User login
Survival data reported from largest CAR T trial in B-cell lymphoma
ORLANDO – Updated results from the TRANSCEND NHL trial include survival data with lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel), an anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, in patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphomas.
The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.8 months, and the median overall survival was 21.1 months. PFS results were best among complete responders and among patients with primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma or transformed follicular lymphoma.
Jeremy S. Abramson, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, presented these results at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
“TRANSCEND NHL is the largest clinical study to date of CD19-directed CAR T cells in patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive B-cell lymphoma,” Dr. Abramson said.
The phase 1 trial (NCT02631044) includes 269 patients who received liso-cel. They were diagnosed with transformed follicular lymphoma (22%) or other indolent lymphoma (7%), high-grade B-cell lymphoma (13%), primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (6%), grade 3B follicular lymphoma (1%), or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma not otherwise specified (51%).
At baseline, patients had received a median of three prior systemic therapies (range, one to eight). Some patients had received autologous (33%) or allogeneic (3%) transplant. Many patients were chemotherapy refractory (67%) or had never achieved a complete response to prior therapy (44%).
More than half of patients (59%) received bridging therapy during liso-cel manufacturing. All patients received lymphodepletion with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide, followed by liso-cel at 50 x 106 CAR T cells, 100 x 106 CAR T cells, or 150 x 106 CAR T cells.
Response and survival
The median follow-up was 12.0 months. The overall response rate was 73%, and the complete response rate was 53%.
“Remissions were rapid, with a median of 1 month from CAR T-cell infusion, and durable, with a median duration of response that has not been reached and 55% of patients remaining in response at 1 year,” Dr. Abramson said.
The median PFS was 6.8 months overall, not reached for patients who achieved a complete response, 2.8 months for patients with a partial response, and 1.1 months for patients with stable disease or progressive disease.
The median PFS was not reached for patients with primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma or transformed follicular lymphoma, 5.0 months for high-grade B-cell lymphoma, 3.0 months for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma not otherwise specified, and 2.9 months in transformed indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
The median overall survival was 21.1 months overall, not reached for patients who achieved a complete response, 9.0 months for patients who had a partial response, and 5.1 months for patients with stable disease or progressive disease.
Safety
Common treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (63%), anemia (48%), fatigue (44%), nausea (33%), thrombocytopenia (31%), headache (30%), decreased appetite (28%), and diarrhea (26%).
Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurred in 42% of patients, and neurologic events occurred in 30%. Grade 3-4 CRS occurred in 2% of patients, and grade 3-4 neurologic events occurred in 10%. There were no cases of grade 5 CRS or neurologic events.
The median time to CRS onset was 5 days, and the median time to onset of neurologic events was 9 days. The median time to resolution of CRS and neurologic events was 5 days and 11 days, respectively.
“The low incidence of severe CRS and neurologic events and their late time of onset support using this product in a large range of patients and in the outpatient setting,” Dr. Abramson said.
There were seven grade 5 treatment-related adverse events, including diffuse alveolar damage, pulmonary hemorrhage, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, cardiomyopathy, fludarabine leukoencephalopathy, septic shock, and progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy.
This trial is sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Abramson reported relationships with Juno Therapeutics and Celgene, now owned by Bristol-Myers Squibb, and a range of other companies.
SOURCE: Abramson JS et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 241.
ORLANDO – Updated results from the TRANSCEND NHL trial include survival data with lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel), an anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, in patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphomas.
The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.8 months, and the median overall survival was 21.1 months. PFS results were best among complete responders and among patients with primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma or transformed follicular lymphoma.
Jeremy S. Abramson, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, presented these results at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
“TRANSCEND NHL is the largest clinical study to date of CD19-directed CAR T cells in patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive B-cell lymphoma,” Dr. Abramson said.
The phase 1 trial (NCT02631044) includes 269 patients who received liso-cel. They were diagnosed with transformed follicular lymphoma (22%) or other indolent lymphoma (7%), high-grade B-cell lymphoma (13%), primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (6%), grade 3B follicular lymphoma (1%), or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma not otherwise specified (51%).
At baseline, patients had received a median of three prior systemic therapies (range, one to eight). Some patients had received autologous (33%) or allogeneic (3%) transplant. Many patients were chemotherapy refractory (67%) or had never achieved a complete response to prior therapy (44%).
More than half of patients (59%) received bridging therapy during liso-cel manufacturing. All patients received lymphodepletion with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide, followed by liso-cel at 50 x 106 CAR T cells, 100 x 106 CAR T cells, or 150 x 106 CAR T cells.
Response and survival
The median follow-up was 12.0 months. The overall response rate was 73%, and the complete response rate was 53%.
“Remissions were rapid, with a median of 1 month from CAR T-cell infusion, and durable, with a median duration of response that has not been reached and 55% of patients remaining in response at 1 year,” Dr. Abramson said.
The median PFS was 6.8 months overall, not reached for patients who achieved a complete response, 2.8 months for patients with a partial response, and 1.1 months for patients with stable disease or progressive disease.
The median PFS was not reached for patients with primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma or transformed follicular lymphoma, 5.0 months for high-grade B-cell lymphoma, 3.0 months for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma not otherwise specified, and 2.9 months in transformed indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
The median overall survival was 21.1 months overall, not reached for patients who achieved a complete response, 9.0 months for patients who had a partial response, and 5.1 months for patients with stable disease or progressive disease.
Safety
Common treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (63%), anemia (48%), fatigue (44%), nausea (33%), thrombocytopenia (31%), headache (30%), decreased appetite (28%), and diarrhea (26%).
Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurred in 42% of patients, and neurologic events occurred in 30%. Grade 3-4 CRS occurred in 2% of patients, and grade 3-4 neurologic events occurred in 10%. There were no cases of grade 5 CRS or neurologic events.
The median time to CRS onset was 5 days, and the median time to onset of neurologic events was 9 days. The median time to resolution of CRS and neurologic events was 5 days and 11 days, respectively.
“The low incidence of severe CRS and neurologic events and their late time of onset support using this product in a large range of patients and in the outpatient setting,” Dr. Abramson said.
There were seven grade 5 treatment-related adverse events, including diffuse alveolar damage, pulmonary hemorrhage, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, cardiomyopathy, fludarabine leukoencephalopathy, septic shock, and progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy.
This trial is sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Abramson reported relationships with Juno Therapeutics and Celgene, now owned by Bristol-Myers Squibb, and a range of other companies.
SOURCE: Abramson JS et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 241.
ORLANDO – Updated results from the TRANSCEND NHL trial include survival data with lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel), an anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, in patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphomas.
The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.8 months, and the median overall survival was 21.1 months. PFS results were best among complete responders and among patients with primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma or transformed follicular lymphoma.
Jeremy S. Abramson, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, presented these results at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
“TRANSCEND NHL is the largest clinical study to date of CD19-directed CAR T cells in patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive B-cell lymphoma,” Dr. Abramson said.
The phase 1 trial (NCT02631044) includes 269 patients who received liso-cel. They were diagnosed with transformed follicular lymphoma (22%) or other indolent lymphoma (7%), high-grade B-cell lymphoma (13%), primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (6%), grade 3B follicular lymphoma (1%), or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma not otherwise specified (51%).
At baseline, patients had received a median of three prior systemic therapies (range, one to eight). Some patients had received autologous (33%) or allogeneic (3%) transplant. Many patients were chemotherapy refractory (67%) or had never achieved a complete response to prior therapy (44%).
More than half of patients (59%) received bridging therapy during liso-cel manufacturing. All patients received lymphodepletion with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide, followed by liso-cel at 50 x 106 CAR T cells, 100 x 106 CAR T cells, or 150 x 106 CAR T cells.
Response and survival
The median follow-up was 12.0 months. The overall response rate was 73%, and the complete response rate was 53%.
“Remissions were rapid, with a median of 1 month from CAR T-cell infusion, and durable, with a median duration of response that has not been reached and 55% of patients remaining in response at 1 year,” Dr. Abramson said.
The median PFS was 6.8 months overall, not reached for patients who achieved a complete response, 2.8 months for patients with a partial response, and 1.1 months for patients with stable disease or progressive disease.
The median PFS was not reached for patients with primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma or transformed follicular lymphoma, 5.0 months for high-grade B-cell lymphoma, 3.0 months for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma not otherwise specified, and 2.9 months in transformed indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
The median overall survival was 21.1 months overall, not reached for patients who achieved a complete response, 9.0 months for patients who had a partial response, and 5.1 months for patients with stable disease or progressive disease.
Safety
Common treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (63%), anemia (48%), fatigue (44%), nausea (33%), thrombocytopenia (31%), headache (30%), decreased appetite (28%), and diarrhea (26%).
Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurred in 42% of patients, and neurologic events occurred in 30%. Grade 3-4 CRS occurred in 2% of patients, and grade 3-4 neurologic events occurred in 10%. There were no cases of grade 5 CRS or neurologic events.
The median time to CRS onset was 5 days, and the median time to onset of neurologic events was 9 days. The median time to resolution of CRS and neurologic events was 5 days and 11 days, respectively.
“The low incidence of severe CRS and neurologic events and their late time of onset support using this product in a large range of patients and in the outpatient setting,” Dr. Abramson said.
There were seven grade 5 treatment-related adverse events, including diffuse alveolar damage, pulmonary hemorrhage, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, cardiomyopathy, fludarabine leukoencephalopathy, septic shock, and progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy.
This trial is sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Abramson reported relationships with Juno Therapeutics and Celgene, now owned by Bristol-Myers Squibb, and a range of other companies.
SOURCE: Abramson JS et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 241.
REPORTING FROM ASH 2019
Vitamin D alone does not reduce fracture risk
Vitamin D supplementation alone does not appear to reduce the risk of fracture, but a combination of vitamin D and calcium may, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis published in JAMA Network Open.
Pang Yao, PhD, from the Nuffield Department of Population Health at the University of Oxford (England) and coauthors wrote that, while randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of vitamin D supplements – either alone or in combination with calcium supplementation – have found conflicting results, most only had limited power to detect differences in the risk of fracture.
Dr. Yao and associates performed a meta-analysis of 11 observational studies with 39,141 participants, 11 RCTs of vitamin D supplementation alone in 34,243 participants, and 6 RCTs of calcium plus vitamin D involving 49,282 participants.
The analysis of the observational studies revealed that each 10.0-ng/mL increase in blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations was associated with a 7% lower risk of any fracture. However the authors noted significant heterogeneity between individual studies.
The meta-analysis of the 11 trials of vitamin D alone found that supplementation was not associated with significant change in the risk for any fracture or for hip fracture. Even subgroup analyses looking at age, residential status, location, study design, daily supplementation, or duration of supplementation failed to find any effect. However, there was a median difference in blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations of 8.4 ng/mL with vitamin D supplementation.
In the meta-analysis of the six vitamin D plus calcium trials, there was a significant 6% reduction in the rate of any fracture and a 16% reduction in hip fracture rate with supplementation. Overall, there was a 1% reduction in the risk of any fracture for each 0.4-ng/mL difference in blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration and 2% reduction in the risk of hip fracture.
However, the authors judged five of those six vitamin D plus calcium trials to be at high risk of bias, with two having open-label designs, although there was little heterogeneity among the studies. All the trials used either 800 or 400 IU/day of vitamin D and 1,200 or 800 mg/day of calcium, and the mean duration of treatment was 5.9 years.
Participants aged 80 years or older living in institutions showed greater reductions in the risk of any fracture with calcium plus vitamin D supplementation, compared with those younger than 80 years who were living in the community.
“In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the available evidence from completed RCTs provided no support for the effects of vitamin D alone on prevention of fracture, but most of these RCTs were constrained by methodological problems,” they wrote. “Meta-analyses of ongoing RCTs assessing the effects of higher daily doses of vitamin D on fracture risk are needed before making recommendations on the use of vitamin D for prevention of fracture.”
One author was supported by a Sino-British Fellowship Trust scholarship, and another received grants from the U.K. Medical Research Council. No conflicts of interest were declared.
SOURCE: Yao P et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2019. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.17789.
Vitamin D supplementation alone does not appear to reduce the risk of fracture, but a combination of vitamin D and calcium may, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis published in JAMA Network Open.
Pang Yao, PhD, from the Nuffield Department of Population Health at the University of Oxford (England) and coauthors wrote that, while randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of vitamin D supplements – either alone or in combination with calcium supplementation – have found conflicting results, most only had limited power to detect differences in the risk of fracture.
Dr. Yao and associates performed a meta-analysis of 11 observational studies with 39,141 participants, 11 RCTs of vitamin D supplementation alone in 34,243 participants, and 6 RCTs of calcium plus vitamin D involving 49,282 participants.
The analysis of the observational studies revealed that each 10.0-ng/mL increase in blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations was associated with a 7% lower risk of any fracture. However the authors noted significant heterogeneity between individual studies.
The meta-analysis of the 11 trials of vitamin D alone found that supplementation was not associated with significant change in the risk for any fracture or for hip fracture. Even subgroup analyses looking at age, residential status, location, study design, daily supplementation, or duration of supplementation failed to find any effect. However, there was a median difference in blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations of 8.4 ng/mL with vitamin D supplementation.
In the meta-analysis of the six vitamin D plus calcium trials, there was a significant 6% reduction in the rate of any fracture and a 16% reduction in hip fracture rate with supplementation. Overall, there was a 1% reduction in the risk of any fracture for each 0.4-ng/mL difference in blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration and 2% reduction in the risk of hip fracture.
However, the authors judged five of those six vitamin D plus calcium trials to be at high risk of bias, with two having open-label designs, although there was little heterogeneity among the studies. All the trials used either 800 or 400 IU/day of vitamin D and 1,200 or 800 mg/day of calcium, and the mean duration of treatment was 5.9 years.
Participants aged 80 years or older living in institutions showed greater reductions in the risk of any fracture with calcium plus vitamin D supplementation, compared with those younger than 80 years who were living in the community.
“In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the available evidence from completed RCTs provided no support for the effects of vitamin D alone on prevention of fracture, but most of these RCTs were constrained by methodological problems,” they wrote. “Meta-analyses of ongoing RCTs assessing the effects of higher daily doses of vitamin D on fracture risk are needed before making recommendations on the use of vitamin D for prevention of fracture.”
One author was supported by a Sino-British Fellowship Trust scholarship, and another received grants from the U.K. Medical Research Council. No conflicts of interest were declared.
SOURCE: Yao P et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2019. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.17789.
Vitamin D supplementation alone does not appear to reduce the risk of fracture, but a combination of vitamin D and calcium may, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis published in JAMA Network Open.
Pang Yao, PhD, from the Nuffield Department of Population Health at the University of Oxford (England) and coauthors wrote that, while randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of vitamin D supplements – either alone or in combination with calcium supplementation – have found conflicting results, most only had limited power to detect differences in the risk of fracture.
