User login
Nivolumab improves survival in relapsed mesothelioma
The CONFIRM trial involved 330 previously treated patients with mesothelioma who were randomly assigned to nivolumab or placebo for 1 year or until progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Although recruitment to the study was stopped early because of the COVID-19 pandemic, enough data accrued to show that nivolumab improved overall survival by 28% over placebo, and increased PFS by 39%.
“Nivolumab was deemed a safe and effective treatment and should be considered a new treatment option for patients with relapsed mesothelioma,” said principal investigator Dean A. Fennell, MD, PhD, professor and consultant in thoracic medical oncology, University of Leicester (England).
He presented the results at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021.
Rina Hui, MD, PhD, Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, who was not involved in the study, said that these results had been a “long time coming.”
CONFIRM has added “important, encouraging data on immunotherapy in the salvage setting,” Dr. Hui said, noting that two-thirds of patients had received two or more prior lines of therapy.
Dr. Fennel noted that “a significant clinical benefit was observed in the epithelioid subtype” of the disease but not in patients with nonepithelioid disease.
However, there was “no evidence” to support programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression as predictive of outcomes, he added, which does appear to be the case in some trials on lung cancer and other tumors.
Commenting on these observations, Dr. Hui said that PD-L1 as a predictive biomarker in mesothelioma has been “controversial,” and she emphasized that the results from CONFIRM indicate “no evidence of PD-L1 being predictive.”
However, Dr. Hui questioned the other observation that clinical benefit appeared to be seen only in the epithelioid subtype.
She emphasized that nonepithelioid disease is known to be a “more aggressive, chemoresistant subtype ... with a steep decline in the survival curves.
“Therefore, a lot of patients would not have made it to a subsequent-line clinical trial, explaining why there were only 12% in the CONFIRM study,” and so the sample size may be “too small to detect a difference in outcome,” Dr. Hui said.
Consequently, Dr. Hui said she “would not deny patients with nonepithelioid histology from considering nivolumab in the salvage setting.”
She argued that there was “no clear predictive biomarker for patient selection” emerging from the CONFIRM data.
She agreed that, in patients with mesothelioma who have progressed following platinum/pemetrexed-based chemotherapy as in the first line, “monotherapy nivolumab now can be considered as a treatment option in the second- ... or third-line setting, after second-line chemotherapy”.
However, outstanding questions remain, including whether nivolumab “provides better outcomes than second-line single agent chemotherapy or second-line gemcitabine with the [vascular endothelial growth factor receptor] inhibitor ramucirumab.”
It may also be that nivolumab plus ipilimumab might be superior to nivolumab alone in the salvage setting.
But a more fundamental question is what should be considered for salvage therapy if nivolumab and ipilimumab have already been used in the first-line setting, Dr. Hui said.
Results of first-line immunotherapy combination trials are “eagerly awaited ... to determine and develop other salvage treatments,” she commented.
Responding on Twitter, Riyaz Shah, MD, PhD, consultant medical oncologist, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust in Royal Tunbridge Wells, England, echoed these comments, saying that the results were “very exciting,” but he also “can’t wait to see the first-line chemo–immunotherapy data.”
Stephen V. Liu, MD, director of thoracic oncology at Georgetown University, Washington, commented on Twitter that there was “not a lot of safety data” in the presentation and awaits their eventual publication.
He added that it is “good to have a positive trial” in relapsed mesothelioma, “though the first-line studies will decrease the eventual impact as immunotherapy becomes involved earlier in treatment.”
Details of the CONFIRM results
Relapsed mesothelioma is an “unmet need,” and, until now, “there have been no phase 3 trials which have demonstrated improved overall survival,” Dr. Fennell said in his presentation.
However, three phase 2 trials have shown that immune checkpoint targeting via PD-1 has shown useful clinical activity as a monotherapy in the relapsed setting, and one of these trials has led to approval of nivolumab in Japan for this indication.
CONFIRM was an investigator-initiated phase 3 trial in patients with relapsed mesothelioma who had received more than one prior line of therapy and had a good performance status.
Recruitment began in April 2017, and the “target sample size was 336 patients,” Dr. Fennell said, but the trial was “halted at 332 patients (in March 2020) due to the peaking of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.K.”
“However, at the time, it was felt there were sufficient events” to justify the current analysis of the coprimary endpoints of PFS and OS, despite the latter being 59 events short of the target of 291.
Dr. Fennell said that baseline characteristics were “generally well balanced” between the nivolumab (n = 221) and placebo (n = 111) arms.
However, there were more patients with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of at least 1% among the patients given nivolumab, at 37% versus 29% in the placebo arm.
After a median follow-up of 17.1 months in the nivolumab arm and 14.2 months in the placebo group, overall survival was significantly longer with the active treatment, at 9.2 months versus 6.6 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.72; P = .018).
The proportion of patients alive at 12 months was 39.5% in the nivolumab group and 26.9% in patients given placebo. Investigator-assessed PFS was also significantly longer with nivolumab, at 3.0 months versus 1.8 months with placebo (HR, 0.61; P < .001).
The proportion of patients disease free at 12 months was 14.5% with active treatment versus 4.9% months with the placebo.
“The role for PD-L1 as a potential biomarker was assessed,” Dr. Fennell said, using the Dako 22C3 antibody, with 150 nivolumab and 84 placebo patients divided into those with a TPS <1% or ≥1%.
He noted that PD-L1 expression in the tumor “did not predict survival for patients in the CONFIRM trial,” with neither PD-L1 positive nor PD-L1 negative patients demonstrating a significant improvement in overall survival with nivolumab vs placebo.
“For histology, epithelioid mesothelioma patients benefited from nivolumab,” Dr. Fennell continued, with a hazard ratio for death of 0.71 versus placebo (P = .021). “However, for the nonepithelioid subgroup, in this immature survival analysis ... the P value was not significant,” but this was a small subgroup of patients (12% in both nivolumab and placebo groups).
The safety analysis revealed that the proportion of patients with any serious adverse events, of any grade or grade 3 or higher, was almost identical between the active and placebo arms, Dr. Fennel reported. There were five deaths (3.6%) related to a serious adverse event in the nivolumab arm and four (5.3%) in the placebo group.
This research was funded by the Stand Up to Cancer campaign for Cancer Research UK, supported by Cancer Research UK core funding at the Southampton Clinical Trials Unit, and investigator-initiated support from Bristol-Myers Squibb for free drug labeling and distribution and funding for RECIST reporting. Dr. Fennell reported relationships with Astex Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Atara Biotherapeutics, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly, Inventiva, Lab 21, Merck, and Roche. Dr. Hui reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seagen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The CONFIRM trial involved 330 previously treated patients with mesothelioma who were randomly assigned to nivolumab or placebo for 1 year or until progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Although recruitment to the study was stopped early because of the COVID-19 pandemic, enough data accrued to show that nivolumab improved overall survival by 28% over placebo, and increased PFS by 39%.
“Nivolumab was deemed a safe and effective treatment and should be considered a new treatment option for patients with relapsed mesothelioma,” said principal investigator Dean A. Fennell, MD, PhD, professor and consultant in thoracic medical oncology, University of Leicester (England).
He presented the results at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021.
Rina Hui, MD, PhD, Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, who was not involved in the study, said that these results had been a “long time coming.”
CONFIRM has added “important, encouraging data on immunotherapy in the salvage setting,” Dr. Hui said, noting that two-thirds of patients had received two or more prior lines of therapy.
Dr. Fennel noted that “a significant clinical benefit was observed in the epithelioid subtype” of the disease but not in patients with nonepithelioid disease.
However, there was “no evidence” to support programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression as predictive of outcomes, he added, which does appear to be the case in some trials on lung cancer and other tumors.
Commenting on these observations, Dr. Hui said that PD-L1 as a predictive biomarker in mesothelioma has been “controversial,” and she emphasized that the results from CONFIRM indicate “no evidence of PD-L1 being predictive.”
However, Dr. Hui questioned the other observation that clinical benefit appeared to be seen only in the epithelioid subtype.
She emphasized that nonepithelioid disease is known to be a “more aggressive, chemoresistant subtype ... with a steep decline in the survival curves.
“Therefore, a lot of patients would not have made it to a subsequent-line clinical trial, explaining why there were only 12% in the CONFIRM study,” and so the sample size may be “too small to detect a difference in outcome,” Dr. Hui said.
Consequently, Dr. Hui said she “would not deny patients with nonepithelioid histology from considering nivolumab in the salvage setting.”
She argued that there was “no clear predictive biomarker for patient selection” emerging from the CONFIRM data.
She agreed that, in patients with mesothelioma who have progressed following platinum/pemetrexed-based chemotherapy as in the first line, “monotherapy nivolumab now can be considered as a treatment option in the second- ... or third-line setting, after second-line chemotherapy”.
However, outstanding questions remain, including whether nivolumab “provides better outcomes than second-line single agent chemotherapy or second-line gemcitabine with the [vascular endothelial growth factor receptor] inhibitor ramucirumab.”
It may also be that nivolumab plus ipilimumab might be superior to nivolumab alone in the salvage setting.
But a more fundamental question is what should be considered for salvage therapy if nivolumab and ipilimumab have already been used in the first-line setting, Dr. Hui said.
Results of first-line immunotherapy combination trials are “eagerly awaited ... to determine and develop other salvage treatments,” she commented.
Responding on Twitter, Riyaz Shah, MD, PhD, consultant medical oncologist, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust in Royal Tunbridge Wells, England, echoed these comments, saying that the results were “very exciting,” but he also “can’t wait to see the first-line chemo–immunotherapy data.”
Stephen V. Liu, MD, director of thoracic oncology at Georgetown University, Washington, commented on Twitter that there was “not a lot of safety data” in the presentation and awaits their eventual publication.
He added that it is “good to have a positive trial” in relapsed mesothelioma, “though the first-line studies will decrease the eventual impact as immunotherapy becomes involved earlier in treatment.”
Details of the CONFIRM results
Relapsed mesothelioma is an “unmet need,” and, until now, “there have been no phase 3 trials which have demonstrated improved overall survival,” Dr. Fennell said in his presentation.
However, three phase 2 trials have shown that immune checkpoint targeting via PD-1 has shown useful clinical activity as a monotherapy in the relapsed setting, and one of these trials has led to approval of nivolumab in Japan for this indication.
CONFIRM was an investigator-initiated phase 3 trial in patients with relapsed mesothelioma who had received more than one prior line of therapy and had a good performance status.
Recruitment began in April 2017, and the “target sample size was 336 patients,” Dr. Fennell said, but the trial was “halted at 332 patients (in March 2020) due to the peaking of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.K.”
“However, at the time, it was felt there were sufficient events” to justify the current analysis of the coprimary endpoints of PFS and OS, despite the latter being 59 events short of the target of 291.
Dr. Fennell said that baseline characteristics were “generally well balanced” between the nivolumab (n = 221) and placebo (n = 111) arms.
However, there were more patients with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of at least 1% among the patients given nivolumab, at 37% versus 29% in the placebo arm.
After a median follow-up of 17.1 months in the nivolumab arm and 14.2 months in the placebo group, overall survival was significantly longer with the active treatment, at 9.2 months versus 6.6 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.72; P = .018).
The proportion of patients alive at 12 months was 39.5% in the nivolumab group and 26.9% in patients given placebo. Investigator-assessed PFS was also significantly longer with nivolumab, at 3.0 months versus 1.8 months with placebo (HR, 0.61; P < .001).
The proportion of patients disease free at 12 months was 14.5% with active treatment versus 4.9% months with the placebo.
“The role for PD-L1 as a potential biomarker was assessed,” Dr. Fennell said, using the Dako 22C3 antibody, with 150 nivolumab and 84 placebo patients divided into those with a TPS <1% or ≥1%.
He noted that PD-L1 expression in the tumor “did not predict survival for patients in the CONFIRM trial,” with neither PD-L1 positive nor PD-L1 negative patients demonstrating a significant improvement in overall survival with nivolumab vs placebo.
“For histology, epithelioid mesothelioma patients benefited from nivolumab,” Dr. Fennell continued, with a hazard ratio for death of 0.71 versus placebo (P = .021). “However, for the nonepithelioid subgroup, in this immature survival analysis ... the P value was not significant,” but this was a small subgroup of patients (12% in both nivolumab and placebo groups).
The safety analysis revealed that the proportion of patients with any serious adverse events, of any grade or grade 3 or higher, was almost identical between the active and placebo arms, Dr. Fennel reported. There were five deaths (3.6%) related to a serious adverse event in the nivolumab arm and four (5.3%) in the placebo group.
This research was funded by the Stand Up to Cancer campaign for Cancer Research UK, supported by Cancer Research UK core funding at the Southampton Clinical Trials Unit, and investigator-initiated support from Bristol-Myers Squibb for free drug labeling and distribution and funding for RECIST reporting. Dr. Fennell reported relationships with Astex Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Atara Biotherapeutics, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly, Inventiva, Lab 21, Merck, and Roche. Dr. Hui reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seagen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The CONFIRM trial involved 330 previously treated patients with mesothelioma who were randomly assigned to nivolumab or placebo for 1 year or until progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Although recruitment to the study was stopped early because of the COVID-19 pandemic, enough data accrued to show that nivolumab improved overall survival by 28% over placebo, and increased PFS by 39%.
“Nivolumab was deemed a safe and effective treatment and should be considered a new treatment option for patients with relapsed mesothelioma,” said principal investigator Dean A. Fennell, MD, PhD, professor and consultant in thoracic medical oncology, University of Leicester (England).
He presented the results at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021.
Rina Hui, MD, PhD, Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, who was not involved in the study, said that these results had been a “long time coming.”
CONFIRM has added “important, encouraging data on immunotherapy in the salvage setting,” Dr. Hui said, noting that two-thirds of patients had received two or more prior lines of therapy.
Dr. Fennel noted that “a significant clinical benefit was observed in the epithelioid subtype” of the disease but not in patients with nonepithelioid disease.
However, there was “no evidence” to support programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression as predictive of outcomes, he added, which does appear to be the case in some trials on lung cancer and other tumors.
Commenting on these observations, Dr. Hui said that PD-L1 as a predictive biomarker in mesothelioma has been “controversial,” and she emphasized that the results from CONFIRM indicate “no evidence of PD-L1 being predictive.”
However, Dr. Hui questioned the other observation that clinical benefit appeared to be seen only in the epithelioid subtype.
She emphasized that nonepithelioid disease is known to be a “more aggressive, chemoresistant subtype ... with a steep decline in the survival curves.
“Therefore, a lot of patients would not have made it to a subsequent-line clinical trial, explaining why there were only 12% in the CONFIRM study,” and so the sample size may be “too small to detect a difference in outcome,” Dr. Hui said.
Consequently, Dr. Hui said she “would not deny patients with nonepithelioid histology from considering nivolumab in the salvage setting.”
She argued that there was “no clear predictive biomarker for patient selection” emerging from the CONFIRM data.
She agreed that, in patients with mesothelioma who have progressed following platinum/pemetrexed-based chemotherapy as in the first line, “monotherapy nivolumab now can be considered as a treatment option in the second- ... or third-line setting, after second-line chemotherapy”.
However, outstanding questions remain, including whether nivolumab “provides better outcomes than second-line single agent chemotherapy or second-line gemcitabine with the [vascular endothelial growth factor receptor] inhibitor ramucirumab.”
It may also be that nivolumab plus ipilimumab might be superior to nivolumab alone in the salvage setting.
But a more fundamental question is what should be considered for salvage therapy if nivolumab and ipilimumab have already been used in the first-line setting, Dr. Hui said.
Results of first-line immunotherapy combination trials are “eagerly awaited ... to determine and develop other salvage treatments,” she commented.
Responding on Twitter, Riyaz Shah, MD, PhD, consultant medical oncologist, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust in Royal Tunbridge Wells, England, echoed these comments, saying that the results were “very exciting,” but he also “can’t wait to see the first-line chemo–immunotherapy data.”
Stephen V. Liu, MD, director of thoracic oncology at Georgetown University, Washington, commented on Twitter that there was “not a lot of safety data” in the presentation and awaits their eventual publication.
He added that it is “good to have a positive trial” in relapsed mesothelioma, “though the first-line studies will decrease the eventual impact as immunotherapy becomes involved earlier in treatment.”
Details of the CONFIRM results
Relapsed mesothelioma is an “unmet need,” and, until now, “there have been no phase 3 trials which have demonstrated improved overall survival,” Dr. Fennell said in his presentation.
However, three phase 2 trials have shown that immune checkpoint targeting via PD-1 has shown useful clinical activity as a monotherapy in the relapsed setting, and one of these trials has led to approval of nivolumab in Japan for this indication.
CONFIRM was an investigator-initiated phase 3 trial in patients with relapsed mesothelioma who had received more than one prior line of therapy and had a good performance status.
Recruitment began in April 2017, and the “target sample size was 336 patients,” Dr. Fennell said, but the trial was “halted at 332 patients (in March 2020) due to the peaking of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.K.”
