Conference Coverage

A simple nasal swab may help in the diagnosis of lung cancer in smokers who have undergone CT screening and had lung nodules detected on the scan.  

Only about 5% of the nearly 1.6 million lung nodules identified as incidental findings on low-dose CT screening tests will turn out to be malignant. The new test helps to distinguish between benign and malignant nodules, say researchers reporting a validation study.  

The results show that the test identified those at low risk for cancer with a sensitivity of 96.3% and specificity of 41.7%, as well as identifying those as high risk, with a specificity of 90.4% and sensitivity of 58.2%.

The Percepta nasal swab is a first-of-its-kind genomic test, says the manufacturer Veracyte.

It is based on “field of injury” technology, which examines genomic changes in the lining of the respiratory tract for evidence of active cancer cells, coupled with a machine learning model that includes factors such as age, gender, and smoking history.

Veracyte hopes to begin to make the test available to a select number of sites in the second half of 2021. “The test is intended to be performed in the physician’s office on patients referred with suspicious lung nodules found on CT scans,” said Giulia C. Kennedy, PhD, chief scientific officer and chief medical officer at Veracyte. “This could include patients with nodules found through screening programs, as well as incidentally.”

“It will be made available as a laboratory developed test in the U.S. through Veracyte’s centralized CLIA laboratory,” she said in an interview. “In global markets, we will offer the test as an IVD product that can be performed on the nCounter instrument by laboratories locally. Outside of the United States, the test will require a CE mark, which we are equipped to support.”

Results with the test were presented during the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2021 Annual Meeting, which was held virtually this year.

It was first tested in a training set, which consisted of more than 1,100 patients. All were current or former smokers who had a lung nodule detected on chest CT scanning and were followed for up to 1 year or until a final diagnosis of lung cancer or benign disease.

Brushings of the nasal epithelium were prospectively collected in patients with lung nodules from multiple cohorts.

A total of 502 genes were used in the classifier, and performance was evaluated in an independent clinical validation set consisting of 249 patients.

The test identified true benign patients as low risk with 41.7% specificity and 96.3% sensitivity, resulting in a negative predictive value (NPV) of 97.1% in a population with a cancer prevalence of 25%. The risk of malignancy for patients in this low-risk group was less than 3% (1-NPV), and for this group, clinical guidelines recommend surveillance.  

Patients with true malignancies were identified as high risk, with 58.2% sensitivity and 90.4% specificity, resulting in a positive predictive value of 67.0% in a population with 25% cancer prevalence. The risk of malignancy for patients deemed to be high risk by the classifier was 67.0%, which exceeds the current guideline threshold for consideration of surgical resection or other ablative therapy if a staging evaluation confirms early stage disease, the authors point out.  

The remaining patients, who did not meet the stringent cut-offs for low or high risk, were identified as intermediate risk. In this population, the prevalence of malignancy for patients identified as intermediate risk was 20.7%, which is consistent with guidelines that provide a range for intermediate-risk patients as between 5% and 65% for whom diagnostic biopsy is recommended.
 

Help guide decisions, more data needed

Approached by this news organization for independent comment, Alexander Spira, MD, PhD, medical oncologist, Virginia Cancer Specialists, Fairfax, explained that the study provides an interesting way to look at a common finding and lung nodules and to predict whether further workup should be done.

“This could provide a role in reassurance that patients who fall into the low-risk category could be observed with serial imaging rather than proceeding to immediate biopsy,” he said. “It falls in under the ‘field of injury’ principle.”

Dr. Spira noted that although the low-risk group appears to have a negative predictive value of >90%, it doesn’t mean that the patient would require no further workup. “It would require CT surveillance rather than proceeding to immediate biopsy, and at this point it does appear promising, but I would want further follow-up in terms of outcomes,” he said.

“This does not apply to nonsmokers, which is of increasing prevalence, but with the increased use of CT screening for patients with a history of tobacco use, it may indeed have a role.”

He also pointed out that while the idea is to avoid biopsies, the smaller lesions are the ones that are concerning. “They are often tough to get at, and it would also depend on patient choice and anxiety as well, given the chance of being in that low percentage that the test misses,” said Dr. Spira. “Lastly, many pulmonologists are ordering PET scans in lieu of a biopsy, and this may also help.”

The bottom line is that this may help guide clinical decisions, but more data are needed. “Even in the low-risk category, 9.4% of patients had a malignancy, which is still a high miss rate,” he added.

The study was funded by Veracyte. Dr. Kennedy is employed by Veracyte. Dr. Spira has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A simple nasal swab may help in the diagnosis of lung cancer in smokers who have undergone CT screening and had lung nodules detected on the scan.  

Only about 5% of the nearly 1.6 million lung nodules identified as incidental findings on low-dose CT screening tests will turn out to be malignant. The new test helps to distinguish between benign and malignant nodules, say researchers reporting a validation study.  

The results show that the test identified those at low risk for cancer with a sensitivity of 96.3% and specificity of 41.7%, as well as identifying those as high risk, with a specificity of 90.4% and sensitivity of 58.2%.

The Percepta nasal swab is a first-of-its-kind genomic test, says the manufacturer Veracyte.

It is based on “field of injury” technology, which examines genomic changes in the lining of the respiratory tract for evidence of active cancer cells, coupled with a machine learning model that includes factors such as age, gender, and smoking history.

Veracyte hopes to begin to make the test available to a select number of sites in the second half of 2021. “The test is intended to be performed in the physician’s office on patients referred with suspicious lung nodules found on CT scans,” said Giulia C. Kennedy, PhD, chief scientific officer and chief medical officer at Veracyte. “This could include patients with nodules found through screening programs, as well as incidentally.”

“It will be made available as a laboratory developed test in the U.S. through Veracyte’s centralized CLIA laboratory,” she said in an interview. “In global markets, we will offer the test as an IVD product that can be performed on the nCounter instrument by laboratories locally. Outside of the United States, the test will require a CE mark, which we are equipped to support.”

Results with the test were presented during the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2021 Annual Meeting, which was held virtually this year.

It was first tested in a training set, which consisted of more than 1,100 patients. All were current or former smokers who had a lung nodule detected on chest CT scanning and were followed for up to 1 year or until a final diagnosis of lung cancer or benign disease.

Brushings of the nasal epithelium were prospectively collected in patients with lung nodules from multiple cohorts.

A total of 502 genes were used in the classifier, and performance was evaluated in an independent clinical validation set consisting of 249 patients.

The test identified true benign patients as low risk with 41.7% specificity and 96.3% sensitivity, resulting in a negative predictive value (NPV) of 97.1% in a population with a cancer prevalence of 25%. The risk of malignancy for patients in this low-risk group was less than 3% (1-NPV), and for this group, clinical guidelines recommend surveillance.  

Patients with true malignancies were identified as high risk, with 58.2% sensitivity and 90.4% specificity, resulting in a positive predictive value of 67.0% in a population with 25% cancer prevalence. The risk of malignancy for patients deemed to be high risk by the classifier was 67.0%, which exceeds the current guideline threshold for consideration of surgical resection or other ablative therapy if a staging evaluation confirms early stage disease, the authors point out.  

The remaining patients, who did not meet the stringent cut-offs for low or high risk, were identified as intermediate risk. In this population, the prevalence of malignancy for patients identified as intermediate risk was 20.7%, which is consistent with guidelines that provide a range for intermediate-risk patients as between 5% and 65% for whom diagnostic biopsy is recommended.
 

Help guide decisions, more data needed

Approached by this news organization for independent comment, Alexander Spira, MD, PhD, medical oncologist, Virginia Cancer Specialists, Fairfax, explained that the study provides an interesting way to look at a common finding and lung nodules and to predict whether further workup should be done.

“This could provide a role in reassurance that patients who fall into the low-risk category could be observed with serial imaging rather than proceeding to immediate biopsy,” he said. “It falls in under the ‘field of injury’ principle.”

Dr. Spira noted that although the low-risk group appears to have a negative predictive value of >90%, it doesn’t mean that the patient would require no further workup. “It would require CT surveillance rather than proceeding to immediate biopsy, and at this point it does appear promising, but I would want further follow-up in terms of outcomes,” he said.

“This does not apply to nonsmokers, which is of increasing prevalence, but with the increased use of CT screening for patients with a history of tobacco use, it may indeed have a role.”

He also pointed out that while the idea is to avoid biopsies, the smaller lesions are the ones that are concerning. “They are often tough to get at, and it would also depend on patient choice and anxiety as well, given the chance of being in that low percentage that the test misses,” said Dr. Spira. “Lastly, many pulmonologists are ordering PET scans in lieu of a biopsy, and this may also help.”

The bottom line is that this may help guide clinical decisions, but more data are needed. “Even in the low-risk category, 9.4% of patients had a malignancy, which is still a high miss rate,” he added.

The study was funded by Veracyte. Dr. Kennedy is employed by Veracyte. Dr. Spira has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A simple nasal swab may help in the diagnosis of lung cancer in smokers who have undergone CT screening and had lung nodules detected on the scan.  

Only about 5% of the nearly 1.6 million lung nodules identified as incidental findings on low-dose CT screening tests will turn out to be malignant. The new test helps to distinguish between benign and malignant nodules, say researchers reporting a validation study.  

The results show that the test identified those at low risk for cancer with a sensitivity of 96.3% and specificity of 41.7%, as well as identifying those as high risk, with a specificity of 90.4% and sensitivity of 58.2%.

The Percepta nasal swab is a first-of-its-kind genomic test, says the manufacturer Veracyte.

It is based on “field of injury” technology, which examines genomic changes in the lining of the respiratory tract for evidence of active cancer cells, coupled with a machine learning model that includes factors such as age, gender, and smoking history.

Veracyte hopes to begin to make the test available to a select number of sites in the second half of 2021. “The test is intended to be performed in the physician’s office on patients referred with suspicious lung nodules found on CT scans,” said Giulia C. Kennedy, PhD, chief scientific officer and chief medical officer at Veracyte. “This could include patients with nodules found through screening programs, as well as incidentally.”

“It will be made available as a laboratory developed test in the U.S. through Veracyte’s centralized CLIA laboratory,” she said in an interview. “In global markets, we will offer the test as an IVD product that can be performed on the nCounter instrument by laboratories locally. Outside of the United States, the test will require a CE mark, which we are equipped to support.”

Results with the test were presented during the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2021 Annual Meeting, which was held virtually this year.

It was first tested in a training set, which consisted of more than 1,100 patients. All were current or former smokers who had a lung nodule detected on chest CT scanning and were followed for up to 1 year or until a final diagnosis of lung cancer or benign disease.

Brushings of the nasal epithelium were prospectively collected in patients with lung nodules from multiple cohorts.

A total of 502 genes were used in the classifier, and performance was evaluated in an independent clinical validation set consisting of 249 patients.

The test identified true benign patients as low risk with 41.7% specificity and 96.3% sensitivity, resulting in a negative predictive value (NPV) of 97.1% in a population with a cancer prevalence of 25%. The risk of malignancy for patients in this low-risk group was less than 3% (1-NPV), and for this group, clinical guidelines recommend surveillance.  

Patients with true malignancies were identified as high risk, with 58.2% sensitivity and 90.4% specificity, resulting in a positive predictive value of 67.0% in a population with 25% cancer prevalence. The risk of malignancy for patients deemed to be high risk by the classifier was 67.0%, which exceeds the current guideline threshold for consideration of surgical resection or other ablative therapy if a staging evaluation confirms early stage disease, the authors point out.  

The remaining patients, who did not meet the stringent cut-offs for low or high risk, were identified as intermediate risk. In this population, the prevalence of malignancy for patients identified as intermediate risk was 20.7%, which is consistent with guidelines that provide a range for intermediate-risk patients as between 5% and 65% for whom diagnostic biopsy is recommended.
 

Help guide decisions, more data needed

Approached by this news organization for independent comment, Alexander Spira, MD, PhD, medical oncologist, Virginia Cancer Specialists, Fairfax, explained that the study provides an interesting way to look at a common finding and lung nodules and to predict whether further workup should be done.

“This could provide a role in reassurance that patients who fall into the low-risk category could be observed with serial imaging rather than proceeding to immediate biopsy,” he said. “It falls in under the ‘field of injury’ principle.”

Dr. Spira noted that although the low-risk group appears to have a negative predictive value of >90%, it doesn’t mean that the patient would require no further workup. “It would require CT surveillance rather than proceeding to immediate biopsy, and at this point it does appear promising, but I would want further follow-up in terms of outcomes,” he said.

“This does not apply to nonsmokers, which is of increasing prevalence, but with the increased use of CT screening for patients with a history of tobacco use, it may indeed have a role.”

He also pointed out that while the idea is to avoid biopsies, the smaller lesions are the ones that are concerning. “They are often tough to get at, and it would also depend on patient choice and anxiety as well, given the chance of being in that low percentage that the test misses,” said Dr. Spira. “Lastly, many pulmonologists are ordering PET scans in lieu of a biopsy, and this may also help.”

The bottom line is that this may help guide clinical decisions, but more data are needed. “Even in the low-risk category, 9.4% of patients had a malignancy, which is still a high miss rate,” he added.

The study was funded by Veracyte. Dr. Kennedy is employed by Veracyte. Dr. Spira has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A phase 3, sham-controlled clinical trial of an external trigeminal nerve stimulation (e-TNS) device showed confirmed superiority over a sham device and eliminated the most bothersome migraine symptoms after 2 hours of use. The study also demonstrated that the device, manufactured by Cefaly and cleared in 2020 by the Food and Drug Administration for over-the-counter use, can be safely and effectively used at home.

The study also explored the benefits of 2 hours of use, rather than the 1 hour of use tested in a previous study. “The programming on the device is currently [set to] turn off at 1 hour. As a result of this study, I tell patients if they don’t have adequate relief, and they’re tolerating it, that they can activate it again for a second hour,” Stewart Tepper, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Tepper is a professor of neurology at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., and a coauthor of the study that was presented by Deena Kuruvilla, MD, at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting. Dr. Kuruvilla is a neurologist and director of the Westport (Conn.) Headache Institute.

The improvements seen over the sham were significant but not overwhelming, according to Deborah Friedman, MD, MPH, professor of neurology and ophthalmology at the University of Texas, Dallas.

“The numbers are not super impressive when you compare them with other devices. I thought it was interesting that the most bothersome symptom went away in a much higher percentage of people than the headache. That was actually pretty impressive,” said Dr. Friedman, who was asked to comment on the study. She also wondered if the sham device may have inadvertently provided a small amount of stimulation, which could explain the smaller than expected efficacy difference. “It just kind of makes me wonder because I would expect to see a larger separation, even though it was statistically significant.”