Dr. Yao and associates performed a meta-analysis of 11 observational studies with 39,141 participants, 11 RCTs of vitamin D supplementation alone in 34,243 participants, and 6 RCTs of calcium plus vitamin D involving 49,282 participants.
The analysis of the observational studies revealed that each 10.0-ng/mL increase in blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations was associated with a 7% lower risk of any fracture. However the authors noted significant heterogeneity between individual studies.
The meta-analysis of the 11 trials of vitamin D alone found that supplementation was not associated with significant change in the risk for any fracture or for hip fracture. Even subgroup analyses looking at age, residential status, location, study design, daily supplementation, or duration of supplementation failed to find any effect. However, there was a median difference in blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations of 8.4 ng/mL with vitamin D supplementation.
In the meta-analysis of the six vitamin D plus calcium trials, there was a significant 6% reduction in the rate of any fracture and a 16% reduction in hip fracture rate with supplementation. Overall, there was a 1% reduction in the risk of any fracture for each 0.4-ng/mL difference in blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration and 2% reduction in the risk of hip fracture.
However, the authors judged five of those six vitamin D plus calcium trials to be at high risk of bias, with two having open-label designs, although there was little heterogeneity among the studies. All the trials used either 800 or 400 IU/day of vitamin D and 1,200 or 800 mg/day of calcium, and the mean duration of treatment was 5.9 years.
Participants aged 80 years or older living in institutions showed greater reductions in the risk of any fracture with calcium plus vitamin D supplementation, compared with those younger than 80 years who were living in the community.
“In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the available evidence from completed RCTs provided no support for the effects of vitamin D alone on prevention of fracture, but most of these RCTs were constrained by methodological problems,” they wrote. “Meta-analyses of ongoing RCTs assessing the effects of higher daily doses of vitamin D on fracture risk are needed before making recommendations on the use of vitamin D for prevention of fracture.”
One author was supported by a Sino-British Fellowship Trust scholarship, and another received grants from the U.K. Medical Research Council. No conflicts of interest were declared.
SOURCE: Yao P et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2019. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.17789.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Pembrolizumab plus chemo boosts pCR rate in TNBC
SAN ANTONIO – Adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting increased the likelihood that women with stage III or early node-positive triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) would have a pathologic complete response and sustained clinical benefit, results of the phase 3 KEYNOTE-522 study showed.
Among 602 patients evaluable in a definitive pathological complete response (pCR) analysis, the pCR rate was 64.8% for those treated with chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab (Keytruda), compared with 51.2% for patients treated with chemotherapy plus placebo, reported Peter Schmid, MD, PhD, from Barts Cancer Institute in London.
“The addition of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab to chemotherapy provided a significant increase in the path CR rate in all patients, but also a larger magnitude of path CR benefit versus chemotherapy alone in patients with higher-risk disease, such as stage III disease or node-positive early triple-negative breast cancer,” he said at the annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.
The overall pCR results were originally reported at the 2019 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology. At SABCS 2019, he reported pCR results for specific subgroups in KEYNOTE-522.
Investigators enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed TNBC of either stage T1cN1-2, or T2-4N0-2 and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients also had to have at least two separate tumor cores from the primary tumor for assessment of programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1).
After stratification for nodal status, tumor size, and carboplatin schedule (once weekly or every 3 weeks), patients were randomized to receive either pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks or placebo plus neoadjuvant carboplatin and paclitaxel for four 3-week cycles, followed by four cycles of chemotherapy with either doxorubicin or epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide (AC or EC). Patients went on to surgery, then received adjuvant therapy for nine cycles with either pembrolizumab at the neoadjuvant dose and schedule or placebo.
At the first preplanned interim analysis for event-free survival (EFS) based on 1,174 patients followed for a median of 15.5 months, events had occurred in 7.4% of patients on pembro/chemo, compared with 11.8% on placebo/chemo, but this difference did not meet the prespecified P value boundary of .000051 for significance, Dr. Schmid acknowledged.
When the investigators looked at pCR by disease stage, however, they saw the following benefits across all stages in the study:
- Stage IIA: 73.1% with pembrolizumab versus 62.1% with placebo, difference 11%.
- Stage IIB: 56.2% versus 48.4%, difference 7.8%.
- Stage IIIA: 66.7% versus 42.1%, difference 24.6%.
- Stage IIIB: 48.6% versus 23.1%, difference 25.6%.
The greatest benefit for the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy appeared to be in the higher disease stages, Dr. Schmid said.
There was also a benefit from pembrolizumab for patients with both node-negative disease (pCR, 64.9% vs. 58.6% in the placebo arm) and node-positive disease (64.8% vs. 44.1%, respectively).
pCR rates were also superior with pembrolizumab versus placebo in patients who were PD-L1 negative, defined as a combined positive score (CPS) less than 1 (45.3% vs. 30.3%), as well as PD-L1–positive patients at each of three cutoff values: CPS 1 or greater (68.9% vs. 54.9%), CPS 10 or greater (77.9% vs. 59.8%), and CPS 20 or greater (81.7% vs. 62.5%).
Interestingly, adding pembrolizumab boosted pCR rates both in patients with exposure to a full planned course of chemotherapy (69.7% vs. 55.3% with placebo) and in those who received less than the full course (51.1% vs. 35.7%).
The most common immune-mediated adverse events with the largest between-group differences involved the thyroid, including hypothyroidism (in 14.9% of patients on pembrolizumab and 5.7% of those on placebo), hyperthyroidism (5.1% vs. 1.8%), and thyroiditis (1.7% vs. 1.0%).
“Immune-mediated adverse events are consistent with the known profiles of each regimen, and there’s no new safety signal, no new safety concern at this point in time,” Dr. Schmid said.
Further follow-up will be needed to determine EFS benefit and long-term safety. Investigators plan to perform additional biomarker analyses, including tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and BRCA, he added.
“Will the KEYNOTE-522 regimen be the new standard of care if approved?” asked invited discussant Kevin Kalinsky, MD, MS, from Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York. “These are exciting data, both in pCR and early event-free survival. But there’s a risk: a risk of overtreatment, as well as potentially [serious] toxicity in patients with curable disease.”
“The take-home is that this regimen will likely be practice changing in some patients, and with the absence of having a predictor, the benefit may outweigh the risk most in patients with high clinical risk,” he added.
The study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Schmid reported advising/consulting for and receiving honoraria from Merck. Dr. Kalinsky disclosed has disclosed that he receives salary from Array Biopharma, has received fees from various companies (not including Merck), and has contracted research with multiple companies, not including Merck.
SOURCE: Schmid P et al. SABCS 2019, Abstract GS3-03.
SAN ANTONIO – Adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting increased the likelihood that women with stage III or early node-positive triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) would have a pathologic complete response and sustained clinical benefit, results of the phase 3 KEYNOTE-522 study showed.
Among 602 patients evaluable in a definitive pathological complete response (pCR) analysis, the pCR rate was 64.8% for those treated with chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab (Keytruda), compared with 51.2% for patients treated with chemotherapy plus placebo, reported Peter Schmid, MD, PhD, from Barts Cancer Institute in London.
“The addition of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab to chemotherapy provided a significant increase in the path CR rate in all patients, but also a larger magnitude of path CR benefit versus chemotherapy alone in patients with higher-risk disease, such as stage III disease or node-positive early triple-negative breast cancer,” he said at the annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.
The overall pCR results were originally reported at the 2019 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology. At SABCS 2019, he reported pCR results for specific subgroups in KEYNOTE-522.
Investigators enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed TNBC of either stage T1cN1-2, or T2-4N0-2 and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients also had to have at least two separate tumor cores from the primary tumor for assessment of programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1).
After stratification for nodal status, tumor size, and carboplatin schedule (once weekly or every 3 weeks), patients were randomized to receive either pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks or placebo plus neoadjuvant carboplatin and paclitaxel for four 3-week cycles, followed by four cycles of chemotherapy with either doxorubicin or epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide (AC or EC). Patients went on to surgery, then received adjuvant therapy for nine cycles with either pembrolizumab at the neoadjuvant dose and schedule or placebo.
At the first preplanned interim analysis for event-free survival (EFS) based on 1,174 patients followed for a median of 15.5 months, events had occurred in 7.4% of patients on pembro/chemo, compared with 11.8% on placebo/chemo, but this difference did not meet the prespecified P value boundary of .000051 for significance, Dr. Schmid acknowledged.
When the investigators looked at pCR by disease stage, however, they saw the following benefits across all stages in the study:
- Stage IIA: 73.1% with pembrolizumab versus 62.1% with placebo, difference 11%.
- Stage IIB: 56.2% versus 48.4%, difference 7.8%.
- Stage IIIA: 66.7% versus 42.1%, difference 24.6%.
- Stage IIIB: 48.6% versus 23.1%, difference 25.6%.
The greatest benefit for the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy appeared to be in the higher disease stages, Dr. Schmid said.
There was also a benefit from pembrolizumab for patients with both node-negative disease (pCR, 64.9% vs. 58.6% in the placebo arm) and node-positive disease (64.8% vs. 44.1%, respectively).
pCR rates were also superior with pembrolizumab versus placebo in patients who were PD-L1 negative, defined as a combined positive score (CPS) less than 1 (45.3% vs. 30.3%), as well as PD-L1–positive patients at each of three cutoff values: CPS 1 or greater (68.9% vs. 54.9%), CPS 10 or greater (77.9% vs. 59.8%), and CPS 20 or greater (81.7% vs. 62.5%).
Interestingly, adding pembrolizumab boosted pCR rates both in patients with exposure to a full planned course of chemotherapy (69.7% vs. 55.3% with placebo) and in those who received less than the full course (51.1% vs. 35.7%).
The most common immune-mediated adverse events with the largest between-group differences involved the thyroid, including hypothyroidism (in 14.9% of patients on pembrolizumab and 5.7% of those on placebo), hyperthyroidism (5.1% vs. 1.8%), and thyroiditis (1.7% vs. 1.0%).
“Immune-mediated adverse events are consistent with the known profiles of each regimen, and there’s no new safety signal, no new safety concern at this point in time,” Dr. Schmid said.
Further follow-up will be needed to determine EFS benefit and long-term safety. Investigators plan to perform additional biomarker analyses, including tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and BRCA, he added.
“Will the KEYNOTE-522 regimen be the new standard of care if approved?” asked invited discussant Kevin Kalinsky, MD, MS, from Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York. “These are exciting data, both in pCR and early event-free survival. But there’s a risk: a risk of overtreatment, as well as potentially [serious] toxicity in patients with curable disease.”
“The take-home is that this regimen will likely be practice changing in some patients, and with the absence of having a predictor, the benefit may outweigh the risk most in patients with high clinical risk,” he added.
The study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Schmid reported advising/consulting for and receiving honoraria from Merck. Dr. Kalinsky disclosed has disclosed that he receives salary from Array Biopharma, has received fees from various companies (not including Merck), and has contracted research with multiple companies, not including Merck.
SOURCE: Schmid P et al. SABCS 2019, Abstract GS3-03.
SAN ANTONIO – Adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting increased the likelihood that women with stage III or early node-positive triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) would have a pathologic complete response and sustained clinical benefit, results of the phase 3 KEYNOTE-522 study showed.
Among 602 patients evaluable in a definitive pathological complete response (pCR) analysis, the pCR rate was 64.8% for those treated with chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab (Keytruda), compared with 51.2% for patients treated with chemotherapy plus placebo, reported Peter Schmid, MD, PhD, from Barts Cancer Institute in London.
“The addition of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab to chemotherapy provided a significant increase in the path CR rate in all patients, but also a larger magnitude of path CR benefit versus chemotherapy alone in patients with higher-risk disease, such as stage III disease or node-positive early triple-negative breast cancer,” he said at the annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.
The overall pCR results were originally reported at the 2019 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology. At SABCS 2019, he reported pCR results for specific subgroups in KEYNOTE-522.
Investigators enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed TNBC of either stage T1cN1-2, or T2-4N0-2 and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients also had to have at least two separate tumor cores from the primary tumor for assessment of programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1).
After stratification for nodal status, tumor size, and carboplatin schedule (once weekly or every 3 weeks), patients were randomized to receive either pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks or placebo plus neoadjuvant carboplatin and paclitaxel for four 3-week cycles, followed by four cycles of chemotherapy with either doxorubicin or epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide (AC or EC). Patients went on to surgery, then received adjuvant therapy for nine cycles with either pembrolizumab at the neoadjuvant dose and schedule or placebo.
At the first preplanned interim analysis for event-free survival (EFS) based on 1,174 patients followed for a median of 15.5 months, events had occurred in 7.4% of patients on pembro/chemo, compared with 11.8% on placebo/chemo, but this difference did not meet the prespecified P value boundary of .000051 for significance, Dr. Schmid acknowledged.
When the investigators looked at pCR by disease stage, however, they saw the following benefits across all stages in the study:
- Stage IIA: 73.1% with pembrolizumab versus 62.1% with placebo, difference 11%.
- Stage IIB: 56.2% versus 48.4%, difference 7.8%.
- Stage IIIA: 66.7% versus 42.1%, difference 24.6%.
- Stage IIIB: 48.6% versus 23.1%, difference 25.6%.
The greatest benefit for the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy appeared to be in the higher disease stages, Dr. Schmid said.
There was also a benefit from pembrolizumab for patients with both node-negative disease (pCR, 64.9% vs. 58.6% in the placebo arm) and node-positive disease (64.8% vs. 44.1%, respectively).
pCR rates were also superior with pembrolizumab versus placebo in patients who were PD-L1 negative, defined as a combined positive score (CPS) less than 1 (45.3% vs. 30.3%), as well as PD-L1–positive patients at each of three cutoff values: CPS 1 or greater (68.9% vs. 54.9%), CPS 10 or greater (77.9% vs. 59.8%), and CPS 20 or greater (81.7% vs. 62.5%).
Interestingly, adding pembrolizumab boosted pCR rates both in patients with exposure to a full planned course of chemotherapy (69.7% vs. 55.3% with placebo) and in those who received less than the full course (51.1% vs. 35.7%).
The most common immune-mediated adverse events with the largest between-group differences involved the thyroid, including hypothyroidism (in 14.9% of patients on pembrolizumab and 5.7% of those on placebo), hyperthyroidism (5.1% vs. 1.8%), and thyroiditis (1.7% vs. 1.0%).
“Immune-mediated adverse events are consistent with the known profiles of each regimen, and there’s no new safety signal, no new safety concern at this point in time,” Dr. Schmid said.
Further follow-up will be needed to determine EFS benefit and long-term safety. Investigators plan to perform additional biomarker analyses, including tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and BRCA, he added.
“Will the KEYNOTE-522 regimen be the new standard of care if approved?” asked invited discussant Kevin Kalinsky, MD, MS, from Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York. “These are exciting data, both in pCR and early event-free survival. But there’s a risk: a risk of overtreatment, as well as potentially [serious] toxicity in patients with curable disease.”