“However, at the time, it was felt there were sufficient events” to justify the current analysis of the coprimary endpoints of PFS and OS, despite the latter being 59 events short of the target of 291.
Dr. Fennell said that baseline characteristics were “generally well balanced” between the nivolumab (n = 221) and placebo (n = 111) arms.
However, there were more patients with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of at least 1% among the patients given nivolumab, at 37% versus 29% in the placebo arm.
After a median follow-up of 17.1 months in the nivolumab arm and 14.2 months in the placebo group, overall survival was significantly longer with the active treatment, at 9.2 months versus 6.6 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.72; P = .018).
The proportion of patients alive at 12 months was 39.5% in the nivolumab group and 26.9% in patients given placebo. Investigator-assessed PFS was also significantly longer with nivolumab, at 3.0 months versus 1.8 months with placebo (HR, 0.61; P < .001).
The proportion of patients disease free at 12 months was 14.5% with active treatment versus 4.9% months with the placebo.
“The role for PD-L1 as a potential biomarker was assessed,” Dr. Fennell said, using the Dako 22C3 antibody, with 150 nivolumab and 84 placebo patients divided into those with a TPS <1% or ≥1%.
He noted that PD-L1 expression in the tumor “did not predict survival for patients in the CONFIRM trial,” with neither PD-L1 positive nor PD-L1 negative patients demonstrating a significant improvement in overall survival with nivolumab vs placebo.
“For histology, epithelioid mesothelioma patients benefited from nivolumab,” Dr. Fennell continued, with a hazard ratio for death of 0.71 versus placebo (P = .021). “However, for the nonepithelioid subgroup, in this immature survival analysis ... the P value was not significant,” but this was a small subgroup of patients (12% in both nivolumab and placebo groups).
The safety analysis revealed that the proportion of patients with any serious adverse events, of any grade or grade 3 or higher, was almost identical between the active and placebo arms, Dr. Fennel reported. There were five deaths (3.6%) related to a serious adverse event in the nivolumab arm and four (5.3%) in the placebo group.
This research was funded by the Stand Up to Cancer campaign for Cancer Research UK, supported by Cancer Research UK core funding at the Southampton Clinical Trials Unit, and investigator-initiated support from Bristol-Myers Squibb for free drug labeling and distribution and funding for RECIST reporting. Dr. Fennell reported relationships with Astex Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Atara Biotherapeutics, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly, Inventiva, Lab 21, Merck, and Roche. Dr. Hui reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seagen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
‘Astonishing’ 4-year survival in NSCLC with pembro plus chemo
The results are from a 4-year follow-up of 160 patients with previously untreated stage IV non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) taking part in the KEYNOTE-189 trial of immunotherapy with pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed–platinum chemotherapy versus chemotherapy plus placebo.
After a median follow-up of 46.3 months, the median overall survival (OS) in the intention-to-treat population was 22.0 months with the combination versus 10.6 months with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.60).
A similar pattern was seen for progression-free survival (PFS), with patients receiving the combination having a longer median PFS, at 9.0 months versus 4.9 months with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.50).
“Stellar data,” Riyaz Shah, MD, PhD, consultant medical oncologist, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, Royal Tunbridge Wells, England, exclaimed on Twitter.
He described the results for the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression subgroups as “astonishing” and singled out the performance of the combination therapy in patients with very low (<1%) tumor PD-L1 expression, showing more than 23% of patients were alive at 3 years versus just over 5% in the group given chemotherapy alone.
Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, Leslye M. Heisler associate professor for lung cancer excellence, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, said the outcomes with the combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy were “terrific.”
Sandip P. Patel, MD, medical oncologist, associate professor of medicine, University of California, San Diego, agreed that these long-term results were “very impressive.” However, he noted the “full effect” of chemotherapy plus immunotherapy has not “fully been captured in our overall cancer mortality statistics in the U.S. yet.”
The new results were presented at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021.
Previous results from KEYNOTE-189 had already demonstrated that, after a median follow-up of 10.5 months, adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy significantly improves both OS and PFS, compared with chemotherapy alone.
The latest results show that the combination “continued to provide overall survival and progression-free survival benefit” in extended follow-up, said study presenter Jhanelle Elaine Gray, MD, chair, department of thoracic oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa.
The 3-year OS rate with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy alone was 31.3% versus 17.4%, and the estimated 3-year PFS was 11.8% versus 1.3%.
Substantial improvements were even seen in patients with tumors that had a low level of PD-L1 expression (measured as the PD-L1 tumor proportion score [TPS]).
Dr. Gray highlighted the finding that the survival benefit with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was seen regardless of PD-L1 expression in the tumor, with a hazard ratio versus chemotherapy alone of 0.71 in patients with a TPS ≥ 50%, 0.66 in those with a TPS of 1%-49%, and 0.52 in patients with a TPS less than 1%. A similar pattern was seen with PFS, with a hazard ratio of 0.36 in patients with a TPS of at least 50%, 0.54 in those with a TPS of 1%-49%, and 0.68 in patients with a TPS less than 1%.
In addition, overall response rate and duration of response were also improved with combination therapy, regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression.
Among 56 patients who completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab, the objective response rate was 87.5% (with 10.7% having a complete response and 76.8% a partial response).
At the data cutoff, 45 patients were alive, 28 did not have progressive disease, and seven had started a second course of pembrolizumab.
The side effect profile of the combination was “manageable,” Dr. Gray reported.
The combination arm was associated with more grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events than the chemotherapy alone arm, at 52.1% versus 42.1%, and more grade 3-5 immune-related adverse events and infusion reactions, at 27.7% versus 13.4%.
Events leading to treatment discontinuation were also more common with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy than chemotherapy, at 27.4% versus 9.9%.
The combination of pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed-platinum has already become “a standard-of-care therapy for patients with newly diagnosed metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC,” Dr. Gray commented.
The study was funded by Merck. Dr. Gray disclosed relationships with Array, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Genentech, and Merck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The results are from a 4-year follow-up of 160 patients with previously untreated stage IV non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) taking part in the KEYNOTE-189 trial of immunotherapy with pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed–platinum chemotherapy versus chemotherapy plus placebo.
After a median follow-up of 46.3 months, the median overall survival (OS) in the intention-to-treat population was 22.0 months with the combination versus 10.6 months with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.60).
A similar pattern was seen for progression-free survival (PFS), with patients receiving the combination having a longer median PFS, at 9.0 months versus 4.9 months with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.50).
“Stellar data,” Riyaz Shah, MD, PhD, consultant medical oncologist, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, Royal Tunbridge Wells, England, exclaimed on Twitter.
He described the results for the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression subgroups as “astonishing” and singled out the performance of the combination therapy in patients with very low (<1%) tumor PD-L1 expression, showing more than 23% of patients were alive at 3 years versus just over 5% in the group given chemotherapy alone.
Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, Leslye M. Heisler associate professor for lung cancer excellence, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, said the outcomes with the combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy were “terrific.”
Sandip P. Patel, MD, medical oncologist, associate professor of medicine, University of California, San Diego, agreed that these long-term results were “very impressive.” However, he noted the “full effect” of chemotherapy plus immunotherapy has not “fully been captured in our overall cancer mortality statistics in the U.S. yet.”
The new results were presented at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021.
Previous results from KEYNOTE-189 had already demonstrated that, after a median follow-up of 10.5 months, adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy significantly improves both OS and PFS, compared with chemotherapy alone.
The latest results show that the combination “continued to provide overall survival and progression-free survival benefit” in extended follow-up, said study presenter Jhanelle Elaine Gray, MD, chair, department of thoracic oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa.
The 3-year OS rate with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy alone was 31.3% versus 17.4%, and the estimated 3-year PFS was 11.8% versus 1.3%.
Substantial improvements were even seen in patients with tumors that had a low level of PD-L1 expression (measured as the PD-L1 tumor proportion score [TPS]).
Dr. Gray highlighted the finding that the survival benefit with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was seen regardless of PD-L1 expression in the tumor, with a hazard ratio versus chemotherapy alone of 0.71 in patients with a TPS ≥ 50%, 0.66 in those with a TPS of 1%-49%, and 0.52 in patients with a TPS less than 1%. A similar pattern was seen with PFS, with a hazard ratio of 0.36 in patients with a TPS of at least 50%, 0.54 in those with a TPS of 1%-49%, and 0.68 in patients with a TPS less than 1%.
In addition, overall response rate and duration of response were also improved with combination therapy, regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression.
Among 56 patients who completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab, the objective response rate was 87.5% (with 10.7% having a complete response and 76.8% a partial response).
At the data cutoff, 45 patients were alive, 28 did not have progressive disease, and seven had started a second course of pembrolizumab.
The side effect profile of the combination was “manageable,” Dr. Gray reported.
The combination arm was associated with more grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events than the chemotherapy alone arm, at 52.1% versus 42.1%, and more grade 3-5 immune-related adverse events and infusion reactions, at 27.7% versus 13.4%.
Events leading to treatment discontinuation were also more common with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy than chemotherapy, at 27.4% versus 9.9%.
The combination of pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed-platinum has already become “a standard-of-care therapy for patients with newly diagnosed metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC,” Dr. Gray commented.
The study was funded by Merck. Dr. Gray disclosed relationships with Array, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Genentech, and Merck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The results are from a 4-year follow-up of 160 patients with previously untreated stage IV non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) taking part in the KEYNOTE-189 trial of immunotherapy with pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed–platinum chemotherapy versus chemotherapy plus placebo.
After a median follow-up of 46.3 months, the median overall survival (OS) in the intention-to-treat population was 22.0 months with the combination versus 10.6 months with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.60).
A similar pattern was seen for progression-free survival (PFS), with patients receiving the combination having a longer median PFS, at 9.0 months versus 4.9 months with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.50).
“Stellar data,” Riyaz Shah, MD, PhD, consultant medical oncologist, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, Royal Tunbridge Wells, England, exclaimed on Twitter.
He described the results for the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression subgroups as “astonishing” and singled out the performance of the combination therapy in patients with very low (<1%) tumor PD-L1 expression, showing more than 23% of patients were alive at 3 years versus just over 5% in the group given chemotherapy alone.
Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, Leslye M. Heisler associate professor for lung cancer excellence, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, said the outcomes with the combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy were “terrific.”
Sandip P. Patel, MD, medical oncologist, associate professor of medicine, University of California, San Diego, agreed that these long-term results were “very impressive.” However, he noted the “full effect” of chemotherapy plus immunotherapy has not “fully been captured in our overall cancer mortality statistics in the U.S. yet.”
The new results were presented at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021.
Previous results from KEYNOTE-189 had already demonstrated that, after a median follow-up of 10.5 months, adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy significantly improves both OS and PFS, compared with chemotherapy alone.
The latest results show that the combination “continued to provide overall survival and progression-free survival benefit” in extended follow-up, said study presenter Jhanelle Elaine Gray, MD, chair, department of thoracic oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa.
The 3-year OS rate with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy alone was 31.3% versus 17.4%, and the estimated 3-year PFS was 11.8% versus 1.3%.
Substantial improvements were even seen in patients with tumors that had a low level of PD-L1 expression (measured as the PD-L1 tumor proportion score [TPS]).
Dr. Gray highlighted the finding that the survival benefit with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was seen regardless of PD-L1 expression in the tumor, with a hazard ratio versus chemotherapy alone of 0.71 in patients with a TPS ≥ 50%, 0.66 in those with a TPS of 1%-49%, and 0.52 in patients with a TPS less than 1%. A similar pattern was seen with PFS, with a hazard ratio of 0.36 in patients with a TPS of at least 50%, 0.54 in those with a TPS of 1%-49%, and 0.68 in patients with a TPS less than 1%.
In addition, overall response rate and duration of response were also improved with combination therapy, regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression.
Among 56 patients who completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab, the objective response rate was 87.5% (with 10.7% having a complete response and 76.8% a partial response).
At the data cutoff, 45 patients were alive, 28 did not have progressive disease, and seven had started a second course of pembrolizumab.
The side effect profile of the combination was “manageable,” Dr. Gray reported.
The combination arm was associated with more grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events than the chemotherapy alone arm, at 52.1% versus 42.1%, and more grade 3-5 immune-related adverse events and infusion reactions, at 27.7% versus 13.4%.
Events leading to treatment discontinuation were also more common with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy than chemotherapy, at 27.4% versus 9.9%.
The combination of pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed-platinum has already become “a standard-of-care therapy for patients with newly diagnosed metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC,” Dr. Gray commented.
The study was funded by Merck. Dr. Gray disclosed relationships with Array, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Genentech, and Merck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Oral contraceptives may reduce ovarian and endometrial cancer risk 35 years after discontinuation
At the same time, oral contraceptive use is associated with a short-term increased risk of breast cancer after discontinuation, although the lifetime risk of breast cancer is not significantly different, the researchers found.
The absolute risk of breast cancer after discontinuation is “extremely small” and should be a limited factor when deciding whether to start oral contraceptive pills (OCPs), a doctor said.
The study was conducted by Torgny Karlsson, PhD, a researcher in the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology at Uppsala (Sweden) University, and colleagues and published online in Cancer Research.
Reinforcing and extending knowledge
“These findings are generally consistent with what is known, but extend that knowledge, most notably by the longer-term follow-up for the cohort,” commented Nancy L. Keating, MD, MPH, professor of health care policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School and a physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. “Other studies have also shown that OCPs lower risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer. This study suggests that this protective benefit extends up to 30-35 years after discontinuing OCPs.”
The results “reinforce the message to patients of the protective effect of OCPs on risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer,” Dr. Keating said. “Women concerned about these cancers can be reassured that this protective effect appears to persist for decades after discontinuing use.”
Prior studies have indicated that oral contraceptives may be associated with an increased risk of breast cancer.
In terms of breast cancer risk, the study “again extends follow-up and shows that risk of breast cancer was higher for current and ever users through age 50,” although the lifetime risk was not elevated, Dr. Keating said.
“The counseling regarding the effect on breast cancer is more complex,” she said. “I tell women about the very small increased risk of breast cancer during and immediately after use. Because cancer is very rare among women at the ages when OCPs are typically prescribed, the absolute risk increase is extremely small. This paper adds reassurance that this small increase in risk does not persist.”
For certain patients, the association may be more relevant.
“For most women, this risk is so small that it should be a limited factor in their decision to start OCPs,” Dr. Keating said. “However, for women with a substantially higher risk of breast cancer, or a family history of breast cancer at a young age, the small increased risk of breast cancer during and immediately after OCP use is more relevant, and counseling should include carefully weighing the benefits and harms of OCPs with other forms of contraception (and no contraception).”
Although the protective effects of oral contraceptives on ovarian and endometrial cancer were well known, the study describes long-term outcomes that can further inform patient counseling, said Samuel S. Badalian, MD, PhD, chief of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Bassett Medical Center in Cooperstown, N.Y., and clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the State University of New York, Syracuse.
“Women with individual or family risk factors of ovarian or endometrial cancers will need to know about the protective effects of oral contraceptives and long-term benefits related with their use (30-35 years after discontinuation),” Dr. Badalian said. “Women with family history of breast cancer need to know that lifetime risk of breast cancer might not differ between ever and never users, even if there is an increased short-term risk.”
Data from the U.K. Biobank
To examine the time-dependent effects between long-term oral contraceptive use and cancer risk, the researchers examined data from 256,661 women from the U.K. Biobank who were born between 1939 and 1970. The researchers identified cancer diagnoses using information from national registers and self-reported data until March 2019.
Of the women included in the study, 82% had used or still were using oral contraceptives, whereas 18% had never used oral contraceptives. Overall, ever users were younger, more frequently smokers, and had a lower body mass index, compared with never users. Most women started using oral contraceptives between 1969 and 1978. Last use of oral contraceptives occurred on average 10.7 years after starting.
The researchers adjusted for covariates and used logistic regression analyses to measure the cumulative risk of cancer. They used Cox regression analysis to examine instantaneous risk, measured using hazard ratios.
In all, there were 17,739 cases of breast cancer (6.9%), 1,966 cases of ovarian cancer (0.76%), and 2,462 cases of endometrial cancer (0.96%).
Among ever users, the likelihood of ovarian cancer (OR, 0.72) and endometrial cancer (OR, 0.68) was lower, compared with never users. “However, we did not see a significant association between oral contraceptive use and breast cancer” for the study period as a whole, the researchers reported. When the researchers limited follow-up to age 50 years, however, the odds ratio for breast cancer was increased (OR, 1.09).
“Surprisingly, we only found a small increased risk of breast cancer among oral contraceptive users, and the increased risk disappeared within a few years after discontinuation,” Åsa Johansson, PhD, a researcher in the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology at Uppsala University and one of the study authors, said in a news release. “Our results suggest that the lifetime risk of breast cancer might not differ between ever and never users, even if there is an increased short-term risk.”
Oral contraceptives today typically use lower doses of estrogen and other types of progesterone, compared with formulas commonly used when participants in the study started taking them, so the results may not directly apply to patients currently taking oral contraceptives, the researchers noted.