The study was an overall success according to Dr. Tepper, who noted that the efficacy of pain freedom was comparable with what has been seen with calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists (gepants), as well as relieving the most bothersome symptom at 2 hours. The device failed to reduce the usage of rescue medication, suggesting that it might be a candidate to combine with rescue medications. “I think the main thing is it works. It works in a sham-controlled trial, it works at home, and it works comparably to acute medication. And it is further evidence that the lack of access is something that needs to be addressed,” said Dr. Tepper.

Access will depend on insurance companies, who have so far been reluctant to pay for the device. Dr. Tepper is not optimistic they will come around on their own. “My feeling about it is that the only way that payers will finally start to cover this is with a concerted, organized advocacy campaign by patients. The analogy is that when the disease-modifying therapies became available for multiple sclerosis, the National MS Society organized the MS patients and they demanded that the payers cover the disease modifying therapies. That’s the kind of intense focus of advocacy that needs to be done for these noninvasive neuromodulation devices,” said Dr. Tepper.

The TEAM study was a double blind, randomized, sham-controlled trial of 538 patients who were asked to use neurostimulation for a 2-hour, continuous session within 4 hours of a moderate to severe migraine accompanied by at least one migraine-associated symptom. At 2 hours, 25.5% of those using the device achieved pain freedom, compared with 18.3% of those using the sham (P < .05). Among those using the device, 56.4% had freedom from most bothersome symptom, compared with 42.3% of those using the sham (P < .01).

Pain relief at 2 hours was more common in the device group (69.5% vs. 55.2%; P < .01), as was absence of all migraine-associated symptoms at 2 hours (42.5% vs. 34.1%; P < .05), sustained pain freedom at 24 hours (22.8% vs. 15.8%; P < .05), and sustained pain relief at 24 hours (45.9% vs. 34.4%; P < .01). There was no statistically significant between-group difference in use of rescue medications.

In the device group, 8.5% of patients experienced an adverse event, versus 2.9% in the sham group (P = .004). The only adverse reaction that occurred more frequently in the device group was forehead paresthesia, discomfort, and burning (3.5% vs. 0.4%; P = .009).

The study was funded by Cefaly. Dr. Tepper and Dr. Friedman have no relevant financial disclosures.

A phase 3, sham-controlled clinical trial of an external trigeminal nerve stimulation (e-TNS) device showed confirmed superiority over a sham device and eliminated the most bothersome migraine symptoms after 2 hours of use. The study also demonstrated that the device, manufactured by Cefaly and cleared in 2020 by the Food and Drug Administration for over-the-counter use, can be safely and effectively used at home.

The study also explored the benefits of 2 hours of use, rather than the 1 hour of use tested in a previous study. “The programming on the device is currently [set to] turn off at 1 hour. As a result of this study, I tell patients if they don’t have adequate relief, and they’re tolerating it, that they can activate it again for a second hour,” Stewart Tepper, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Tepper is a professor of neurology at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., and a coauthor of the study that was presented by Deena Kuruvilla, MD, at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting. Dr. Kuruvilla is a neurologist and director of the Westport (Conn.) Headache Institute.

The improvements seen over the sham were significant but not overwhelming, according to Deborah Friedman, MD, MPH, professor of neurology and ophthalmology at the University of Texas, Dallas.

“The numbers are not super impressive when you compare them with other devices. I thought it was interesting that the most bothersome symptom went away in a much higher percentage of people than the headache. That was actually pretty impressive,” said Dr. Friedman, who was asked to comment on the study. She also wondered if the sham device may have inadvertently provided a small amount of stimulation, which could explain the smaller than expected efficacy difference. “It just kind of makes me wonder because I would expect to see a larger separation, even though it was statistically significant.”

The study was an overall success according to Dr. Tepper, who noted that the efficacy of pain freedom was comparable with what has been seen with calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists (gepants), as well as relieving the most bothersome symptom at 2 hours. The device failed to reduce the usage of rescue medication, suggesting that it might be a candidate to combine with rescue medications. “I think the main thing is it works. It works in a sham-controlled trial, it works at home, and it works comparably to acute medication. And it is further evidence that the lack of access is something that needs to be addressed,” said Dr. Tepper.

Access will depend on insurance companies, who have so far been reluctant to pay for the device. Dr. Tepper is not optimistic they will come around on their own. “My feeling about it is that the only way that payers will finally start to cover this is with a concerted, organized advocacy campaign by patients. The analogy is that when the disease-modifying therapies became available for multiple sclerosis, the National MS Society organized the MS patients and they demanded that the payers cover the disease modifying therapies. That’s the kind of intense focus of advocacy that needs to be done for these noninvasive neuromodulation devices,” said Dr. Tepper.

The TEAM study was a double blind, randomized, sham-controlled trial of 538 patients who were asked to use neurostimulation for a 2-hour, continuous session within 4 hours of a moderate to severe migraine accompanied by at least one migraine-associated symptom. At 2 hours, 25.5% of those using the device achieved pain freedom, compared with 18.3% of those using the sham (P < .05). Among those using the device, 56.4% had freedom from most bothersome symptom, compared with 42.3% of those using the sham (P < .01).

Pain relief at 2 hours was more common in the device group (69.5% vs. 55.2%; P < .01), as was absence of all migraine-associated symptoms at 2 hours (42.5% vs. 34.1%; P < .05), sustained pain freedom at 24 hours (22.8% vs. 15.8%; P < .05), and sustained pain relief at 24 hours (45.9% vs. 34.4%; P < .01). There was no statistically significant between-group difference in use of rescue medications.

In the device group, 8.5% of patients experienced an adverse event, versus 2.9% in the sham group (P = .004). The only adverse reaction that occurred more frequently in the device group was forehead paresthesia, discomfort, and burning (3.5% vs. 0.4%; P = .009).

The study was funded by Cefaly. Dr. Tepper and Dr. Friedman have no relevant financial disclosures.

A phase 3, sham-controlled clinical trial of an external trigeminal nerve stimulation (e-TNS) device showed confirmed superiority over a sham device and eliminated the most bothersome migraine symptoms after 2 hours of use. The study also demonstrated that the device, manufactured by Cefaly and cleared in 2020 by the Food and Drug Administration for over-the-counter use, can be safely and effectively used at home.

The study also explored the benefits of 2 hours of use, rather than the 1 hour of use tested in a previous study. “The programming on the device is currently [set to] turn off at 1 hour. As a result of this study, I tell patients if they don’t have adequate relief, and they’re tolerating it, that they can activate it again for a second hour,” Stewart Tepper, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Tepper is a professor of neurology at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., and a coauthor of the study that was presented by Deena Kuruvilla, MD, at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting. Dr. Kuruvilla is a neurologist and director of the Westport (Conn.) Headache Institute.

The improvements seen over the sham were significant but not overwhelming, according to Deborah Friedman, MD, MPH, professor of neurology and ophthalmology at the University of Texas, Dallas.

“The numbers are not super impressive when you compare them with other devices. I thought it was interesting that the most bothersome symptom went away in a much higher percentage of people than the headache. That was actually pretty impressive,” said Dr. Friedman, who was asked to comment on the study. She also wondered if the sham device may have inadvertently provided a small amount of stimulation, which could explain the smaller than expected efficacy difference. “It just kind of makes me wonder because I would expect to see a larger separation, even though it was statistically significant.”

The study was an overall success according to Dr. Tepper, who noted that the efficacy of pain freedom was comparable with what has been seen with calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists (gepants), as well as relieving the most bothersome symptom at 2 hours. The device failed to reduce the usage of rescue medication, suggesting that it might be a candidate to combine with rescue medications. “I think the main thing is it works. It works in a sham-controlled trial, it works at home, and it works comparably to acute medication. And it is further evidence that the lack of access is something that needs to be addressed,” said Dr. Tepper.

Access will depend on insurance companies, who have so far been reluctant to pay for the device. Dr. Tepper is not optimistic they will come around on their own. “My feeling about it is that the only way that payers will finally start to cover this is with a concerted, organized advocacy campaign by patients. The analogy is that when the disease-modifying therapies became available for multiple sclerosis, the National MS Society organized the MS patients and they demanded that the payers cover the disease modifying therapies. That’s the kind of intense focus of advocacy that needs to be done for these noninvasive neuromodulation devices,” said Dr. Tepper.

The TEAM study was a double blind, randomized, sham-controlled trial of 538 patients who were asked to use neurostimulation for a 2-hour, continuous session within 4 hours of a moderate to severe migraine accompanied by at least one migraine-associated symptom. At 2 hours, 25.5% of those using the device achieved pain freedom, compared with 18.3% of those using the sham (P < .05). Among those using the device, 56.4% had freedom from most bothersome symptom, compared with 42.3% of those using the sham (P < .01).

Pain relief at 2 hours was more common in the device group (69.5% vs. 55.2%; P < .01), as was absence of all migraine-associated symptoms at 2 hours (42.5% vs. 34.1%; P < .05), sustained pain freedom at 24 hours (22.8% vs. 15.8%; P < .05), and sustained pain relief at 24 hours (45.9% vs. 34.4%; P < .01). There was no statistically significant between-group difference in use of rescue medications.

In the device group, 8.5% of patients experienced an adverse event, versus 2.9% in the sham group (P = .004). The only adverse reaction that occurred more frequently in the device group was forehead paresthesia, discomfort, and burning (3.5% vs. 0.4%; P = .009).

The study was funded by Cefaly. Dr. Tepper and Dr. Friedman have no relevant financial disclosures.

After decades of off-label use, vinorelbine finally has a randomized clinical trial supporting its efficacy as a second-line treatment of mesothelioma, an investigator reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

However, the development of other treatment regimens, and notably immuno-oncology approaches, are pushing this classic chemotherapy option to later lines of therapy in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), a speaker said at the meeting.

Adding vinorelbine to active symptom control statistically improved progression-free survival (PFS), among patients with MPM who had prior platinum-based therapy, according to results of the randomized Vinorelbine in Mesothelioma (VIM) trial.

Median PFS reached 4.2 months in the vinorelbine arm, versus 2.8 months for active symptom control alone, study results show.

That finding , coupled with safety results, supports the off-label use of vinorelbine as a treatment option for patients with relapsed MPM, according to investigator Dean Anthony Fennell, FRCP, PhD, of the University of Leicester (England).

“Vinorelbine appears to be a safe and effective treatment and could be considered as a treatment option for patients with relapsed mesothelioma,” Prof. Fennell said in his presentation at ASCO (Abstract 8507).
 

Changing status

While that welcome pronouncement was a long time coming, there are now other promising treatment approaches that relegate vinorelbine to a “lower priority” in the treatment algorithm, said discussant Anna K. Nowak, MBBS, FRACP, PhD, of the University of Western Australia, Nedlands.

In October 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab for the first-line treatment of unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma, on the basis of results from CHECKMATE-743, a randomized, open-label trial.

“Certainly, we know now that first-line ipilimumab and nivolumab is of very substantial benefit to these patients, and we still have clinical trials open in this space as well,” Prof. Nowak said in her discussion at ASCO.

There is “no doubt” that many patients with mesothelioma should at some point receive an IO agent, particularly now with recently reported randomized clinical trial evidence of an overall survival benefit, she added.

“This really pushes vinorelbine out to be a third- or fourth-line treatment,” she added, “and we know that there are usually diminishing returns from using chemotherapies further down the treatment algorithm.”
 

Trial details

The VIM trial described at ASCO by Prof. Fennell was a randomized, controlled phase 2 including 154 patients with MPM that had progressed after first-line chemotherapy.

“Vinorelbine has shown useful clinical activity in single-arm phase two studies, however, the specific efficacy of vinorelbine has not been evaluated in an appropriately controlled randomized trial,” Prof. Fennell said in this presentation.

Patients in the trial were randomized 2:1 to either vinorelbine plus active supportive care or active supportive care alone. Vinorelbine was given initially at 60 mg/m² weekly every 21 days, escalated to 80 mg/m² from cycle 2.

The median age of patients in VIM was approximately 71 years, and about 80% were male.

More partial responses were seen in the vinorelbine arm, at 3.1% of patients, compared with 1.8% for active supportive care, according to Prof. Fennell. Likewise, the rate of stable disease was higher in the vinorelbine arm, at 62.2%, versus 46.4% in the control arm.

The primary outcome of the study, PFS, was significantly improved in the vinorelbine arm, according to Dr. Fennell. The median PFS was 4.2 months in the vinorelbine arm and 2.8 months in the supportive care arm (P = .002), translating into a hazard ratio of 0.60 (95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.86), Prof. Fennell reported.

The most common grade 3-4 adverse event was neutropenia, occurring in 12.5% of the vinorelbine-treated patients and no patients managed with supportive care alone, according to the report. Other grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in fewer than 10% of patients and included dyspnea, lower respiratory infection, lymphopenia, and fatigue, among others.

Overall survival (OS) was not statistically different between vinorelbine and supportive care arms, with median OS of 9.3 months and 9.1 months, respectively.

However, a number of patients in the control arm went on to receive subsequent therapy, including 15 (or about 27%) who went into CONFIRM, a randomized phase 3 trial that, as recently reported, met its coprimary endpoints of improve OS and PFS with nivolumab vs. placebo in relapsed malignant mesothelioma.

Investigators also sought to test the hypothesis that BRCA1-negative patients might be chemoresistant, based in part on preclinical models demonstrating that BRCA1 predicted sensitivity to vinorelbine. However, there was no difference in PFS by BRCA1 expression in the VIM study, according to Prof. Fennell.

Taken together, findings of the VIM trial suggest vinorelbine is a “modestly active” agent with low cost and acceptable toxicity, according to Prof. Nowak.

“It is incumbent on us to have clear discussions with our patients on the risks and benefits of trying this as a subsequent-line therapy, in the context of this evidence that was generated as a second-line therapy,” she said in her discussant remarks on the study.

“I would say that it is a lower priority in our algorithm than cisplatin and pemetrexed, or of course, immuno-oncology agents,” she added.

Dr. Fennell reported disclosures related to AstraZeneca, Astex Therapeutics, Bayer, and multiple other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Nowak reported disclosures with AstraZeneca, Atara Biotherapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, and multiple other pharmaceutical companies.

After decades of off-label use, vinorelbine finally has a randomized clinical trial supporting its efficacy as a second-line treatment of mesothelioma, an investigator reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

However, the development of other treatment regimens, and notably immuno-oncology approaches, are pushing this classic chemotherapy option to later lines of therapy in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), a speaker said at the meeting.