“The take-home is that this regimen will likely be practice changing in some patients, and with the absence of having a predictor, the benefit may outweigh the risk most in patients with high clinical risk,” he added.
The study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Schmid reported advising/consulting for and receiving honoraria from Merck. Dr. Kalinsky disclosed has disclosed that he receives salary from Array Biopharma, has received fees from various companies (not including Merck), and has contracted research with multiple companies, not including Merck.
SOURCE: Schmid P et al. SABCS 2019, Abstract GS3-03.
REPORTING FROM SABCS 2019
Pimavanserin reduced dementia-related psychotic symptoms without affecting cognition
SAN DIEGO – Pimavanserin, a second-generation antipsychotic approved for hallucinations and delusions in patients with Parkinson’s disease, may also be helpful for psychotic symptoms in other dementia patients, Erin P. Foff, MD, said at the Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease conference.
In fact, the phase 3 HARMONY trial was stopped early, after an interim efficacy analysis determined that treatment with pimavanserin (Nuplazid) had achieved its primary endpoint – a statistically significant threefold reduction in the risk of relapse (P less than .0033).
Importantly, pimavanserin didn’t significantly affect cognition nor, at least in this controlled setting, did it appear to increase falls or other adverse events often seen with antipsychotic use in elderly patients, said Dr. Foff, clinical lead for the dementia-related psychosis program at Acadia Pharmaceuticals, which makes the drug and sponsored the study.
Based on the positive results, Acadia intends to submit a supplemental new drug application for this indication, according to an investor presentation posted on the company website.
“There is a critical need for an intervention [for psychosis symptoms] in this population,” Dr. Foff said. “We saw a robust response that was well tolerated and well maintained with no negative impact on cognitive scores.”
The second-generation antipsychotic was approved in 2016 for treating hallucinations and delusions in patients with Parkinson’s disease.
The drug is a selective antagonist of 5-HT2 receptors, with low affinity for dopamine receptors. This slightly differentiates it from other second-generation antipsychotics that affect dopamine receptors as well as 5-HT2 receptors.
HARMONY was not a typical placebo-controlled, randomized efficacy trial. Rather, it employed a two-phase design: an open-label treatment response period followed by a placebo-controlled randomization limited to open-label responders. Overall, HARMONY involved 392 patients with mild to severe dementia of numerous etiologies, including Alzheimer’s disease (66.8%), Parkinson’s disease dementia (14.3%), frontotemporal dementia (1.8%), vascular dementia (9.7%), and dementia with Lewy bodies (7.4%). All patients entered a 12-week, open-label period during which they received pimavanserin 34 mg daily. The primary endpoint was a combination of least a 30% reduction on the total Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptom–Hallucinations and Delusions (SAPS-HD) scale plus a score of 1-2 on the Clinical Global Impressions–Improvement (CGI-I) scale, meaning better or very much better.
At 12 weeks, all responders were then randomized to placebo or continued therapy for 26 weeks. The primary endpoint was relapse, defined as at least a 30% worsening of the SAPS-HD relative to open-label baseline, plus a CGI-I score of 6-7 (worse or very much worse).
Patients were aged a mean of 74 years. Most (about 90%) were living at home. Visual hallucinations occurred in 80% and delusions in 83%. At baseline, the mean SAPS-HD score was 24.4, and the mean CGI-Severity score was 4.7. The mean Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE) score was 16.7.
In the open-label period, pimavanserin reduced the SAPS-HD score at 12 weeks by a mean of 75%. Symptoms began to decline in the first week of treatment, with continuing improvement throughout the treatment period. By week 4, 30% had hit the response target. This number increased steadily, with 51% responding by week 4, 75% by week 8, and 88% by week 12.
By probable diagnosis, response rates were 59.8% in Alzheimer’s patients, 45.5% for those with Lewy body dementia, 71.2% among patients with Parkinson’s disease, 71% in patients with vascular dementia, and 50% in patients with frontotemporal dementia. In the final analysis, 80% of patients overall were considered responders.
The randomized potion began immediately thereafter with no washout period. About 62% (194) of the entire cohort – all responders – entered into the placebo-controlled phase. The remaining patients were either not responders (20%), dropped out because of an adverse event (7.7%), or left the study for unspecified reasons (10%). There was one death, which was not related to the study medication. A total of 41 patients were still being treated when the study was discontinued, and they were excluded from the final analysis.
When the randomized study ended, relapses had occurred in 28.3% of those taking placebo and in 12.6% of those taking pimavanserin – a statistically significant difference (hazard ratio, 0.353). This translated to a 180% reduction in relapse.
The rate of adverse events was similar in both active and placebo groups (41% vs. 36.6%). Serious adverse events occurred in 4.8% and 3.6%, respectively. The most commonly reported adverse events were headache (9.5% vs. 4.5%) and urinary tract infection (6.7% vs. 3.6%). Asthenia occurred in 2.9% of treated patients and 0.9% of placebo patients, but no falls were reported. Anxiety and dizziness were also reported in three patients taking the study medication.
Three patients (2.9%) experienced a prolonged QT phase on ECG, with a mean delay of 5.4 milliseconds from baseline. “Pimavanserin is known to have this effect of QT prolongation,” Dr. Foff said. “This 5.4-ms change is exactly in line with what we already know about pimavanserin and is not clinically significant. We saw no effect on motor function, consistent with the mechanism of action, and very low levels of agitation or aggression.”
Pimavanserin didn’t significantly change cognition from baseline in the open-label period, and in the randomized period, MMSE never differed significantly between groups.
The company also conducted an exploratory subgroup analysis that looked at placebo versus pimavanserin relapse by probable clinical diagnosis. Among the types of dementia, relapse rates for placebo versus pimavanserin were 23% versus 13% among Alzheimer’s patients, 67% versus 0% in Lewy body dementia patients, 50% versus 7% in patients with Parkinson’s, and 17% each among vascular dementia patients. Only one patient in the randomized period had frontotemporal dementia, and that patient relapsed on treatment.
Whether pimavanserin is effective specifically for psychosis in Alzheimer’s disease patients, however, remains in question. In 2018, Acadia published a negative phase 2 trial in a targeted group of 181 Alzheimer’s patients. The primary outcome in each study was mean change on the Neuropsychiatric Inventory–Nursing Home Version psychosis score (NPI-NH-PS). Clive Ballard, MD, of the University of Exeter (England), was the primary investigator.
After 6 weeks, those taking pimavanserin had a 3.76-point change in the NPI-NH-PS, compared with a 1.93-point change in the placebo group. The mean 1.84-point difference was not statistically significant.
This Alzheimer’s-only cohort group also experienced more adverse events than the HARMONY mixed-diagnosis cohort did, although the differences between pimavanserin and placebo groups were not significant. Adverse events included falls (23% of each group) and agitation (21% with pimavanserin vs. 14% with placebo). Cognition was unaffected.
Later that year, Acadia published a subgroup analysis of the same cohort parsing response by symptom severity, again with Dr. Ballard as the lead investigator.
The analysis focused on 57 patients with a baseline NPI-NH-PS of at least 12, indicating severe symptoms of psychosis.
Treatment effects were more pronounced in this group, significantly favoring pimavanserin. On the NPI-NH-PS, 88.9% of the pimavanserin group and 43.3% of the placebo group had at least a 30% improvement; 77.8% and 43.3% experienced at least a 50% improvement. The rate of serious adverse events was similar (18% with pimavanserin and 17% with placebo) and cognition was unaffected. Falls occurred in 14% of the treated group and 20% of the placebo group.
“These findings coupled with the results from other studies of pimavanserin suggest a potential role for pimavanserin in treating psychosis in patients across a range of neuropsychiatric conditions,” Dr. Ballard wrote.
SOURCE: Foff EP et al. CTAD 2019, Late-breaker 1
SAN DIEGO – Pimavanserin, a second-generation antipsychotic approved for hallucinations and delusions in patients with Parkinson’s disease, may also be helpful for psychotic symptoms in other dementia patients, Erin P. Foff, MD, said at the Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease conference.
In fact, the phase 3 HARMONY trial was stopped early, after an interim efficacy analysis determined that treatment with pimavanserin (Nuplazid) had achieved its primary endpoint – a statistically significant threefold reduction in the risk of relapse (P less than .0033).
Importantly, pimavanserin didn’t significantly affect cognition nor, at least in this controlled setting, did it appear to increase falls or other adverse events often seen with antipsychotic use in elderly patients, said Dr. Foff, clinical lead for the dementia-related psychosis program at Acadia Pharmaceuticals, which makes the drug and sponsored the study.
Based on the positive results, Acadia intends to submit a supplemental new drug application for this indication, according to an investor presentation posted on the company website.
“There is a critical need for an intervention [for psychosis symptoms] in this population,” Dr. Foff said. “We saw a robust response that was well tolerated and well maintained with no negative impact on cognitive scores.”
The second-generation antipsychotic was approved in 2016 for treating hallucinations and delusions in patients with Parkinson’s disease.
The drug is a selective antagonist of 5-HT2 receptors, with low affinity for dopamine receptors. This slightly differentiates it from other second-generation antipsychotics that affect dopamine receptors as well as 5-HT2 receptors.
HARMONY was not a typical placebo-controlled, randomized efficacy trial. Rather, it employed a two-phase design: an open-label treatment response period followed by a placebo-controlled randomization limited to open-label responders. Overall, HARMONY involved 392 patients with mild to severe dementia of numerous etiologies, including Alzheimer’s disease (66.8%), Parkinson’s disease dementia (14.3%), frontotemporal dementia (1.8%), vascular dementia (9.7%), and dementia with Lewy bodies (7.4%). All patients entered a 12-week, open-label period during which they received pimavanserin 34 mg daily. The primary endpoint was a combination of least a 30% reduction on the total Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptom–Hallucinations and Delusions (SAPS-HD) scale plus a score of 1-2 on the Clinical Global Impressions–Improvement (CGI-I) scale, meaning better or very much better.
At 12 weeks, all responders were then randomized to placebo or continued therapy for 26 weeks. The primary endpoint was relapse, defined as at least a 30% worsening of the SAPS-HD relative to open-label baseline, plus a CGI-I score of 6-7 (worse or very much worse).
Patients were aged a mean of 74 years. Most (about 90%) were living at home. Visual hallucinations occurred in 80% and delusions in 83%. At baseline, the mean SAPS-HD score was 24.4, and the mean CGI-Severity score was 4.7. The mean Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE) score was 16.7.
In the open-label period, pimavanserin reduced the SAPS-HD score at 12 weeks by a mean of 75%. Symptoms began to decline in the first week of treatment, with continuing improvement throughout the treatment period. By week 4, 30% had hit the response target. This number increased steadily, with 51% responding by week 4, 75% by week 8, and 88% by week 12.
By probable diagnosis, response rates were 59.8% in Alzheimer’s patients, 45.5% for those with Lewy body dementia, 71.2% among patients with Parkinson’s disease, 71% in patients with vascular dementia, and 50% in patients with frontotemporal dementia. In the final analysis, 80% of patients overall were considered responders.
The randomized potion began immediately thereafter with no washout period. About 62% (194) of the entire cohort – all responders – entered into the placebo-controlled phase. The remaining patients were either not responders (20%), dropped out because of an adverse event (7.7%), or left the study for unspecified reasons (10%). There was one death, which was not related to the study medication. A total of 41 patients were still being treated when the study was discontinued, and they were excluded from the final analysis.
When the randomized study ended, relapses had occurred in 28.3% of those taking placebo and in 12.6% of those taking pimavanserin – a statistically significant difference (hazard ratio, 0.353). This translated to a 180% reduction in relapse.
The rate of adverse events was similar in both active and placebo groups (41% vs. 36.6%). Serious adverse events occurred in 4.8% and 3.6%, respectively. The most commonly reported adverse events were headache (9.5% vs. 4.5%) and urinary tract infection (6.7% vs. 3.6%). Asthenia occurred in 2.9% of treated patients and 0.9% of placebo patients, but no falls were reported. Anxiety and dizziness were also reported in three patients taking the study medication.
Three patients (2.9%) experienced a prolonged QT phase on ECG, with a mean delay of 5.4 milliseconds from baseline. “Pimavanserin is known to have this effect of QT prolongation,” Dr. Foff said. “This 5.4-ms change is exactly in line with what we already know about pimavanserin and is not clinically significant. We saw no effect on motor function, consistent with the mechanism of action, and very low levels of agitation or aggression.”
Pimavanserin didn’t significantly change cognition from baseline in the open-label period, and in the randomized period, MMSE never differed significantly between groups.
The company also conducted an exploratory subgroup analysis that looked at placebo versus pimavanserin relapse by probable clinical diagnosis. Among the types of dementia, relapse rates for placebo versus pimavanserin were 23% versus 13% among Alzheimer’s patients, 67% versus 0% in Lewy body dementia patients, 50% versus 7% in patients with Parkinson’s, and 17% each among vascular dementia patients. Only one patient in the randomized period had frontotemporal dementia, and that patient relapsed on treatment.
Whether pimavanserin is effective specifically for psychosis in Alzheimer’s disease patients, however, remains in question. In 2018, Acadia published a negative phase 2 trial in a targeted group of 181 Alzheimer’s patients. The primary outcome in each study was mean change on the Neuropsychiatric Inventory–Nursing Home Version psychosis score (NPI-NH-PS). Clive Ballard, MD, of the University of Exeter (England), was the primary investigator.
After 6 weeks, those taking pimavanserin had a 3.76-point change in the NPI-NH-PS, compared with a 1.93-point change in the placebo group. The mean 1.84-point difference was not statistically significant.
This Alzheimer’s-only cohort group also experienced more adverse events than the HARMONY mixed-diagnosis cohort did, although the differences between pimavanserin and placebo groups were not significant. Adverse events included falls (23% of each group) and agitation (21% with pimavanserin vs. 14% with placebo). Cognition was unaffected.
Later that year, Acadia published a subgroup analysis of the same cohort parsing response by symptom severity, again with Dr. Ballard as the lead investigator.
The analysis focused on 57 patients with a baseline NPI-NH-PS of at least 12, indicating severe symptoms of psychosis.
Treatment effects were more pronounced in this group, significantly favoring pimavanserin. On the NPI-NH-PS, 88.9% of the pimavanserin group and 43.3% of the placebo group had at least a 30% improvement; 77.8% and 43.3% experienced at least a 50% improvement. The rate of serious adverse events was similar (18% with pimavanserin and 17% with placebo) and cognition was unaffected. Falls occurred in 14% of the treated group and 20% of the placebo group.
“These findings coupled with the results from other studies of pimavanserin suggest a potential role for pimavanserin in treating psychosis in patients across a range of neuropsychiatric conditions,” Dr. Ballard wrote.
SOURCE: Foff EP et al. CTAD 2019, Late-breaker 1
SAN DIEGO – Pimavanserin, a second-generation antipsychotic approved for hallucinations and delusions in patients with Parkinson’s disease, may also be helpful for psychotic symptoms in other dementia patients, Erin P. Foff, MD, said at the Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease conference.