The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Cancer Society, and the Kjell and Märta Beijers, the Marcus Borgström, the Åke Wiberg, and the A and M Rudbergs foundations. The authors, Dr. Keating, and Dr. Badalian had no conflicts of interest.
At the same time, oral contraceptive use is associated with a short-term increased risk of breast cancer after discontinuation, although the lifetime risk of breast cancer is not significantly different, the researchers found.
The absolute risk of breast cancer after discontinuation is “extremely small” and should be a limited factor when deciding whether to start oral contraceptive pills (OCPs), a doctor said.
The study was conducted by Torgny Karlsson, PhD, a researcher in the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology at Uppsala (Sweden) University, and colleagues and published online in Cancer Research.
Reinforcing and extending knowledge
“These findings are generally consistent with what is known, but extend that knowledge, most notably by the longer-term follow-up for the cohort,” commented Nancy L. Keating, MD, MPH, professor of health care policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School and a physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. “Other studies have also shown that OCPs lower risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer. This study suggests that this protective benefit extends up to 30-35 years after discontinuing OCPs.”
The results “reinforce the message to patients of the protective effect of OCPs on risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer,” Dr. Keating said. “Women concerned about these cancers can be reassured that this protective effect appears to persist for decades after discontinuing use.”
Prior studies have indicated that oral contraceptives may be associated with an increased risk of breast cancer.
In terms of breast cancer risk, the study “again extends follow-up and shows that risk of breast cancer was higher for current and ever users through age 50,” although the lifetime risk was not elevated, Dr. Keating said.
“The counseling regarding the effect on breast cancer is more complex,” she said. “I tell women about the very small increased risk of breast cancer during and immediately after use. Because cancer is very rare among women at the ages when OCPs are typically prescribed, the absolute risk increase is extremely small. This paper adds reassurance that this small increase in risk does not persist.”
For certain patients, the association may be more relevant.
“For most women, this risk is so small that it should be a limited factor in their decision to start OCPs,” Dr. Keating said. “However, for women with a substantially higher risk of breast cancer, or a family history of breast cancer at a young age, the small increased risk of breast cancer during and immediately after OCP use is more relevant, and counseling should include carefully weighing the benefits and harms of OCPs with other forms of contraception (and no contraception).”
Although the protective effects of oral contraceptives on ovarian and endometrial cancer were well known, the study describes long-term outcomes that can further inform patient counseling, said Samuel S. Badalian, MD, PhD, chief of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Bassett Medical Center in Cooperstown, N.Y., and clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the State University of New York, Syracuse.
“Women with individual or family risk factors of ovarian or endometrial cancers will need to know about the protective effects of oral contraceptives and long-term benefits related with their use (30-35 years after discontinuation),” Dr. Badalian said. “Women with family history of breast cancer need to know that lifetime risk of breast cancer might not differ between ever and never users, even if there is an increased short-term risk.”
Data from the U.K. Biobank
To examine the time-dependent effects between long-term oral contraceptive use and cancer risk, the researchers examined data from 256,661 women from the U.K. Biobank who were born between 1939 and 1970. The researchers identified cancer diagnoses using information from national registers and self-reported data until March 2019.
Of the women included in the study, 82% had used or still were using oral contraceptives, whereas 18% had never used oral contraceptives. Overall, ever users were younger, more frequently smokers, and had a lower body mass index, compared with never users. Most women started using oral contraceptives between 1969 and 1978. Last use of oral contraceptives occurred on average 10.7 years after starting.
The researchers adjusted for covariates and used logistic regression analyses to measure the cumulative risk of cancer. They used Cox regression analysis to examine instantaneous risk, measured using hazard ratios.
In all, there were 17,739 cases of breast cancer (6.9%), 1,966 cases of ovarian cancer (0.76%), and 2,462 cases of endometrial cancer (0.96%).
Among ever users, the likelihood of ovarian cancer (OR, 0.72) and endometrial cancer (OR, 0.68) was lower, compared with never users. “However, we did not see a significant association between oral contraceptive use and breast cancer” for the study period as a whole, the researchers reported. When the researchers limited follow-up to age 50 years, however, the odds ratio for breast cancer was increased (OR, 1.09).
“Surprisingly, we only found a small increased risk of breast cancer among oral contraceptive users, and the increased risk disappeared within a few years after discontinuation,” Åsa Johansson, PhD, a researcher in the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology at Uppsala University and one of the study authors, said in a news release. “Our results suggest that the lifetime risk of breast cancer might not differ between ever and never users, even if there is an increased short-term risk.”
Oral contraceptives today typically use lower doses of estrogen and other types of progesterone, compared with formulas commonly used when participants in the study started taking them, so the results may not directly apply to patients currently taking oral contraceptives, the researchers noted.
The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Cancer Society, and the Kjell and Märta Beijers, the Marcus Borgström, the Åke Wiberg, and the A and M Rudbergs foundations. The authors, Dr. Keating, and Dr. Badalian had no conflicts of interest.
At the same time, oral contraceptive use is associated with a short-term increased risk of breast cancer after discontinuation, although the lifetime risk of breast cancer is not significantly different, the researchers found.
The absolute risk of breast cancer after discontinuation is “extremely small” and should be a limited factor when deciding whether to start oral contraceptive pills (OCPs), a doctor said.
The study was conducted by Torgny Karlsson, PhD, a researcher in the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology at Uppsala (Sweden) University, and colleagues and published online in Cancer Research.
Reinforcing and extending knowledge
“These findings are generally consistent with what is known, but extend that knowledge, most notably by the longer-term follow-up for the cohort,” commented Nancy L. Keating, MD, MPH, professor of health care policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School and a physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. “Other studies have also shown that OCPs lower risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer. This study suggests that this protective benefit extends up to 30-35 years after discontinuing OCPs.”
The results “reinforce the message to patients of the protective effect of OCPs on risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer,” Dr. Keating said. “Women concerned about these cancers can be reassured that this protective effect appears to persist for decades after discontinuing use.”
Prior studies have indicated that oral contraceptives may be associated with an increased risk of breast cancer.
In terms of breast cancer risk, the study “again extends follow-up and shows that risk of breast cancer was higher for current and ever users through age 50,” although the lifetime risk was not elevated, Dr. Keating said.
“The counseling regarding the effect on breast cancer is more complex,” she said. “I tell women about the very small increased risk of breast cancer during and immediately after use. Because cancer is very rare among women at the ages when OCPs are typically prescribed, the absolute risk increase is extremely small. This paper adds reassurance that this small increase in risk does not persist.”
For certain patients, the association may be more relevant.
“For most women, this risk is so small that it should be a limited factor in their decision to start OCPs,” Dr. Keating said. “However, for women with a substantially higher risk of breast cancer, or a family history of breast cancer at a young age, the small increased risk of breast cancer during and immediately after OCP use is more relevant, and counseling should include carefully weighing the benefits and harms of OCPs with other forms of contraception (and no contraception).”
Although the protective effects of oral contraceptives on ovarian and endometrial cancer were well known, the study describes long-term outcomes that can further inform patient counseling, said Samuel S. Badalian, MD, PhD, chief of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Bassett Medical Center in Cooperstown, N.Y., and clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the State University of New York, Syracuse.
“Women with individual or family risk factors of ovarian or endometrial cancers will need to know about the protective effects of oral contraceptives and long-term benefits related with their use (30-35 years after discontinuation),” Dr. Badalian said. “Women with family history of breast cancer need to know that lifetime risk of breast cancer might not differ between ever and never users, even if there is an increased short-term risk.”
Data from the U.K. Biobank
To examine the time-dependent effects between long-term oral contraceptive use and cancer risk, the researchers examined data from 256,661 women from the U.K. Biobank who were born between 1939 and 1970. The researchers identified cancer diagnoses using information from national registers and self-reported data until March 2019.
Of the women included in the study, 82% had used or still were using oral contraceptives, whereas 18% had never used oral contraceptives. Overall, ever users were younger, more frequently smokers, and had a lower body mass index, compared with never users. Most women started using oral contraceptives between 1969 and 1978. Last use of oral contraceptives occurred on average 10.7 years after starting.
The researchers adjusted for covariates and used logistic regression analyses to measure the cumulative risk of cancer. They used Cox regression analysis to examine instantaneous risk, measured using hazard ratios.
In all, there were 17,739 cases of breast cancer (6.9%), 1,966 cases of ovarian cancer (0.76%), and 2,462 cases of endometrial cancer (0.96%).
Among ever users, the likelihood of ovarian cancer (OR, 0.72) and endometrial cancer (OR, 0.68) was lower, compared with never users. “However, we did not see a significant association between oral contraceptive use and breast cancer” for the study period as a whole, the researchers reported. When the researchers limited follow-up to age 50 years, however, the odds ratio for breast cancer was increased (OR, 1.09).
“Surprisingly, we only found a small increased risk of breast cancer among oral contraceptive users, and the increased risk disappeared within a few years after discontinuation,” Åsa Johansson, PhD, a researcher in the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology at Uppsala University and one of the study authors, said in a news release. “Our results suggest that the lifetime risk of breast cancer might not differ between ever and never users, even if there is an increased short-term risk.”
Oral contraceptives today typically use lower doses of estrogen and other types of progesterone, compared with formulas commonly used when participants in the study started taking them, so the results may not directly apply to patients currently taking oral contraceptives, the researchers noted.
The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Cancer Society, and the Kjell and Märta Beijers, the Marcus Borgström, the Åke Wiberg, and the A and M Rudbergs foundations. The authors, Dr. Keating, and Dr. Badalian had no conflicts of interest.
FROM CANCER RESEARCH
Aspirin linked to reduced bladder, breast cancer mortality
However, the treatment – particularly with frequency of at least three times a week – is associated with reductions in mortality in bladder cancer and breast cancer, new observational research shows.
“The results presented here add to the accumulating evidence that aspirin may improve survival for some cancers,” the authors write in their cohort study that uses data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. The new research was published online Jan. 15 in JAMA Network Open.
“Although prior research has been most heavily concentrated in gastrointestinal cancers, our analysis extends the advantages associated with aspirin use to other cancers, such as bladder and breast cancers,” they explained.
In commenting on the study, John J. McNeil, MBBS, PhD, head of the department of epidemiology and preventive medicine at Monash University in Melbourne, said the findings, though intriguing, are not necessarily conclusive.
“The data was derived from a very large and well-conducted study,” Dr. McNeil, who has led other research on aspirin use and the elderly, said in an interview.
“But these conclusions were drawn from the observational component of the study and therefore potentially confounded by other characteristics that differentiate aspirin users from nonusers.”
Aspirin/cancer research in older people lacking
With well-known reports of decreased risks of heart disease, stroke, cancer – particularly gastrointestinal cancers – and all-cause mortality, as many as 25%-50% of adults in the U.S. report taking aspirin daily or every other day.
However, evidence of the benefits relating to cancer, specifically in older people, has been inconsistent, with one recent notable study, the randomized, double-blind ASPREE trial, showing no effect of aspirin on cancer incidence, but a higher mortality rate in elderly patients randomly assigned to aspirin for primary prevention.
To further investigate the effects in older patients, first author Holli A. Loomans-Kropp, PhD, and colleagues with the National Cancer Institute evaluated data on patients who were either 65 years or older at baseline or who had reached aged 65 during follow-up in the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial, which had enrollment from 1993 to 2001.
The authors identified 139,896 individuals with a mean age at baseline of 66.4 years; about half were women and 88.5% were non-Hispanic White.
Follow-up took place until the time of death, December 2014 for those who consented to follow-up, or December 2009 for those who refused consent to follow-up. The authors reported that there were 32,580 incident cancers, including 5.4% bladder, 14% breast, 1% esophageal, 1.2% gastric, 2.7% pancreatic, and 2.2% uterine cancers.
The study showed no association between aspirin use and the incidence of any of the cancer types included in the study among those over age 65.
However, further multivariate analysis of survival showed that, with follow-up adjusted to until the time of death, Dec. 31, 2015, or earlier refusal to consent, the use of aspirin at least three times per week was associated with reduced mortality in those with bladder (hazard ratio, 0.67) and breast (HR, 0.75) cancers, whereas no significant associations were observed with esophageal, gastric, pancreatic, or uterine cancer.
A similar association of any aspirin use (less than three times per week) with bladder (HR, 0.75) and breast (HR, 0.79) cancer survival was observed, the authors noted.
“These results may indicate that, for some cancer types, any aspirin use may be advantageous; however, greater benefit may be observed with increased frequency of use,” the authors wrote.
Mechanism speculation focuses on COX-2 pathway
Theories of the mechanisms behind a potential benefit of aspirin for those with bladder cancer include that urothelial cancer has increased RNA and protein expression of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) and urinary prostaglandin E2, “suggesting up-regulation of the COX-2 pathway during cancer progression,” the authors wrote.
In breast cancer, a similar elevated expression of COX-2 has been shown to predict disease outcomes, including progression and decreased survival.
“This may be partly due to the mechanistic interplay between angiogenesis, cell proliferation, apoptosis, and inflammatory processes,” the authors noted.
The study isn’t the first to show a benefit specifically with bladder cancer; other studies include recent research (J Urol. 2018 Nov;200[5]:1014-21) showing that daily aspirin use among patients with bladder cancer was associated with increased 5-year survival following radical cystectomy, the authors noted.
Dr. McNeil noted that the new findings from the U.S. researchers, particularly regarding bladder cancer, are of interest. “The reduction in mortality from breast cancer is modest, but the reduction in mortality from bladder cancer was more impressive,” he said.
“However, given the fact that this finding is observational data and was a sole finding among multiple comparisons, it must be seen as suggestive rather than proven.”
Regarding possible mechanisms, Dr. McNeil added that, like the bulk of the prior research, many questions remain.
“There have been many suggestions about ways that aspirin might work at a molecular and cellular level, but no firm consensus has been reached.”
The study authors and Dr. McNeil disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
However, the treatment – particularly with frequency of at least three times a week – is associated with reductions in mortality in bladder cancer and breast cancer, new observational research shows.
“The results presented here add to the accumulating evidence that aspirin may improve survival for some cancers,” the authors write in their cohort study that uses data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. The new research was published online Jan. 15 in JAMA Network Open.
“Although prior research has been most heavily concentrated in gastrointestinal cancers, our analysis extends the advantages associated with aspirin use to other cancers, such as bladder and breast cancers,” they explained.
In commenting on the study, John J. McNeil, MBBS, PhD, head of the department of epidemiology and preventive medicine at Monash University in Melbourne, said the findings, though intriguing, are not necessarily conclusive.
“The data was derived from a very large and well-conducted study,” Dr. McNeil, who has led other research on aspirin use and the elderly, said in an interview.
“But these conclusions were drawn from the observational component of the study and therefore potentially confounded by other characteristics that differentiate aspirin users from nonusers.”
Aspirin/cancer research in older people lacking
With well-known reports of decreased risks of heart disease, stroke, cancer – particularly gastrointestinal cancers – and all-cause mortality, as many as 25%-50% of adults in the U.S. report taking aspirin daily or every other day.
However, evidence of the benefits relating to cancer, specifically in older people, has been inconsistent, with one recent notable study, the randomized, double-blind ASPREE trial, showing no effect of aspirin on cancer incidence, but a higher mortality rate in elderly patients randomly assigned to aspirin for primary prevention.
To further investigate the effects in older patients, first author Holli A. Loomans-Kropp, PhD, and colleagues with the National Cancer Institute evaluated data on patients who were either 65 years or older at baseline or who had reached aged 65 during follow-up in the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial, which had enrollment from 1993 to 2001.
The authors identified 139,896 individuals with a mean age at baseline of 66.4 years; about half were women and 88.5% were non-Hispanic White.
Follow-up took place until the time of death, December 2014 for those who consented to follow-up, or December 2009 for those who refused consent to follow-up. The authors reported that there were 32,580 incident cancers, including 5.4% bladder, 14% breast, 1% esophageal, 1.2% gastric, 2.7% pancreatic, and 2.2% uterine cancers.
The study showed no association between aspirin use and the incidence of any of the cancer types included in the study among those over age 65.
However, further multivariate analysis of survival showed that, with follow-up adjusted to until the time of death, Dec. 31, 2015, or earlier refusal to consent, the use of aspirin at least three times per week was associated with reduced mortality in those with bladder (hazard ratio, 0.67) and breast (HR, 0.75) cancers, whereas no significant associations were observed with esophageal, gastric, pancreatic, or uterine cancer.
A similar association of any aspirin use (less than three times per week) with bladder (HR, 0.75) and breast (HR, 0.79) cancer survival was observed, the authors noted.
“These results may indicate that, for some cancer types, any aspirin use may be advantageous; however, greater benefit may be observed with increased frequency of use,” the authors wrote.
Mechanism speculation focuses on COX-2 pathway
Theories of the mechanisms behind a potential benefit of aspirin for those with bladder cancer include that urothelial cancer has increased RNA and protein expression of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) and urinary prostaglandin E2, “suggesting up-regulation of the COX-2 pathway during cancer progression,” the authors wrote.
In breast cancer, a similar elevated expression of COX-2 has been shown to predict disease outcomes, including progression and decreased survival.