Adding vinorelbine to active symptom control statistically improved progression-free survival (PFS), among patients with MPM who had prior platinum-based therapy, according to results of the randomized Vinorelbine in Mesothelioma (VIM) trial.

Median PFS reached 4.2 months in the vinorelbine arm, versus 2.8 months for active symptom control alone, study results show.

That finding , coupled with safety results, supports the off-label use of vinorelbine as a treatment option for patients with relapsed MPM, according to investigator Dean Anthony Fennell, FRCP, PhD, of the University of Leicester (England).

“Vinorelbine appears to be a safe and effective treatment and could be considered as a treatment option for patients with relapsed mesothelioma,” Prof. Fennell said in his presentation at ASCO (Abstract 8507).
 

Changing status

While that welcome pronouncement was a long time coming, there are now other promising treatment approaches that relegate vinorelbine to a “lower priority” in the treatment algorithm, said discussant Anna K. Nowak, MBBS, FRACP, PhD, of the University of Western Australia, Nedlands.

In October 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab for the first-line treatment of unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma, on the basis of results from CHECKMATE-743, a randomized, open-label trial.

“Certainly, we know now that first-line ipilimumab and nivolumab is of very substantial benefit to these patients, and we still have clinical trials open in this space as well,” Prof. Nowak said in her discussion at ASCO.

There is “no doubt” that many patients with mesothelioma should at some point receive an IO agent, particularly now with recently reported randomized clinical trial evidence of an overall survival benefit, she added.

“This really pushes vinorelbine out to be a third- or fourth-line treatment,” she added, “and we know that there are usually diminishing returns from using chemotherapies further down the treatment algorithm.”
 

Trial details

The VIM trial described at ASCO by Prof. Fennell was a randomized, controlled phase 2 including 154 patients with MPM that had progressed after first-line chemotherapy.

“Vinorelbine has shown useful clinical activity in single-arm phase two studies, however, the specific efficacy of vinorelbine has not been evaluated in an appropriately controlled randomized trial,” Prof. Fennell said in this presentation.

Patients in the trial were randomized 2:1 to either vinorelbine plus active supportive care or active supportive care alone. Vinorelbine was given initially at 60 mg/m² weekly every 21 days, escalated to 80 mg/m² from cycle 2.

The median age of patients in VIM was approximately 71 years, and about 80% were male.

More partial responses were seen in the vinorelbine arm, at 3.1% of patients, compared with 1.8% for active supportive care, according to Prof. Fennell. Likewise, the rate of stable disease was higher in the vinorelbine arm, at 62.2%, versus 46.4% in the control arm.

The primary outcome of the study, PFS, was significantly improved in the vinorelbine arm, according to Dr. Fennell. The median PFS was 4.2 months in the vinorelbine arm and 2.8 months in the supportive care arm (P = .002), translating into a hazard ratio of 0.60 (95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.86), Prof. Fennell reported.

The most common grade 3-4 adverse event was neutropenia, occurring in 12.5% of the vinorelbine-treated patients and no patients managed with supportive care alone, according to the report. Other grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in fewer than 10% of patients and included dyspnea, lower respiratory infection, lymphopenia, and fatigue, among others.

Overall survival (OS) was not statistically different between vinorelbine and supportive care arms, with median OS of 9.3 months and 9.1 months, respectively.

However, a number of patients in the control arm went on to receive subsequent therapy, including 15 (or about 27%) who went into CONFIRM, a randomized phase 3 trial that, as recently reported, met its coprimary endpoints of improve OS and PFS with nivolumab vs. placebo in relapsed malignant mesothelioma.

Investigators also sought to test the hypothesis that BRCA1-negative patients might be chemoresistant, based in part on preclinical models demonstrating that BRCA1 predicted sensitivity to vinorelbine. However, there was no difference in PFS by BRCA1 expression in the VIM study, according to Prof. Fennell.

Taken together, findings of the VIM trial suggest vinorelbine is a “modestly active” agent with low cost and acceptable toxicity, according to Prof. Nowak.

“It is incumbent on us to have clear discussions with our patients on the risks and benefits of trying this as a subsequent-line therapy, in the context of this evidence that was generated as a second-line therapy,” she said in her discussant remarks on the study.

“I would say that it is a lower priority in our algorithm than cisplatin and pemetrexed, or of course, immuno-oncology agents,” she added.

Dr. Fennell reported disclosures related to AstraZeneca, Astex Therapeutics, Bayer, and multiple other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Nowak reported disclosures with AstraZeneca, Atara Biotherapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, and multiple other pharmaceutical companies.

After decades of off-label use, vinorelbine finally has a randomized clinical trial supporting its efficacy as a second-line treatment of mesothelioma, an investigator reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

However, the development of other treatment regimens, and notably immuno-oncology approaches, are pushing this classic chemotherapy option to later lines of therapy in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), a speaker said at the meeting.

Adding vinorelbine to active symptom control statistically improved progression-free survival (PFS), among patients with MPM who had prior platinum-based therapy, according to results of the randomized Vinorelbine in Mesothelioma (VIM) trial.

Median PFS reached 4.2 months in the vinorelbine arm, versus 2.8 months for active symptom control alone, study results show.

That finding , coupled with safety results, supports the off-label use of vinorelbine as a treatment option for patients with relapsed MPM, according to investigator Dean Anthony Fennell, FRCP, PhD, of the University of Leicester (England).

“Vinorelbine appears to be a safe and effective treatment and could be considered as a treatment option for patients with relapsed mesothelioma,” Prof. Fennell said in his presentation at ASCO (Abstract 8507).
 

Changing status

While that welcome pronouncement was a long time coming, there are now other promising treatment approaches that relegate vinorelbine to a “lower priority” in the treatment algorithm, said discussant Anna K. Nowak, MBBS, FRACP, PhD, of the University of Western Australia, Nedlands.

In October 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab for the first-line treatment of unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma, on the basis of results from CHECKMATE-743, a randomized, open-label trial.

“Certainly, we know now that first-line ipilimumab and nivolumab is of very substantial benefit to these patients, and we still have clinical trials open in this space as well,” Prof. Nowak said in her discussion at ASCO.

There is “no doubt” that many patients with mesothelioma should at some point receive an IO agent, particularly now with recently reported randomized clinical trial evidence of an overall survival benefit, she added.

“This really pushes vinorelbine out to be a third- or fourth-line treatment,” she added, “and we know that there are usually diminishing returns from using chemotherapies further down the treatment algorithm.”
 

Trial details

The VIM trial described at ASCO by Prof. Fennell was a randomized, controlled phase 2 including 154 patients with MPM that had progressed after first-line chemotherapy.

“Vinorelbine has shown useful clinical activity in single-arm phase two studies, however, the specific efficacy of vinorelbine has not been evaluated in an appropriately controlled randomized trial,” Prof. Fennell said in this presentation.

Patients in the trial were randomized 2:1 to either vinorelbine plus active supportive care or active supportive care alone. Vinorelbine was given initially at 60 mg/m² weekly every 21 days, escalated to 80 mg/m² from cycle 2.

The median age of patients in VIM was approximately 71 years, and about 80% were male.

More partial responses were seen in the vinorelbine arm, at 3.1% of patients, compared with 1.8% for active supportive care, according to Prof. Fennell. Likewise, the rate of stable disease was higher in the vinorelbine arm, at 62.2%, versus 46.4% in the control arm.

The primary outcome of the study, PFS, was significantly improved in the vinorelbine arm, according to Dr. Fennell. The median PFS was 4.2 months in the vinorelbine arm and 2.8 months in the supportive care arm (P = .002), translating into a hazard ratio of 0.60 (95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.86), Prof. Fennell reported.

The most common grade 3-4 adverse event was neutropenia, occurring in 12.5% of the vinorelbine-treated patients and no patients managed with supportive care alone, according to the report. Other grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in fewer than 10% of patients and included dyspnea, lower respiratory infection, lymphopenia, and fatigue, among others.

Overall survival (OS) was not statistically different between vinorelbine and supportive care arms, with median OS of 9.3 months and 9.1 months, respectively.

However, a number of patients in the control arm went on to receive subsequent therapy, including 15 (or about 27%) who went into CONFIRM, a randomized phase 3 trial that, as recently reported, met its coprimary endpoints of improve OS and PFS with nivolumab vs. placebo in relapsed malignant mesothelioma.

Investigators also sought to test the hypothesis that BRCA1-negative patients might be chemoresistant, based in part on preclinical models demonstrating that BRCA1 predicted sensitivity to vinorelbine. However, there was no difference in PFS by BRCA1 expression in the VIM study, according to Prof. Fennell.

Taken together, findings of the VIM trial suggest vinorelbine is a “modestly active” agent with low cost and acceptable toxicity, according to Prof. Nowak.

“It is incumbent on us to have clear discussions with our patients on the risks and benefits of trying this as a subsequent-line therapy, in the context of this evidence that was generated as a second-line therapy,” she said in her discussant remarks on the study.

“I would say that it is a lower priority in our algorithm than cisplatin and pemetrexed, or of course, immuno-oncology agents,” she added.

Dr. Fennell reported disclosures related to AstraZeneca, Astex Therapeutics, Bayer, and multiple other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Nowak reported disclosures with AstraZeneca, Atara Biotherapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, and multiple other pharmaceutical companies.

The ambitious infrastructure bill now being debated in the US Congress might be one of the best immediate opportunities to lobby for legislative or policy changes in delivery of health care during the current Biden administration, according to an analysis delivered at the annual health policy and advocacy conference sponsored by the American College of Chest Physicians.

The infrastructure bill is likely to be pushed forward in the filibuster-proof reconciliation process, which means “that some things might get passed that otherwise would not,” explained Keith S. Studdard, Vice President, Jeffrey J. Kimbell & Associates, Washington, DC.

The ambitious infrastructure bill now being debated in the US Congress might be one of the best immediate opportunities to lobby for legislative or policy changes in delivery of health care during the current Biden administration, according to an analysis delivered at the annual health policy and advocacy conference sponsored by the American College of Chest Physicians.

The infrastructure bill is likely to be pushed forward in the filibuster-proof reconciliation process, which means “that some things might get passed that otherwise would not,” explained Keith S. Studdard, Vice President, Jeffrey J. Kimbell & Associates, Washington, DC.

The ambitious infrastructure bill now being debated in the US Congress might be one of the best immediate opportunities to lobby for legislative or policy changes in delivery of health care during the current Biden administration, according to an analysis delivered at the annual health policy and advocacy conference sponsored by the American College of Chest Physicians.

The infrastructure bill is likely to be pushed forward in the filibuster-proof reconciliation process, which means “that some things might get passed that otherwise would not,” explained Keith S. Studdard, Vice President, Jeffrey J. Kimbell & Associates, Washington, DC.

An online support tool for health care professionals that recommends whether to admit or discharge a cancer patient with COVID-19, based on their risk of a severe complication, has been developed by researchers from Manchester.

The team used machine learning on data from more than 900 cancer patients with COVID-19, conducting multiple analyses to arrive at a set of features that could accurately predict the need for admission or oxygen therapy, as well as the risk of death.

Dr. Rebecca Lee, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, and colleagues then developed thresholds to derive a score that recommended admission in 95% of patients who went on to need oxygen and an even greater proportion of those who later died.

The research was presented at the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting on June 4.
 

CORONET

The resulting COVID-19 Risk in Oncology Evaluation Tool (CORONET) model “performs very well at predicting admission and severity of COVID-19 in patients with cancer,” Dr. Lee said. “We have set pragmatic and clinically relevant thresholds that focus on the safety regarding an admission versus discharge decision.”

To help health care professionals, the researchers have built a free online support tool that allows them to enter data and receive a recommendation “as to whether their patient should be considered for discharge, considered for admission, or is at high risk of having a severe outcome of coronavirus,” Dr. Lee explained.

“The health care professional can then explore the recommendation by seeing how their patient … compares with the rest of the cohort.”

The tool also includes a “diagram showing which features are most important to recommend a discharge decision versus an admission decision for each individual patient.”
 

Clinically intuitive

Dr. Alexi Wright, associate professor, Dana-Faber Cancer Institute, Boston, who was not involved in the study, commented that there were many things that were “really nice about the study.”

“First and foremost that they were establishing a tool to efficiently triage [patients] presenting with COVID,” she said, adding that it was “clinically intuitive” that the team made “pragmatic choices,” and the use of a random forest algorithm means the results are “very interpretable.”

However, Dr. Wright wondered whether the results can be replicated.

Alongside a lack of information on the deaths in the cohort, she pointed out that “ideally you have three data sets, with a training set, a testing set, and a validation set.”

The CORONET model was, however, trained and evaluated on the same dataset, “so it really needs external validation before it would be ready for direct clinical application.”

She continued that there is a “critical need to establish that studies can both be reproduced and replicated,” noting that a recent review showed that 85% of machine-learning studies that were used to detect COVID-19 using chest radiographs “failed fundamental reproducibility and quality checks.” 

Risk factors

Dr. Lee began her presentation by reminding the audience that cancer patients are at increased risk of severe COVID-19 and death, with older age, male sex, nosocomial infection, higher ECOG performance status, and active cancer among the risk factors for mortality.

“However, outcomes are very heterogeneous, ranging from patients without symptoms at all to cases with multi-organ failure and death,” she said.

It is consequently “very important for the treating clinician to determine which patients could be safely discharged to the community versus those who need additional support in being admitted to hospital.”

To develop a tool that could distinguish between those two groups of patients, the researchers collected data on 1,743 cancer patients, which was reduced down to 920 patients after excluding those without laboratory confirmed COVID-19 and those with missing data.

Using recursive feature elimination, they selected 10 key patient features associated with prognosis, then compared a lasso regression model with a random forest model, with the latter performing the best.

The team then divided their patients into four cohorts, with the model trained on three cohorts and tested on the fourth. This resulted in the CORONET score, with the final model determined by testing it against the entire patient population.

Next, thresholds were determined for assessing patients for admission versus discharge, as well as for severity of illness, giving the final CORONET model, from which the online tool was developed.
 

Checking performance

The results showed that the model was able to predict admission with an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) of 0.82 for admission, 0.85 for oxygen requirement, and 0.79 for death.

Further analysis revealed that the most important feature at the time of presentation for determining outcome was the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2), “which is a composite score of heart rate, respiratory rate, saturations and confusion level,” Dr. Lee said.