In fact, the phase 3 HARMONY trial was stopped early, after an interim efficacy analysis determined that treatment with pimavanserin (Nuplazid) had achieved its primary endpoint – a statistically significant threefold reduction in the risk of relapse (P less than .0033).
Importantly, pimavanserin didn’t significantly affect cognition nor, at least in this controlled setting, did it appear to increase falls or other adverse events often seen with antipsychotic use in elderly patients, said Dr. Foff, clinical lead for the dementia-related psychosis program at Acadia Pharmaceuticals, which makes the drug and sponsored the study.
Based on the positive results, Acadia intends to submit a supplemental new drug application for this indication, according to an investor presentation posted on the company website.
“There is a critical need for an intervention [for psychosis symptoms] in this population,” Dr. Foff said. “We saw a robust response that was well tolerated and well maintained with no negative impact on cognitive scores.”
The second-generation antipsychotic was approved in 2016 for treating hallucinations and delusions in patients with Parkinson’s disease.
The drug is a selective antagonist of 5-HT2 receptors, with low affinity for dopamine receptors. This slightly differentiates it from other second-generation antipsychotics that affect dopamine receptors as well as 5-HT2 receptors.
HARMONY was not a typical placebo-controlled, randomized efficacy trial. Rather, it employed a two-phase design: an open-label treatment response period followed by a placebo-controlled randomization limited to open-label responders. Overall, HARMONY involved 392 patients with mild to severe dementia of numerous etiologies, including Alzheimer’s disease (66.8%), Parkinson’s disease dementia (14.3%), frontotemporal dementia (1.8%), vascular dementia (9.7%), and dementia with Lewy bodies (7.4%). All patients entered a 12-week, open-label period during which they received pimavanserin 34 mg daily. The primary endpoint was a combination of least a 30% reduction on the total Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptom–Hallucinations and Delusions (SAPS-HD) scale plus a score of 1-2 on the Clinical Global Impressions–Improvement (CGI-I) scale, meaning better or very much better.
At 12 weeks, all responders were then randomized to placebo or continued therapy for 26 weeks. The primary endpoint was relapse, defined as at least a 30% worsening of the SAPS-HD relative to open-label baseline, plus a CGI-I score of 6-7 (worse or very much worse).
Patients were aged a mean of 74 years. Most (about 90%) were living at home. Visual hallucinations occurred in 80% and delusions in 83%. At baseline, the mean SAPS-HD score was 24.4, and the mean CGI-Severity score was 4.7. The mean Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE) score was 16.7.
In the open-label period, pimavanserin reduced the SAPS-HD score at 12 weeks by a mean of 75%. Symptoms began to decline in the first week of treatment, with continuing improvement throughout the treatment period. By week 4, 30% had hit the response target. This number increased steadily, with 51% responding by week 4, 75% by week 8, and 88% by week 12.
By probable diagnosis, response rates were 59.8% in Alzheimer’s patients, 45.5% for those with Lewy body dementia, 71.2% among patients with Parkinson’s disease, 71% in patients with vascular dementia, and 50% in patients with frontotemporal dementia. In the final analysis, 80% of patients overall were considered responders.
The randomized potion began immediately thereafter with no washout period. About 62% (194) of the entire cohort – all responders – entered into the placebo-controlled phase. The remaining patients were either not responders (20%), dropped out because of an adverse event (7.7%), or left the study for unspecified reasons (10%). There was one death, which was not related to the study medication. A total of 41 patients were still being treated when the study was discontinued, and they were excluded from the final analysis.
When the randomized study ended, relapses had occurred in 28.3% of those taking placebo and in 12.6% of those taking pimavanserin – a statistically significant difference (hazard ratio, 0.353). This translated to a 180% reduction in relapse.
The rate of adverse events was similar in both active and placebo groups (41% vs. 36.6%). Serious adverse events occurred in 4.8% and 3.6%, respectively. The most commonly reported adverse events were headache (9.5% vs. 4.5%) and urinary tract infection (6.7% vs. 3.6%). Asthenia occurred in 2.9% of treated patients and 0.9% of placebo patients, but no falls were reported. Anxiety and dizziness were also reported in three patients taking the study medication.
Three patients (2.9%) experienced a prolonged QT phase on ECG, with a mean delay of 5.4 milliseconds from baseline. “Pimavanserin is known to have this effect of QT prolongation,” Dr. Foff said. “This 5.4-ms change is exactly in line with what we already know about pimavanserin and is not clinically significant. We saw no effect on motor function, consistent with the mechanism of action, and very low levels of agitation or aggression.”
Pimavanserin didn’t significantly change cognition from baseline in the open-label period, and in the randomized period, MMSE never differed significantly between groups.
The company also conducted an exploratory subgroup analysis that looked at placebo versus pimavanserin relapse by probable clinical diagnosis. Among the types of dementia, relapse rates for placebo versus pimavanserin were 23% versus 13% among Alzheimer’s patients, 67% versus 0% in Lewy body dementia patients, 50% versus 7% in patients with Parkinson’s, and 17% each among vascular dementia patients. Only one patient in the randomized period had frontotemporal dementia, and that patient relapsed on treatment.
Whether pimavanserin is effective specifically for psychosis in Alzheimer’s disease patients, however, remains in question. In 2018, Acadia published a negative phase 2 trial in a targeted group of 181 Alzheimer’s patients. The primary outcome in each study was mean change on the Neuropsychiatric Inventory–Nursing Home Version psychosis score (NPI-NH-PS). Clive Ballard, MD, of the University of Exeter (England), was the primary investigator.
After 6 weeks, those taking pimavanserin had a 3.76-point change in the NPI-NH-PS, compared with a 1.93-point change in the placebo group. The mean 1.84-point difference was not statistically significant.
This Alzheimer’s-only cohort group also experienced more adverse events than the HARMONY mixed-diagnosis cohort did, although the differences between pimavanserin and placebo groups were not significant. Adverse events included falls (23% of each group) and agitation (21% with pimavanserin vs. 14% with placebo). Cognition was unaffected.
Later that year, Acadia published a subgroup analysis of the same cohort parsing response by symptom severity, again with Dr. Ballard as the lead investigator.
The analysis focused on 57 patients with a baseline NPI-NH-PS of at least 12, indicating severe symptoms of psychosis.
Treatment effects were more pronounced in this group, significantly favoring pimavanserin. On the NPI-NH-PS, 88.9% of the pimavanserin group and 43.3% of the placebo group had at least a 30% improvement; 77.8% and 43.3% experienced at least a 50% improvement. The rate of serious adverse events was similar (18% with pimavanserin and 17% with placebo) and cognition was unaffected. Falls occurred in 14% of the treated group and 20% of the placebo group.
“These findings coupled with the results from other studies of pimavanserin suggest a potential role for pimavanserin in treating psychosis in patients across a range of neuropsychiatric conditions,” Dr. Ballard wrote.
SOURCE: Foff EP et al. CTAD 2019, Late-breaker 1
REPORTING FROM CTAD 2019
Emergency physicians not yet embracing buprenorphine for opioid users
SAN DIEGO – Emergency physicians can be persuaded to follow a recommended strategy to prescribe buprenorphine to patients with opioid addictions and to refer them to follow-up care, Kathryn F. Hawk, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry.
“People are willing to change their practices and evolve as long as they have the support to do so,” Dr. Hawk, assistant professor of emergency medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said at the meeting.
Dr. Hawk highlighted a landmark 2015 study led by Yale colleagues that compared three strategies to treating patients with opioid use disorder in the emergency department. Researchers randomly assigned 329 patients to 1) referral to treatment; 2) brief intervention and facilitated referral to community-based treatment services; and 3) emergency department-initiated treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone (Suboxone) plus referral to primary care for 10-week follow-up.
At 30 days, 78% of patients in the third group were in addiction treatment vs. 37% in the first group and 45% in the second group. (P less than .001). However, the percentage of patients in the groups who had negative urine screens for opioids were not statistically different (JAMA. 2015. Apr 28;313[16]:1636-44).
Both the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and the American College of Medical Toxicology have endorsed the use of buprenorphine in the ED “as a bridge to long-term addiction treatment,” said Dr. Hawk, who also is affiliated with Yale New Haven Hospital.
Emergency department physicians, however, have been reluctant to start prescribing buprenorphine and get more deeply involved in referrals to care, said E. Jennifer Edelman, MD, associate professor of general internal medicine at Yale. She described the results of a 2017-2019 survey of 268 medical professionals at urban emergency departments in Seattle, Cincinnati, New York City, and Baltimore. Only 20% of the survey respondents said they were “ready” to initiate the buprenorphine treatment protocol.
Researchers also held focus groups with 74 clinicians who offered insight into their hesitation. “That’s not something that we’re even really taught in medical school and certainly not in our training as emergency physicians,” one faculty member said. “It is this detox black box across the street, and that’s how it is in many places.”
Another faculty member expressed regret about the current system: “I feel like this is particularly vulnerable patient population [and] we’re just saying, ‘Here’s a sheet. Call some numbers. Good luck.’ That’s the way it feels when I discharge these folks.” And a resident said: “We can’t provide all of that care up front. It’s just too time-consuming, and there are other patients to see.”
But not all of the findings were grim.
Dr. Edelman said.
According to her, strategies aimed at boosting the Suboxone approach include establishing protocols, and providing leadership support and resources. Addiction psychiatrists also can be helpful, she said.
“Let’s think about partnering together to bridge that gap,” she said. One idea: Invite emergency physicians to observe a treatment initiation.
“Showing how you counsel patients to start medication at home would be really a wonderful way to facilitate practices in the emergency department,” she said.
Another idea, she said, is to “give them feedback on their patients.” If an emergency physician refers a patient and they walk in the door, “let them know how they did. That’s going to be really, really powerful.”
ACEP and the American Society of Addiction Medicine have created a tool aimed at helping facilitate the use of buprenorphine and naloxone in the emergency department.
Dr. Hawk and Dr. Edelman reported no relevant disclosures.
SAN DIEGO – Emergency physicians can be persuaded to follow a recommended strategy to prescribe buprenorphine to patients with opioid addictions and to refer them to follow-up care, Kathryn F. Hawk, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry.
“People are willing to change their practices and evolve as long as they have the support to do so,” Dr. Hawk, assistant professor of emergency medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said at the meeting.
Dr. Hawk highlighted a landmark 2015 study led by Yale colleagues that compared three strategies to treating patients with opioid use disorder in the emergency department. Researchers randomly assigned 329 patients to 1) referral to treatment; 2) brief intervention and facilitated referral to community-based treatment services; and 3) emergency department-initiated treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone (Suboxone) plus referral to primary care for 10-week follow-up.
At 30 days, 78% of patients in the third group were in addiction treatment vs. 37% in the first group and 45% in the second group. (P less than .001). However, the percentage of patients in the groups who had negative urine screens for opioids were not statistically different (JAMA. 2015. Apr 28;313[16]:1636-44).
Both the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and the American College of Medical Toxicology have endorsed the use of buprenorphine in the ED “as a bridge to long-term addiction treatment,” said Dr. Hawk, who also is affiliated with Yale New Haven Hospital.
Emergency department physicians, however, have been reluctant to start prescribing buprenorphine and get more deeply involved in referrals to care, said E. Jennifer Edelman, MD, associate professor of general internal medicine at Yale. She described the results of a 2017-2019 survey of 268 medical professionals at urban emergency departments in Seattle, Cincinnati, New York City, and Baltimore. Only 20% of the survey respondents said they were “ready” to initiate the buprenorphine treatment protocol.
Researchers also held focus groups with 74 clinicians who offered insight into their hesitation. “That’s not something that we’re even really taught in medical school and certainly not in our training as emergency physicians,” one faculty member said. “It is this detox black box across the street, and that’s how it is in many places.”
Another faculty member expressed regret about the current system: “I feel like this is particularly vulnerable patient population [and] we’re just saying, ‘Here’s a sheet. Call some numbers. Good luck.’ That’s the way it feels when I discharge these folks.” And a resident said: “We can’t provide all of that care up front. It’s just too time-consuming, and there are other patients to see.”
But not all of the findings were grim.
Dr. Edelman said.
According to her, strategies aimed at boosting the Suboxone approach include establishing protocols, and providing leadership support and resources. Addiction psychiatrists also can be helpful, she said.
“Let’s think about partnering together to bridge that gap,” she said. One idea: Invite emergency physicians to observe a treatment initiation.
“Showing how you counsel patients to start medication at home would be really a wonderful way to facilitate practices in the emergency department,” she said.
Another idea, she said, is to “give them feedback on their patients.” If an emergency physician refers a patient and they walk in the door, “let them know how they did. That’s going to be really, really powerful.”
ACEP and the American Society of Addiction Medicine have created a tool aimed at helping facilitate the use of buprenorphine and naloxone in the emergency department.
Dr. Hawk and Dr. Edelman reported no relevant disclosures.
SAN DIEGO – Emergency physicians can be persuaded to follow a recommended strategy to prescribe buprenorphine to patients with opioid addictions and to refer them to follow-up care, Kathryn F. Hawk, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry.
“People are willing to change their practices and evolve as long as they have the support to do so,” Dr. Hawk, assistant professor of emergency medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said at the meeting.
Dr. Hawk highlighted a landmark 2015 study led by Yale colleagues that compared three strategies to treating patients with opioid use disorder in the emergency department. Researchers randomly assigned 329 patients to 1) referral to treatment; 2) brief intervention and facilitated referral to community-based treatment services; and 3) emergency department-initiated treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone (Suboxone) plus referral to primary care for 10-week follow-up.
At 30 days, 78% of patients in the third group were in addiction treatment vs. 37% in the first group and 45% in the second group. (P less than .001). However, the percentage of patients in the groups who had negative urine screens for opioids were not statistically different (JAMA. 2015. Apr 28;313[16]:1636-44).
Both the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and the American College of Medical Toxicology have endorsed the use of buprenorphine in the ED “as a bridge to long-term addiction treatment,” said Dr. Hawk, who also is affiliated with Yale New Haven Hospital.
Emergency department physicians, however, have been reluctant to start prescribing buprenorphine and get more deeply involved in referrals to care, said E. Jennifer Edelman, MD, associate professor of general internal medicine at Yale. She described the results of a 2017-2019 survey of 268 medical professionals at urban emergency departments in Seattle, Cincinnati, New York City, and Baltimore. Only 20% of the survey respondents said they were “ready” to initiate the buprenorphine treatment protocol.
Researchers also held focus groups with 74 clinicians who offered insight into their hesitation. “That’s not something that we’re even really taught in medical school and certainly not in our training as emergency physicians,” one faculty member said. “It is this detox black box across the street, and that’s how it is in many places.”
Another faculty member expressed regret about the current system: “I feel like this is particularly vulnerable patient population [and] we’re just saying, ‘Here’s a sheet. Call some numbers. Good luck.’ That’s the way it feels when I discharge these folks.” And a resident said: “We can’t provide all of that care up front. It’s just too time-consuming, and there are other patients to see.”