“This may be partly due to the mechanistic interplay between angiogenesis, cell proliferation, apoptosis, and inflammatory processes,” the authors noted.
The study isn’t the first to show a benefit specifically with bladder cancer; other studies include recent research (J Urol. 2018 Nov;200[5]:1014-21) showing that daily aspirin use among patients with bladder cancer was associated with increased 5-year survival following radical cystectomy, the authors noted.
Dr. McNeil noted that the new findings from the U.S. researchers, particularly regarding bladder cancer, are of interest. “The reduction in mortality from breast cancer is modest, but the reduction in mortality from bladder cancer was more impressive,” he said.
“However, given the fact that this finding is observational data and was a sole finding among multiple comparisons, it must be seen as suggestive rather than proven.”
Regarding possible mechanisms, Dr. McNeil added that, like the bulk of the prior research, many questions remain.
“There have been many suggestions about ways that aspirin might work at a molecular and cellular level, but no firm consensus has been reached.”
The study authors and Dr. McNeil disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
However, the treatment – particularly with frequency of at least three times a week – is associated with reductions in mortality in bladder cancer and breast cancer, new observational research shows.
“The results presented here add to the accumulating evidence that aspirin may improve survival for some cancers,” the authors write in their cohort study that uses data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. The new research was published online Jan. 15 in JAMA Network Open.
“Although prior research has been most heavily concentrated in gastrointestinal cancers, our analysis extends the advantages associated with aspirin use to other cancers, such as bladder and breast cancers,” they explained.
In commenting on the study, John J. McNeil, MBBS, PhD, head of the department of epidemiology and preventive medicine at Monash University in Melbourne, said the findings, though intriguing, are not necessarily conclusive.
“The data was derived from a very large and well-conducted study,” Dr. McNeil, who has led other research on aspirin use and the elderly, said in an interview.
“But these conclusions were drawn from the observational component of the study and therefore potentially confounded by other characteristics that differentiate aspirin users from nonusers.”
Aspirin/cancer research in older people lacking
With well-known reports of decreased risks of heart disease, stroke, cancer – particularly gastrointestinal cancers – and all-cause mortality, as many as 25%-50% of adults in the U.S. report taking aspirin daily or every other day.
However, evidence of the benefits relating to cancer, specifically in older people, has been inconsistent, with one recent notable study, the randomized, double-blind ASPREE trial, showing no effect of aspirin on cancer incidence, but a higher mortality rate in elderly patients randomly assigned to aspirin for primary prevention.
To further investigate the effects in older patients, first author Holli A. Loomans-Kropp, PhD, and colleagues with the National Cancer Institute evaluated data on patients who were either 65 years or older at baseline or who had reached aged 65 during follow-up in the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial, which had enrollment from 1993 to 2001.
The authors identified 139,896 individuals with a mean age at baseline of 66.4 years; about half were women and 88.5% were non-Hispanic White.
Follow-up took place until the time of death, December 2014 for those who consented to follow-up, or December 2009 for those who refused consent to follow-up. The authors reported that there were 32,580 incident cancers, including 5.4% bladder, 14% breast, 1% esophageal, 1.2% gastric, 2.7% pancreatic, and 2.2% uterine cancers.
The study showed no association between aspirin use and the incidence of any of the cancer types included in the study among those over age 65.
However, further multivariate analysis of survival showed that, with follow-up adjusted to until the time of death, Dec. 31, 2015, or earlier refusal to consent, the use of aspirin at least three times per week was associated with reduced mortality in those with bladder (hazard ratio, 0.67) and breast (HR, 0.75) cancers, whereas no significant associations were observed with esophageal, gastric, pancreatic, or uterine cancer.
A similar association of any aspirin use (less than three times per week) with bladder (HR, 0.75) and breast (HR, 0.79) cancer survival was observed, the authors noted.
“These results may indicate that, for some cancer types, any aspirin use may be advantageous; however, greater benefit may be observed with increased frequency of use,” the authors wrote.
Mechanism speculation focuses on COX-2 pathway
Theories of the mechanisms behind a potential benefit of aspirin for those with bladder cancer include that urothelial cancer has increased RNA and protein expression of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) and urinary prostaglandin E2, “suggesting up-regulation of the COX-2 pathway during cancer progression,” the authors wrote.
In breast cancer, a similar elevated expression of COX-2 has been shown to predict disease outcomes, including progression and decreased survival.
“This may be partly due to the mechanistic interplay between angiogenesis, cell proliferation, apoptosis, and inflammatory processes,” the authors noted.
The study isn’t the first to show a benefit specifically with bladder cancer; other studies include recent research (J Urol. 2018 Nov;200[5]:1014-21) showing that daily aspirin use among patients with bladder cancer was associated with increased 5-year survival following radical cystectomy, the authors noted.
Dr. McNeil noted that the new findings from the U.S. researchers, particularly regarding bladder cancer, are of interest. “The reduction in mortality from breast cancer is modest, but the reduction in mortality from bladder cancer was more impressive,” he said.
“However, given the fact that this finding is observational data and was a sole finding among multiple comparisons, it must be seen as suggestive rather than proven.”
Regarding possible mechanisms, Dr. McNeil added that, like the bulk of the prior research, many questions remain.
“There have been many suggestions about ways that aspirin might work at a molecular and cellular level, but no firm consensus has been reached.”
The study authors and Dr. McNeil disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The jury’s still out on trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab in mCRC
The median progression-free survival (PFS) in the phase 2 trial showed a difference of 1.41 months favoring TT-B over C-B, but this difference was not statistically significant.
The median overall survival was 4.64 months longer with TT-B than with C-B. However, the final analysis of TASCO1 was not designed to be comparative for overall survival, “so no formal statistical analysis is presented, and survival is a secondary endpoint,” noted investigator Eric Van Cutsem, MD, PhD, of University Hospital Gasthuisberg in Leuven, Belgium.
Dr. Van Cutsem presented the final results of TASCO1 at the 2021 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium (abstract 14).
Prior results from the trial were reported last year (Ann Oncol. 2020 Sep;31[9]:1160-68).
About trifluridine/tipiracil
Trifluridine/tipiracil is an oral drug combining the thymidine analogue trifluridine with tipiracil, an inhibitor of trifluridine degradation. The drug was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015 under the trade name Lonsurf for the treatment of refractory metastatic colorectal cancer, and in 2019 for patients with metastatic gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction cancer that had been treated with at least two lines of chemotherapy.
Trifluridine/tipiracil was associated with a brief but statistically significant survival benefit when compared with placebo in patients with heavily pretreated metastatic gastric cancer in the TAS-102 Gastric Study (Lancet Oncol. 2018 Nov;19[11]:1437-48).
In a separate analysis of the study, trifluridine/tipiracil was associated with significantly better overall survival and PFS than placebo in patients who had undergone gastrectomy (JAMA Oncol. 2019 Oct 10;6[1]:e193531).
TASCO1 details
In TASCO1, investigators enrolled patients with colorectal cancer who had never received systemic therapy for unresectable metastatic disease, and who were judged to be ineligible for intensive therapy due to advanced age, low tumor burden, poor performance status, comorbidities, or other clinical reasons.
After stratification by RAS status, performance status, and region, patients were randomly assigned to receive TT-B (n = 77) or C-B (n = 76).
TT-B consisted of oral trifluridine/tipiracil at 35 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-5 and 8-12 every 4 weeks plus bevacizumab at 5 mg/kg intravenously on days 1 and 15 every 4 weeks.
C-B consisted of oral capecitabine at 1,250 or 1,000 mg/m2 twice a day on days 1-14 every 3 weeks plus bevacizumab at 7.5 mg/kg IV on day 1 every 3 weeks.
Final results
The median PFS, the primary endpoint, was 9.23 months with TT-B and 7.82 months with C-B. The difference was not statistically significant, with the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval crossing 1.
The median overall survival was 22.31 months with TT-B and 17.67 months with C-B (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.55-1.10).
Dr. Van Cutsem pointed out that more patients in the TT-B arm had subsequent therapies compared with patients in the C-B arm – 59.7% vs. 40.8%.
He also noted that the safety profile of TT-B “remains unchanged from the initial analysis.”
Grade 3 or greater neutropenia, decreased neutrophil count, anemia, and decreased white blood cell count were all higher among patients on TT-B, but grade 3 or greater febrile neutropenia was similar between the groups.
Patients in the TT-B arm had more frequent grade 3 or greater nausea, vomiting, and hypertension. Grade 3 or higher hand-foot syndrome and diarrhea were both more common with C-B.
At the study cutoff date in September 2020, 66 patients in each arm had died.
Dr. Van Cutsem said more data on the efficacy of TT-B vs. C-B will come from the ongoing phase 3 SOLSTICE trial. Results from this trial are expected in late 2022.
‘The jury is still out’
The final results from TASCO1 suggest there may be some benefit from TT-B in patients with treatment-naive metastatic colorectal cancer, “but we don’t use it in the first line,” said Jeffery Clark, MD, an oncologist who was not involved in the study.
The trial supports the benefit of combining trifluridine/tipiracil with bevacizumab, and the results were “somewhat better” than he had expected, said Dr. Clark, director of clinical trials support at Mass General Cancer Center in Boston.
“Even though the results are encouraging, there were a couple of things about the trial that one has to at least think about,” Dr. Clark said in an interview.
He noted, for example, that a higher proportion of patients assigned to TT-B had prior adjuvant therapy (27.3% vs. 19.7%), and patients in the TT-B arm were also more likely to have second lines of systemic therapy, which could have skewed the results in favor of the experimental arm.
“I think, basically, the jury is still out until we see the results of the SOLSTICE trial,” he said.
The TASCO1 study was funded by Servier and Taiho. Dr. Van Cutsem has received research funding and served on an advisory board for Servier and other companies. Dr. Clark reported no relevant disclosures.
The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.
The median progression-free survival (PFS) in the phase 2 trial showed a difference of 1.41 months favoring TT-B over C-B, but this difference was not statistically significant.
The median overall survival was 4.64 months longer with TT-B than with C-B. However, the final analysis of TASCO1 was not designed to be comparative for overall survival, “so no formal statistical analysis is presented, and survival is a secondary endpoint,” noted investigator Eric Van Cutsem, MD, PhD, of University Hospital Gasthuisberg in Leuven, Belgium.
Dr. Van Cutsem presented the final results of TASCO1 at the 2021 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium (abstract 14).
Prior results from the trial were reported last year (Ann Oncol. 2020 Sep;31[9]:1160-68).
About trifluridine/tipiracil
Trifluridine/tipiracil is an oral drug combining the thymidine analogue trifluridine with tipiracil, an inhibitor of trifluridine degradation. The drug was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015 under the trade name Lonsurf for the treatment of refractory metastatic colorectal cancer, and in 2019 for patients with metastatic gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction cancer that had been treated with at least two lines of chemotherapy.
Trifluridine/tipiracil was associated with a brief but statistically significant survival benefit when compared with placebo in patients with heavily pretreated metastatic gastric cancer in the TAS-102 Gastric Study (Lancet Oncol. 2018 Nov;19[11]:1437-48).
In a separate analysis of the study, trifluridine/tipiracil was associated with significantly better overall survival and PFS than placebo in patients who had undergone gastrectomy (JAMA Oncol. 2019 Oct 10;6[1]:e193531).
TASCO1 details
In TASCO1, investigators enrolled patients with colorectal cancer who had never received systemic therapy for unresectable metastatic disease, and who were judged to be ineligible for intensive therapy due to advanced age, low tumor burden, poor performance status, comorbidities, or other clinical reasons.
After stratification by RAS status, performance status, and region, patients were randomly assigned to receive TT-B (n = 77) or C-B (n = 76).
TT-B consisted of oral trifluridine/tipiracil at 35 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-5 and 8-12 every 4 weeks plus bevacizumab at 5 mg/kg intravenously on days 1 and 15 every 4 weeks.
C-B consisted of oral capecitabine at 1,250 or 1,000 mg/m2 twice a day on days 1-14 every 3 weeks plus bevacizumab at 7.5 mg/kg IV on day 1 every 3 weeks.
Final results
The median PFS, the primary endpoint, was 9.23 months with TT-B and 7.82 months with C-B. The difference was not statistically significant, with the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval crossing 1.
The median overall survival was 22.31 months with TT-B and 17.67 months with C-B (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.55-1.10).
Dr. Van Cutsem pointed out that more patients in the TT-B arm had subsequent therapies compared with patients in the C-B arm – 59.7% vs. 40.8%.
He also noted that the safety profile of TT-B “remains unchanged from the initial analysis.”
Grade 3 or greater neutropenia, decreased neutrophil count, anemia, and decreased white blood cell count were all higher among patients on TT-B, but grade 3 or greater febrile neutropenia was similar between the groups.
Patients in the TT-B arm had more frequent grade 3 or greater nausea, vomiting, and hypertension. Grade 3 or higher hand-foot syndrome and diarrhea were both more common with C-B.
At the study cutoff date in September 2020, 66 patients in each arm had died.
Dr. Van Cutsem said more data on the efficacy of TT-B vs. C-B will come from the ongoing phase 3 SOLSTICE trial. Results from this trial are expected in late 2022.
‘The jury is still out’
The final results from TASCO1 suggest there may be some benefit from TT-B in patients with treatment-naive metastatic colorectal cancer, “but we don’t use it in the first line,” said Jeffery Clark, MD, an oncologist who was not involved in the study.
The trial supports the benefit of combining trifluridine/tipiracil with bevacizumab, and the results were “somewhat better” than he had expected, said Dr. Clark, director of clinical trials support at Mass General Cancer Center in Boston.
“Even though the results are encouraging, there were a couple of things about the trial that one has to at least think about,” Dr. Clark said in an interview.
He noted, for example, that a higher proportion of patients assigned to TT-B had prior adjuvant therapy (27.3% vs. 19.7%), and patients in the TT-B arm were also more likely to have second lines of systemic therapy, which could have skewed the results in favor of the experimental arm.
“I think, basically, the jury is still out until we see the results of the SOLSTICE trial,” he said.
The TASCO1 study was funded by Servier and Taiho. Dr. Van Cutsem has received research funding and served on an advisory board for Servier and other companies. Dr. Clark reported no relevant disclosures.
The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.
The median progression-free survival (PFS) in the phase 2 trial showed a difference of 1.41 months favoring TT-B over C-B, but this difference was not statistically significant.
The median overall survival was 4.64 months longer with TT-B than with C-B. However, the final analysis of TASCO1 was not designed to be comparative for overall survival, “so no formal statistical analysis is presented, and survival is a secondary endpoint,” noted investigator Eric Van Cutsem, MD, PhD, of University Hospital Gasthuisberg in Leuven, Belgium.
Dr. Van Cutsem presented the final results of TASCO1 at the 2021 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium (abstract 14).
Prior results from the trial were reported last year (Ann Oncol. 2020 Sep;31[9]:1160-68).
About trifluridine/tipiracil
Trifluridine/tipiracil is an oral drug combining the thymidine analogue trifluridine with tipiracil, an inhibitor of trifluridine degradation. The drug was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015 under the trade name Lonsurf for the treatment of refractory metastatic colorectal cancer, and in 2019 for patients with metastatic gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction cancer that had been treated with at least two lines of chemotherapy.
Trifluridine/tipiracil was associated with a brief but statistically significant survival benefit when compared with placebo in patients with heavily pretreated metastatic gastric cancer in the TAS-102 Gastric Study (Lancet Oncol. 2018 Nov;19[11]:1437-48).
In a separate analysis of the study, trifluridine/tipiracil was associated with significantly better overall survival and PFS than placebo in patients who had undergone gastrectomy (JAMA Oncol. 2019 Oct 10;6[1]:e193531).
TASCO1 details
In TASCO1, investigators enrolled patients with colorectal cancer who had never received systemic therapy for unresectable metastatic disease, and who were judged to be ineligible for intensive therapy due to advanced age, low tumor burden, poor performance status, comorbidities, or other clinical reasons.
After stratification by RAS status, performance status, and region, patients were randomly assigned to receive TT-B (n = 77) or C-B (n = 76).
TT-B consisted of oral trifluridine/tipiracil at 35 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-5 and 8-12 every 4 weeks plus bevacizumab at 5 mg/kg intravenously on days 1 and 15 every 4 weeks.
C-B consisted of oral capecitabine at 1,250 or 1,000 mg/m2 twice a day on days 1-14 every 3 weeks plus bevacizumab at 7.5 mg/kg IV on day 1 every 3 weeks.
Final results
The median PFS, the primary endpoint, was 9.23 months with TT-B and 7.82 months with C-B. The difference was not statistically significant, with the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval crossing 1.
The median overall survival was 22.31 months with TT-B and 17.67 months with C-B (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.55-1.10).
Dr. Van Cutsem pointed out that more patients in the TT-B arm had subsequent therapies compared with patients in the C-B arm – 59.7% vs. 40.8%.
He also noted that the safety profile of TT-B “remains unchanged from the initial analysis.”