In addition, C-reactive protein levels, albumin, age, and platelet counts “were also very important features,” she continued, “and these have also been shown in a number of different studies to be important at determining the outcome from coronavirus.”

To examine the performance of the CORONET score further, they applied it to a European hospital dataset, ESMO-CoCARE registry data, and a U.S. cohort, the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium Registry (CCC19). They found that the score discriminated between patients, but it did so with some degree of heterogeneity.

This was largely driven by higher patient age among the U.S. patients, a higher NEWS2 score, and lower albumin levels, Dr. Lee said.

To ensure the score’s applicability to clinical practice, the team set pragmatic thresholds to determine whether or not a patient required admission or whether they were at risk of dying.

For admission, they set a sensitivity of 85% and a specificity of 56%, while for mortality they set a sensitivity of 43% and a specificity of 92%.

When this was converted into a decision support tool, the model recommended hospital admission for 95% of patients who eventually required oxygen and 97% of patients who died.

The study was funded by The Christie Charitable Foundation. Dr. Lee declares relationships with AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst). Dr. Wright declares relationships with NCCN/AstraZeneca (Inst).

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

An online support tool for health care professionals that recommends whether to admit or discharge a cancer patient with COVID-19, based on their risk of a severe complication, has been developed by researchers from Manchester.

The team used machine learning on data from more than 900 cancer patients with COVID-19, conducting multiple analyses to arrive at a set of features that could accurately predict the need for admission or oxygen therapy, as well as the risk of death.

Dr. Rebecca Lee, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, and colleagues then developed thresholds to derive a score that recommended admission in 95% of patients who went on to need oxygen and an even greater proportion of those who later died.

The research was presented at the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting on June 4.
 

CORONET

The resulting COVID-19 Risk in Oncology Evaluation Tool (CORONET) model “performs very well at predicting admission and severity of COVID-19 in patients with cancer,” Dr. Lee said. “We have set pragmatic and clinically relevant thresholds that focus on the safety regarding an admission versus discharge decision.”

To help health care professionals, the researchers have built a free online support tool that allows them to enter data and receive a recommendation “as to whether their patient should be considered for discharge, considered for admission, or is at high risk of having a severe outcome of coronavirus,” Dr. Lee explained.

“The health care professional can then explore the recommendation by seeing how their patient … compares with the rest of the cohort.”

The tool also includes a “diagram showing which features are most important to recommend a discharge decision versus an admission decision for each individual patient.”
 

Clinically intuitive

Dr. Alexi Wright, associate professor, Dana-Faber Cancer Institute, Boston, who was not involved in the study, commented that there were many things that were “really nice about the study.”

“First and foremost that they were establishing a tool to efficiently triage [patients] presenting with COVID,” she said, adding that it was “clinically intuitive” that the team made “pragmatic choices,” and the use of a random forest algorithm means the results are “very interpretable.”

However, Dr. Wright wondered whether the results can be replicated.

Alongside a lack of information on the deaths in the cohort, she pointed out that “ideally you have three data sets, with a training set, a testing set, and a validation set.”

The CORONET model was, however, trained and evaluated on the same dataset, “so it really needs external validation before it would be ready for direct clinical application.”

She continued that there is a “critical need to establish that studies can both be reproduced and replicated,” noting that a recent review showed that 85% of machine-learning studies that were used to detect COVID-19 using chest radiographs “failed fundamental reproducibility and quality checks.” 

Risk factors

Dr. Lee began her presentation by reminding the audience that cancer patients are at increased risk of severe COVID-19 and death, with older age, male sex, nosocomial infection, higher ECOG performance status, and active cancer among the risk factors for mortality.

“However, outcomes are very heterogeneous, ranging from patients without symptoms at all to cases with multi-organ failure and death,” she said.

It is consequently “very important for the treating clinician to determine which patients could be safely discharged to the community versus those who need additional support in being admitted to hospital.”

To develop a tool that could distinguish between those two groups of patients, the researchers collected data on 1,743 cancer patients, which was reduced down to 920 patients after excluding those without laboratory confirmed COVID-19 and those with missing data.

Using recursive feature elimination, they selected 10 key patient features associated with prognosis, then compared a lasso regression model with a random forest model, with the latter performing the best.

The team then divided their patients into four cohorts, with the model trained on three cohorts and tested on the fourth. This resulted in the CORONET score, with the final model determined by testing it against the entire patient population.

Next, thresholds were determined for assessing patients for admission versus discharge, as well as for severity of illness, giving the final CORONET model, from which the online tool was developed.
 

Checking performance

The results showed that the model was able to predict admission with an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) of 0.82 for admission, 0.85 for oxygen requirement, and 0.79 for death.

Further analysis revealed that the most important feature at the time of presentation for determining outcome was the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2), “which is a composite score of heart rate, respiratory rate, saturations and confusion level,” Dr. Lee said.

In addition, C-reactive protein levels, albumin, age, and platelet counts “were also very important features,” she continued, “and these have also been shown in a number of different studies to be important at determining the outcome from coronavirus.”

To examine the performance of the CORONET score further, they applied it to a European hospital dataset, ESMO-CoCARE registry data, and a U.S. cohort, the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium Registry (CCC19). They found that the score discriminated between patients, but it did so with some degree of heterogeneity.

This was largely driven by higher patient age among the U.S. patients, a higher NEWS2 score, and lower albumin levels, Dr. Lee said.

To ensure the score’s applicability to clinical practice, the team set pragmatic thresholds to determine whether or not a patient required admission or whether they were at risk of dying.

For admission, they set a sensitivity of 85% and a specificity of 56%, while for mortality they set a sensitivity of 43% and a specificity of 92%.

When this was converted into a decision support tool, the model recommended hospital admission for 95% of patients who eventually required oxygen and 97% of patients who died.

The study was funded by The Christie Charitable Foundation. Dr. Lee declares relationships with AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst). Dr. Wright declares relationships with NCCN/AstraZeneca (Inst).

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

An online support tool for health care professionals that recommends whether to admit or discharge a cancer patient with COVID-19, based on their risk of a severe complication, has been developed by researchers from Manchester.

The team used machine learning on data from more than 900 cancer patients with COVID-19, conducting multiple analyses to arrive at a set of features that could accurately predict the need for admission or oxygen therapy, as well as the risk of death.

Dr. Rebecca Lee, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, and colleagues then developed thresholds to derive a score that recommended admission in 95% of patients who went on to need oxygen and an even greater proportion of those who later died.

The research was presented at the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting on June 4.
 

CORONET

The resulting COVID-19 Risk in Oncology Evaluation Tool (CORONET) model “performs very well at predicting admission and severity of COVID-19 in patients with cancer,” Dr. Lee said. “We have set pragmatic and clinically relevant thresholds that focus on the safety regarding an admission versus discharge decision.”

To help health care professionals, the researchers have built a free online support tool that allows them to enter data and receive a recommendation “as to whether their patient should be considered for discharge, considered for admission, or is at high risk of having a severe outcome of coronavirus,” Dr. Lee explained.

“The health care professional can then explore the recommendation by seeing how their patient … compares with the rest of the cohort.”

The tool also includes a “diagram showing which features are most important to recommend a discharge decision versus an admission decision for each individual patient.”
 

Clinically intuitive

Dr. Alexi Wright, associate professor, Dana-Faber Cancer Institute, Boston, who was not involved in the study, commented that there were many things that were “really nice about the study.”

“First and foremost that they were establishing a tool to efficiently triage [patients] presenting with COVID,” she said, adding that it was “clinically intuitive” that the team made “pragmatic choices,” and the use of a random forest algorithm means the results are “very interpretable.”

However, Dr. Wright wondered whether the results can be replicated.

Alongside a lack of information on the deaths in the cohort, she pointed out that “ideally you have three data sets, with a training set, a testing set, and a validation set.”

The CORONET model was, however, trained and evaluated on the same dataset, “so it really needs external validation before it would be ready for direct clinical application.”

She continued that there is a “critical need to establish that studies can both be reproduced and replicated,” noting that a recent review showed that 85% of machine-learning studies that were used to detect COVID-19 using chest radiographs “failed fundamental reproducibility and quality checks.” 

Risk factors

Dr. Lee began her presentation by reminding the audience that cancer patients are at increased risk of severe COVID-19 and death, with older age, male sex, nosocomial infection, higher ECOG performance status, and active cancer among the risk factors for mortality.

“However, outcomes are very heterogeneous, ranging from patients without symptoms at all to cases with multi-organ failure and death,” she said.

It is consequently “very important for the treating clinician to determine which patients could be safely discharged to the community versus those who need additional support in being admitted to hospital.”

To develop a tool that could distinguish between those two groups of patients, the researchers collected data on 1,743 cancer patients, which was reduced down to 920 patients after excluding those without laboratory confirmed COVID-19 and those with missing data.

Using recursive feature elimination, they selected 10 key patient features associated with prognosis, then compared a lasso regression model with a random forest model, with the latter performing the best.

The team then divided their patients into four cohorts, with the model trained on three cohorts and tested on the fourth. This resulted in the CORONET score, with the final model determined by testing it against the entire patient population.

Next, thresholds were determined for assessing patients for admission versus discharge, as well as for severity of illness, giving the final CORONET model, from which the online tool was developed.
 

Checking performance

The results showed that the model was able to predict admission with an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) of 0.82 for admission, 0.85 for oxygen requirement, and 0.79 for death.

Further analysis revealed that the most important feature at the time of presentation for determining outcome was the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2), “which is a composite score of heart rate, respiratory rate, saturations and confusion level,” Dr. Lee said.

In addition, C-reactive protein levels, albumin, age, and platelet counts “were also very important features,” she continued, “and these have also been shown in a number of different studies to be important at determining the outcome from coronavirus.”

To examine the performance of the CORONET score further, they applied it to a European hospital dataset, ESMO-CoCARE registry data, and a U.S. cohort, the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium Registry (CCC19). They found that the score discriminated between patients, but it did so with some degree of heterogeneity.

This was largely driven by higher patient age among the U.S. patients, a higher NEWS2 score, and lower albumin levels, Dr. Lee said.

To ensure the score’s applicability to clinical practice, the team set pragmatic thresholds to determine whether or not a patient required admission or whether they were at risk of dying.

For admission, they set a sensitivity of 85% and a specificity of 56%, while for mortality they set a sensitivity of 43% and a specificity of 92%.

When this was converted into a decision support tool, the model recommended hospital admission for 95% of patients who eventually required oxygen and 97% of patients who died.

The study was funded by The Christie Charitable Foundation. Dr. Lee declares relationships with AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst). Dr. Wright declares relationships with NCCN/AstraZeneca (Inst).

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

Few patients with migraine receive or are offered preventive therapy, leaving a significant treatment gap in this patient population, new research suggests. Investigators found that among patients with migraine who are eligible for preventive therapy, more than a third were not offered this option. In addition, fewer than 10% were currently taking preventive medication, and an additional 10% had discontinued preventive therapy.

“We confirmed that as of 2012 to 2013 – the years these data were collected from a large, comprehensive survey – gaps in care remained,” said study investigator Stephanie J. Nahas, MD, director of the headache medicine fellowship program, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia. “In this preventive-eligible population, 35% reported never even being offered preventive medication.”

Furthermore, only 28% of patients taking preventive medication experienced a reduction in headache frequency to less than 4 days per month, which is a primary goal of treatment, said Dr. Nahas. Disease burden, as measured with scales of disability and affective comorbidities, remained substantial.

The findings were presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.


 

Lack of efficacy?

In 2019, the American Headache Society published a position statement recommending that preventive treatment be considered for patients who have migraine and four or more monthly headache days (MHDs), regardless of their level of associated disability. However, previous data suggest few patients who are eligible for preventive treatment receive it. In addition, many who have used preventive medications do not adhere to their regimens because of problems with tolerability, efficacy, or both.

To identify treatment gaps and characterize self-reported use of preventive medications for migraine, the investigators examined data from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study, a web-based survey conducted in a representative U.S. sample from September 2012 through November 2013.

The survey identified and characterized patients who met modified criteria for migraine consistent with those in ICHD-3. The researchers classified respondents who had migraine and four or more MHDs as potentially eligible for migraine preventive treatment.

The investigators assessed the study population’s use of oral preventive medications, migraine-related disability and burden, willingness to take preventive treatment, and reasons for discontinuation.

Assessments included the Migraine Disability Assessment Questionnaire, the Patient Health Questionnaire–9 for depression, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-Item Scale, the Migraine Specific Quality of Life questionnaire, and the Migraine Symptom Severity Scale.

In all, 16,789 respondents met criteria for migraine, and 6,579 (39.2%) reported having at least four MHDs. The median age of this subgroup that was eligible for preventive treatment was 40.3 years, and approximately 79% were women.

Only 9.8% of respondents who were eligible for preventive medications were currently using an oral preventive medication. Among those who had ever tried an oral preventive medication, 53.6% discontinued it. Efficacy for patients who used medications appeared to be inadequate. Among all current users of preventive treatment, 68.4% continued to have at least four MHDs.

The researchers assessed treatment eligibility among patients not taking preventive medication. Among respondents who had never used a preventive treatment, 35.7% were eligible to receive it. Among all users who had discontinued preventive medication, 61.0% were still eligible to receive it.
 

Attitudes toward injectables

Among respondents who had never used a preventive treatment, 64.3% had zero to three MHDs. The remaining 35.7% had 4-7, 8-14, or 15 or more MHDs. Among current users of preventive treatments, 68.4% had four or more MHDs. Among those who had discontinued preventive treatment, 61.0% had four or more MHDs.

Patients who have never used preventive medication “have substantial management gaps,” said Dr. Nahas. High proportions of these patients have moderate or severe disability (64.7%), depression (43%), and anxiety (39%). The rates of these outcomes are higher in users who discontinued treatment, likely because of confounding by indication, she added.

The prevalence of anxiety was similar between those who currently used, formerly used, or never used preventive medications. However, there were differences between never-users and current or former users with respect to moderate to severe depression (never-users, 43%; current users, 49.4%; discontinued users, 46.5%) and moderate to severe disability (never-users, 64.7%; current users, 80.4%; discontinued users, 78.9%).

In all, 44.6% of those who discontinued preventive therapy reported safety and tolerability problems as reasons for stopping treatment. In addition, 39.7% reported that these medications did not prevent enough headaches. Some patients reported partial or temporary efficacy as a reason for discontinuation. Other reasons were related to health care costs and access and personal preferences. Only 9.2% of patients who discontinued treatment said that their headaches improved enough to stop medication.