But not all of the findings were grim.
Dr. Edelman said.
According to her, strategies aimed at boosting the Suboxone approach include establishing protocols, and providing leadership support and resources. Addiction psychiatrists also can be helpful, she said.
“Let’s think about partnering together to bridge that gap,” she said. One idea: Invite emergency physicians to observe a treatment initiation.
“Showing how you counsel patients to start medication at home would be really a wonderful way to facilitate practices in the emergency department,” she said.
Another idea, she said, is to “give them feedback on their patients.” If an emergency physician refers a patient and they walk in the door, “let them know how they did. That’s going to be really, really powerful.”
ACEP and the American Society of Addiction Medicine have created a tool aimed at helping facilitate the use of buprenorphine and naloxone in the emergency department.
Dr. Hawk and Dr. Edelman reported no relevant disclosures.
REPORTING FROM AAAP 2019
FDA investigates NDMA contamination in metformin
This follows reports of low-level NDMA contamination of metformin in other countries and of a few regulatory agencies issuing recalls for the drug, according to a statement from Janet Woodcock, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
“There are no metformin recalls affecting the U.S. market at this time,” the agency emphasized in the statement. It said NDMA levels in affected medication have been low, at or even below the acceptable intake limit, and there is currently no evidence indicating that metformin drugs within the United States or European Union have been contaminated.
The FDA advised that patients should continue taking metformin alone or in combination with other drugs to control their diabetes and that it would be dangerous for them to stop taking the medication without first discussing it with their providers. It also recommended that providers continue to use metformin when “clinically appropriate” while the investigation is underway as there are no alternative therapies to treat the disease in the same way.
NDMA is a common contaminant that is found in water and some foods and has probable carcinogenic effects when exposure is too high. The acceptable daily intake for NDMA in the United States is 96 ng/day, according to the statement, though people who take in that amount or less every day for 70 years are not expected to have an increased risk of cancer.
Both the FDA and its counterpart, the European Medicines Agency, have recently investigated the presence of NDMA impurities in ranitidine, a drug used to reduce production of stomach acid, which led to several manufacturers issuing recalls for it.
The agencies have also investigated angiotensin II receptor blockers, which are used to treat hypertension, heart failure, and high blood pressure.
The presence of NDMA “can be related to the drug’s manufacturing process or its chemical structure or even the conditions in which they are stored or packaged. As food and drugs are processed in the body, nitrosamines, including NDMA, can be formed,” Dr. Woodcock noted in the statement.
“We are monitoring this issue closely to assess any potential impact on patients with diabetes,” said Robert W. Lash, MD, chief professional and clinical affairs officer of the Endocrine Society. “We have members around the world and are concerned about the possibility of carcinogenic impurities in medications, both in the United States and elsewhere.”
This follows reports of low-level NDMA contamination of metformin in other countries and of a few regulatory agencies issuing recalls for the drug, according to a statement from Janet Woodcock, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
“There are no metformin recalls affecting the U.S. market at this time,” the agency emphasized in the statement. It said NDMA levels in affected medication have been low, at or even below the acceptable intake limit, and there is currently no evidence indicating that metformin drugs within the United States or European Union have been contaminated.
The FDA advised that patients should continue taking metformin alone or in combination with other drugs to control their diabetes and that it would be dangerous for them to stop taking the medication without first discussing it with their providers. It also recommended that providers continue to use metformin when “clinically appropriate” while the investigation is underway as there are no alternative therapies to treat the disease in the same way.
NDMA is a common contaminant that is found in water and some foods and has probable carcinogenic effects when exposure is too high. The acceptable daily intake for NDMA in the United States is 96 ng/day, according to the statement, though people who take in that amount or less every day for 70 years are not expected to have an increased risk of cancer.
Both the FDA and its counterpart, the European Medicines Agency, have recently investigated the presence of NDMA impurities in ranitidine, a drug used to reduce production of stomach acid, which led to several manufacturers issuing recalls for it.
The agencies have also investigated angiotensin II receptor blockers, which are used to treat hypertension, heart failure, and high blood pressure.
The presence of NDMA “can be related to the drug’s manufacturing process or its chemical structure or even the conditions in which they are stored or packaged. As food and drugs are processed in the body, nitrosamines, including NDMA, can be formed,” Dr. Woodcock noted in the statement.
“We are monitoring this issue closely to assess any potential impact on patients with diabetes,” said Robert W. Lash, MD, chief professional and clinical affairs officer of the Endocrine Society. “We have members around the world and are concerned about the possibility of carcinogenic impurities in medications, both in the United States and elsewhere.”
This follows reports of low-level NDMA contamination of metformin in other countries and of a few regulatory agencies issuing recalls for the drug, according to a statement from Janet Woodcock, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
“There are no metformin recalls affecting the U.S. market at this time,” the agency emphasized in the statement. It said NDMA levels in affected medication have been low, at or even below the acceptable intake limit, and there is currently no evidence indicating that metformin drugs within the United States or European Union have been contaminated.
The FDA advised that patients should continue taking metformin alone or in combination with other drugs to control their diabetes and that it would be dangerous for them to stop taking the medication without first discussing it with their providers. It also recommended that providers continue to use metformin when “clinically appropriate” while the investigation is underway as there are no alternative therapies to treat the disease in the same way.
NDMA is a common contaminant that is found in water and some foods and has probable carcinogenic effects when exposure is too high. The acceptable daily intake for NDMA in the United States is 96 ng/day, according to the statement, though people who take in that amount or less every day for 70 years are not expected to have an increased risk of cancer.
Both the FDA and its counterpart, the European Medicines Agency, have recently investigated the presence of NDMA impurities in ranitidine, a drug used to reduce production of stomach acid, which led to several manufacturers issuing recalls for it.
The agencies have also investigated angiotensin II receptor blockers, which are used to treat hypertension, heart failure, and high blood pressure.
The presence of NDMA “can be related to the drug’s manufacturing process or its chemical structure or even the conditions in which they are stored or packaged. As food and drugs are processed in the body, nitrosamines, including NDMA, can be formed,” Dr. Woodcock noted in the statement.
“We are monitoring this issue closely to assess any potential impact on patients with diabetes,” said Robert W. Lash, MD, chief professional and clinical affairs officer of the Endocrine Society. “We have members around the world and are concerned about the possibility of carcinogenic impurities in medications, both in the United States and elsewhere.”
Fast-tracking psilocybin for refractory depression makes sense
A significant proportion of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) either do not respond or have partial responses to the currently available Food and Drug Administration–approved antidepressants.
In controlled clinical trials, there is about a 40%-60% symptom remission rate with a 20%-40% remission rate in community-based treatment settings. Not only do those medications lack efficacy in treating MDD, but there are currently no cures for this debilitating illness. As a result, many patients with MDD continue to suffer.
In response to those poor outcomes, researchers and clinicians have developed algorithms aimed at diagnosing the condition of treatment-resistant depression (TRD),1 which enable opportunities for various treatment methods.2 Several studies underway across the United States are testing what some might consider medically invasive procedures, such as electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), deep brain stimulation (DBS), and vagus nerve stimulation (VNS). ECT often is considered the gold standard of treatment response, but it requires anesthesia, induces a convulsion, and needs a willing patient and clinician. DBS has been used more widely in neurological treatment of movement disorders. Pioneering neurosurgical treatment for TRD reported recently in the American Journal of Psychiatry found that DBS of an area in the brain called the subcallosal cingulate produces clear and apparently sustained antidepressant effects.3 VNS4 remains an experimental treatment for MDD. TMS is safe, noninvasive, and approved by the FDA for depression, but responses appear similar to those with usual antidepressants.
It is not surprising, given those outcomes, that ketamine was fast-tracked in 2016. The enthusiasm related to ketamine’s effect on MDD and TRD has grown over time as more research findings reach the public. While it is unknown how ketamine affects the biological neural network, a single intravenous dose of ketamine (0.5 mg/kg) in patients diagnosed with TRD can lead to improved depression symptoms outcomes within a few hours – and those effects were sustained in 65%-70% of patients at 24 hours. Antidepressants take many weeks to show effects. Ketamine’s exciting findings also offered hope to clinicians and patients trying to manage suicidal thoughts and plans. Ketamine was quickly approved by the FDA as a nasal spray medication.
Now, in another encouraging development, the FDA has granted the Usona Institute Breakthrough Therapy designation for psilocybin for the treatment of MDD. The medical benefits of psilocybin, or “magic mushrooms,” has a long empirical history in our literature. Most recently, psilocybin was featured on “60 Minutes,”5 and in his book, “How to Change Your Mind,”6Michael Pollan details how psychedelic drugs where used to investigate and treat psychiatric disorders until the 1960s, when street use and unsupervised administration led to restrictions on their research and clinical use.
With protocol-driven specific trials, they might become critical medications for a wide range of psychiatric disorders, such as depression, PTSD, anxiety, and addictions. Exciting findings are coming from Roland R. Griffiths, PhD, and his team at Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research. In a recent study8 with cancer patients suffering from depression and anxiety, carefully administered, specific and supervised high doses of psilocybin produced decreases in depression and anxiety, and increases in quality of life and life meaning attitudes. Those improved attitudes, behavior, and responses were sustained by 80% of the sample 6 months post treatment.
Dr. Griffiths’ center is collaborating with Usona, and this collaboration should result in specific guidelines for dose, safety, and protection against abuse and diversion,9 as the study and FDA trials for ketamine have as well.10 It is very encouraging that psychedelic drugs are receiving fast-track designations, and this development reflects a shift in the risk-benefit considerations taking place in our society. Changing attitudes about depression and other psychiatric diseases are encouraging new approaches and new treatments. Psychiatric suffering and pain are being prioritized in research and appreciated by the general public as devastating. Serious, random assignment placebo-controlled and double- blind research studies will define just how valuable these medications might be, what is the safe dose and duration, and for whom they might prove more effective than existing treatments.
The process will take some time. And it is worth remembering that, although research has been promising,11 the number of patients studied, research design, and outcomes are not yet proven for psilosybin.12 The FDA fast-track makes sense, and the agency should continue supporting these efforts for psychedelics. In fact, we think the FDA also should support the promising trials of nitrous oxide13 (laughing gas), and other safe and novel approaches to successfully treat refractory depression. While we wait for personalized psychiatric medicines to be developed and validated through the long process of FDA approval, we will at least have a larger suite of treatment options to match patients with, along with some new algorithms that treat MDD,* TRD, and other disorders just are around the corner.
Dr. Patterson Silver Wolf is an associate professor at Washington University in St. Louis’s Brown School of Social Work. He is a training faculty member for two National Institutes of Health–funded (T32) training programs and serves as the director of the Community Academic Partnership on Addiction (CAPA). He’s chief research officer at the new CAPA Clinic, a teaching addiction treatment facility that is incorporating and testing various performance-based practice technology tools to respond to the opioid crisis and improve addiction treatment outcomes. Dr. Gold is professor of psychiatry (adjunct) at Washington University, St. Louis. He is the 17th Distinguished Alumni Professor at the University of Florida, Gainesville. For more than 40 years, Dr. Gold has worked on developing models for understanding the effects of opioid, tobacco, cocaine, and other drugs, as well as food, on the brain and behavior. He has written several books and published more than 1,000 peer-reviewed scientific articles, texts, and practice guidelines.
References
1. Sackeim HA et al. J Psychiatr Res. 2019 Jun;113:125-36.
2. Conway CR et al. J Clin Psychiatry. 25 Nov;76(11):1569-70.
3. Crowell AL et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2019 Oct 4. doi: 10.1176.appi.ajp.2019.18121427.
4. Kumar A et al. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2019 Feb 13;15:457-68.
5. Psilocybin sessions: Psychedelics could help people with addiction and anxiety. “60 Minutes” CBS News. 2019 Oct 13.
6. Pollan M. How to Change Your Mind: What the New Science of Psychedelics Teaches Us About Consciousness, Dying, Addiction, Depression, and Transcendence (Penguin Random House, 2018).
7. Nutt D. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2019;21(2):139-47.
8. Griffiths RR et al. J Psychopharmacol 2016 Dec;30(12):1181-97.
9. Johnson MW et al. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2018 Nov;142:143-66.
10. Schwenk ES et al. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2018 Jul;43(5):456-66.
11. Johnson MW et al. Neurotherapeutics. 2017 Jul;14(3):734-40.
12. Mutonni S et al. J Affect Disord. 2019 Nov.1;258:11-24.
13. Nagele P et al. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2018 Apr;38(2):144-8.
*Correction, 1/9/2020: An earlier version of this story misidentified the intended disease state.
A significant proportion of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) either do not respond or have partial responses to the currently available Food and Drug Administration–approved antidepressants.
In controlled clinical trials, there is about a 40%-60% symptom remission rate with a 20%-40% remission rate in community-based treatment settings. Not only do those medications lack efficacy in treating MDD, but there are currently no cures for this debilitating illness. As a result, many patients with MDD continue to suffer.
In response to those poor outcomes, researchers and clinicians have developed algorithms aimed at diagnosing the condition of treatment-resistant depression (TRD),1 which enable opportunities for various treatment methods.2 Several studies underway across the United States are testing what some might consider medically invasive procedures, such as electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), deep brain stimulation (DBS), and vagus nerve stimulation (VNS). ECT often is considered the gold standard of treatment response, but it requires anesthesia, induces a convulsion, and needs a willing patient and clinician. DBS has been used more widely in neurological treatment of movement disorders. Pioneering neurosurgical treatment for TRD reported recently in the American Journal of Psychiatry found that DBS of an area in the brain called the subcallosal cingulate produces clear and apparently sustained antidepressant effects.3 VNS4 remains an experimental treatment for MDD. TMS is safe, noninvasive, and approved by the FDA for depression, but responses appear similar to those with usual antidepressants.
It is not surprising, given those outcomes, that ketamine was fast-tracked in 2016. The enthusiasm related to ketamine’s effect on MDD and TRD has grown over time as more research findings reach the public. While it is unknown how ketamine affects the biological neural network, a single intravenous dose of ketamine (0.5 mg/kg) in patients diagnosed with TRD can lead to improved depression symptoms outcomes within a few hours – and those effects were sustained in 65%-70% of patients at 24 hours. Antidepressants take many weeks to show effects. Ketamine’s exciting findings also offered hope to clinicians and patients trying to manage suicidal thoughts and plans. Ketamine was quickly approved by the FDA as a nasal spray medication.
Now, in another encouraging development, the FDA has granted the Usona Institute Breakthrough Therapy designation for psilocybin for the treatment of MDD. The medical benefits of psilocybin, or “magic mushrooms,” has a long empirical history in our literature. Most recently, psilocybin was featured on “60 Minutes,”5 and in his book, “How to Change Your Mind,”6Michael Pollan details how psychedelic drugs where used to investigate and treat psychiatric disorders until the 1960s, when street use and unsupervised administration led to restrictions on their research and clinical use.
