosis of GERD has been made.
 

Overestimated Cause

Chronic cough is a widespread problem with a prevalence of between 9% and 33%, according to clinical studies. The root causes of this cough are varied; they’re mainly related to the respiratory system (eg, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, respiratory infections, or smoking) and the ear, nose, and throat field (eg, postnasal drip). What’s more, taking certain medicines, notably angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, can also be at the root of this condition.

GERD is also a possible cause of a chronic cough but one that is likely overestimated. A 2023 Spanish study provides evidence of this; GERD was suspected to be linked to cough in 46% of patients (compared with 32% for asthma and 15% for postnasal drip).

The treatments most commonly prescribed include PPIs (79.6%) and respiratory medicines (87.8%). Note that antibiotics are administered empirically to 28.6% of patients. For Roman, “the blame for a chronic cough is too often assigned to GERD, especially considering that in this study, only 43% of patients had seen a gastroenterologist, 27% had an endoscopy, and 24% had undergone esophageal pH monitoring.”

Added to this observation is the difficulty of establishing a causal link between a cough and GERD when the latter is present, even when the patient has had a diagnosis of GERD. Of course, a link between the two does not necessarily imply a cause–effect relationship, especially given that studies have shown that a cough itself can induce GERD. Studies using automatic cough detection to count cough events have shown that GERD certainly preceded a cough in 48% of patients, but in 56% of cases, it was the cough that came before the GERD. What’s more, both mechanisms were present in one third of patients.
 

Prescribing PPIs Effectively

PPIs are commonly prescribed as a test treatment. However, their efficacy is in no way proof of the existence of underlying GERD. In reality, all placebo-controlled studies have shown that in cases where no prior diagnosis of GERD has been made, PPIs have no superior efficacy.

If reflux has been proven, then the improvement provided by PPIs, compared with placebo, is between 12% and 35%. Therefore, it is essential that the presence of GERD be demonstrated, particularly if the patient has no characteristic symptoms of GERD, such as heartburn and acid reflux.

Response factors to PPIs were evaluated in 178 Italian patients with a chronic cough who presented with suspected GERD. Of those, 45% responded to treatment. It has been shown that typical symptoms, severe esophagitis (grade C/D), abnormal acid exposure, and low levels of nocturnal baseline impedance were independent factors of response to treatment.

In conclusion, patients with a chronic cough must be comprehensively tested for GERD before a long-term prescription of PPIs can be considered.
 

Cough Reflex Threshold

Various studies have also revealed that patients with GERD and presenting with a chronic cough have an increased sensitivity to the cough reflex. This hypersensitivity to the cough reflex has inspired several trials involving gabapentin and baclofen. A randomized controlled trial found the two treatments to be equally effective, achieving improvement of around 50%.

Lesogaberan, a new GABA(B) receptor agonist acting on the peripheral nervous system which is better tolerated than baclofen, a drug belonging to the same therapeutic class, showed a 26% benefit over placebo, but it was not statistically significant; lesogaberan has not been developed further.

Anti-reflux surgery is an option. A 2021 meta-analysis revealed that 84% of patients enrolled in these studies saw an improvement in their symptoms. However, these results must be regarded with caution because none of these studies were controlled, most of them were retrospective with very heterogeneous patient populations, and the data obtained on postoperative reflux control were often found to be lacking.

A retrospective study showed that among the factors for nonresponse or recurrence of symptoms after anti-reflux surgery, lack of response to medical treatment and extraesophageal symptoms such as a cough were significant factors. Consequently, potential candidates for surgery must be rigorously screened before being considered for such a procedure.

The recent recommendations for good practice published by the American Gastroenterological Association also insist that lack of response to medical treatment is a major factor for failure of surgical treatment.

In sum, patients with a chronic cough can be prescribed PPIs as first-line treatment if they have typical symptoms of GERD. In the event of treatment failure or isolated cough without typical symptoms, tests to confirm or rule out GERD are essential (such as endoscopy, esophageal pH monitoring, or impedance-pH monitoring).
 

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.