The investigators also analyzed respondents’ interest in preventive therapies. Among respondents who had never used preventive therapies, 61.8% of those who were eligible to use them were somewhat or very interested in trying an oral prescription medication for migraine prevention. However, 59.1% of never-users who were eligible for preventive medications were not at all interested, not sure, or needed more information about trying an injectable preventive medication. About 40% were not at all interested in injectables. In general, current users and those who had discontinued medication were more interested in preventive medication, including injectables.
 

‘Disheartening’ discontinuation rates

There are likely multiple reasons for the low rate of migraine prevention treatment, said Dr. Nahas. Many people with migraine never consult a clinician, owing to factors such as stigma, cost, lack of access, and lack of awareness. In addition, patients with migraine are frequently misdiagnosed, she added.

“Other data suggest that only about a quarter of people with episodic migraine and under 5% of people with chronic migraine consult a clinician, receive an accurate diagnosis, and are prescribed appropriate therapy,” said Dr. Nahas.

When the data in this analysis were gathered, public awareness of migraine was much lower than it is today, and injectable migraine therapies had not gained broad acceptance, she noted. Dr. Nahas added it is possible that attitudes toward injectable preventive medications have changed.

“Would people still prefer daily oral medications? We can’t know for sure until we start asking,” she said. In addition, scientific advances and educational outreach have increased clinicians’ awareness, interest, and skill regarding injectable medications, she said.

“I would certainly hope to see that a much greater proportion of preventive-eligible persons with migraine were at least offered, if not currently taking, preventive medication,” said Dr. Nahas. “But there’s no pleasing everyone, so I think we would still see somewhat disheartening discontinuation rates. The reasons for discontinuation, however, might be less typified by concerns about safety and tolerability.”
 

Still relevant

Commenting on the study, Mia Tova Minen, MD, chief of headache research and associate professor of neurology and population health at NYU Langone Health, New York, noted that although CaMEO is an older study, its results are still highly relevant.

“Unfortunately, primary care providers are still uncomfortable prescribing migraine preventive medications, and this accounts for the large percentage [of patients] with migraine who, while eligible for migraine preventive therapy, are not offered it,” she said.

Although the public and primary care physicians are now more aware of preventive treatments for migraine, “the number of people offered migraine preventive medication still needs to increase dramatically,” said Dr. Minen.

The American Academy of Neurology’s guidelines for migraine prevention were published in 2012 and are currently being updated. The updated guidelines may include new evidence for candesartan and emerging treatments, such as melatonin and aerobic exercise.

“It is my hope that primary care providers will become more comfortable prescribing migraine preventive medications sooner,” said Dr. Minen.

The current findings suggest a need for additional ways of educating patients with migraine who are eligible for preventive therapies so that they can advocate for themselves, she added. They also suggest the idea of demanding more insurance coverage of behavioral therapies for migraine, because data indicate that these treatments have long-term efficacy and good safety profiles, said Dr. Minen.
 

An ‘invisible’ disorder

Also commenting on the study, Barbara L. Nye, MD, director of the headache fellowship and codirector of the headache clinic at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., said the CaMEO cohort likely is representative of the general population of patients with migraine.

She noted that a significant weakness of the current study is that it examined data collected before the Food and Drug Administration approved monoclonal antibodies and therefore does not reflect patients’ current experience with medications.

“I believe that the attitudes and fears surrounding the use of injectable medication are now likely far less than previously reported, given the positive track record the new generation of once-a-month injectable medications has,” said Dr. Nye.

The findings reinforce the idea that either patients are not talking to their primary care physicians about their headaches and disability or that clinicians are not asking about them, she added. “Both issues are likely linked to the stigma that this disease state has surrounding it. This is an invisible neurological disorder to most,” Dr. Nye said.

The study was sponsored by Allergan before it was acquired by AbbVie. Dr. Nahas has served as a consultant, advisory board member, or speaker for AbbVie/Allergan, Alder/Lundbeck, Amgen/Novartis, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, Impel, Nesos Corp, Supernus, Teva, Theranica, and Zosano. She has not received and will not receive monetary compensation for this research. Dr. Minen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Few patients with migraine receive or are offered preventive therapy, leaving a significant treatment gap in this patient population, new research suggests. Investigators found that among patients with migraine who are eligible for preventive therapy, more than a third were not offered this option. In addition, fewer than 10% were currently taking preventive medication, and an additional 10% had discontinued preventive therapy.

“We confirmed that as of 2012 to 2013 – the years these data were collected from a large, comprehensive survey – gaps in care remained,” said study investigator Stephanie J. Nahas, MD, director of the headache medicine fellowship program, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia. “In this preventive-eligible population, 35% reported never even being offered preventive medication.”

Furthermore, only 28% of patients taking preventive medication experienced a reduction in headache frequency to less than 4 days per month, which is a primary goal of treatment, said Dr. Nahas. Disease burden, as measured with scales of disability and affective comorbidities, remained substantial.

The findings were presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.


 

Lack of efficacy?

In 2019, the American Headache Society published a position statement recommending that preventive treatment be considered for patients who have migraine and four or more monthly headache days (MHDs), regardless of their level of associated disability. However, previous data suggest few patients who are eligible for preventive treatment receive it. In addition, many who have used preventive medications do not adhere to their regimens because of problems with tolerability, efficacy, or both.

To identify treatment gaps and characterize self-reported use of preventive medications for migraine, the investigators examined data from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study, a web-based survey conducted in a representative U.S. sample from September 2012 through November 2013.

The survey identified and characterized patients who met modified criteria for migraine consistent with those in ICHD-3. The researchers classified respondents who had migraine and four or more MHDs as potentially eligible for migraine preventive treatment.

The investigators assessed the study population’s use of oral preventive medications, migraine-related disability and burden, willingness to take preventive treatment, and reasons for discontinuation.

Assessments included the Migraine Disability Assessment Questionnaire, the Patient Health Questionnaire–9 for depression, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-Item Scale, the Migraine Specific Quality of Life questionnaire, and the Migraine Symptom Severity Scale.

In all, 16,789 respondents met criteria for migraine, and 6,579 (39.2%) reported having at least four MHDs. The median age of this subgroup that was eligible for preventive treatment was 40.3 years, and approximately 79% were women.

Only 9.8% of respondents who were eligible for preventive medications were currently using an oral preventive medication. Among those who had ever tried an oral preventive medication, 53.6% discontinued it. Efficacy for patients who used medications appeared to be inadequate. Among all current users of preventive treatment, 68.4% continued to have at least four MHDs.

The researchers assessed treatment eligibility among patients not taking preventive medication. Among respondents who had never used a preventive treatment, 35.7% were eligible to receive it. Among all users who had discontinued preventive medication, 61.0% were still eligible to receive it.
 

Attitudes toward injectables

Among respondents who had never used a preventive treatment, 64.3% had zero to three MHDs. The remaining 35.7% had 4-7, 8-14, or 15 or more MHDs. Among current users of preventive treatments, 68.4% had four or more MHDs. Among those who had discontinued preventive treatment, 61.0% had four or more MHDs.

Patients who have never used preventive medication “have substantial management gaps,” said Dr. Nahas. High proportions of these patients have moderate or severe disability (64.7%), depression (43%), and anxiety (39%). The rates of these outcomes are higher in users who discontinued treatment, likely because of confounding by indication, she added.

The prevalence of anxiety was similar between those who currently used, formerly used, or never used preventive medications. However, there were differences between never-users and current or former users with respect to moderate to severe depression (never-users, 43%; current users, 49.4%; discontinued users, 46.5%) and moderate to severe disability (never-users, 64.7%; current users, 80.4%; discontinued users, 78.9%).

In all, 44.6% of those who discontinued preventive therapy reported safety and tolerability problems as reasons for stopping treatment. In addition, 39.7% reported that these medications did not prevent enough headaches. Some patients reported partial or temporary efficacy as a reason for discontinuation. Other reasons were related to health care costs and access and personal preferences. Only 9.2% of patients who discontinued treatment said that their headaches improved enough to stop medication.

The investigators also analyzed respondents’ interest in preventive therapies. Among respondents who had never used preventive therapies, 61.8% of those who were eligible to use them were somewhat or very interested in trying an oral prescription medication for migraine prevention. However, 59.1% of never-users who were eligible for preventive medications were not at all interested, not sure, or needed more information about trying an injectable preventive medication. About 40% were not at all interested in injectables. In general, current users and those who had discontinued medication were more interested in preventive medication, including injectables.
 

‘Disheartening’ discontinuation rates

There are likely multiple reasons for the low rate of migraine prevention treatment, said Dr. Nahas. Many people with migraine never consult a clinician, owing to factors such as stigma, cost, lack of access, and lack of awareness. In addition, patients with migraine are frequently misdiagnosed, she added.

“Other data suggest that only about a quarter of people with episodic migraine and under 5% of people with chronic migraine consult a clinician, receive an accurate diagnosis, and are prescribed appropriate therapy,” said Dr. Nahas.

When the data in this analysis were gathered, public awareness of migraine was much lower than it is today, and injectable migraine therapies had not gained broad acceptance, she noted. Dr. Nahas added it is possible that attitudes toward injectable preventive medications have changed.

“Would people still prefer daily oral medications? We can’t know for sure until we start asking,” she said. In addition, scientific advances and educational outreach have increased clinicians’ awareness, interest, and skill regarding injectable medications, she said.

“I would certainly hope to see that a much greater proportion of preventive-eligible persons with migraine were at least offered, if not currently taking, preventive medication,” said Dr. Nahas. “But there’s no pleasing everyone, so I think we would still see somewhat disheartening discontinuation rates. The reasons for discontinuation, however, might be less typified by concerns about safety and tolerability.”
 

Still relevant

Commenting on the study, Mia Tova Minen, MD, chief of headache research and associate professor of neurology and population health at NYU Langone Health, New York, noted that although CaMEO is an older study, its results are still highly relevant.

“Unfortunately, primary care providers are still uncomfortable prescribing migraine preventive medications, and this accounts for the large percentage [of patients] with migraine who, while eligible for migraine preventive therapy, are not offered it,” she said.

Although the public and primary care physicians are now more aware of preventive treatments for migraine, “the number of people offered migraine preventive medication still needs to increase dramatically,” said Dr. Minen.

The American Academy of Neurology’s guidelines for migraine prevention were published in 2012 and are currently being updated. The updated guidelines may include new evidence for candesartan and emerging treatments, such as melatonin and aerobic exercise.

“It is my hope that primary care providers will become more comfortable prescribing migraine preventive medications sooner,” said Dr. Minen.

The current findings suggest a need for additional ways of educating patients with migraine who are eligible for preventive therapies so that they can advocate for themselves, she added. They also suggest the idea of demanding more insurance coverage of behavioral therapies for migraine, because data indicate that these treatments have long-term efficacy and good safety profiles, said Dr. Minen.
 

An ‘invisible’ disorder

Also commenting on the study, Barbara L. Nye, MD, director of the headache fellowship and codirector of the headache clinic at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., said the CaMEO cohort likely is representative of the general population of patients with migraine.

She noted that a significant weakness of the current study is that it examined data collected before the Food and Drug Administration approved monoclonal antibodies and therefore does not reflect patients’ current experience with medications.

“I believe that the attitudes and fears surrounding the use of injectable medication are now likely far less than previously reported, given the positive track record the new generation of once-a-month injectable medications has,” said Dr. Nye.

The findings reinforce the idea that either patients are not talking to their primary care physicians about their headaches and disability or that clinicians are not asking about them, she added. “Both issues are likely linked to the stigma that this disease state has surrounding it. This is an invisible neurological disorder to most,” Dr. Nye said.

The study was sponsored by Allergan before it was acquired by AbbVie. Dr. Nahas has served as a consultant, advisory board member, or speaker for AbbVie/Allergan, Alder/Lundbeck, Amgen/Novartis, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, Impel, Nesos Corp, Supernus, Teva, Theranica, and Zosano. She has not received and will not receive monetary compensation for this research. Dr. Minen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Few patients with migraine receive or are offered preventive therapy, leaving a significant treatment gap in this patient population, new research suggests. Investigators found that among patients with migraine who are eligible for preventive therapy, more than a third were not offered this option. In addition, fewer than 10% were currently taking preventive medication, and an additional 10% had discontinued preventive therapy.

“We confirmed that as of 2012 to 2013 – the years these data were collected from a large, comprehensive survey – gaps in care remained,” said study investigator Stephanie J. Nahas, MD, director of the headache medicine fellowship program, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia. “In this preventive-eligible population, 35% reported never even being offered preventive medication.”

Furthermore, only 28% of patients taking preventive medication experienced a reduction in headache frequency to less than 4 days per month, which is a primary goal of treatment, said Dr. Nahas. Disease burden, as measured with scales of disability and affective comorbidities, remained substantial.

The findings were presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.


 

Lack of efficacy?

In 2019, the American Headache Society published a position statement recommending that preventive treatment be considered for patients who have migraine and four or more monthly headache days (MHDs), regardless of their level of associated disability. However, previous data suggest few patients who are eligible for preventive treatment receive it. In addition, many who have used preventive medications do not adhere to their regimens because of problems with tolerability, efficacy, or both.

To identify treatment gaps and characterize self-reported use of preventive medications for migraine, the investigators examined data from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study, a web-based survey conducted in a representative U.S. sample from September 2012 through November 2013.

The survey identified and characterized patients who met modified criteria for migraine consistent with those in ICHD-3. The researchers classified respondents who had migraine and four or more MHDs as potentially eligible for migraine preventive treatment.

The investigators assessed the study population’s use of oral preventive medications, migraine-related disability and burden, willingness to take preventive treatment, and reasons for discontinuation.

Assessments included the Migraine Disability Assessment Questionnaire, the Patient Health Questionnaire–9 for depression, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-Item Scale, the Migraine Specific Quality of Life questionnaire, and the Migraine Symptom Severity Scale.

In all, 16,789 respondents met criteria for migraine, and 6,579 (39.2%) reported having at least four MHDs. The median age of this subgroup that was eligible for preventive treatment was 40.3 years, and approximately 79% were women.

Only 9.8% of respondents who were eligible for preventive medications were currently using an oral preventive medication. Among those who had ever tried an oral preventive medication, 53.6% discontinued it. Efficacy for patients who used medications appeared to be inadequate. Among all current users of preventive treatment, 68.4% continued to have at least four MHDs.

The researchers assessed treatment eligibility among patients not taking preventive medication. Among respondents who had never used a preventive treatment, 35.7% were eligible to receive it. Among all users who had discontinued preventive medication, 61.0% were still eligible to receive it.
 