With protocol-driven specific trials, they might become critical medications for a wide range of psychiatric disorders, such as depression, PTSD, anxiety, and addictions. Exciting findings are coming from Roland R. Griffiths, PhD, and his team at Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research. In a recent study8 with cancer patients suffering from depression and anxiety, carefully administered, specific and supervised high doses of psilocybin produced decreases in depression and anxiety, and increases in quality of life and life meaning attitudes. Those improved attitudes, behavior, and responses were sustained by 80% of the sample 6 months post treatment.
Dr. Griffiths’ center is collaborating with Usona, and this collaboration should result in specific guidelines for dose, safety, and protection against abuse and diversion,9 as the study and FDA trials for ketamine have as well.10 It is very encouraging that psychedelic drugs are receiving fast-track designations, and this development reflects a shift in the risk-benefit considerations taking place in our society. Changing attitudes about depression and other psychiatric diseases are encouraging new approaches and new treatments. Psychiatric suffering and pain are being prioritized in research and appreciated by the general public as devastating. Serious, random assignment placebo-controlled and double- blind research studies will define just how valuable these medications might be, what is the safe dose and duration, and for whom they might prove more effective than existing treatments.
The process will take some time. And it is worth remembering that, although research has been promising,11 the number of patients studied, research design, and outcomes are not yet proven for psilosybin.12 The FDA fast-track makes sense, and the agency should continue supporting these efforts for psychedelics. In fact, we think the FDA also should support the promising trials of nitrous oxide13 (laughing gas), and other safe and novel approaches to successfully treat refractory depression. While we wait for personalized psychiatric medicines to be developed and validated through the long process of FDA approval, we will at least have a larger suite of treatment options to match patients with, along with some new algorithms that treat MDD,* TRD, and other disorders just are around the corner.
Dr. Patterson Silver Wolf is an associate professor at Washington University in St. Louis’s Brown School of Social Work. He is a training faculty member for two National Institutes of Health–funded (T32) training programs and serves as the director of the Community Academic Partnership on Addiction (CAPA). He’s chief research officer at the new CAPA Clinic, a teaching addiction treatment facility that is incorporating and testing various performance-based practice technology tools to respond to the opioid crisis and improve addiction treatment outcomes. Dr. Gold is professor of psychiatry (adjunct) at Washington University, St. Louis. He is the 17th Distinguished Alumni Professor at the University of Florida, Gainesville. For more than 40 years, Dr. Gold has worked on developing models for understanding the effects of opioid, tobacco, cocaine, and other drugs, as well as food, on the brain and behavior. He has written several books and published more than 1,000 peer-reviewed scientific articles, texts, and practice guidelines.
References
1. Sackeim HA et al. J Psychiatr Res. 2019 Jun;113:125-36.
2. Conway CR et al. J Clin Psychiatry. 25 Nov;76(11):1569-70.
3. Crowell AL et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2019 Oct 4. doi: 10.1176.appi.ajp.2019.18121427.
4. Kumar A et al. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2019 Feb 13;15:457-68.
5. Psilocybin sessions: Psychedelics could help people with addiction and anxiety. “60 Minutes” CBS News. 2019 Oct 13.
6. Pollan M. How to Change Your Mind: What the New Science of Psychedelics Teaches Us About Consciousness, Dying, Addiction, Depression, and Transcendence (Penguin Random House, 2018).
7. Nutt D. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2019;21(2):139-47.
8. Griffiths RR et al. J Psychopharmacol 2016 Dec;30(12):1181-97.
9. Johnson MW et al. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2018 Nov;142:143-66.
10. Schwenk ES et al. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2018 Jul;43(5):456-66.
11. Johnson MW et al. Neurotherapeutics. 2017 Jul;14(3):734-40.
12. Mutonni S et al. J Affect Disord. 2019 Nov.1;258:11-24.
13. Nagele P et al. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2018 Apr;38(2):144-8.
*Correction, 1/9/2020: An earlier version of this story misidentified the intended disease state.
A significant proportion of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) either do not respond or have partial responses to the currently available Food and Drug Administration–approved antidepressants.
In controlled clinical trials, there is about a 40%-60% symptom remission rate with a 20%-40% remission rate in community-based treatment settings. Not only do those medications lack efficacy in treating MDD, but there are currently no cures for this debilitating illness. As a result, many patients with MDD continue to suffer.
In response to those poor outcomes, researchers and clinicians have developed algorithms aimed at diagnosing the condition of treatment-resistant depression (TRD),1 which enable opportunities for various treatment methods.2 Several studies underway across the United States are testing what some might consider medically invasive procedures, such as electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), deep brain stimulation (DBS), and vagus nerve stimulation (VNS). ECT often is considered the gold standard of treatment response, but it requires anesthesia, induces a convulsion, and needs a willing patient and clinician. DBS has been used more widely in neurological treatment of movement disorders. Pioneering neurosurgical treatment for TRD reported recently in the American Journal of Psychiatry found that DBS of an area in the brain called the subcallosal cingulate produces clear and apparently sustained antidepressant effects.3 VNS4 remains an experimental treatment for MDD. TMS is safe, noninvasive, and approved by the FDA for depression, but responses appear similar to those with usual antidepressants.
It is not surprising, given those outcomes, that ketamine was fast-tracked in 2016. The enthusiasm related to ketamine’s effect on MDD and TRD has grown over time as more research findings reach the public. While it is unknown how ketamine affects the biological neural network, a single intravenous dose of ketamine (0.5 mg/kg) in patients diagnosed with TRD can lead to improved depression symptoms outcomes within a few hours – and those effects were sustained in 65%-70% of patients at 24 hours. Antidepressants take many weeks to show effects. Ketamine’s exciting findings also offered hope to clinicians and patients trying to manage suicidal thoughts and plans. Ketamine was quickly approved by the FDA as a nasal spray medication.
Now, in another encouraging development, the FDA has granted the Usona Institute Breakthrough Therapy designation for psilocybin for the treatment of MDD. The medical benefits of psilocybin, or “magic mushrooms,” has a long empirical history in our literature. Most recently, psilocybin was featured on “60 Minutes,”5 and in his book, “How to Change Your Mind,”6Michael Pollan details how psychedelic drugs where used to investigate and treat psychiatric disorders until the 1960s, when street use and unsupervised administration led to restrictions on their research and clinical use.
With protocol-driven specific trials, they might become critical medications for a wide range of psychiatric disorders, such as depression, PTSD, anxiety, and addictions. Exciting findings are coming from Roland R. Griffiths, PhD, and his team at Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research. In a recent study8 with cancer patients suffering from depression and anxiety, carefully administered, specific and supervised high doses of psilocybin produced decreases in depression and anxiety, and increases in quality of life and life meaning attitudes. Those improved attitudes, behavior, and responses were sustained by 80% of the sample 6 months post treatment.
Dr. Griffiths’ center is collaborating with Usona, and this collaboration should result in specific guidelines for dose, safety, and protection against abuse and diversion,9 as the study and FDA trials for ketamine have as well.10 It is very encouraging that psychedelic drugs are receiving fast-track designations, and this development reflects a shift in the risk-benefit considerations taking place in our society. Changing attitudes about depression and other psychiatric diseases are encouraging new approaches and new treatments. Psychiatric suffering and pain are being prioritized in research and appreciated by the general public as devastating. Serious, random assignment placebo-controlled and double- blind research studies will define just how valuable these medications might be, what is the safe dose and duration, and for whom they might prove more effective than existing treatments.
The process will take some time. And it is worth remembering that, although research has been promising,11 the number of patients studied, research design, and outcomes are not yet proven for psilosybin.12 The FDA fast-track makes sense, and the agency should continue supporting these efforts for psychedelics. In fact, we think the FDA also should support the promising trials of nitrous oxide13 (laughing gas), and other safe and novel approaches to successfully treat refractory depression. While we wait for personalized psychiatric medicines to be developed and validated through the long process of FDA approval, we will at least have a larger suite of treatment options to match patients with, along with some new algorithms that treat MDD,* TRD, and other disorders just are around the corner.
Dr. Patterson Silver Wolf is an associate professor at Washington University in St. Louis’s Brown School of Social Work. He is a training faculty member for two National Institutes of Health–funded (T32) training programs and serves as the director of the Community Academic Partnership on Addiction (CAPA). He’s chief research officer at the new CAPA Clinic, a teaching addiction treatment facility that is incorporating and testing various performance-based practice technology tools to respond to the opioid crisis and improve addiction treatment outcomes. Dr. Gold is professor of psychiatry (adjunct) at Washington University, St. Louis. He is the 17th Distinguished Alumni Professor at the University of Florida, Gainesville. For more than 40 years, Dr. Gold has worked on developing models for understanding the effects of opioid, tobacco, cocaine, and other drugs, as well as food, on the brain and behavior. He has written several books and published more than 1,000 peer-reviewed scientific articles, texts, and practice guidelines.
References
1. Sackeim HA et al. J Psychiatr Res. 2019 Jun;113:125-36.
2. Conway CR et al. J Clin Psychiatry. 25 Nov;76(11):1569-70.
3. Crowell AL et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2019 Oct 4. doi: 10.1176.appi.ajp.2019.18121427.
4. Kumar A et al. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2019 Feb 13;15:457-68.
5. Psilocybin sessions: Psychedelics could help people with addiction and anxiety. “60 Minutes” CBS News. 2019 Oct 13.
6. Pollan M. How to Change Your Mind: What the New Science of Psychedelics Teaches Us About Consciousness, Dying, Addiction, Depression, and Transcendence (Penguin Random House, 2018).
7. Nutt D. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2019;21(2):139-47.
8. Griffiths RR et al. J Psychopharmacol 2016 Dec;30(12):1181-97.
9. Johnson MW et al. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2018 Nov;142:143-66.
10. Schwenk ES et al. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2018 Jul;43(5):456-66.
11. Johnson MW et al. Neurotherapeutics. 2017 Jul;14(3):734-40.
12. Mutonni S et al. J Affect Disord. 2019 Nov.1;258:11-24.
13. Nagele P et al. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2018 Apr;38(2):144-8.
*Correction, 1/9/2020: An earlier version of this story misidentified the intended disease state.
Efficacy of postvenetoclax therapy may depend on prior agent exposure in CLL
ORLANDO – For a patient with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who has discontinued venetoclax, choosing the best next therapy may depend on what novel agents the patient was exposed to and why they discontinued them, according to Anthony R. Mato, MD, with the Center for CLL at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.
If the patient is Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor naive, then use of a BTK inhibitor after venetoclax would be supported, Dr. Mato said, by the high overall response rates and durable remissions that he and his coinvestigators documented in a retrospective, multicenter study designed specifically to address the gap in knowledge regarding what to use after venetoclax.
If the patient is BTK inhibitor exposed, then the reason for discontinuation needs to be considered before going with that venetoclax-to-BTK inhibitor sequence, Dr. Mato said during an oral presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
“In patients with resistance to a BTK inhibitor, the sequence was not supported – it did not appear to be effective,” he said. “However, in the setting of intolerance, an alternate BTK inhibitor could be considered.”
The study did not support a venetoclax-to-PI3K inhibitor sequence in PI3K-naive patients, he added, noting that remissions did not appear to be durable, suggesting a potential overlap in resistance mechanisms between agents.
All told, the most effective therapies for in the postvenetoclax setting included the use of a BTK inhibitor in BTK inhibitor–naive or previously responsive patients, and allogeneic transplant following double novel-agent exposure.
“These data may provide support for venetoclax’s earlier use in the course of CLL, and may guide clinical practice and aid in the design of future clinical trials to address sequencing of novel agents,” Dr. Mato told attendees.
While prospective and real-world data clearly show that venetoclax is active in ibrutinib- or idelalisib-exposed patients, data are conversely “variable and limited” with regard to outcomes for next therapies following venetoclax.
“Current data addressing this key sequencing question, I feel, is a major limitation in supporting the sequence of venetoclax to a BTK inhibitor,” Dr. Mato said.
Accordingly, Dr. Mato and colleagues at 31 centers internationally planned and conducted this study, which included data on 326 patients treated with venetoclax who then discontinued for any reason.
“I wanted to highlight that 50% of the sites for this trial were recruited by a single tweet,” said Dr. Mato, adding that he and his coauthors received no funding to conduct this study and volunteered their time to complete it.
They found that, in BTK inhibitor–naive patients who discontinued venetoclax, subsequent BTK inhibitor treatment was associated with a high overall response rate and durable remissions, with a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 32 months.
In BTK inhibitor–exposed patients, response to postvenetoclax BTK inhibitor treatment depended on the reason for discontinuation, with a favorable result (PFS not reached with a mean follow-up of 7.7 months) in patients who were intolerant of the prior BTK inhibitor. By contrast, median PFS was only about 4 months for patients who were resistant to the prior BTK inhibitor.
PI3K inhibitors did not produce durable remissions after venetoclax, with a median PFS also of just 4 months, Dr. Mato reported.
However, cellular therapies appeared to be effective after venetoclax. Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation was particularly effective, with the median PFS not reached, while chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy produced a PFS of 9 months.
Dr. Mato emphasized that the results of the retrospective trial were “hypothesis generating” and noted that patients in the study had received a median of 3, and up to 11, prior therapies. “This population are probably not our patients receiving venetoclax in clinical practice. They’re more heavily pretreated.”
Dr. Mato reported disclosures related to Gilead, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Sunesis, Johnson & Johnson, TG Therapeutics, Loxo Oncology, DTRM Biopharma, Genentech, Janssen, Acerta Pharma, Pharmacyclics, and Celgene.
SOURCE: Mato AR et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 502.
ORLANDO – For a patient with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who has discontinued venetoclax, choosing the best next therapy may depend on what novel agents the patient was exposed to and why they discontinued them, according to Anthony R. Mato, MD, with the Center for CLL at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.
If the patient is Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor naive, then use of a BTK inhibitor after venetoclax would be supported, Dr. Mato said, by the high overall response rates and durable remissions that he and his coinvestigators documented in a retrospective, multicenter study designed specifically to address the gap in knowledge regarding what to use after venetoclax.
If the patient is BTK inhibitor exposed, then the reason for discontinuation needs to be considered before going with that venetoclax-to-BTK inhibitor sequence, Dr. Mato said during an oral presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
“In patients with resistance to a BTK inhibitor, the sequence was not supported – it did not appear to be effective,” he said. “However, in the setting of intolerance, an alternate BTK inhibitor could be considered.”
The study did not support a venetoclax-to-PI3K inhibitor sequence in PI3K-naive patients, he added, noting that remissions did not appear to be durable, suggesting a potential overlap in resistance mechanisms between agents.
All told, the most effective therapies for in the postvenetoclax setting included the use of a BTK inhibitor in BTK inhibitor–naive or previously responsive patients, and allogeneic transplant following double novel-agent exposure.
“These data may provide support for venetoclax’s earlier use in the course of CLL, and may guide clinical practice and aid in the design of future clinical trials to address sequencing of novel agents,” Dr. Mato told attendees.