Grade 3 or greater neutropenia, decreased neutrophil count, anemia, and decreased white blood cell count were all higher among patients on TT-B, but grade 3 or greater febrile neutropenia was similar between the groups.
Patients in the TT-B arm had more frequent grade 3 or greater nausea, vomiting, and hypertension. Grade 3 or higher hand-foot syndrome and diarrhea were both more common with C-B.
At the study cutoff date in September 2020, 66 patients in each arm had died.
Dr. Van Cutsem said more data on the efficacy of TT-B vs. C-B will come from the ongoing phase 3 SOLSTICE trial. Results from this trial are expected in late 2022.
‘The jury is still out’
The final results from TASCO1 suggest there may be some benefit from TT-B in patients with treatment-naive metastatic colorectal cancer, “but we don’t use it in the first line,” said Jeffery Clark, MD, an oncologist who was not involved in the study.
The trial supports the benefit of combining trifluridine/tipiracil with bevacizumab, and the results were “somewhat better” than he had expected, said Dr. Clark, director of clinical trials support at Mass General Cancer Center in Boston.
“Even though the results are encouraging, there were a couple of things about the trial that one has to at least think about,” Dr. Clark said in an interview.
He noted, for example, that a higher proportion of patients assigned to TT-B had prior adjuvant therapy (27.3% vs. 19.7%), and patients in the TT-B arm were also more likely to have second lines of systemic therapy, which could have skewed the results in favor of the experimental arm.
“I think, basically, the jury is still out until we see the results of the SOLSTICE trial,” he said.
The TASCO1 study was funded by Servier and Taiho. Dr. Van Cutsem has received research funding and served on an advisory board for Servier and other companies. Dr. Clark reported no relevant disclosures.
The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.
FROM GI CANCERS SYMPOSIUM 2021
Naltrexone cuts hospitalization, deaths in alcohol use disorder
Naltrexone reduces the risk for hospitalization for alcohol use disorder (AUD), regardless of whether it is used alone or in conjunction with disulfiram or acamprosate, research suggests.
Investigators analyzed 10-year data on more than 125,000 Swedish residents with AUD and found that naltrexone, used as monotherapy or combined with acamprosate or disulfiram, was associated with significantly lower risk for AUD hospitalization or all-cause hospitalization in comparison with patients who did not use AUD medication. The patients ranged in age from 16 to 64 years.
By contrast, benzodiazepines and acamprosate monotherapy were associated with increased risk for AUD hospitalization.
“The take-home message for practicing clinicians would be that especially naltrexone use is associated with favorable treatment outcomes and should be utilized as part of the treatment protocol for AUD,” study investigator Milja Heikkinen, MD, specialist in forensic psychiatry and addiction medicine, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, told this news organization.
On the other hand, “benzodiazepines should be avoided and should not be administered other than for alcohol withdrawal symptoms,” she said.
The study was published online Jan. 4 in Addiction.
Real-world data
Previous research has shown that disulfiram, acamprosate, naltrexone, and nalmefene are efficacious in treating AUD, but most studies have been randomized controlled trials or meta-analyses, the authors write.
“Very little is known about overall health outcomes (such as risks of hospitalization and mortality) associated with specific treatments in real-world circumstances,” they write.
“The study was motivated by the fact that, although AUD is a significant public health concern, very little is known, especially about the comparative effectiveness of medications indicated in AUD,” said Dr. Heikkinen.
who had been diagnosed with AUD (62.5% men; mean [standard deviation] age, 38.1 [15.9] years). They followed the cohort over a median of 4.6 years (interquartile range, 2.1-.2 years).
During the follow-up period, roughly one-fourth of patients (25.6) underwent treatment with one or more drugs.
The main outcome measure was AUD-related hospitalization. Secondary outcomes were hospitalization for any cause and for alcohol-related somatic causes; all-cause mortality; and work disability.
Two types of analyses were conducted. The within-individual analyses, designed to eliminate selection bias, compared the use of a medication to periods during which the same individual was not using the medication.
Between-individual analyses (adjusted for sex, age, educational level, number of previous AUD-related hospitalizations, time since first AUD diagnosis, comorbidities, and use of other medications) utilized a “traditional” multivariate-adjusted Cox hazards regression model.
AUD pharmacotherapy ‘underutilized’
Close to one-fourth of patients (23.9%) experienced the main outcome event (AUD-related hospitalization) during the follow-up period.
The within-individual analysis showed that naltrexone – whether used as monotherapy or adjunctively with disulfiram or acamprosate – “was associated with a significantly lower risk of AUD-related hospitalization, compared to those time periods in which the same individual did not use any AUD medication,” the authors report.
By contrast, they state, acamprosate monotherapy and benzodiazepines were associated with a significantly higher risk for AUD-related hospitalization.
Similar results were obtained in the between-individual analysis. Longer duration of naltrexone use was associated with lower risk for AUD-related hospitalization.
The pattern was also found when the outcome was hospitalization for any cause. However, unlike the findings of the within-individual model, the second model found that acamprosate monotherapy was not associated with a higher risk for any-cause hospitalization.
Polytherapy, including combinations of the four AUD medications, as well as disulfiram monotherapy were similarly associated with lower risk for hospitalization for alcohol-related somatic causes.
Of the overall cohort, 6.2% died during the follow-up period. No association was found between disulfiram, acamprosate, nalmefene, and naltrexone use and all-cause mortality. By contrast, benzodiazepine use was associated with a significantly higher mortality rate (hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.19).
“AUD drugs are underutilized, despite AUD being a significant public health concern,” Dr. Heikkinen noted. On the other hand, benzodiazepine use is “very common.”
‘Ravages’ of benzodiazepines
Commenting on the study in an interview, John Krystal, MD, professor and chair of psychiatry and director of the Center for the Translational Neuroscience of Alcoholism, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said, “The main message from the study for practicing clinicians is that treatment works.”
Dr. Krystal, who was not involved with the study, noted that “many practicing clinicians are discouraged by the course of their patients with AUD, and this study highlights that naltrexone, perhaps in combination with other medications, may be effective in preventing hospitalization and, presumably, other hospitalization-related complications of AUD.”
Also commenting on the study, Raymond Anton, MD, professor, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, suggested that the “clinical knowledge of the harm of benzodiazepines in those with AUD is reinforced by these findings.”
In fact, the harm of benzodiazepines might be the study’s “most important message ... [a message that was] recently highlighted by the Netflix series “The Queen’s Gambit”, which shows the ravages of using both together, or how one leads to potential addiction with the other,” said Dr. Anton, who was not involved with the study.
The other “big take-home message is that naltrexone should be used more frequently,” said Dr. Anton, distinguished professor of psychiatry at the university and scientific director of the Charleston Alcohol Research Center. He noted that there are “recent data suggesting some clinical and genetic indicators that predict responsiveness to these medications, improving efficacy.”
The study was funded by the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. Dr. Heikkinen reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original article. Dr. Krystal consults for companies currently developing other treatments for AUDs and receives medications to test from AstraZeneca and Novartis for NIAAA-funded research programs. Dr. Anton has consulted for Alkermes, Lipha, and Lundbeck in the past. He is also chair of the Alcohol Clinical Trials Initiative, which is a public-private partnership partially sponsored by several companies and has received grant funding from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism to study pharmacotherapies, including naltrexone, nalmefene, and acamprosate.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Naltrexone reduces the risk for hospitalization for alcohol use disorder (AUD), regardless of whether it is used alone or in conjunction with disulfiram or acamprosate, research suggests.
Investigators analyzed 10-year data on more than 125,000 Swedish residents with AUD and found that naltrexone, used as monotherapy or combined with acamprosate or disulfiram, was associated with significantly lower risk for AUD hospitalization or all-cause hospitalization in comparison with patients who did not use AUD medication. The patients ranged in age from 16 to 64 years.
By contrast, benzodiazepines and acamprosate monotherapy were associated with increased risk for AUD hospitalization.
“The take-home message for practicing clinicians would be that especially naltrexone use is associated with favorable treatment outcomes and should be utilized as part of the treatment protocol for AUD,” study investigator Milja Heikkinen, MD, specialist in forensic psychiatry and addiction medicine, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, told this news organization.
On the other hand, “benzodiazepines should be avoided and should not be administered other than for alcohol withdrawal symptoms,” she said.
The study was published online Jan. 4 in Addiction.
Real-world data
Previous research has shown that disulfiram, acamprosate, naltrexone, and nalmefene are efficacious in treating AUD, but most studies have been randomized controlled trials or meta-analyses, the authors write.
“Very little is known about overall health outcomes (such as risks of hospitalization and mortality) associated with specific treatments in real-world circumstances,” they write.
“The study was motivated by the fact that, although AUD is a significant public health concern, very little is known, especially about the comparative effectiveness of medications indicated in AUD,” said Dr. Heikkinen.
who had been diagnosed with AUD (62.5% men; mean [standard deviation] age, 38.1 [15.9] years). They followed the cohort over a median of 4.6 years (interquartile range, 2.1-.2 years).
During the follow-up period, roughly one-fourth of patients (25.6) underwent treatment with one or more drugs.
The main outcome measure was AUD-related hospitalization. Secondary outcomes were hospitalization for any cause and for alcohol-related somatic causes; all-cause mortality; and work disability.
Two types of analyses were conducted. The within-individual analyses, designed to eliminate selection bias, compared the use of a medication to periods during which the same individual was not using the medication.
Between-individual analyses (adjusted for sex, age, educational level, number of previous AUD-related hospitalizations, time since first AUD diagnosis, comorbidities, and use of other medications) utilized a “traditional” multivariate-adjusted Cox hazards regression model.
AUD pharmacotherapy ‘underutilized’
Close to one-fourth of patients (23.9%) experienced the main outcome event (AUD-related hospitalization) during the follow-up period.
The within-individual analysis showed that naltrexone – whether used as monotherapy or adjunctively with disulfiram or acamprosate – “was associated with a significantly lower risk of AUD-related hospitalization, compared to those time periods in which the same individual did not use any AUD medication,” the authors report.
By contrast, they state, acamprosate monotherapy and benzodiazepines were associated with a significantly higher risk for AUD-related hospitalization.
Similar results were obtained in the between-individual analysis. Longer duration of naltrexone use was associated with lower risk for AUD-related hospitalization.
The pattern was also found when the outcome was hospitalization for any cause. However, unlike the findings of the within-individual model, the second model found that acamprosate monotherapy was not associated with a higher risk for any-cause hospitalization.
Polytherapy, including combinations of the four AUD medications, as well as disulfiram monotherapy were similarly associated with lower risk for hospitalization for alcohol-related somatic causes.
Of the overall cohort, 6.2% died during the follow-up period. No association was found between disulfiram, acamprosate, nalmefene, and naltrexone use and all-cause mortality. By contrast, benzodiazepine use was associated with a significantly higher mortality rate (hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.19).
“AUD drugs are underutilized, despite AUD being a significant public health concern,” Dr. Heikkinen noted. On the other hand, benzodiazepine use is “very common.”
‘Ravages’ of benzodiazepines
Commenting on the study in an interview, John Krystal, MD, professor and chair of psychiatry and director of the Center for the Translational Neuroscience of Alcoholism, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said, “The main message from the study for practicing clinicians is that treatment works.”
Dr. Krystal, who was not involved with the study, noted that “many practicing clinicians are discouraged by the course of their patients with AUD, and this study highlights that naltrexone, perhaps in combination with other medications, may be effective in preventing hospitalization and, presumably, other hospitalization-related complications of AUD.”
Also commenting on the study, Raymond Anton, MD, professor, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, suggested that the “clinical knowledge of the harm of benzodiazepines in those with AUD is reinforced by these findings.”
In fact, the harm of benzodiazepines might be the study’s “most important message ... [a message that was] recently highlighted by the Netflix series “The Queen’s Gambit”, which shows the ravages of using both together, or how one leads to potential addiction with the other,” said Dr. Anton, who was not involved with the study.
The other “big take-home message is that naltrexone should be used more frequently,” said Dr. Anton, distinguished professor of psychiatry at the university and scientific director of the Charleston Alcohol Research Center. He noted that there are “recent data suggesting some clinical and genetic indicators that predict responsiveness to these medications, improving efficacy.”
The study was funded by the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. Dr. Heikkinen reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original article. Dr. Krystal consults for companies currently developing other treatments for AUDs and receives medications to test from AstraZeneca and Novartis for NIAAA-funded research programs. Dr. Anton has consulted for Alkermes, Lipha, and Lundbeck in the past. He is also chair of the Alcohol Clinical Trials Initiative, which is a public-private partnership partially sponsored by several companies and has received grant funding from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism to study pharmacotherapies, including naltrexone, nalmefene, and acamprosate.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Naltrexone reduces the risk for hospitalization for alcohol use disorder (AUD), regardless of whether it is used alone or in conjunction with disulfiram or acamprosate, research suggests.
Investigators analyzed 10-year data on more than 125,000 Swedish residents with AUD and found that naltrexone, used as monotherapy or combined with acamprosate or disulfiram, was associated with significantly lower risk for AUD hospitalization or all-cause hospitalization in comparison with patients who did not use AUD medication. The patients ranged in age from 16 to 64 years.
By contrast, benzodiazepines and acamprosate monotherapy were associated with increased risk for AUD hospitalization.
“The take-home message for practicing clinicians would be that especially naltrexone use is associated with favorable treatment outcomes and should be utilized as part of the treatment protocol for AUD,” study investigator Milja Heikkinen, MD, specialist in forensic psychiatry and addiction medicine, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, told this news organization.
On the other hand, “benzodiazepines should be avoided and should not be administered other than for alcohol withdrawal symptoms,” she said.
The study was published online Jan. 4 in Addiction.
Real-world data
Previous research has shown that disulfiram, acamprosate, naltrexone, and nalmefene are efficacious in treating AUD, but most studies have been randomized controlled trials or meta-analyses, the authors write.
“Very little is known about overall health outcomes (such as risks of hospitalization and mortality) associated with specific treatments in real-world circumstances,” they write.
“The study was motivated by the fact that, although AUD is a significant public health concern, very little is known, especially about the comparative effectiveness of medications indicated in AUD,” said Dr. Heikkinen.
who had been diagnosed with AUD (62.5% men; mean [standard deviation] age, 38.1 [15.9] years). They followed the cohort over a median of 4.6 years (interquartile range, 2.1-.2 years).
During the follow-up period, roughly one-fourth of patients (25.6) underwent treatment with one or more drugs.
The main outcome measure was AUD-related hospitalization. Secondary outcomes were hospitalization for any cause and for alcohol-related somatic causes; all-cause mortality; and work disability.
Two types of analyses were conducted. The within-individual analyses, designed to eliminate selection bias, compared the use of a medication to periods during which the same individual was not using the medication.
Between-individual analyses (adjusted for sex, age, educational level, number of previous AUD-related hospitalizations, time since first AUD diagnosis, comorbidities, and use of other medications) utilized a “traditional” multivariate-adjusted Cox hazards regression model.
AUD pharmacotherapy ‘underutilized’
Close to one-fourth of patients (23.9%) experienced the main outcome event (AUD-related hospitalization) during the follow-up period.
The within-individual analysis showed that naltrexone – whether used as monotherapy or adjunctively with disulfiram or acamprosate – “was associated with a significantly lower risk of AUD-related hospitalization, compared to those time periods in which the same individual did not use any AUD medication,” the authors report.
By contrast, they state, acamprosate monotherapy and benzodiazepines were associated with a significantly higher risk for AUD-related hospitalization.
Similar results were obtained in the between-individual analysis. Longer duration of naltrexone use was associated with lower risk for AUD-related hospitalization.
The pattern was also found when the outcome was hospitalization for any cause. However, unlike the findings of the within-individual model, the second model found that acamprosate monotherapy was not associated with a higher risk for any-cause hospitalization.
Polytherapy, including combinations of the four AUD medications, as well as disulfiram monotherapy were similarly associated with lower risk for hospitalization for alcohol-related somatic causes.
Of the overall cohort, 6.2% died during the follow-up period. No association was found between disulfiram, acamprosate, nalmefene, and naltrexone use and all-cause mortality. By contrast, benzodiazepine use was associated with a significantly higher mortality rate (hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.19).
“AUD drugs are underutilized, despite AUD being a significant public health concern,” Dr. Heikkinen noted. On the other hand, benzodiazepine use is “very common.”
‘Ravages’ of benzodiazepines
Commenting on the study in an interview, John Krystal, MD, professor and chair of psychiatry and director of the Center for the Translational Neuroscience of Alcoholism, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said, “The main message from the study for practicing clinicians is that treatment works.”
Dr. Krystal, who was not involved with the study, noted that “many practicing clinicians are discouraged by the course of their patients with AUD, and this study highlights that naltrexone, perhaps in combination with other medications, may be effective in preventing hospitalization and, presumably, other hospitalization-related complications of AUD.”
Also commenting on the study, Raymond Anton, MD, professor, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, suggested that the “clinical knowledge of the harm of benzodiazepines in those with AUD is reinforced by these findings.”