Attitudes toward injectables

Among respondents who had never used a preventive treatment, 64.3% had zero to three MHDs. The remaining 35.7% had 4-7, 8-14, or 15 or more MHDs. Among current users of preventive treatments, 68.4% had four or more MHDs. Among those who had discontinued preventive treatment, 61.0% had four or more MHDs.

Patients who have never used preventive medication “have substantial management gaps,” said Dr. Nahas. High proportions of these patients have moderate or severe disability (64.7%), depression (43%), and anxiety (39%). The rates of these outcomes are higher in users who discontinued treatment, likely because of confounding by indication, she added.

The prevalence of anxiety was similar between those who currently used, formerly used, or never used preventive medications. However, there were differences between never-users and current or former users with respect to moderate to severe depression (never-users, 43%; current users, 49.4%; discontinued users, 46.5%) and moderate to severe disability (never-users, 64.7%; current users, 80.4%; discontinued users, 78.9%).

In all, 44.6% of those who discontinued preventive therapy reported safety and tolerability problems as reasons for stopping treatment. In addition, 39.7% reported that these medications did not prevent enough headaches. Some patients reported partial or temporary efficacy as a reason for discontinuation. Other reasons were related to health care costs and access and personal preferences. Only 9.2% of patients who discontinued treatment said that their headaches improved enough to stop medication.

The investigators also analyzed respondents’ interest in preventive therapies. Among respondents who had never used preventive therapies, 61.8% of those who were eligible to use them were somewhat or very interested in trying an oral prescription medication for migraine prevention. However, 59.1% of never-users who were eligible for preventive medications were not at all interested, not sure, or needed more information about trying an injectable preventive medication. About 40% were not at all interested in injectables. In general, current users and those who had discontinued medication were more interested in preventive medication, including injectables.
 

‘Disheartening’ discontinuation rates

There are likely multiple reasons for the low rate of migraine prevention treatment, said Dr. Nahas. Many people with migraine never consult a clinician, owing to factors such as stigma, cost, lack of access, and lack of awareness. In addition, patients with migraine are frequently misdiagnosed, she added.

“Other data suggest that only about a quarter of people with episodic migraine and under 5% of people with chronic migraine consult a clinician, receive an accurate diagnosis, and are prescribed appropriate therapy,” said Dr. Nahas.

When the data in this analysis were gathered, public awareness of migraine was much lower than it is today, and injectable migraine therapies had not gained broad acceptance, she noted. Dr. Nahas added it is possible that attitudes toward injectable preventive medications have changed.

“Would people still prefer daily oral medications? We can’t know for sure until we start asking,” she said. In addition, scientific advances and educational outreach have increased clinicians’ awareness, interest, and skill regarding injectable medications, she said.

“I would certainly hope to see that a much greater proportion of preventive-eligible persons with migraine were at least offered, if not currently taking, preventive medication,” said Dr. Nahas. “But there’s no pleasing everyone, so I think we would still see somewhat disheartening discontinuation rates. The reasons for discontinuation, however, might be less typified by concerns about safety and tolerability.”
 

Still relevant

Commenting on the study, Mia Tova Minen, MD, chief of headache research and associate professor of neurology and population health at NYU Langone Health, New York, noted that although CaMEO is an older study, its results are still highly relevant.

“Unfortunately, primary care providers are still uncomfortable prescribing migraine preventive medications, and this accounts for the large percentage [of patients] with migraine who, while eligible for migraine preventive therapy, are not offered it,” she said.

Although the public and primary care physicians are now more aware of preventive treatments for migraine, “the number of people offered migraine preventive medication still needs to increase dramatically,” said Dr. Minen.

The American Academy of Neurology’s guidelines for migraine prevention were published in 2012 and are currently being updated. The updated guidelines may include new evidence for candesartan and emerging treatments, such as melatonin and aerobic exercise.

“It is my hope that primary care providers will become more comfortable prescribing migraine preventive medications sooner,” said Dr. Minen.

The current findings suggest a need for additional ways of educating patients with migraine who are eligible for preventive therapies so that they can advocate for themselves, she added. They also suggest the idea of demanding more insurance coverage of behavioral therapies for migraine, because data indicate that these treatments have long-term efficacy and good safety profiles, said Dr. Minen.
 

An ‘invisible’ disorder

Also commenting on the study, Barbara L. Nye, MD, director of the headache fellowship and codirector of the headache clinic at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., said the CaMEO cohort likely is representative of the general population of patients with migraine.

She noted that a significant weakness of the current study is that it examined data collected before the Food and Drug Administration approved monoclonal antibodies and therefore does not reflect patients’ current experience with medications.

“I believe that the attitudes and fears surrounding the use of injectable medication are now likely far less than previously reported, given the positive track record the new generation of once-a-month injectable medications has,” said Dr. Nye.

The findings reinforce the idea that either patients are not talking to their primary care physicians about their headaches and disability or that clinicians are not asking about them, she added. “Both issues are likely linked to the stigma that this disease state has surrounding it. This is an invisible neurological disorder to most,” Dr. Nye said.

The study was sponsored by Allergan before it was acquired by AbbVie. Dr. Nahas has served as a consultant, advisory board member, or speaker for AbbVie/Allergan, Alder/Lundbeck, Amgen/Novartis, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, Impel, Nesos Corp, Supernus, Teva, Theranica, and Zosano. She has not received and will not receive monetary compensation for this research. Dr. Minen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

In patients with rheumatoid arthritis, exposure to air pollution is associated with both elevated levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) and increased risk of arthritis flares, according to a novel longitudinal study presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

The data revealed “a striking association between air pollution and increased CRP levels and risk of an arthritis flare,” reported first author Giovanni Adami, MD, DSc, of the rheumatology unit at the University of Verona (Italy).

The excess risk of elevated CRP and flares began “at very low levels of exposure, even those below commonly used thresholds for risk to human health,” he added.
 

Study details

Researchers collected data on 888 patients with RA from numerous patient visits in the context of more than 13,000 air pollution records. The CRP levels and RA flares were evaluated in the context of air pollution monitoring that is performed on a daily basis at several sites in the city of Verona where the study was conducted. Verona is an industrial city in northern Italy that has high but variable levels of air pollution based on factory activity and weather conditions.

Patients with RA who provided clinical data for this study were matched by their proximity to specific air pollution monitoring sites. By linking CRP levels and disease activity to air pollution levels over multiple follow-up visits, the design allowed the RA study participants “to serve as their own controls,” Dr. Adami explained.

At each patient visit during the study, CRP levels were measured and disease activity assessed. Patients were considered to have elevated CRP when levels were 5 mg/L or higher. The presence of an RA flare was defined by a 1.2-point increase or more in 28-joint Disease Activity Score using CRP (DAS28-CRP).

Both the CRP level and the presence or absence of a flare were evaluated in relationship to the patient’s specific local air pollution levels in the prior 60 days.

Increased levels of CRP, a surrogate for inflammatory activity, and increased disease activity, were both associated with elevated exposure to air pollutants prior to an office visit. These associations remained statistically significant when evaluated by specific air pollutants such as carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NO₂, NO), small particulate matter (PM10; particles ≤ 10 mcm), and ozone (O₃).

The relationship between increased exposure to air pollution contaminants and elevated CRP was supported by a dose effect. In the case of PM10, for example, the odds ratio of having elevated CRP was increased by only about 25% (OR, 1.25) when mean levels were 30 mcg/m³ or lower in the period prior to the office visit. This rose incrementally for higher mean levels of PM10, reaching 70% (OR, 1.70) for levels > 50 mcg/m³.

The researchers detected statistically significant differences in mean and area-under-the curve (AUC) values of most air pollutants in the 60 days prior to office visits when patients had a flare versus when disease activity was low. For example, the difference in mean and AUC levels in the period prior to a flare relative to a period with low disease activity was significant for CO (P = .001 for both) and NO and NO₂ (P = .003 for both), and O₃ (P = .002 and P = .001, respectively). For PM10, P values were .011 and .005, respectively.

“Remarkably, we found that the cumulative exposure to NO₂ in the 60 days preceding a flare was approximately 500 mcg/m³ higher than the low disease activity visit, an exposure that equates to approximately 200 passively smoked cigarettes,” Dr. Adami reported.
 

Trying to confirm causality of association

Dr. Adami’s study is not the first study to link air pollution to risk of RA. Several have suggested that air pollution is a risk factor for developing joint disease, but a recently published study conducted in Kuwait associated greater disease activity with NO₂ and another air pollutant, sulfur dioxide (SO₂), although not CO, PM10, or O₃.

A coauthor of that study, which evaluated pollution in regard to disease activity on DAS score, Adeeba Al-Herz, MD, a rheumatology consultant at Al-Amiri Hospital, Kuwait City, said in an interview, “We proved the correlation between them but not the causality.”

However, she believes that this is an important area of inquiry.

“We are working now on another paper in which we studied a causal relationship between the two, meaning that we are evaluating whether SO₂ and NO₂ trigger RA activity,” Dr. Al-Herz said. That study is now complete, and the manuscript is being written.

The magnitude of the association in these two studies suggest that there might be a clinical message if causality can be confirmed, according to Dr. Adami. Although there are many reasons to seek to reduce and avoid air pollution, these data suggest risk of a proinflammatory state might be one of them.

Dr. Adami believes that the evidence of an adverse effect on patients with RA is strong.

“In order to reduce the burden of RA, public and environmental health policy makers should aim to diminish gaseous and particulate matter emissions to a larger extent than currently recommended,” he said.

In an interview after his presentation, Dr. Adami suggested that the risk of an inflammatory response and increases in arthritis flares from air pollution is not surprising. Previous studies have linked cigarette smoking to both.

“The mechanisms underlying the development of inflammation are very similar. Indeed, the toxic components contained in cigarette smoking are largely shared with diesel exhaust and fossil fuel combustion,” he said.

Although causality between air pollution and arthritis flares cannot be confirmed in these data, a basis for suspecting a causal relationship is supported by “plenty of in vitro and animal studies,” according to Dr. Adami.

On the basis of these studies, several mechanisms have been postulated.

“As an example, exposure to air pollution can promote the activation of the bronchus-associated lymphoid tissue (BALT), which can trigger the activation of the transcription factor nuclear factor-kappaB,” he said. This, in turn, can “lead to the secretion of proinflammatory cytokines, such as tumor necrosis factor–alpha and interleukin-1.”

Another theory is that posttranslational modification of proteins in the lung, a process called citrullination, “can lead to production of autoantibodies known to have a pathogenic role in RA,” he added.

Proving a causal relationship, however, is difficult.

“We certainly cannot conduct a randomized clinical trial on that and voluntarily expose some patients to pollution. Thus, we need to rely on observational data,” Dr. Adami said.

Of strategies being considered to generate evidence of a causal relationship between pollution and the exacerbation of RA, “we certainly will try to study those patients that move from a highly polluted area to a greener zone and vice versa,” he said. This will allow us “to explore what happens when the exposure to pollution changes dramatically in a short period of time.”

In the meantime, “given what is known to date, I would certainly advise my RA patients to avoid exposure to air pollution,” Dr. Adami said. He acknowledged there is no proof that this will help patients to reduce the risk of flares, but there are already many good reasons to minimize exposure to air pollution.

Dr. Adami and Dr. Al-Herz report no potential conflicts of interest.

In patients with rheumatoid arthritis, exposure to air pollution is associated with both elevated levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) and increased risk of arthritis flares, according to a novel longitudinal study presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

The data revealed “a striking association between air pollution and increased CRP levels and risk of an arthritis flare,” reported first author Giovanni Adami, MD, DSc, of the rheumatology unit at the University of Verona (Italy).

The excess risk of elevated CRP and flares began “at very low levels of exposure, even those below commonly used thresholds for risk to human health,” he added.
 

Study details

Researchers collected data on 888 patients with RA from numerous patient visits in the context of more than 13,000 air pollution records. The CRP levels and RA flares were evaluated in the context of air pollution monitoring that is performed on a daily basis at several sites in the city of Verona where the study was conducted. Verona is an industrial city in northern Italy that has high but variable levels of air pollution based on factory activity and weather conditions.

Patients with RA who provided clinical data for this study were matched by their proximity to specific air pollution monitoring sites. By linking CRP levels and disease activity to air pollution levels over multiple follow-up visits, the design allowed the RA study participants “to serve as their own controls,” Dr. Adami explained.

At each patient visit during the study, CRP levels were measured and disease activity assessed. Patients were considered to have elevated CRP when levels were 5 mg/L or higher. The presence of an RA flare was defined by a 1.2-point increase or more in 28-joint Disease Activity Score using CRP (DAS28-CRP).

Both the CRP level and the presence or absence of a flare were evaluated in relationship to the patient’s specific local air pollution levels in the prior 60 days.

Increased levels of CRP, a surrogate for inflammatory activity, and increased disease activity, were both associated with elevated exposure to air pollutants prior to an office visit. These associations remained statistically significant when evaluated by specific air pollutants such as carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NO₂, NO), small particulate matter (PM10; particles ≤ 10 mcm), and ozone (O₃).

The relationship between increased exposure to air pollution contaminants and elevated CRP was supported by a dose effect. In the case of PM10, for example, the odds ratio of having elevated CRP was increased by only about 25% (OR, 1.25) when mean levels were 30 mcg/m³ or lower in the period prior to the office visit. This rose incrementally for higher mean levels of PM10, reaching 70% (OR, 1.70) for levels > 50 mcg/m³.

The researchers detected statistically significant differences in mean and area-under-the curve (AUC) values of most air pollutants in the 60 days prior to office visits when patients had a flare versus when disease activity was low. For example, the difference in mean and AUC levels in the period prior to a flare relative to a period with low disease activity was significant for CO (P = .001 for both) and NO and NO₂ (P = .003 for both), and O₃ (P = .002 and P = .001, respectively). For PM10, P values were .011 and .005, respectively.

“Remarkably, we found that the cumulative exposure to NO₂ in the 60 days preceding a flare was approximately 500 mcg/m³ higher than the low disease activity visit, an exposure that equates to approximately 200 passively smoked cigarettes,” Dr. Adami reported.
 

Trying to confirm causality of association

Dr. Adami’s study is not the first study to link air pollution to risk of RA. Several have suggested that air pollution is a risk factor for developing joint disease, but a recently published study conducted in Kuwait associated greater disease activity with NO₂ and another air pollutant, sulfur dioxide (SO₂), although not CO, PM10, or O₃.