While prospective and real-world data clearly show that venetoclax is active in ibrutinib- or idelalisib-exposed patients, data are conversely “variable and limited” with regard to outcomes for next therapies following venetoclax.
“Current data addressing this key sequencing question, I feel, is a major limitation in supporting the sequence of venetoclax to a BTK inhibitor,” Dr. Mato said.
Accordingly, Dr. Mato and colleagues at 31 centers internationally planned and conducted this study, which included data on 326 patients treated with venetoclax who then discontinued for any reason.
“I wanted to highlight that 50% of the sites for this trial were recruited by a single tweet,” said Dr. Mato, adding that he and his coauthors received no funding to conduct this study and volunteered their time to complete it.
They found that, in BTK inhibitor–naive patients who discontinued venetoclax, subsequent BTK inhibitor treatment was associated with a high overall response rate and durable remissions, with a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 32 months.
In BTK inhibitor–exposed patients, response to postvenetoclax BTK inhibitor treatment depended on the reason for discontinuation, with a favorable result (PFS not reached with a mean follow-up of 7.7 months) in patients who were intolerant of the prior BTK inhibitor. By contrast, median PFS was only about 4 months for patients who were resistant to the prior BTK inhibitor.
PI3K inhibitors did not produce durable remissions after venetoclax, with a median PFS also of just 4 months, Dr. Mato reported.
However, cellular therapies appeared to be effective after venetoclax. Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation was particularly effective, with the median PFS not reached, while chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy produced a PFS of 9 months.
Dr. Mato emphasized that the results of the retrospective trial were “hypothesis generating” and noted that patients in the study had received a median of 3, and up to 11, prior therapies. “This population are probably not our patients receiving venetoclax in clinical practice. They’re more heavily pretreated.”
Dr. Mato reported disclosures related to Gilead, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Sunesis, Johnson & Johnson, TG Therapeutics, Loxo Oncology, DTRM Biopharma, Genentech, Janssen, Acerta Pharma, Pharmacyclics, and Celgene.
SOURCE: Mato AR et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 502.
ORLANDO – For a patient with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who has discontinued venetoclax, choosing the best next therapy may depend on what novel agents the patient was exposed to and why they discontinued them, according to Anthony R. Mato, MD, with the Center for CLL at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.
If the patient is Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor naive, then use of a BTK inhibitor after venetoclax would be supported, Dr. Mato said, by the high overall response rates and durable remissions that he and his coinvestigators documented in a retrospective, multicenter study designed specifically to address the gap in knowledge regarding what to use after venetoclax.
If the patient is BTK inhibitor exposed, then the reason for discontinuation needs to be considered before going with that venetoclax-to-BTK inhibitor sequence, Dr. Mato said during an oral presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
“In patients with resistance to a BTK inhibitor, the sequence was not supported – it did not appear to be effective,” he said. “However, in the setting of intolerance, an alternate BTK inhibitor could be considered.”
The study did not support a venetoclax-to-PI3K inhibitor sequence in PI3K-naive patients, he added, noting that remissions did not appear to be durable, suggesting a potential overlap in resistance mechanisms between agents.
All told, the most effective therapies for in the postvenetoclax setting included the use of a BTK inhibitor in BTK inhibitor–naive or previously responsive patients, and allogeneic transplant following double novel-agent exposure.
“These data may provide support for venetoclax’s earlier use in the course of CLL, and may guide clinical practice and aid in the design of future clinical trials to address sequencing of novel agents,” Dr. Mato told attendees.
While prospective and real-world data clearly show that venetoclax is active in ibrutinib- or idelalisib-exposed patients, data are conversely “variable and limited” with regard to outcomes for next therapies following venetoclax.
“Current data addressing this key sequencing question, I feel, is a major limitation in supporting the sequence of venetoclax to a BTK inhibitor,” Dr. Mato said.
Accordingly, Dr. Mato and colleagues at 31 centers internationally planned and conducted this study, which included data on 326 patients treated with venetoclax who then discontinued for any reason.
“I wanted to highlight that 50% of the sites for this trial were recruited by a single tweet,” said Dr. Mato, adding that he and his coauthors received no funding to conduct this study and volunteered their time to complete it.
They found that, in BTK inhibitor–naive patients who discontinued venetoclax, subsequent BTK inhibitor treatment was associated with a high overall response rate and durable remissions, with a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 32 months.
In BTK inhibitor–exposed patients, response to postvenetoclax BTK inhibitor treatment depended on the reason for discontinuation, with a favorable result (PFS not reached with a mean follow-up of 7.7 months) in patients who were intolerant of the prior BTK inhibitor. By contrast, median PFS was only about 4 months for patients who were resistant to the prior BTK inhibitor.
PI3K inhibitors did not produce durable remissions after venetoclax, with a median PFS also of just 4 months, Dr. Mato reported.
However, cellular therapies appeared to be effective after venetoclax. Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation was particularly effective, with the median PFS not reached, while chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy produced a PFS of 9 months.
Dr. Mato emphasized that the results of the retrospective trial were “hypothesis generating” and noted that patients in the study had received a median of 3, and up to 11, prior therapies. “This population are probably not our patients receiving venetoclax in clinical practice. They’re more heavily pretreated.”
Dr. Mato reported disclosures related to Gilead, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Sunesis, Johnson & Johnson, TG Therapeutics, Loxo Oncology, DTRM Biopharma, Genentech, Janssen, Acerta Pharma, Pharmacyclics, and Celgene.
SOURCE: Mato AR et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 502.
REPORTING FROM ASH 2019
A triple-antibiotic cure for Crohn’s disease?
SAN ANTONIO – A proprietary oral fixed-dose, triple-antibiotic combination pill offers a promising new approach to the treatment of Crohn’s disease, David Y. Graham, MD, declared at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.
In the phase 3 MAP US trial, patients with Crohn’s disease who were randomized to the fixed-dose combination of 45 mg rifabutin, 95 mg clarithromycin, and 10 mg clofazimine, known for now as RHB-104, experienced significantly higher rates of clinical remission and improvement in inflammation as assessed endoscopically and via biomarkers, compared with placebo-treated controls, reported Dr. Graham, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
RHB-104 is effective against Mycobacterium avium paratuberculosis (MAP) – and therein hangs a tale.
“MAP has been considered as a possible cause of Crohn’s disease since the disease was described by Crohn in 1932,” the gastroenterologist noted. “These randomized trial data provide further evidence suggesting an important role for MAP or similar microorganisms in the pathogenesis of Crohn’s disease.”
For Dr. Graham, this is a case of deja vu all over again. More than a quarter century ago he was lead author of a highly influential randomized, controlled trial which established that treatment with antibiotics directed against Helicobacter pylori cured peptic ulcer disease. As such, he became internationally recognized as a key figure in the resultant revolution in peptic ulcer treatment. He hears an echo of that earlier transformative change in the MAP US results.
“This is either an additional therapy or it’s the beginning of a paradigm shift. I mean, I see this as we’re standing at the same place now as we were standing with Helicobacter pylori 30 years ago, when the question was: Have we found something that we can eradicate and change the natural history of the disease and cure it? You can say this [MAP-directed therapy] is going in that direction, but it certainly hasn’t gotten to the point of proof yet. The results have to be reproduced,” he said.
The MAP US trial included 331 patients with moderate to severely active Crohn’s disease at 92 sites who had failed to achieve an adequate response with conventional therapies. Participants were randomized double blind to twice-daily RHB-104 or placebo for 52 weeks. Those not in remission at 26 weeks could opt for open-label RHB-104. Background concomitant treatment with corticosteroids, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, and immunosuppressives was permitted.
The primary outcome was clinical remission as defined by a Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score below 150 at week 26. This was achieved in 36.7% of the active treatment group and 23% of controls, a highly significant difference. The clinical remission rates at week 16 were 42.2% and 29.1%, respectively. At week 26, 44% of RHB-104-treated patients had achieved at least a 100-point reduction in CDAI score, compared with baseline, as did 30.9% of controls. The key symptom score provided by the sum of the abdominal pain and bowel movement components of the CDAI was significantly lower in the RHB-104 group than in controls from week 16 on.
The remission rate at week 26 in the group on RHB-104 was similarly favorable regardless of whether or not they were on anti–tumor necrosis factor therapy.
“This suggests that RHB-104 can be used effectively and safely as an adjunct treatment to other medications to enhance the response to medical therapy,” according to Dr. Graham, who was principal investigator for MAP US.
The composite endpoint of clinical remission plus at least a 50% reduction from baseline in fecal calprotectin or C-reactive protein was achieved in 21.1% of the RHB-104 group and 9.1% of controls at week 26, and by 16.9% on RHB-104 and 7.9% on placebo at week 52.
In the 35 patients who underwent endoscopy at week 26, a 50% or greater reduction in the Simple Endoscopic Score in Crohn’s Disease was documented in 28.6% of patients on RHB-104 versus 4.8% of controls.
Durable remission, defined as a CDAI score below 150 at all study visits from week 16 to week 52, was achieved in 18.7% of the RHB-104 group, compared with 8.5% of controls.
The side effect profiles of RHB-104 and placebo were similar, with no serious adverse events recorded in the 52-week study. An increase in the QT interval on ECG was noted in the RHB-104 group from week 4 on, but it wasn’t associated with any clinical findings. Further study of this ECG finding is underway.
Several audience members rose to urge caution in interpreting the MAP US data.
“We must adhere to Koch’s postulates before we make conclusions about causative agents of an infectious disease, and I didn’t see those data here. So I look forward to a future presentation that shares that,” one gastroenterologist commented.
“I haven’t seen any data here that shows Mycobacterium was present in these patients,” noted another.
Dr. Graham replied that MAP US was a hypothesis-driven clinical trial: Crohn’s disease has much in common with an inflammatory bowel disease occurring in ruminant animals, where RHB-104 has shown treatment efficacy.
“This is a Mycobacterium avium organism, so it’s not something you’re going to cure in 2 weeks or 2 months. But the question is, do you have an effect on the disease, and the answer in MAP US was unquestionably yes. It’s very positive data to further pursue the hypothesis, but the study doesn’t provide a definitive answer,” he said.
Dr. Graham reported serving as a consultant to RedHill Biopharma, the study sponsor.
SAN ANTONIO – A proprietary oral fixed-dose, triple-antibiotic combination pill offers a promising new approach to the treatment of Crohn’s disease, David Y. Graham, MD, declared at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.
In the phase 3 MAP US trial, patients with Crohn’s disease who were randomized to the fixed-dose combination of 45 mg rifabutin, 95 mg clarithromycin, and 10 mg clofazimine, known for now as RHB-104, experienced significantly higher rates of clinical remission and improvement in inflammation as assessed endoscopically and via biomarkers, compared with placebo-treated controls, reported Dr. Graham, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
RHB-104 is effective against Mycobacterium avium paratuberculosis (MAP) – and therein hangs a tale.
“MAP has been considered as a possible cause of Crohn’s disease since the disease was described by Crohn in 1932,” the gastroenterologist noted. “These randomized trial data provide further evidence suggesting an important role for MAP or similar microorganisms in the pathogenesis of Crohn’s disease.”
For Dr. Graham, this is a case of deja vu all over again. More than a quarter century ago he was lead author of a highly influential randomized, controlled trial which established that treatment with antibiotics directed against Helicobacter pylori cured peptic ulcer disease. As such, he became internationally recognized as a key figure in the resultant revolution in peptic ulcer treatment. He hears an echo of that earlier transformative change in the MAP US results.
“This is either an additional therapy or it’s the beginning of a paradigm shift. I mean, I see this as we’re standing at the same place now as we were standing with Helicobacter pylori 30 years ago, when the question was: Have we found something that we can eradicate and change the natural history of the disease and cure it? You can say this [MAP-directed therapy] is going in that direction, but it certainly hasn’t gotten to the point of proof yet. The results have to be reproduced,” he said.
The MAP US trial included 331 patients with moderate to severely active Crohn’s disease at 92 sites who had failed to achieve an adequate response with conventional therapies. Participants were randomized double blind to twice-daily RHB-104 or placebo for 52 weeks. Those not in remission at 26 weeks could opt for open-label RHB-104. Background concomitant treatment with corticosteroids, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, and immunosuppressives was permitted.
The primary outcome was clinical remission as defined by a Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score below 150 at week 26. This was achieved in 36.7% of the active treatment group and 23% of controls, a highly significant difference. The clinical remission rates at week 16 were 42.2% and 29.1%, respectively. At week 26, 44% of RHB-104-treated patients had achieved at least a 100-point reduction in CDAI score, compared with baseline, as did 30.9% of controls. The key symptom score provided by the sum of the abdominal pain and bowel movement components of the CDAI was significantly lower in the RHB-104 group than in controls from week 16 on.
The remission rate at week 26 in the group on RHB-104 was similarly favorable regardless of whether or not they were on anti–tumor necrosis factor therapy.
“This suggests that RHB-104 can be used effectively and safely as an adjunct treatment to other medications to enhance the response to medical therapy,” according to Dr. Graham, who was principal investigator for MAP US.
The composite endpoint of clinical remission plus at least a 50% reduction from baseline in fecal calprotectin or C-reactive protein was achieved in 21.1% of the RHB-104 group and 9.1% of controls at week 26, and by 16.9% on RHB-104 and 7.9% on placebo at week 52.
In the 35 patients who underwent endoscopy at week 26, a 50% or greater reduction in the Simple Endoscopic Score in Crohn’s Disease was documented in 28.6% of patients on RHB-104 versus 4.8% of controls.
Durable remission, defined as a CDAI score below 150 at all study visits from week 16 to week 52, was achieved in 18.7% of the RHB-104 group, compared with 8.5% of controls.
The side effect profiles of RHB-104 and placebo were similar, with no serious adverse events recorded in the 52-week study. An increase in the QT interval on ECG was noted in the RHB-104 group from week 4 on, but it wasn’t associated with any clinical findings. Further study of this ECG finding is underway.
Several audience members rose to urge caution in interpreting the MAP US data.
“We must adhere to Koch’s postulates before we make conclusions about causative agents of an infectious disease, and I didn’t see those data here. So I look forward to a future presentation that shares that,” one gastroenterologist commented.
“I haven’t seen any data here that shows Mycobacterium was present in these patients,” noted another.
Dr. Graham replied that MAP US was a hypothesis-driven clinical trial: Crohn’s disease has much in common with an inflammatory bowel disease occurring in ruminant animals, where RHB-104 has shown treatment efficacy.
“This is a Mycobacterium avium organism, so it’s not something you’re going to cure in 2 weeks or 2 months. But the question is, do you have an effect on the disease, and the answer in MAP US was unquestionably yes. It’s very positive data to further pursue the hypothesis, but the study doesn’t provide a definitive answer,” he said.
Dr. Graham reported serving as a consultant to RedHill Biopharma, the study sponsor.
SAN ANTONIO – A proprietary oral fixed-dose, triple-antibiotic combination pill offers a promising new approach to the treatment of Crohn’s disease, David Y. Graham, MD, declared at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.