In fact, the harm of benzodiazepines might be the study’s “most important message ... [a message that was] recently highlighted by the Netflix series “The Queen’s Gambit”, which shows the ravages of using both together, or how one leads to potential addiction with the other,” said Dr. Anton, who was not involved with the study.
The other “big take-home message is that naltrexone should be used more frequently,” said Dr. Anton, distinguished professor of psychiatry at the university and scientific director of the Charleston Alcohol Research Center. He noted that there are “recent data suggesting some clinical and genetic indicators that predict responsiveness to these medications, improving efficacy.”
The study was funded by the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. Dr. Heikkinen reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original article. Dr. Krystal consults for companies currently developing other treatments for AUDs and receives medications to test from AstraZeneca and Novartis for NIAAA-funded research programs. Dr. Anton has consulted for Alkermes, Lipha, and Lundbeck in the past. He is also chair of the Alcohol Clinical Trials Initiative, which is a public-private partnership partially sponsored by several companies and has received grant funding from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism to study pharmacotherapies, including naltrexone, nalmefene, and acamprosate.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Monoclonal antibody drops fat, ups muscle in obesity, diabetes
In a phase 2 randomized clinical trial of adults with type 2 diabetes and obesity, investigational drug bimagrumab (BYM338, Novartis) – a monoclonal antibody that blocks activin type II receptors and stimulates skeletal muscle growth – led to big reductions in total body fat mass and A1c and significant increases in lean mass compared with placebo.
The efficacy and safety findings “suggest that blockade of the activin receptor with bimagrumab could provide a novel pharmacologic approach for managing patients with type 2 diabetes with excess adiposity,” Steven B. Heymsfield, MD, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Louisiana State University System, Baton Rouge, and colleagues reported in their study, published online Jan. 13 in JAMA Network Open.
Preliminary findings from the study of 75 patients treated for 48 weeks – in which neither group ate less despite intensive nutrition advice – were presented at Obesity Week in 2019.
As reported then, Lee M. Kaplan, MD, PhD, noted that the 6.5% weight loss in the bimagrumab group was similar to that seen with antiobesity medications that suppress appetite.
“What it suggests,” he said in an interview, “is that there may be a completely new mechanism at play here,” because patients receiving bimagrumab weren’t eating less but were losing the same amount of weight as reported for weight-loss drugs that work by decreasing appetite.
“Is this going to be the kind of complementary drug with a different mechanism that’s going to augment the effects of other drugs?” wondered Dr. Kaplan, director of the Obesity, Metabolism & Nutrition Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who has previously served as a scientific consultant to Novartis.
Asked about future plans for bimagrumab, a Novartis spokesperson said in an interview, “We are currently reviewing the program strategy and considering next steps.”
Four FDA-approved weight-loss drugs now approved
The Food and Drug Administration approval for lorcaserin (Belviq, Belviq XR, Eisai) for weight loss was rescinded on Feb. 13, 2020, when a postmarketing trial revealed an increased occurrence of cancer, leaving four drugs approved for weight loss in the United States, plus several drugs in development, Dr. Heymsfield and colleagues wrote.
The current phase 2 trial was designed to determine the safety and efficacy of bimagrumab – which had originally been studied to see if it would increase lean muscle mass in people with sarcopenia – on total body fat mass and glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes and overweight or obesity.
Researchers enrolled 75 adults at eight sites in the United States and one in Wales, United Kingdom, from 2017 to 2019.
On average, patients were 60 years old with an A1c of 7.8% and a body mass index of 32.9 kg/m2; they weighed 93.6 kg and had a fat mass of 35 kg.
Patients received an intravenous infusion of bimagrumab (10 mg/kg up to 1,200 mg in 5% dextrose solution) or placebo (5% dextrose solution) every 4 weeks for 48 weeks. They met with a registered dietitian at each monthly study visit and had a virtual check-in between visits.
Participants were advised to follow a diet that would cut 500 calories a day and encouraged to follow the American Diabetes Association walking program.
Body fat mass was measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA).
There were more women in the bimagrumab group than in the placebo group (62% vs. 32%), but baseline BMI, total body fat mass, and A1c were similar in both groups.
Same caloric intake, less fat tissue, more muscle, smaller waist
At 48 weeks in the bimagrumab vs. placebo group, there was on average (all P < .001):
- A loss of 20.5% vs. 0.5% (−7.5 vs. −0.2 kg) of total body fat mass.
- A loss of 6.5% vs. 0.8% (−5.9 vs. −0.8 kg) of body weight.
- A gain of 3.6% vs. a loss of 0.8% (1.7 vs. −0.4 kg) of lean mass.
Similarly, the relatively large between-group differences in total body fat mass and body weight at 48 weeks with bimagrumab were accompanied by favorable differences in BMI (−2.19 vs. −0.28 kg/m2; P < .001) and waist circumference (−9.0 vs. 0.5 cm; P < .001), the investigators pointed out.
Moreover, the reduction of abdominal visceral adipose tissue and waist circumference with bimagrumab “was nearly twice that observed in a recently published study of patients with type 2 diabetes treated with an intensive lifestyle program and the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonist liraglutide,” they noted.
This highlights “the importance of moving away from body weight as a primary efficacy marker of drugs to more metabolically relevant endpoints.”
Also, A1c decreased by 0.76% in the bimagrumab group and increased by 0.04% in the placebo group (P = .005).
Serious adverse events occurred in three patients (8%) in the bimagrumab group (elevated lipase, epigastric pain, pancreatitis, pneumonia) and three patients (8%) in the placebo group (cellulitis, acute coronary syndrome, acute myocardial infarction, worsening gastroparesis, thermal burn).
Adverse events were reported by 31 of 37 patients in the bimagrumab group, most often mild diarrhea (41%) and muscle spasms (41%), and 31 of 38 patients in the placebo group, most often headache (13%) and upper respiratory tract infection (13%).
The study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Heymsfield has reported receiving personal fees from Tanita and Medifast outside the submitted work. Disclosures for the other authors are listed in the article. Dr. Kaplan has reported previously serving as a scientific consultant to Novartis.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a phase 2 randomized clinical trial of adults with type 2 diabetes and obesity, investigational drug bimagrumab (BYM338, Novartis) – a monoclonal antibody that blocks activin type II receptors and stimulates skeletal muscle growth – led to big reductions in total body fat mass and A1c and significant increases in lean mass compared with placebo.
The efficacy and safety findings “suggest that blockade of the activin receptor with bimagrumab could provide a novel pharmacologic approach for managing patients with type 2 diabetes with excess adiposity,” Steven B. Heymsfield, MD, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Louisiana State University System, Baton Rouge, and colleagues reported in their study, published online Jan. 13 in JAMA Network Open.
Preliminary findings from the study of 75 patients treated for 48 weeks – in which neither group ate less despite intensive nutrition advice – were presented at Obesity Week in 2019.
As reported then, Lee M. Kaplan, MD, PhD, noted that the 6.5% weight loss in the bimagrumab group was similar to that seen with antiobesity medications that suppress appetite.
“What it suggests,” he said in an interview, “is that there may be a completely new mechanism at play here,” because patients receiving bimagrumab weren’t eating less but were losing the same amount of weight as reported for weight-loss drugs that work by decreasing appetite.
“Is this going to be the kind of complementary drug with a different mechanism that’s going to augment the effects of other drugs?” wondered Dr. Kaplan, director of the Obesity, Metabolism & Nutrition Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who has previously served as a scientific consultant to Novartis.
Asked about future plans for bimagrumab, a Novartis spokesperson said in an interview, “We are currently reviewing the program strategy and considering next steps.”
Four FDA-approved weight-loss drugs now approved
The Food and Drug Administration approval for lorcaserin (Belviq, Belviq XR, Eisai) for weight loss was rescinded on Feb. 13, 2020, when a postmarketing trial revealed an increased occurrence of cancer, leaving four drugs approved for weight loss in the United States, plus several drugs in development, Dr. Heymsfield and colleagues wrote.
The current phase 2 trial was designed to determine the safety and efficacy of bimagrumab – which had originally been studied to see if it would increase lean muscle mass in people with sarcopenia – on total body fat mass and glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes and overweight or obesity.
Researchers enrolled 75 adults at eight sites in the United States and one in Wales, United Kingdom, from 2017 to 2019.
On average, patients were 60 years old with an A1c of 7.8% and a body mass index of 32.9 kg/m2; they weighed 93.6 kg and had a fat mass of 35 kg.
Patients received an intravenous infusion of bimagrumab (10 mg/kg up to 1,200 mg in 5% dextrose solution) or placebo (5% dextrose solution) every 4 weeks for 48 weeks. They met with a registered dietitian at each monthly study visit and had a virtual check-in between visits.
Participants were advised to follow a diet that would cut 500 calories a day and encouraged to follow the American Diabetes Association walking program.
Body fat mass was measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA).
There were more women in the bimagrumab group than in the placebo group (62% vs. 32%), but baseline BMI, total body fat mass, and A1c were similar in both groups.
Same caloric intake, less fat tissue, more muscle, smaller waist
At 48 weeks in the bimagrumab vs. placebo group, there was on average (all P < .001):
- A loss of 20.5% vs. 0.5% (−7.5 vs. −0.2 kg) of total body fat mass.
- A loss of 6.5% vs. 0.8% (−5.9 vs. −0.8 kg) of body weight.
- A gain of 3.6% vs. a loss of 0.8% (1.7 vs. −0.4 kg) of lean mass.
Similarly, the relatively large between-group differences in total body fat mass and body weight at 48 weeks with bimagrumab were accompanied by favorable differences in BMI (−2.19 vs. −0.28 kg/m2; P < .001) and waist circumference (−9.0 vs. 0.5 cm; P < .001), the investigators pointed out.
Moreover, the reduction of abdominal visceral adipose tissue and waist circumference with bimagrumab “was nearly twice that observed in a recently published study of patients with type 2 diabetes treated with an intensive lifestyle program and the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonist liraglutide,” they noted.
This highlights “the importance of moving away from body weight as a primary efficacy marker of drugs to more metabolically relevant endpoints.”
Also, A1c decreased by 0.76% in the bimagrumab group and increased by 0.04% in the placebo group (P = .005).
Serious adverse events occurred in three patients (8%) in the bimagrumab group (elevated lipase, epigastric pain, pancreatitis, pneumonia) and three patients (8%) in the placebo group (cellulitis, acute coronary syndrome, acute myocardial infarction, worsening gastroparesis, thermal burn).
Adverse events were reported by 31 of 37 patients in the bimagrumab group, most often mild diarrhea (41%) and muscle spasms (41%), and 31 of 38 patients in the placebo group, most often headache (13%) and upper respiratory tract infection (13%).
The study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Heymsfield has reported receiving personal fees from Tanita and Medifast outside the submitted work. Disclosures for the other authors are listed in the article. Dr. Kaplan has reported previously serving as a scientific consultant to Novartis.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a phase 2 randomized clinical trial of adults with type 2 diabetes and obesity, investigational drug bimagrumab (BYM338, Novartis) – a monoclonal antibody that blocks activin type II receptors and stimulates skeletal muscle growth – led to big reductions in total body fat mass and A1c and significant increases in lean mass compared with placebo.
The efficacy and safety findings “suggest that blockade of the activin receptor with bimagrumab could provide a novel pharmacologic approach for managing patients with type 2 diabetes with excess adiposity,” Steven B. Heymsfield, MD, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Louisiana State University System, Baton Rouge, and colleagues reported in their study, published online Jan. 13 in JAMA Network Open.
Preliminary findings from the study of 75 patients treated for 48 weeks – in which neither group ate less despite intensive nutrition advice – were presented at Obesity Week in 2019.
As reported then, Lee M. Kaplan, MD, PhD, noted that the 6.5% weight loss in the bimagrumab group was similar to that seen with antiobesity medications that suppress appetite.
“What it suggests,” he said in an interview, “is that there may be a completely new mechanism at play here,” because patients receiving bimagrumab weren’t eating less but were losing the same amount of weight as reported for weight-loss drugs that work by decreasing appetite.
“Is this going to be the kind of complementary drug with a different mechanism that’s going to augment the effects of other drugs?” wondered Dr. Kaplan, director of the Obesity, Metabolism & Nutrition Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who has previously served as a scientific consultant to Novartis.
Asked about future plans for bimagrumab, a Novartis spokesperson said in an interview, “We are currently reviewing the program strategy and considering next steps.”
Four FDA-approved weight-loss drugs now approved
The Food and Drug Administration approval for lorcaserin (Belviq, Belviq XR, Eisai) for weight loss was rescinded on Feb. 13, 2020, when a postmarketing trial revealed an increased occurrence of cancer, leaving four drugs approved for weight loss in the United States, plus several drugs in development, Dr. Heymsfield and colleagues wrote.
The current phase 2 trial was designed to determine the safety and efficacy of bimagrumab – which had originally been studied to see if it would increase lean muscle mass in people with sarcopenia – on total body fat mass and glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes and overweight or obesity.
Researchers enrolled 75 adults at eight sites in the United States and one in Wales, United Kingdom, from 2017 to 2019.
On average, patients were 60 years old with an A1c of 7.8% and a body mass index of 32.9 kg/m2; they weighed 93.6 kg and had a fat mass of 35 kg.
Patients received an intravenous infusion of bimagrumab (10 mg/kg up to 1,200 mg in 5% dextrose solution) or placebo (5% dextrose solution) every 4 weeks for 48 weeks. They met with a registered dietitian at each monthly study visit and had a virtual check-in between visits.
Participants were advised to follow a diet that would cut 500 calories a day and encouraged to follow the American Diabetes Association walking program.
Body fat mass was measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA).
There were more women in the bimagrumab group than in the placebo group (62% vs. 32%), but baseline BMI, total body fat mass, and A1c were similar in both groups.
Same caloric intake, less fat tissue, more muscle, smaller waist
At 48 weeks in the bimagrumab vs. placebo group, there was on average (all P < .001):
- A loss of 20.5% vs. 0.5% (−7.5 vs. −0.2 kg) of total body fat mass.
- A loss of 6.5% vs. 0.8% (−5.9 vs. −0.8 kg) of body weight.
- A gain of 3.6% vs. a loss of 0.8% (1.7 vs. −0.4 kg) of lean mass.
Similarly, the relatively large between-group differences in total body fat mass and body weight at 48 weeks with bimagrumab were accompanied by favorable differences in BMI (−2.19 vs. −0.28 kg/m2; P < .001) and waist circumference (−9.0 vs. 0.5 cm; P < .001), the investigators pointed out.
Moreover, the reduction of abdominal visceral adipose tissue and waist circumference with bimagrumab “was nearly twice that observed in a recently published study of patients with type 2 diabetes treated with an intensive lifestyle program and the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonist liraglutide,” they noted.
This highlights “the importance of moving away from body weight as a primary efficacy marker of drugs to more metabolically relevant endpoints.”
Also, A1c decreased by 0.76% in the bimagrumab group and increased by 0.04% in the placebo group (P = .005).
Serious adverse events occurred in three patients (8%) in the bimagrumab group (elevated lipase, epigastric pain, pancreatitis, pneumonia) and three patients (8%) in the placebo group (cellulitis, acute coronary syndrome, acute myocardial infarction, worsening gastroparesis, thermal burn).
Adverse events were reported by 31 of 37 patients in the bimagrumab group, most often mild diarrhea (41%) and muscle spasms (41%), and 31 of 38 patients in the placebo group, most often headache (13%) and upper respiratory tract infection (13%).
The study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Heymsfield has reported receiving personal fees from Tanita and Medifast outside the submitted work. Disclosures for the other authors are listed in the article. Dr. Kaplan has reported previously serving as a scientific consultant to Novartis.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID-19 risks linked to medications in IBD
Multicenter and population cohort studies suggest that patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are not at unique risk of contracting COVID-19 or experiencing worse outcomes, with the exception of a few risk factors such as corticosteroid use and combination therapy that appear tied to greater risk of hospitalization and mortality. The findings line up well with previous experience with infectious disease and are reassuring, but they also underscore the need to taper steroids and de-escalate from combination therapy, when possible.
“There is not a clear increased risk of getting COVID-19 among IBD patients compared to the general population, and that seems to hold even if you look at certain medication types, [even] if patients are on immunosuppressives like thiopurines or anti-TNF [anti–tumor necrosis factor] drugs,” Ryan C. Ungaro, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Ungaro, who is with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, discussed IBD and COVID-19 risks at the annual congress of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.
A systematic review showed that 0.3% of IBD patients contracted COVID-19 during study periods, compared with 0.2%-4.0% of the general population, and a matched-cohort analysis of a national Veterans Affairs database showed an infection prevalence of 0.23% among patients with IBD versus 0.20% among those without (P = .29). The analysis also showed use of anti-TNF therapies or thiopurines was not associated with an increased risk.
Studies show that patients with IBD in general do not appear to be at greater risk of severe disease outcomes such as hospitalization or 30-day mortality. For example, a U.S. national database study of more than 40 million patients compared 232 patients with IBD who were diagnosed with COVID-19 with 19,776 non-IBD patients and found that, after propensity matching, there were no significant association between IBD and worse outcomes (risk ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-1.27; P = .86) or hospitalizations (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.74-1.40; P = .91)).