A coauthor of that study, which evaluated pollution in regard to disease activity on DAS score, Adeeba Al-Herz, MD, a rheumatology consultant at Al-Amiri Hospital, Kuwait City, said in an interview, “We proved the correlation between them but not the causality.”

However, she believes that this is an important area of inquiry.

“We are working now on another paper in which we studied a causal relationship between the two, meaning that we are evaluating whether SO₂ and NO₂ trigger RA activity,” Dr. Al-Herz said. That study is now complete, and the manuscript is being written.

The magnitude of the association in these two studies suggest that there might be a clinical message if causality can be confirmed, according to Dr. Adami. Although there are many reasons to seek to reduce and avoid air pollution, these data suggest risk of a proinflammatory state might be one of them.

Dr. Adami believes that the evidence of an adverse effect on patients with RA is strong.

“In order to reduce the burden of RA, public and environmental health policy makers should aim to diminish gaseous and particulate matter emissions to a larger extent than currently recommended,” he said.

In an interview after his presentation, Dr. Adami suggested that the risk of an inflammatory response and increases in arthritis flares from air pollution is not surprising. Previous studies have linked cigarette smoking to both.

“The mechanisms underlying the development of inflammation are very similar. Indeed, the toxic components contained in cigarette smoking are largely shared with diesel exhaust and fossil fuel combustion,” he said.

Although causality between air pollution and arthritis flares cannot be confirmed in these data, a basis for suspecting a causal relationship is supported by “plenty of in vitro and animal studies,” according to Dr. Adami.

On the basis of these studies, several mechanisms have been postulated.

“As an example, exposure to air pollution can promote the activation of the bronchus-associated lymphoid tissue (BALT), which can trigger the activation of the transcription factor nuclear factor-kappaB,” he said. This, in turn, can “lead to the secretion of proinflammatory cytokines, such as tumor necrosis factor–alpha and interleukin-1.”

Another theory is that posttranslational modification of proteins in the lung, a process called citrullination, “can lead to production of autoantibodies known to have a pathogenic role in RA,” he added.

Proving a causal relationship, however, is difficult.

“We certainly cannot conduct a randomized clinical trial on that and voluntarily expose some patients to pollution. Thus, we need to rely on observational data,” Dr. Adami said.

Of strategies being considered to generate evidence of a causal relationship between pollution and the exacerbation of RA, “we certainly will try to study those patients that move from a highly polluted area to a greener zone and vice versa,” he said. This will allow us “to explore what happens when the exposure to pollution changes dramatically in a short period of time.”

In the meantime, “given what is known to date, I would certainly advise my RA patients to avoid exposure to air pollution,” Dr. Adami said. He acknowledged there is no proof that this will help patients to reduce the risk of flares, but there are already many good reasons to minimize exposure to air pollution.

Dr. Adami and Dr. Al-Herz report no potential conflicts of interest.

In patients with rheumatoid arthritis, exposure to air pollution is associated with both elevated levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) and increased risk of arthritis flares, according to a novel longitudinal study presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

The data revealed “a striking association between air pollution and increased CRP levels and risk of an arthritis flare,” reported first author Giovanni Adami, MD, DSc, of the rheumatology unit at the University of Verona (Italy).

The excess risk of elevated CRP and flares began “at very low levels of exposure, even those below commonly used thresholds for risk to human health,” he added.
 

Study details

Researchers collected data on 888 patients with RA from numerous patient visits in the context of more than 13,000 air pollution records. The CRP levels and RA flares were evaluated in the context of air pollution monitoring that is performed on a daily basis at several sites in the city of Verona where the study was conducted. Verona is an industrial city in northern Italy that has high but variable levels of air pollution based on factory activity and weather conditions.

Patients with RA who provided clinical data for this study were matched by their proximity to specific air pollution monitoring sites. By linking CRP levels and disease activity to air pollution levels over multiple follow-up visits, the design allowed the RA study participants “to serve as their own controls,” Dr. Adami explained.

At each patient visit during the study, CRP levels were measured and disease activity assessed. Patients were considered to have elevated CRP when levels were 5 mg/L or higher. The presence of an RA flare was defined by a 1.2-point increase or more in 28-joint Disease Activity Score using CRP (DAS28-CRP).

Both the CRP level and the presence or absence of a flare were evaluated in relationship to the patient’s specific local air pollution levels in the prior 60 days.

Increased levels of CRP, a surrogate for inflammatory activity, and increased disease activity, were both associated with elevated exposure to air pollutants prior to an office visit. These associations remained statistically significant when evaluated by specific air pollutants such as carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NO₂, NO), small particulate matter (PM10; particles ≤ 10 mcm), and ozone (O₃).

The relationship between increased exposure to air pollution contaminants and elevated CRP was supported by a dose effect. In the case of PM10, for example, the odds ratio of having elevated CRP was increased by only about 25% (OR, 1.25) when mean levels were 30 mcg/m³ or lower in the period prior to the office visit. This rose incrementally for higher mean levels of PM10, reaching 70% (OR, 1.70) for levels > 50 mcg/m³.

The researchers detected statistically significant differences in mean and area-under-the curve (AUC) values of most air pollutants in the 60 days prior to office visits when patients had a flare versus when disease activity was low. For example, the difference in mean and AUC levels in the period prior to a flare relative to a period with low disease activity was significant for CO (P = .001 for both) and NO and NO₂ (P = .003 for both), and O₃ (P = .002 and P = .001, respectively). For PM10, P values were .011 and .005, respectively.

“Remarkably, we found that the cumulative exposure to NO₂ in the 60 days preceding a flare was approximately 500 mcg/m³ higher than the low disease activity visit, an exposure that equates to approximately 200 passively smoked cigarettes,” Dr. Adami reported.
 

Trying to confirm causality of association

Dr. Adami’s study is not the first study to link air pollution to risk of RA. Several have suggested that air pollution is a risk factor for developing joint disease, but a recently published study conducted in Kuwait associated greater disease activity with NO₂ and another air pollutant, sulfur dioxide (SO₂), although not CO, PM10, or O₃.

A coauthor of that study, which evaluated pollution in regard to disease activity on DAS score, Adeeba Al-Herz, MD, a rheumatology consultant at Al-Amiri Hospital, Kuwait City, said in an interview, “We proved the correlation between them but not the causality.”

However, she believes that this is an important area of inquiry.

“We are working now on another paper in which we studied a causal relationship between the two, meaning that we are evaluating whether SO₂ and NO₂ trigger RA activity,” Dr. Al-Herz said. That study is now complete, and the manuscript is being written.

The magnitude of the association in these two studies suggest that there might be a clinical message if causality can be confirmed, according to Dr. Adami. Although there are many reasons to seek to reduce and avoid air pollution, these data suggest risk of a proinflammatory state might be one of them.

Dr. Adami believes that the evidence of an adverse effect on patients with RA is strong.

“In order to reduce the burden of RA, public and environmental health policy makers should aim to diminish gaseous and particulate matter emissions to a larger extent than currently recommended,” he said.

In an interview after his presentation, Dr. Adami suggested that the risk of an inflammatory response and increases in arthritis flares from air pollution is not surprising. Previous studies have linked cigarette smoking to both.

“The mechanisms underlying the development of inflammation are very similar. Indeed, the toxic components contained in cigarette smoking are largely shared with diesel exhaust and fossil fuel combustion,” he said.

Although causality between air pollution and arthritis flares cannot be confirmed in these data, a basis for suspecting a causal relationship is supported by “plenty of in vitro and animal studies,” according to Dr. Adami.

On the basis of these studies, several mechanisms have been postulated.

“As an example, exposure to air pollution can promote the activation of the bronchus-associated lymphoid tissue (BALT), which can trigger the activation of the transcription factor nuclear factor-kappaB,” he said. This, in turn, can “lead to the secretion of proinflammatory cytokines, such as tumor necrosis factor–alpha and interleukin-1.”

Another theory is that posttranslational modification of proteins in the lung, a process called citrullination, “can lead to production of autoantibodies known to have a pathogenic role in RA,” he added.

Proving a causal relationship, however, is difficult.

“We certainly cannot conduct a randomized clinical trial on that and voluntarily expose some patients to pollution. Thus, we need to rely on observational data,” Dr. Adami said.

Of strategies being considered to generate evidence of a causal relationship between pollution and the exacerbation of RA, “we certainly will try to study those patients that move from a highly polluted area to a greener zone and vice versa,” he said. This will allow us “to explore what happens when the exposure to pollution changes dramatically in a short period of time.”

In the meantime, “given what is known to date, I would certainly advise my RA patients to avoid exposure to air pollution,” Dr. Adami said. He acknowledged there is no proof that this will help patients to reduce the risk of flares, but there are already many good reasons to minimize exposure to air pollution.

Dr. Adami and Dr. Al-Herz report no potential conflicts of interest.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were using rituximab at the time of COVID-19 onset had a fourfold higher risk of being hospitalized, needing mechanical ventilation, or dying, compared with patients taking a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), according to a report given at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

The use of Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) also was associated with a twofold higher risk for these COVID-19 outcomes, said Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, in presenting the analysis from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA) Physician Registry.

“The strong association of rituximab and JAK inhibitor use with poor COVID-19 outcomes highlights the prioritization of risk mitigation strategies for these patients,” Dr. Sparks said at the meeting.

The full findings have now been published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
 

JAKi association questioned

These findings provide “an important understanding for the risk of our patients in times before vaccination,” said Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, of Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, who chaired the session in which the study was presented.

However, “recently, baricitinib was licensed to prevent particular aspects of severe COVID. What’s the explanation for this discrepancy?” he asked.

“Certainly, the JAK inhibitor finding deserves further study,” Dr. Sparks acknowledged, adding that the data were analyzed by class rather than for individual drugs.

“One possible explanation could be when JAK inhibitors are used,” he suggested. “It might be different for patients who [have been] just infected – that might have different biologic effects – as opposed to choosing to treat patients right when there’s a hyperinflammatory cascade, or there’s oxygen need.”

Regarding the JAK inhibitor finding, Ronald van Vollenhoven, MD, PhD, of the University of Amsterdam, pointed out during the online Q&A that “JAKi have a very short half-life compared to biologics.”

Dr. van Vollenhoven asked: “Could the practice of stopping these drugs upon COVID infection have a negative impact on the course?” To which Dr. Sparks responded: “The different half-life of drugs would be a promising avenue to look at, to see whether increases in disease activity might have imparted some of the effects we saw.”
 

Performing the analysis

As of April 12, 2021, the GRA Physician Registry contained the records of more than 15,000 patients. Dr. Sparks, collaborator Zachary Wallace, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and associates limited their analysis to 2,869 patients with RA who had been treated with either a biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD) at the time they were diagnosed with COVID-19.

“We wanted to limit it to a single disease and also limit it to drugs that are considered for that disease,” Dr. Sparks explained in an interview.

“Because patients with rheumatoid arthritis are often treated sequentially, we wanted to further limit the analysis to patients who were on advanced therapies so that they were at a similar disease state, and also had the opportunity to receive advanced therapies.”

This approach hopefully minimizes the possibility of confounding by indication, Dr. Sparks said.

Most of the patients included in the analysis had received a TNFi (n = 1,388), and they were used as the control arm of the analysis. Outcomes associated with treatment with the other b/tsDMARDs, which included abatacept (n = 237), rituximab (n = 364), interleukin-6 inhibitors (IL-6i; n = 317), and JAKi (n = 563), were then compared with TNFi.

Baseline characteristics of patients were broadly similar across the groups. The mean age was 56.7 years and 80.8% of the study population was female. There were a few expected differences among users of rituximab versus TNFi, notably a higher percentage of patients with interstitial lung disease (11% vs. 1.4% of TNFi users) or cancer (7.4% vs. 0.9%) among patients treated with rituximab since it is commonly used in these patients, Dr. Sparks said.

“We did perform a sensitivity analysis where we restricted the population to not having ILD or cancer and we actually found really similar findings,” he added.

Four COVID-19 outcomes assessed

The researchers used a four-point ordinal scale modeled after one set by the World Health Organization to assess four COVID-19 outcomes: not hospitalized, hospitalized without oxygenation, hospitalized with oxygenation or ventilation, and death.

Odds ratios (ORs) comparing rituximab to TNFi for these four COVID-19 outcomes were a respective 4.53, 2.87, 4.05, and 4.57. The ORs for JAKi versus TNFi were a respective 2.4, 1.55, 2.03, and 2.04.

“We found no consistent associations of abatacept or interleukin-6 inhibitors with COVID-19 severity, compared to TNF inhibitors,” which is reassuring, Dr. Sparks said.

ORs for the four COVID-19 outcomes with abatacept were a respective 1.18, 1.12, 1.41, and 1.46, and for IL-6i were 0.84, 0.72, 0.75, and 1.13.

Rituximab use in patients with RA who develop COVID-19

So, should rituximab be stopped in patients with RA if they develop COVID-19? “This is an important question and one that would be decided on a case-by-case basis,” Dr. Sparks said. “Of course, the drug has a very long half-life, so risk mitigation strategies are still of utmost importance,” he added.

“I think everyone’s a bit reticent to want to start rituximab in this environment, but it might also make me pause about starting a JAK inhibitor,” Dr. Sparks added. “Given that this is a first finding, I’m not sure I would necessarily change patients who are doing well on these medications. I think what it really makes me want to do is to try to obviously vaccinate the patients on JAK inhibitors as they do have a short half-life.”

More observational studies would be helpful, Dr. Sparks said, adding that “the most pressing need is to try to figure out how to protect our patients with rituximab.”

The COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Physician Registry is supported by the American College of Rheumatology and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology. Dr. Sparks disclosed serving as a consultant for Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova, Optum, and Pfizer for work unrelated to this study. Dr. Wallace disclosed receiving grant support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Principia/Sanofi and serving as a consultant for Viela Bio and Medpace for work unrelated to this study.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were using rituximab at the time of COVID-19 onset had a fourfold higher risk of being hospitalized, needing mechanical ventilation, or dying, compared with patients taking a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), according to a report given at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

The use of Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) also was associated with a twofold higher risk for these COVID-19 outcomes, said Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, in presenting the analysis from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA) Physician Registry.

“The strong association of rituximab and JAK inhibitor use with poor COVID-19 outcomes highlights the prioritization of risk mitigation strategies for these patients,” Dr. Sparks said at the meeting.

The full findings have now been published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
 

JAKi association questioned

These findings provide “an important understanding for the risk of our patients in times before vaccination,” said Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, of Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, who chaired the session in which the study was presented.