In the phase 3 MAP US trial, patients with Crohn’s disease who were randomized to the fixed-dose combination of 45 mg rifabutin, 95 mg clarithromycin, and 10 mg clofazimine, known for now as RHB-104, experienced significantly higher rates of clinical remission and improvement in inflammation as assessed endoscopically and via biomarkers, compared with placebo-treated controls, reported Dr. Graham, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
RHB-104 is effective against Mycobacterium avium paratuberculosis (MAP) – and therein hangs a tale.
“MAP has been considered as a possible cause of Crohn’s disease since the disease was described by Crohn in 1932,” the gastroenterologist noted. “These randomized trial data provide further evidence suggesting an important role for MAP or similar microorganisms in the pathogenesis of Crohn’s disease.”
For Dr. Graham, this is a case of deja vu all over again. More than a quarter century ago he was lead author of a highly influential randomized, controlled trial which established that treatment with antibiotics directed against Helicobacter pylori cured peptic ulcer disease. As such, he became internationally recognized as a key figure in the resultant revolution in peptic ulcer treatment. He hears an echo of that earlier transformative change in the MAP US results.
“This is either an additional therapy or it’s the beginning of a paradigm shift. I mean, I see this as we’re standing at the same place now as we were standing with Helicobacter pylori 30 years ago, when the question was: Have we found something that we can eradicate and change the natural history of the disease and cure it? You can say this [MAP-directed therapy] is going in that direction, but it certainly hasn’t gotten to the point of proof yet. The results have to be reproduced,” he said.
The MAP US trial included 331 patients with moderate to severely active Crohn’s disease at 92 sites who had failed to achieve an adequate response with conventional therapies. Participants were randomized double blind to twice-daily RHB-104 or placebo for 52 weeks. Those not in remission at 26 weeks could opt for open-label RHB-104. Background concomitant treatment with corticosteroids, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, and immunosuppressives was permitted.
The primary outcome was clinical remission as defined by a Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score below 150 at week 26. This was achieved in 36.7% of the active treatment group and 23% of controls, a highly significant difference. The clinical remission rates at week 16 were 42.2% and 29.1%, respectively. At week 26, 44% of RHB-104-treated patients had achieved at least a 100-point reduction in CDAI score, compared with baseline, as did 30.9% of controls. The key symptom score provided by the sum of the abdominal pain and bowel movement components of the CDAI was significantly lower in the RHB-104 group than in controls from week 16 on.
The remission rate at week 26 in the group on RHB-104 was similarly favorable regardless of whether or not they were on anti–tumor necrosis factor therapy.
“This suggests that RHB-104 can be used effectively and safely as an adjunct treatment to other medications to enhance the response to medical therapy,” according to Dr. Graham, who was principal investigator for MAP US.
The composite endpoint of clinical remission plus at least a 50% reduction from baseline in fecal calprotectin or C-reactive protein was achieved in 21.1% of the RHB-104 group and 9.1% of controls at week 26, and by 16.9% on RHB-104 and 7.9% on placebo at week 52.
In the 35 patients who underwent endoscopy at week 26, a 50% or greater reduction in the Simple Endoscopic Score in Crohn’s Disease was documented in 28.6% of patients on RHB-104 versus 4.8% of controls.
Durable remission, defined as a CDAI score below 150 at all study visits from week 16 to week 52, was achieved in 18.7% of the RHB-104 group, compared with 8.5% of controls.
The side effect profiles of RHB-104 and placebo were similar, with no serious adverse events recorded in the 52-week study. An increase in the QT interval on ECG was noted in the RHB-104 group from week 4 on, but it wasn’t associated with any clinical findings. Further study of this ECG finding is underway.
Several audience members rose to urge caution in interpreting the MAP US data.
“We must adhere to Koch’s postulates before we make conclusions about causative agents of an infectious disease, and I didn’t see those data here. So I look forward to a future presentation that shares that,” one gastroenterologist commented.
“I haven’t seen any data here that shows Mycobacterium was present in these patients,” noted another.
Dr. Graham replied that MAP US was a hypothesis-driven clinical trial: Crohn’s disease has much in common with an inflammatory bowel disease occurring in ruminant animals, where RHB-104 has shown treatment efficacy.
“This is a Mycobacterium avium organism, so it’s not something you’re going to cure in 2 weeks or 2 months. But the question is, do you have an effect on the disease, and the answer in MAP US was unquestionably yes. It’s very positive data to further pursue the hypothesis, but the study doesn’t provide a definitive answer,” he said.
Dr. Graham reported serving as a consultant to RedHill Biopharma, the study sponsor.
REPORTING FROM ACG 2019
Study halted; ‘hyperprogression’ seen with nivolumab for R/R PTCL
ORLANDO – There is an urgent need for new therapies to treat relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma, but results of a phase 2 study suggest that monotherapy with the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab (Opdivo) is not the hoped-for salvage treatment.
An interim analysis of data on 12 patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) treated with nivolumab monotherapy showed an overall response rate of 33%, consisting of 2 complete responses and 2 partial responses. But the responses were short lived, and one patient had hyperprogressive disease – dramatic progression within one cycle of treatment – while two more had progression within two cycles, leading to a trial halt, reported N. Nora Bennani, MD, from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
“These findings likely reflect the distinct biology of PTCL and should be considered when designing future studies using checkpoint inhibitors in these diseases,” she said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
The rationale for using an immune checkpoint inhibitor directed against the programmed death–1 protein and its ligands (PD and PD-L1/2) is that malignant cells in PTCL induce a profoundly immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. Checkpoint inhibitors have shown strong activity against relapsed Hodgkin lymphoma, and the Mayo Clinic researchers speculated that an anti-PD-1 agent could have a similar effect in PTCL.
They had originally planned to enroll 29 patients into a phase 2 trial with nivolumab delivered 240 mg every 2 weeks for eight cycles, followed by a dose of 480 mg given every 4 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicities.
Patients were eligible if they had biopsy-confirmed relapsed or refractory PTCL, measurable disease on cross-sectional imaging of at least 1.5 cm, and prior systemic chemoimmunotherapy and/or autologous stem cell transplantation.
The interim analysis included 12 patients who received at least one dose of nivolumab. Of the 12 patients, 6 had angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), 3 had PTCL not otherwise specified, and 1 each had ALK-negative anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALK-ALCL), enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma (EATL), or hepatosplenic gamma/delta T-cell lymphoma.
All patients had Ann Arbor stage III/IV disease, and 11 had extranodal involvement.
As noted, there were 4 responses among the 12 patients, consisting of 1 complete response in the patient with ALK-ALCL and 1 in a patient with AITL, and 2 partial responses – 1 in a patient with PTCL-NOS, and 1 in the patient with EATL.
The median progression-free survival for all 12 patients was short at 2.7 months, and the median overall survival was estimated at 6.7 months.
“It was staggering to see this: The duration of response was significantly short, less than 2 months,” Dr. Bennani said.
Nonhematologic toxicities were seen in 5 of the 12 patients (42%), and hematologic adverse events occurred in 3 (25%). All patients are now off treatment, 10 because of disease progression, 1 because of acute pancreatitis, and the aforementioned patient with hyperprogressive disease.
The patient with hyperprogressive disease had significant progression in tonsillar and cervical lymphadenopathy within 7-10 days of nivolumab infusion, with biopsy-proven AITL in the involved nodes.
“I believe that, in this patient population, combination therapies will be key. I think checkpoint blockers alone are not going to be sufficient to see meaningful outcomes in these patients,” Dr. Bennani said in an interview.
“An overall response rate of 33% is significant, because most other agents that were FDA approved in this patient population have response rates around 30%,” she said, adding that it’s possible that the patients with rapid progression had disease too advanced to be effectively treated with a checkpoint inhibitor.
“Ideally however, if we want to move forward, it will need to be with combinations of checkpoint inhibitors with HDAC [histone deacetylase] inhibitors, hypomethylating agents, or even PI3 kinase inhibitors,” she said.
The study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Bennani reported research funding and advisory board activities for Bristol-Myers Squibb and others.
SOURCE: Bennani NN et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 467.
ORLANDO – There is an urgent need for new therapies to treat relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma, but results of a phase 2 study suggest that monotherapy with the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab (Opdivo) is not the hoped-for salvage treatment.
An interim analysis of data on 12 patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) treated with nivolumab monotherapy showed an overall response rate of 33%, consisting of 2 complete responses and 2 partial responses. But the responses were short lived, and one patient had hyperprogressive disease – dramatic progression within one cycle of treatment – while two more had progression within two cycles, leading to a trial halt, reported N. Nora Bennani, MD, from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
“These findings likely reflect the distinct biology of PTCL and should be considered when designing future studies using checkpoint inhibitors in these diseases,” she said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
The rationale for using an immune checkpoint inhibitor directed against the programmed death–1 protein and its ligands (PD and PD-L1/2) is that malignant cells in PTCL induce a profoundly immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. Checkpoint inhibitors have shown strong activity against relapsed Hodgkin lymphoma, and the Mayo Clinic researchers speculated that an anti-PD-1 agent could have a similar effect in PTCL.
They had originally planned to enroll 29 patients into a phase 2 trial with nivolumab delivered 240 mg every 2 weeks for eight cycles, followed by a dose of 480 mg given every 4 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicities.
Patients were eligible if they had biopsy-confirmed relapsed or refractory PTCL, measurable disease on cross-sectional imaging of at least 1.5 cm, and prior systemic chemoimmunotherapy and/or autologous stem cell transplantation.
The interim analysis included 12 patients who received at least one dose of nivolumab. Of the 12 patients, 6 had angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), 3 had PTCL not otherwise specified, and 1 each had ALK-negative anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALK-ALCL), enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma (EATL), or hepatosplenic gamma/delta T-cell lymphoma.
All patients had Ann Arbor stage III/IV disease, and 11 had extranodal involvement.
As noted, there were 4 responses among the 12 patients, consisting of 1 complete response in the patient with ALK-ALCL and 1 in a patient with AITL, and 2 partial responses – 1 in a patient with PTCL-NOS, and 1 in the patient with EATL.
The median progression-free survival for all 12 patients was short at 2.7 months, and the median overall survival was estimated at 6.7 months.
“It was staggering to see this: The duration of response was significantly short, less than 2 months,” Dr. Bennani said.
Nonhematologic toxicities were seen in 5 of the 12 patients (42%), and hematologic adverse events occurred in 3 (25%). All patients are now off treatment, 10 because of disease progression, 1 because of acute pancreatitis, and the aforementioned patient with hyperprogressive disease.
The patient with hyperprogressive disease had significant progression in tonsillar and cervical lymphadenopathy within 7-10 days of nivolumab infusion, with biopsy-proven AITL in the involved nodes.
“I believe that, in this patient population, combination therapies will be key. I think checkpoint blockers alone are not going to be sufficient to see meaningful outcomes in these patients,” Dr. Bennani said in an interview.
“An overall response rate of 33% is significant, because most other agents that were FDA approved in this patient population have response rates around 30%,” she said, adding that it’s possible that the patients with rapid progression had disease too advanced to be effectively treated with a checkpoint inhibitor.
“Ideally however, if we want to move forward, it will need to be with combinations of checkpoint inhibitors with HDAC [histone deacetylase] inhibitors, hypomethylating agents, or even PI3 kinase inhibitors,” she said.
The study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Bennani reported research funding and advisory board activities for Bristol-Myers Squibb and others.
SOURCE: Bennani NN et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 467.
ORLANDO – There is an urgent need for new therapies to treat relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma, but results of a phase 2 study suggest that monotherapy with the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab (Opdivo) is not the hoped-for salvage treatment.
An interim analysis of data on 12 patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) treated with nivolumab monotherapy showed an overall response rate of 33%, consisting of 2 complete responses and 2 partial responses. But the responses were short lived, and one patient had hyperprogressive disease – dramatic progression within one cycle of treatment – while two more had progression within two cycles, leading to a trial halt, reported N. Nora Bennani, MD, from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
“These findings likely reflect the distinct biology of PTCL and should be considered when designing future studies using checkpoint inhibitors in these diseases,” she said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
The rationale for using an immune checkpoint inhibitor directed against the programmed death–1 protein and its ligands (PD and PD-L1/2) is that malignant cells in PTCL induce a profoundly immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. Checkpoint inhibitors have shown strong activity against relapsed Hodgkin lymphoma, and the Mayo Clinic researchers speculated that an anti-PD-1 agent could have a similar effect in PTCL.
They had originally planned to enroll 29 patients into a phase 2 trial with nivolumab delivered 240 mg every 2 weeks for eight cycles, followed by a dose of 480 mg given every 4 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicities.
Patients were eligible if they had biopsy-confirmed relapsed or refractory PTCL, measurable disease on cross-sectional imaging of at least 1.5 cm, and prior systemic chemoimmunotherapy and/or autologous stem cell transplantation.
The interim analysis included 12 patients who received at least one dose of nivolumab. Of the 12 patients, 6 had angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), 3 had PTCL not otherwise specified, and 1 each had ALK-negative anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALK-ALCL), enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma (EATL), or hepatosplenic gamma/delta T-cell lymphoma.
All patients had Ann Arbor stage III/IV disease, and 11 had extranodal involvement.
As noted, there were 4 responses among the 12 patients, consisting of 1 complete response in the patient with ALK-ALCL and 1 in a patient with AITL, and 2 partial responses – 1 in a patient with PTCL-NOS, and 1 in the patient with EATL.
The median progression-free survival for all 12 patients was short at 2.7 months, and the median overall survival was estimated at 6.7 months.
“It was staggering to see this: The duration of response was significantly short, less than 2 months,” Dr. Bennani said.
Nonhematologic toxicities were seen in 5 of the 12 patients (42%), and hematologic adverse events occurred in 3 (25%). All patients are now off treatment, 10 because of disease progression, 1 because of acute pancreatitis, and the aforementioned patient with hyperprogressive disease.
The patient with hyperprogressive disease had significant progression in tonsillar and cervical lymphadenopathy within 7-10 days of nivolumab infusion, with biopsy-proven AITL in the involved nodes.
“I believe that, in this patient population, combination therapies will be key. I think checkpoint blockers alone are not going to be sufficient to see meaningful outcomes in these patients,” Dr. Bennani said in an interview.
“An overall response rate of 33% is significant, because most other agents that were FDA approved in this patient population have response rates around 30%,” she said, adding that it’s possible that the patients with rapid progression had disease too advanced to be effectively treated with a checkpoint inhibitor.
“Ideally however, if we want to move forward, it will need to be with combinations of checkpoint inhibitors with HDAC [histone deacetylase] inhibitors, hypomethylating agents, or even PI3 kinase inhibitors,” she said.
The study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Bennani reported research funding and advisory board activities for Bristol-Myers Squibb and others.
SOURCE: Bennani NN et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 467.
REPORTING FROM ASH 2019