However, some risk factors could be red flags. Data from the international SECURE-IBD registry showed an association between combined endpoint of ICU, requiring a ventilator, or death and advanced age (adjusted odds ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06; P < .01) and two or more comorbidities (aOR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.05-7.85; P < .04). More specifically to IBD, severe COVID-19 was associated with use of corticosteroids (aOR, 6.87; 95% CI, 2.30-20.51; P < .001). In terms of other therapies, another study found a similar effect with thiopurines (compared with TNF monotherapy; aOR, 4.08; 95% CI, 1.65-9.78; Bonferroni adjusted P = .008), and combined use of anti-TNF drugs and a thiopurine (compared with TNF monotherapy; aOR, 4.01; 95% CI, 1.73-9.61; Bonferroni adjusted P = .013), but anti-TNF therapies alone trended toward a protective effect (compared with no anti-TNF therapy; aOR, 0.69; Bonferroni adjusted P = .52). That study found no significant association between severe outcomes and anti-IL 12/23 (compared with anti-TNF monotherapy; aOR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.12-8.06; P = .98) or anti-integrin biologics (compared with anti-TNF monotherapy; aOR, 2.42; 95% CI, 0.59-9.96; P = .22).
Overall, the data are “generally consistent with prior data on infections and IBD: That steroids and combination therapy increase the risk of infection and bad outcomes and that interestingly biologic monotherapy may actually confer a little bit of protection against emergent outcomes and at a minimum appears to be neutral,” said Dr. Ungaro.
He noted that the recommendations from the IOIBD COVID-19 Task Force were based on expert opinion, but the new data have largely supported them overall. He did suggest some potential modifications, including reducing thiopurine use among patients on combination therapy. According to Dr. Ungaro, the recommendations do call for withholding all IBD therapy for 10 days after positive SARS-CoV-2 tests, whether the patient is symptomatic or not. “I think the recent data is reassuring that potentially in asymptomatic and maybe even mild cases, the monotherapy biologics – we can consider not delaying administering those. I think we need more data about that, but it’s reassuring that patients on those had no worse outcomes and [in fact did] slightly better,” Dr. Ungaro said during the presentation.
The data reinforced the need to consider tapering patients off corticosteroids or combination therapies, if possible. “It’s something we were doing in regular IBD care beforehand, but the COVID-19 pandemic offers another reason to limit the use of steroids and evaluate if patients are able to de-escalate from combination therapies,” said Dr. Ungaro.
On the other hand, there was concern among some patients early in the pandemic that their immunotherapy drugs may put them at risk of contracting COVID-19, which led some to discontinue medications. Ongoing studies are illustrating the problem with this, according to David T. Rubin, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago and chair of the congress’s organizing committee. “The data do not in general suggest you should do that to protect yourself. In fact, being on the therapies may have a better outcome. Patients always want to come off their therapies, [but] during the pandemic that is a risk not worth taking. Getting sick from your Crohn’s disease or colitis, when there are limited health care resources and, in some places, limited hospital beds and where the rescue therapy might include steroids, is a risky proposition. It’s not the time to do this,” said Dr. Rubin.
With respect to vaccines, it appears so far that there is no increased risk of adverse events associated with IBD. Patients who are on immunosuppressive drugs may experience a lower response to immunization, which has been seen with other vaccines. “The benefits likely outweigh the risks based on our prior experience with other vaccinations. It’s an area of ongoing study, but I do think we should recommend that our IBD patients get the COVID-19 vaccine, especially if they have risk factors for severe disease,” said Dr. Ungaro.
Dr. Ungaro is on the advisory board for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, and Takeda. He has received funding from AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer. He has been a speaker or received consulting fees from AbbVie and Eli Lilly. Dr. Rubin is a consultant for Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and AbbVie.
This article was updated Jan. 27, 2021.
Multicenter and population cohort studies suggest that patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are not at unique risk of contracting COVID-19 or experiencing worse outcomes, with the exception of a few risk factors such as corticosteroid use and combination therapy that appear tied to greater risk of hospitalization and mortality. The findings line up well with previous experience with infectious disease and are reassuring, but they also underscore the need to taper steroids and de-escalate from combination therapy, when possible.
“There is not a clear increased risk of getting COVID-19 among IBD patients compared to the general population, and that seems to hold even if you look at certain medication types, [even] if patients are on immunosuppressives like thiopurines or anti-TNF [anti–tumor necrosis factor] drugs,” Ryan C. Ungaro, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Ungaro, who is with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, discussed IBD and COVID-19 risks at the annual congress of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.
A systematic review showed that 0.3% of IBD patients contracted COVID-19 during study periods, compared with 0.2%-4.0% of the general population, and a matched-cohort analysis of a national Veterans Affairs database showed an infection prevalence of 0.23% among patients with IBD versus 0.20% among those without (P = .29). The analysis also showed use of anti-TNF therapies or thiopurines was not associated with an increased risk.
Studies show that patients with IBD in general do not appear to be at greater risk of severe disease outcomes such as hospitalization or 30-day mortality. For example, a U.S. national database study of more than 40 million patients compared 232 patients with IBD who were diagnosed with COVID-19 with 19,776 non-IBD patients and found that, after propensity matching, there were no significant association between IBD and worse outcomes (risk ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-1.27; P = .86) or hospitalizations (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.74-1.40; P = .91)).
However, some risk factors could be red flags. Data from the international SECURE-IBD registry showed an association between combined endpoint of ICU, requiring a ventilator, or death and advanced age (adjusted odds ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06; P < .01) and two or more comorbidities (aOR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.05-7.85; P < .04). More specifically to IBD, severe COVID-19 was associated with use of corticosteroids (aOR, 6.87; 95% CI, 2.30-20.51; P < .001). In terms of other therapies, another study found a similar effect with thiopurines (compared with TNF monotherapy; aOR, 4.08; 95% CI, 1.65-9.78; Bonferroni adjusted P = .008), and combined use of anti-TNF drugs and a thiopurine (compared with TNF monotherapy; aOR, 4.01; 95% CI, 1.73-9.61; Bonferroni adjusted P = .013), but anti-TNF therapies alone trended toward a protective effect (compared with no anti-TNF therapy; aOR, 0.69; Bonferroni adjusted P = .52). That study found no significant association between severe outcomes and anti-IL 12/23 (compared with anti-TNF monotherapy; aOR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.12-8.06; P = .98) or anti-integrin biologics (compared with anti-TNF monotherapy; aOR, 2.42; 95% CI, 0.59-9.96; P = .22).
Overall, the data are “generally consistent with prior data on infections and IBD: That steroids and combination therapy increase the risk of infection and bad outcomes and that interestingly biologic monotherapy may actually confer a little bit of protection against emergent outcomes and at a minimum appears to be neutral,” said Dr. Ungaro.
He noted that the recommendations from the IOIBD COVID-19 Task Force were based on expert opinion, but the new data have largely supported them overall. He did suggest some potential modifications, including reducing thiopurine use among patients on combination therapy. According to Dr. Ungaro, the recommendations do call for withholding all IBD therapy for 10 days after positive SARS-CoV-2 tests, whether the patient is symptomatic or not. “I think the recent data is reassuring that potentially in asymptomatic and maybe even mild cases, the monotherapy biologics – we can consider not delaying administering those. I think we need more data about that, but it’s reassuring that patients on those had no worse outcomes and [in fact did] slightly better,” Dr. Ungaro said during the presentation.
The data reinforced the need to consider tapering patients off corticosteroids or combination therapies, if possible. “It’s something we were doing in regular IBD care beforehand, but the COVID-19 pandemic offers another reason to limit the use of steroids and evaluate if patients are able to de-escalate from combination therapies,” said Dr. Ungaro.
On the other hand, there was concern among some patients early in the pandemic that their immunotherapy drugs may put them at risk of contracting COVID-19, which led some to discontinue medications. Ongoing studies are illustrating the problem with this, according to David T. Rubin, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago and chair of the congress’s organizing committee. “The data do not in general suggest you should do that to protect yourself. In fact, being on the therapies may have a better outcome. Patients always want to come off their therapies, [but] during the pandemic that is a risk not worth taking. Getting sick from your Crohn’s disease or colitis, when there are limited health care resources and, in some places, limited hospital beds and where the rescue therapy might include steroids, is a risky proposition. It’s not the time to do this,” said Dr. Rubin.
With respect to vaccines, it appears so far that there is no increased risk of adverse events associated with IBD. Patients who are on immunosuppressive drugs may experience a lower response to immunization, which has been seen with other vaccines. “The benefits likely outweigh the risks based on our prior experience with other vaccinations. It’s an area of ongoing study, but I do think we should recommend that our IBD patients get the COVID-19 vaccine, especially if they have risk factors for severe disease,” said Dr. Ungaro.
Dr. Ungaro is on the advisory board for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, and Takeda. He has received funding from AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer. He has been a speaker or received consulting fees from AbbVie and Eli Lilly. Dr. Rubin is a consultant for Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and AbbVie.
This article was updated Jan. 27, 2021.
Multicenter and population cohort studies suggest that patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are not at unique risk of contracting COVID-19 or experiencing worse outcomes, with the exception of a few risk factors such as corticosteroid use and combination therapy that appear tied to greater risk of hospitalization and mortality. The findings line up well with previous experience with infectious disease and are reassuring, but they also underscore the need to taper steroids and de-escalate from combination therapy, when possible.
“There is not a clear increased risk of getting COVID-19 among IBD patients compared to the general population, and that seems to hold even if you look at certain medication types, [even] if patients are on immunosuppressives like thiopurines or anti-TNF [anti–tumor necrosis factor] drugs,” Ryan C. Ungaro, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Ungaro, who is with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, discussed IBD and COVID-19 risks at the annual congress of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.
A systematic review showed that 0.3% of IBD patients contracted COVID-19 during study periods, compared with 0.2%-4.0% of the general population, and a matched-cohort analysis of a national Veterans Affairs database showed an infection prevalence of 0.23% among patients with IBD versus 0.20% among those without (P = .29). The analysis also showed use of anti-TNF therapies or thiopurines was not associated with an increased risk.
Studies show that patients with IBD in general do not appear to be at greater risk of severe disease outcomes such as hospitalization or 30-day mortality. For example, a U.S. national database study of more than 40 million patients compared 232 patients with IBD who were diagnosed with COVID-19 with 19,776 non-IBD patients and found that, after propensity matching, there were no significant association between IBD and worse outcomes (risk ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-1.27; P = .86) or hospitalizations (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.74-1.40; P = .91)).
However, some risk factors could be red flags. Data from the international SECURE-IBD registry showed an association between combined endpoint of ICU, requiring a ventilator, or death and advanced age (adjusted odds ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06; P < .01) and two or more comorbidities (aOR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.05-7.85; P < .04). More specifically to IBD, severe COVID-19 was associated with use of corticosteroids (aOR, 6.87; 95% CI, 2.30-20.51; P < .001). In terms of other therapies, another study found a similar effect with thiopurines (compared with TNF monotherapy; aOR, 4.08; 95% CI, 1.65-9.78; Bonferroni adjusted P = .008), and combined use of anti-TNF drugs and a thiopurine (compared with TNF monotherapy; aOR, 4.01; 95% CI, 1.73-9.61; Bonferroni adjusted P = .013), but anti-TNF therapies alone trended toward a protective effect (compared with no anti-TNF therapy; aOR, 0.69; Bonferroni adjusted P = .52). That study found no significant association between severe outcomes and anti-IL 12/23 (compared with anti-TNF monotherapy; aOR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.12-8.06; P = .98) or anti-integrin biologics (compared with anti-TNF monotherapy; aOR, 2.42; 95% CI, 0.59-9.96; P = .22).
Overall, the data are “generally consistent with prior data on infections and IBD: That steroids and combination therapy increase the risk of infection and bad outcomes and that interestingly biologic monotherapy may actually confer a little bit of protection against emergent outcomes and at a minimum appears to be neutral,” said Dr. Ungaro.
He noted that the recommendations from the IOIBD COVID-19 Task Force were based on expert opinion, but the new data have largely supported them overall. He did suggest some potential modifications, including reducing thiopurine use among patients on combination therapy. According to Dr. Ungaro, the recommendations do call for withholding all IBD therapy for 10 days after positive SARS-CoV-2 tests, whether the patient is symptomatic or not. “I think the recent data is reassuring that potentially in asymptomatic and maybe even mild cases, the monotherapy biologics – we can consider not delaying administering those. I think we need more data about that, but it’s reassuring that patients on those had no worse outcomes and [in fact did] slightly better,” Dr. Ungaro said during the presentation.
The data reinforced the need to consider tapering patients off corticosteroids or combination therapies, if possible. “It’s something we were doing in regular IBD care beforehand, but the COVID-19 pandemic offers another reason to limit the use of steroids and evaluate if patients are able to de-escalate from combination therapies,” said Dr. Ungaro.
On the other hand, there was concern among some patients early in the pandemic that their immunotherapy drugs may put them at risk of contracting COVID-19, which led some to discontinue medications. Ongoing studies are illustrating the problem with this, according to David T. Rubin, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago and chair of the congress’s organizing committee. “The data do not in general suggest you should do that to protect yourself. In fact, being on the therapies may have a better outcome. Patients always want to come off their therapies, [but] during the pandemic that is a risk not worth taking. Getting sick from your Crohn’s disease or colitis, when there are limited health care resources and, in some places, limited hospital beds and where the rescue therapy might include steroids, is a risky proposition. It’s not the time to do this,” said Dr. Rubin.
With respect to vaccines, it appears so far that there is no increased risk of adverse events associated with IBD. Patients who are on immunosuppressive drugs may experience a lower response to immunization, which has been seen with other vaccines. “The benefits likely outweigh the risks based on our prior experience with other vaccinations. It’s an area of ongoing study, but I do think we should recommend that our IBD patients get the COVID-19 vaccine, especially if they have risk factors for severe disease,” said Dr. Ungaro.
Dr. Ungaro is on the advisory board for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, and Takeda. He has received funding from AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer. He has been a speaker or received consulting fees from AbbVie and Eli Lilly. Dr. Rubin is a consultant for Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and AbbVie.
This article was updated Jan. 27, 2021.
FROM THE CROHN’S & COLITIS CONGRESS
First monthly injectable HIV treatment approved by FDA
Cabenuva (cabotegravir and rilpivirine, a once-per-month injectable formulation) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration as a complete regimen for treatment of HIV-1 infection in adults. It is intended to replace current antiretroviral regimens in those patients who are virologically suppressed with no history of treatment failure and with no known or suspected resistance to either of the two component drugs.
Cabenuva is the first FDA-approved monthly injectable, complete regimen for HIV-infected adults, according to the agency’s announcement.
In addition, the FDA-approved Vocabria (cabotegravir, tablet formulation), a preparatory treatment intended to be taken in combination with oral rilpivirine (Edurant) for 1 month prior to starting treatment with Cabenuva to ensure the medications are well tolerated before switching to the extended-release injectable formulation. The FDA granted the approval of Cabenuva and Vocabria to ViiV Healthcare.
Cabotegravir is as an integrase strand transfer inhibitor that blocks HIV integrase by attaching to the active integrase site and inhibiting retroviral DNA integration, which is necessary in order for HIV to replicate. In contrast, rilpivirine acts as a diarylpyrimidine nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor of HIV-1.
Approval of Cabenuva was based upon two randomized, open-label, controlled clinical trials in 1,182 HIV-infected adults who were virologically suppressed (HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/mL) before initiation of treatment with Cabenuva. The two pivotal phase three clinical studies were: Antiretroviral Therapy as Long-Acting Suppression (ATLAS; NCT02951052) and First Long-Acting Injectable Regimen (FLAIR; NCT02938520). Patients in both trials continued to show virologic suppression at the conclusion of each study, and no clinically relevant change from baseline in CD4+ cell counts was observed, according to the FDA announcement.
Adverse reactions with Cabenuva included injection-site reactions, fever, fatigue, headache, musculoskeletal pain, nausea, sleep disorders, dizziness, and rash. The FDA warned that Cabenuva should not be used if there is a known previous hypersensitivity reaction to cabotegravir or rilpivirine, or in patients who are not virally suppressed (HIV-1 RNA greater than 50 copies/mL).
Cabenuva and Vocabria were granted Fast Track and Priority Review designation by the FDA. Prescribing information for Cabenuva is available on the ViiV Healthcare website.
Cabenuva (cabotegravir and rilpivirine, a once-per-month injectable formulation) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration as a complete regimen for treatment of HIV-1 infection in adults. It is intended to replace current antiretroviral regimens in those patients who are virologically suppressed with no history of treatment failure and with no known or suspected resistance to either of the two component drugs.
Cabenuva is the first FDA-approved monthly injectable, complete regimen for HIV-infected adults, according to the agency’s announcement.
In addition, the FDA-approved Vocabria (cabotegravir, tablet formulation), a preparatory treatment intended to be taken in combination with oral rilpivirine (Edurant) for 1 month prior to starting treatment with Cabenuva to ensure the medications are well tolerated before switching to the extended-release injectable formulation. The FDA granted the approval of Cabenuva and Vocabria to ViiV Healthcare.
Cabotegravir is as an integrase strand transfer inhibitor that blocks HIV integrase by attaching to the active integrase site and inhibiting retroviral DNA integration, which is necessary in order for HIV to replicate. In contrast, rilpivirine acts as a diarylpyrimidine nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor of HIV-1.
Approval of Cabenuva was based upon two randomized, open-label, controlled clinical trials in 1,182 HIV-infected adults who were virologically suppressed (HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/mL) before initiation of treatment with Cabenuva. The two pivotal phase three clinical studies were: Antiretroviral Therapy as Long-Acting Suppression (ATLAS; NCT02951052) and First Long-Acting Injectable Regimen (FLAIR; NCT02938520). Patients in both trials continued to show virologic suppression at the conclusion of each study, and no clinically relevant change from baseline in CD4+ cell counts was observed, according to the FDA announcement.
Adverse reactions with Cabenuva included injection-site reactions, fever, fatigue, headache, musculoskeletal pain, nausea, sleep disorders, dizziness, and rash. The FDA warned that Cabenuva should not be used if there is a known previous hypersensitivity reaction to cabotegravir or rilpivirine, or in patients who are not virally suppressed (HIV-1 RNA greater than 50 copies/mL).
Cabenuva and Vocabria were granted Fast Track and Priority Review designation by the FDA. Prescribing information for Cabenuva is available on the ViiV Healthcare website.
Cabenuva (cabotegravir and rilpivirine, a once-per-month injectable formulation) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration as a complete regimen for treatment of HIV-1 infection in adults. It is intended to replace current antiretroviral regimens in those patients who are virologically suppressed with no history of treatment failure and with no known or suspected resistance to either of the two component drugs.
Cabenuva is the first FDA-approved monthly injectable, complete regimen for HIV-infected adults, according to the agency’s announcement.
In addition, the FDA-approved Vocabria (cabotegravir, tablet formulation), a preparatory treatment intended to be taken in combination with oral rilpivirine (Edurant) for 1 month prior to starting treatment with Cabenuva to ensure the medications are well tolerated before switching to the extended-release injectable formulation. The FDA granted the approval of Cabenuva and Vocabria to ViiV Healthcare.
Cabotegravir is as an integrase strand transfer inhibitor that blocks HIV integrase by attaching to the active integrase site and inhibiting retroviral DNA integration, which is necessary in order for HIV to replicate. In contrast, rilpivirine acts as a diarylpyrimidine nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor of HIV-1.
Approval of Cabenuva was based upon two randomized, open-label, controlled clinical trials in 1,182 HIV-infected adults who were virologically suppressed (HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/mL) before initiation of treatment with Cabenuva. The two pivotal phase three clinical studies were: Antiretroviral Therapy as Long-Acting Suppression (ATLAS; NCT02951052) and First Long-Acting Injectable Regimen (FLAIR; NCT02938520). Patients in both trials continued to show virologic suppression at the conclusion of each study, and no clinically relevant change from baseline in CD4+ cell counts was observed, according to the FDA announcement.
Adverse reactions with Cabenuva included injection-site reactions, fever, fatigue, headache, musculoskeletal pain, nausea, sleep disorders, dizziness, and rash. The FDA warned that Cabenuva should not be used if there is a known previous hypersensitivity reaction to cabotegravir or rilpivirine, or in patients who are not virally suppressed (HIV-1 RNA greater than 50 copies/mL).
Cabenuva and Vocabria were granted Fast Track and Priority Review designation by the FDA. Prescribing information for Cabenuva is available on the ViiV Healthcare website.
NEWS FROM THE FDA
ColCORONA: Colchicine reduces complications in outpatient COVID-19
The oral, anti-inflammatory drug colchicine can prevent complications and hospitalizations in nonhospitalized patients newly diagnosed with COVID-19, according to a press release from the ColCORONA trial investigators.
After 1 month of therapy, there was a 21% risk reduction in the primary composite endpoint of death or hospitalizations that missed statistical significance, compared with placebo among 4,488 outpatients enrolled in the global, phase 3 trial.
After excluding 329 patients without a confirmatory polymerase chain reaction test, however, the use of colchicine was reported to significantly reduce hospitalizations by 25%, the need for mechanical ventilation by 50%, and deaths by 44%.
“We believe that this is a medical breakthrough. There’s no approved therapy to prevent complications of COVID-19 in outpatients, to prevent them from reaching the hospital,” lead investigator Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, from the Montreal Heart Institute, said in an interview.
“I know that several countries will be reviewing the data very rapidly and that Greece approved it today,” he said. “So this is providing hope for patients.”
Having been burned by hydroxychloroquine and other treatments brought forth without peer review, the response to the announcement was tempered by a desire for more details.
Asked for comment, Steven E. Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, was cautious. “The press release about the trial is vague and lacks details such as hazard ratios, confidence intervals, and P values,” he said in an interview.
“It is impossible to evaluate the results of this trial without these details. It is also uncertain how rigorously data were collected,” he added. “We’ll need to see the manuscript to adequately interpret the results.”
The evidence in the press release is hard to interpret, but early intervention with anti-inflammatory therapy has considerable biologic appeal in COVID, said Paul Ridker, MD, MPH, who led the pivotal CANTOS trial of the anti-inflammatory drug canakinumab in the post-MI setting, and is also chair of the ACTIV-4B trial currently investigating anticoagulants and antithrombotics in outpatient COVID-19.
“Colchicine is both inexpensive and generally well tolerated, and the apparent benefits so far reported are substantial,” Dr. Ridker, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said in an interview. “We are eager to see the full data as rapidly as possible.”
The commonly used gout and rheumatic disease agent costs about 26 cents in Canada and between $4 and $6 in the United States. As previously reported, it reduced the time to clinical deterioration and hospital stay but not mortality in the 105-patient Greek Study in the Effects of Colchicine in COVID-19 Complications Prevention (GRECCO-19) study.
Dr. Tardif said he’s looking forward to having the data in the public domain and that they acted swiftly because the evidence was “clinically persuasive” and “the health system is congested now.”
“We received the results Friday, Jan. 22 at 5 p.m., an hour later we were in meetings with our data safety monitoring board [DSMB], 2 hours later we issued a press release, and a day later we’re submitting a full manuscript to a major scientific journal, so I don’t know if anyone has done this at this speed,” he said. “So we are actually very proud of what we did.”
ColCORONA was designed to enroll 6,000 outpatients, at least 40 years of age, who were diagnosed with COVID-19 infection within the previous 24 hours, and had a least one high-risk criterion, including age at least 70 years, body mass index of at least 30 kg/m2, diabetes mellitus, uncontrolled hypertension, known respiratory disease, heart failure or coronary disease, fever of at least 38.4° C within the last 48 hours, dyspnea at presentation, bicytopenia, pancytopenia, or the combination of high neutrophil count and low lymphocyte count.
Participants were randomly assigned to receive either placebo or colchicine 0.5 mg twice daily for 3 days and then once daily for another 27 days.
The number needed to prevent one COVID-19 complication is about 60 patients, Dr. Tardif said.
Colchicine was well tolerated and resulted in fewer serious adverse events than with placebo, he said. Diarrhea occurred more often with colchicine, but there was no increase in pneumonia. Caution should be used, however, in treating patients with severe renal disease.
Dr. Tardif said he would not prescribe colchicine to an 18-year-old COVID outpatient who doesn’t have any concomitant diseases, but would for those meeting the study protocol.
“As long as a patient appears to me to be at risk of a complication, I would prescribe it, without a doubt,” he said. “I can tell you that when we held the meeting with the DSMB Friday evening, I actually put each member on the spot and asked them: ‘If it were you – not even treating a patient, but if you had COVID today, would you take it based on the data you’ve seen?’ and all of the DSMB members said they would.
“So we’ll have that debate in the public domain when the paper is out, but I believe most physicians will use it to treat their patients.”
The trial was coordinated by the Montreal Heart Institute and funded by the government of Quebec; the U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Montreal philanthropist Sophie Desmarais; and the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator launched by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome, and Mastercard. CGI, Dacima, and Pharmascience of Montreal were also collaborators.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The oral, anti-inflammatory drug colchicine can prevent complications and hospitalizations in nonhospitalized patients newly diagnosed with COVID-19, according to a press release from the ColCORONA trial investigators.
After 1 month of therapy, there was a 21% risk reduction in the primary composite endpoint of death or hospitalizations that missed statistical significance, compared with placebo among 4,488 outpatients enrolled in the global, phase 3 trial.
After excluding 329 patients without a confirmatory polymerase chain reaction test, however, the use of colchicine was reported to significantly reduce hospitalizations by 25%, the need for mechanical ventilation by 50%, and deaths by 44%.
“We believe that this is a medical breakthrough. There’s no approved therapy to prevent complications of COVID-19 in outpatients, to prevent them from reaching the hospital,” lead investigator Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, from the Montreal Heart Institute, said in an interview.
“I know that several countries will be reviewing the data very rapidly and that Greece approved it today,” he said. “So this is providing hope for patients.”
Having been burned by hydroxychloroquine and other treatments brought forth without peer review, the response to the announcement was tempered by a desire for more details.
Asked for comment, Steven E. Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, was cautious. “The press release about the trial is vague and lacks details such as hazard ratios, confidence intervals, and P values,” he said in an interview.
“It is impossible to evaluate the results of this trial without these details. It is also uncertain how rigorously data were collected,” he added. “We’ll need to see the manuscript to adequately interpret the results.”
The evidence in the press release is hard to interpret, but early intervention with anti-inflammatory therapy has considerable biologic appeal in COVID, said Paul Ridker, MD, MPH, who led the pivotal CANTOS trial of the anti-inflammatory drug canakinumab in the post-MI setting, and is also chair of the ACTIV-4B trial currently investigating anticoagulants and antithrombotics in outpatient COVID-19.
“Colchicine is both inexpensive and generally well tolerated, and the apparent benefits so far reported are substantial,” Dr. Ridker, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said in an interview. “We are eager to see the full data as rapidly as possible.”
The commonly used gout and rheumatic disease agent costs about 26 cents in Canada and between $4 and $6 in the United States. As previously reported, it reduced the time to clinical deterioration and hospital stay but not mortality in the 105-patient Greek Study in the Effects of Colchicine in COVID-19 Complications Prevention (GRECCO-19) study.
Dr. Tardif said he’s looking forward to having the data in the public domain and that they acted swiftly because the evidence was “clinically persuasive” and “the health system is congested now.”
“We received the results Friday, Jan. 22 at 5 p.m., an hour later we were in meetings with our data safety monitoring board [DSMB], 2 hours later we issued a press release, and a day later we’re submitting a full manuscript to a major scientific journal, so I don’t know if anyone has done this at this speed,” he said. “So we are actually very proud of what we did.”
ColCORONA was designed to enroll 6,000 outpatients, at least 40 years of age, who were diagnosed with COVID-19 infection within the previous 24 hours, and had a least one high-risk criterion, including age at least 70 years, body mass index of at least 30 kg/m2, diabetes mellitus, uncontrolled hypertension, known respiratory disease, heart failure or coronary disease, fever of at least 38.4° C within the last 48 hours, dyspnea at presentation, bicytopenia, pancytopenia, or the combination of high neutrophil count and low lymphocyte count.
Participants were randomly assigned to receive either placebo or colchicine 0.5 mg twice daily for 3 days and then once daily for another 27 days.
The number needed to prevent one COVID-19 complication is about 60 patients, Dr. Tardif said.
Colchicine was well tolerated and resulted in fewer serious adverse events than with placebo, he said. Diarrhea occurred more often with colchicine, but there was no increase in pneumonia. Caution should be used, however, in treating patients with severe renal disease.
Dr. Tardif said he would not prescribe colchicine to an 18-year-old COVID outpatient who doesn’t have any concomitant diseases, but would for those meeting the study protocol.
“As long as a patient appears to me to be at risk of a complication, I would prescribe it, without a doubt,” he said. “I can tell you that when we held the meeting with the DSMB Friday evening, I actually put each member on the spot and asked them: ‘If it were you – not even treating a patient, but if you had COVID today, would you take it based on the data you’ve seen?’ and all of the DSMB members said they would.
“So we’ll have that debate in the public domain when the paper is out, but I believe most physicians will use it to treat their patients.”
The trial was coordinated by the Montreal Heart Institute and funded by the government of Quebec; the U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Montreal philanthropist Sophie Desmarais; and the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator launched by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome, and Mastercard. CGI, Dacima, and Pharmascience of Montreal were also collaborators.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The oral, anti-inflammatory drug colchicine can prevent complications and hospitalizations in nonhospitalized patients newly diagnosed with COVID-19, according to a press release from the ColCORONA trial investigators.
After 1 month of therapy, there was a 21% risk reduction in the primary composite endpoint of death or hospitalizations that missed statistical significance, compared with placebo among 4,488 outpatients enrolled in the global, phase 3 trial.
After excluding 329 patients without a confirmatory polymerase chain reaction test, however, the use of colchicine was reported to significantly reduce hospitalizations by 25%, the need for mechanical ventilation by 50%, and deaths by 44%.
“We believe that this is a medical breakthrough. There’s no approved therapy to prevent complications of COVID-19 in outpatients, to prevent them from reaching the hospital,” lead investigator Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, from the Montreal Heart Institute, said in an interview.
“I know that several countries will be reviewing the data very rapidly and that Greece approved it today,” he said. “So this is providing hope for patients.”
Having been burned by hydroxychloroquine and other treatments brought forth without peer review, the response to the announcement was tempered by a desire for more details.
Asked for comment, Steven E. Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, was cautious. “The press release about the trial is vague and lacks details such as hazard ratios, confidence intervals, and P values,” he said in an interview.
“It is impossible to evaluate the results of this trial without these details. It is also uncertain how rigorously data were collected,” he added. “We’ll need to see the manuscript to adequately interpret the results.”
The evidence in the press release is hard to interpret, but early intervention with anti-inflammatory therapy has considerable biologic appeal in COVID, said Paul Ridker, MD, MPH, who led the pivotal CANTOS trial of the anti-inflammatory drug canakinumab in the post-MI setting, and is also chair of the ACTIV-4B trial currently investigating anticoagulants and antithrombotics in outpatient COVID-19.
“Colchicine is both inexpensive and generally well tolerated, and the apparent benefits so far reported are substantial,” Dr. Ridker, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said in an interview. “We are eager to see the full data as rapidly as possible.”
The commonly used gout and rheumatic disease agent costs about 26 cents in Canada and between $4 and $6 in the United States. As previously reported, it reduced the time to clinical deterioration and hospital stay but not mortality in the 105-patient Greek Study in the Effects of Colchicine in COVID-19 Complications Prevention (GRECCO-19) study.
Dr. Tardif said he’s looking forward to having the data in the public domain and that they acted swiftly because the evidence was “clinically persuasive” and “the health system is congested now.”
“We received the results Friday, Jan. 22 at 5 p.m., an hour later we were in meetings with our data safety monitoring board [DSMB], 2 hours later we issued a press release, and a day later we’re submitting a full manuscript to a major scientific journal, so I don’t know if anyone has done this at this speed,” he said. “So we are actually very proud of what we did.”
ColCORONA was designed to enroll 6,000 outpatients, at least 40 years of age, who were diagnosed with COVID-19 infection within the previous 24 hours, and had a least one high-risk criterion, including age at least 70 years, body mass index of at least 30 kg/m2, diabetes mellitus, uncontrolled hypertension, known respiratory disease, heart failure or coronary disease, fever of at least 38.4° C within the last 48 hours, dyspnea at presentation, bicytopenia, pancytopenia, or the combination of high neutrophil count and low lymphocyte count.
Participants were randomly assigned to receive either placebo or colchicine 0.5 mg twice daily for 3 days and then once daily for another 27 days.
The number needed to prevent one COVID-19 complication is about 60 patients, Dr. Tardif said.
Colchicine was well tolerated and resulted in fewer serious adverse events than with placebo, he said. Diarrhea occurred more often with colchicine, but there was no increase in pneumonia. Caution should be used, however, in treating patients with severe renal disease.
Dr. Tardif said he would not prescribe colchicine to an 18-year-old COVID outpatient who doesn’t have any concomitant diseases, but would for those meeting the study protocol.
“As long as a patient appears to me to be at risk of a complication, I would prescribe it, without a doubt,” he said. “I can tell you that when we held the meeting with the DSMB Friday evening, I actually put each member on the spot and asked them: ‘If it were you – not even treating a patient, but if you had COVID today, would you take it based on the data you’ve seen?’ and all of the DSMB members said they would.
“So we’ll have that debate in the public domain when the paper is out, but I believe most physicians will use it to treat their patients.”
The trial was coordinated by the Montreal Heart Institute and funded by the government of Quebec; the U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Montreal philanthropist Sophie Desmarais; and the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator launched by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome, and Mastercard. CGI, Dacima, and Pharmascience of Montreal were also collaborators.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.