However, “recently, baricitinib was licensed to prevent particular aspects of severe COVID. What’s the explanation for this discrepancy?” he asked.

“Certainly, the JAK inhibitor finding deserves further study,” Dr. Sparks acknowledged, adding that the data were analyzed by class rather than for individual drugs.

“One possible explanation could be when JAK inhibitors are used,” he suggested. “It might be different for patients who [have been] just infected – that might have different biologic effects – as opposed to choosing to treat patients right when there’s a hyperinflammatory cascade, or there’s oxygen need.”

Regarding the JAK inhibitor finding, Ronald van Vollenhoven, MD, PhD, of the University of Amsterdam, pointed out during the online Q&A that “JAKi have a very short half-life compared to biologics.”

Dr. van Vollenhoven asked: “Could the practice of stopping these drugs upon COVID infection have a negative impact on the course?” To which Dr. Sparks responded: “The different half-life of drugs would be a promising avenue to look at, to see whether increases in disease activity might have imparted some of the effects we saw.”
 

Performing the analysis

As of April 12, 2021, the GRA Physician Registry contained the records of more than 15,000 patients. Dr. Sparks, collaborator Zachary Wallace, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and associates limited their analysis to 2,869 patients with RA who had been treated with either a biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD) at the time they were diagnosed with COVID-19.

“We wanted to limit it to a single disease and also limit it to drugs that are considered for that disease,” Dr. Sparks explained in an interview.

“Because patients with rheumatoid arthritis are often treated sequentially, we wanted to further limit the analysis to patients who were on advanced therapies so that they were at a similar disease state, and also had the opportunity to receive advanced therapies.”

This approach hopefully minimizes the possibility of confounding by indication, Dr. Sparks said.

Most of the patients included in the analysis had received a TNFi (n = 1,388), and they were used as the control arm of the analysis. Outcomes associated with treatment with the other b/tsDMARDs, which included abatacept (n = 237), rituximab (n = 364), interleukin-6 inhibitors (IL-6i; n = 317), and JAKi (n = 563), were then compared with TNFi.

Baseline characteristics of patients were broadly similar across the groups. The mean age was 56.7 years and 80.8% of the study population was female. There were a few expected differences among users of rituximab versus TNFi, notably a higher percentage of patients with interstitial lung disease (11% vs. 1.4% of TNFi users) or cancer (7.4% vs. 0.9%) among patients treated with rituximab since it is commonly used in these patients, Dr. Sparks said.

“We did perform a sensitivity analysis where we restricted the population to not having ILD or cancer and we actually found really similar findings,” he added.

Four COVID-19 outcomes assessed

The researchers used a four-point ordinal scale modeled after one set by the World Health Organization to assess four COVID-19 outcomes: not hospitalized, hospitalized without oxygenation, hospitalized with oxygenation or ventilation, and death.

Odds ratios (ORs) comparing rituximab to TNFi for these four COVID-19 outcomes were a respective 4.53, 2.87, 4.05, and 4.57. The ORs for JAKi versus TNFi were a respective 2.4, 1.55, 2.03, and 2.04.

“We found no consistent associations of abatacept or interleukin-6 inhibitors with COVID-19 severity, compared to TNF inhibitors,” which is reassuring, Dr. Sparks said.

ORs for the four COVID-19 outcomes with abatacept were a respective 1.18, 1.12, 1.41, and 1.46, and for IL-6i were 0.84, 0.72, 0.75, and 1.13.

Rituximab use in patients with RA who develop COVID-19

So, should rituximab be stopped in patients with RA if they develop COVID-19? “This is an important question and one that would be decided on a case-by-case basis,” Dr. Sparks said. “Of course, the drug has a very long half-life, so risk mitigation strategies are still of utmost importance,” he added.

“I think everyone’s a bit reticent to want to start rituximab in this environment, but it might also make me pause about starting a JAK inhibitor,” Dr. Sparks added. “Given that this is a first finding, I’m not sure I would necessarily change patients who are doing well on these medications. I think what it really makes me want to do is to try to obviously vaccinate the patients on JAK inhibitors as they do have a short half-life.”

More observational studies would be helpful, Dr. Sparks said, adding that “the most pressing need is to try to figure out how to protect our patients with rituximab.”

The COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Physician Registry is supported by the American College of Rheumatology and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology. Dr. Sparks disclosed serving as a consultant for Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova, Optum, and Pfizer for work unrelated to this study. Dr. Wallace disclosed receiving grant support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Principia/Sanofi and serving as a consultant for Viela Bio and Medpace for work unrelated to this study.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were using rituximab at the time of COVID-19 onset had a fourfold higher risk of being hospitalized, needing mechanical ventilation, or dying, compared with patients taking a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), according to a report given at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

The use of Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) also was associated with a twofold higher risk for these COVID-19 outcomes, said Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, in presenting the analysis from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA) Physician Registry.

“The strong association of rituximab and JAK inhibitor use with poor COVID-19 outcomes highlights the prioritization of risk mitigation strategies for these patients,” Dr. Sparks said at the meeting.

The full findings have now been published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
 

JAKi association questioned

These findings provide “an important understanding for the risk of our patients in times before vaccination,” said Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, of Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, who chaired the session in which the study was presented.

However, “recently, baricitinib was licensed to prevent particular aspects of severe COVID. What’s the explanation for this discrepancy?” he asked.

“Certainly, the JAK inhibitor finding deserves further study,” Dr. Sparks acknowledged, adding that the data were analyzed by class rather than for individual drugs.

“One possible explanation could be when JAK inhibitors are used,” he suggested. “It might be different for patients who [have been] just infected – that might have different biologic effects – as opposed to choosing to treat patients right when there’s a hyperinflammatory cascade, or there’s oxygen need.”

Regarding the JAK inhibitor finding, Ronald van Vollenhoven, MD, PhD, of the University of Amsterdam, pointed out during the online Q&A that “JAKi have a very short half-life compared to biologics.”

Dr. van Vollenhoven asked: “Could the practice of stopping these drugs upon COVID infection have a negative impact on the course?” To which Dr. Sparks responded: “The different half-life of drugs would be a promising avenue to look at, to see whether increases in disease activity might have imparted some of the effects we saw.”
 

Performing the analysis

As of April 12, 2021, the GRA Physician Registry contained the records of more than 15,000 patients. Dr. Sparks, collaborator Zachary Wallace, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and associates limited their analysis to 2,869 patients with RA who had been treated with either a biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD) at the time they were diagnosed with COVID-19.

“We wanted to limit it to a single disease and also limit it to drugs that are considered for that disease,” Dr. Sparks explained in an interview.

“Because patients with rheumatoid arthritis are often treated sequentially, we wanted to further limit the analysis to patients who were on advanced therapies so that they were at a similar disease state, and also had the opportunity to receive advanced therapies.”

This approach hopefully minimizes the possibility of confounding by indication, Dr. Sparks said.

Most of the patients included in the analysis had received a TNFi (n = 1,388), and they were used as the control arm of the analysis. Outcomes associated with treatment with the other b/tsDMARDs, which included abatacept (n = 237), rituximab (n = 364), interleukin-6 inhibitors (IL-6i; n = 317), and JAKi (n = 563), were then compared with TNFi.

Baseline characteristics of patients were broadly similar across the groups. The mean age was 56.7 years and 80.8% of the study population was female. There were a few expected differences among users of rituximab versus TNFi, notably a higher percentage of patients with interstitial lung disease (11% vs. 1.4% of TNFi users) or cancer (7.4% vs. 0.9%) among patients treated with rituximab since it is commonly used in these patients, Dr. Sparks said.

“We did perform a sensitivity analysis where we restricted the population to not having ILD or cancer and we actually found really similar findings,” he added.

Four COVID-19 outcomes assessed

The researchers used a four-point ordinal scale modeled after one set by the World Health Organization to assess four COVID-19 outcomes: not hospitalized, hospitalized without oxygenation, hospitalized with oxygenation or ventilation, and death.

Odds ratios (ORs) comparing rituximab to TNFi for these four COVID-19 outcomes were a respective 4.53, 2.87, 4.05, and 4.57. The ORs for JAKi versus TNFi were a respective 2.4, 1.55, 2.03, and 2.04.

“We found no consistent associations of abatacept or interleukin-6 inhibitors with COVID-19 severity, compared to TNF inhibitors,” which is reassuring, Dr. Sparks said.

ORs for the four COVID-19 outcomes with abatacept were a respective 1.18, 1.12, 1.41, and 1.46, and for IL-6i were 0.84, 0.72, 0.75, and 1.13.

Rituximab use in patients with RA who develop COVID-19

So, should rituximab be stopped in patients with RA if they develop COVID-19? “This is an important question and one that would be decided on a case-by-case basis,” Dr. Sparks said. “Of course, the drug has a very long half-life, so risk mitigation strategies are still of utmost importance,” he added.

“I think everyone’s a bit reticent to want to start rituximab in this environment, but it might also make me pause about starting a JAK inhibitor,” Dr. Sparks added. “Given that this is a first finding, I’m not sure I would necessarily change patients who are doing well on these medications. I think what it really makes me want to do is to try to obviously vaccinate the patients on JAK inhibitors as they do have a short half-life.”

More observational studies would be helpful, Dr. Sparks said, adding that “the most pressing need is to try to figure out how to protect our patients with rituximab.”

The COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Physician Registry is supported by the American College of Rheumatology and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology. Dr. Sparks disclosed serving as a consultant for Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova, Optum, and Pfizer for work unrelated to this study. Dr. Wallace disclosed receiving grant support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Principia/Sanofi and serving as a consultant for Viela Bio and Medpace for work unrelated to this study.

OnabotulinumtoxinA alone provides relief from chronic migraine, and addition of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antibodies may boost the benefit, according to a large retrospective analysis. The results lend hope that the combination may be synergistic, according to Andrew Blumenfeld, MD, director of the Headache Center of Southern California in Carlsbad. Dr. Blumenfeld presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting. The study was published online April 21 in Pain Therapy.

The retrospective analysis showed a 4-day reduction in headache days per month. In contrast, in the pivotal study for erenumab, the most commonly used anti-CGRP antibody among subjects in the study, showed a 2-day benefit in a subanalysis of patients who had failed at least two oral preventives.

There is mechanistic evidence to suggest the two therapies could be synergistic. OnabotulinumtoxinA is believed to inhibit the release of CGRP, and antibodies reduce CGRP levels. OnabotulinumtoxinA prevents activation of C-fibers in the trigeminal sensory afferents, but does not affect A-delta fibers.

On the other hand, most data indicate that the anti-CGRP antibody fremanezumab prevents activation of A-delta but not C-fibers, and a recent review argues that CGRP antibody nonresponders may have migraines driven by C-fibers or other pathways. “Thus, concomitant use of medications blocking the activation of meningeal C-fibers may provide a synergistic effect on the trigeminal nociceptive pathway,” the authors wrote.
 

Study finding match clinical practice

The results of the new study strengthen the case that the combination is effective, though proof would require prospective, randomized trials. “I think that it really gives credibility to what we are seeing in practice, which is that combined therapy often is much better than therapy with onabotulinumtoxinA alone, said Deborah Friedman, MD, MPH, who was asked to comment on the findings. Dr. Friedman is professor of neurology and ophthalmology at the University of Texas, Dallas.

The extra 4 migraine-free days per month is a significant benefit, said Stewart Tepper, MD, professor of neurology at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H. “It’s an extra month and a half of no disability per year, and that’s on top of what onabotulinumtoxinA does. So it’s really a very important clinical finding,” Dr. Tepper said in an interview.

Improvements with combination therapy

The study was a chart review of 257 patients who started on onabotulinumtoxinA and later initiated anti-CGRP antibody therapy. A total of 104 completed four visits after initiation of anti-CGRP antibody therapy (completers). Before starting any therapy, patients reported an average of 21 headache days per month in the overall group, and 22 among completers. That frequency dropped to 12 in both groups after onabotulinumtoxinA therapy (overall group difference, –9 days; 95% confidence interval, –8 to –11 days; completers group difference, –10; 95% CI, –7 to –12 days).

A total of 77.8% of subjects in the overall cohort took erenumab, 16.3% took galcanezumab, and 5.8% took fremanezumab. In the completers cohort, the percentages were 84.5%, 10.7%, and 4.9%, respectively.

Compared with baseline, both completers and noncompleters had clinically significant improvements in disability, as measured by at least a 5-point improvement in Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) score at the 3-month visit (–5.8 for completers and –6.3 for the overall cohort group), the 6-month visit (–6.6 and –11.1), the 9-month visit (–8.3 and –6.1), and 1 year (–12.7 and –8.4).

At the first visit, 33.0% of completers had at least a 5-point reduction in MIDAS, as did 36.0% of the overall cohort group, and the trend continued at 6 months (39.8% and 45.1%), 9 months (43.7% and 43.7%), and at 1 year (45.3% and 44.8%).

The study was funded by Allergan. Dr. Blumenfeld has served on advisory boards for Aeon, AbbVie, Amgen, Alder, Biohaven, Teva, Supernus, Promius, Eaglet, and Lilly, and has received funding for speaking from AbbVie, Amgen, Pernix, Supernus, Depomed, Avanir, Promius, Teva, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, and Theranica. Dr. Tepper has consulted for Teva. Dr. Friedman has been on the advisory board for Allergan, Amgen, Lundbeck, Eli Lilly, and Teva Pharmaceuticals, and has received grant support from Allergan and Eli Lilly.

OnabotulinumtoxinA alone provides relief from chronic migraine, and addition of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antibodies may boost the benefit, according to a large retrospective analysis. The results lend hope that the combination may be synergistic, according to Andrew Blumenfeld, MD, director of the Headache Center of Southern California in Carlsbad. Dr. Blumenfeld presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting. The study was published online April 21 in Pain Therapy.

The retrospective analysis showed a 4-day reduction in headache days per month. In contrast, in the pivotal study for erenumab, the most commonly used anti-CGRP antibody among subjects in the study, showed a 2-day benefit in a subanalysis of patients who had failed at least two oral preventives.

There is mechanistic evidence to suggest the two therapies could be synergistic. OnabotulinumtoxinA is believed to inhibit the release of CGRP, and antibodies reduce CGRP levels. OnabotulinumtoxinA prevents activation of C-fibers in the trigeminal sensory afferents, but does not affect A-delta fibers.

On the other hand, most data indicate that the anti-CGRP antibody fremanezumab prevents activation of A-delta but not C-fibers, and a recent review argues that CGRP antibody nonresponders may have migraines driven by C-fibers or other pathways. “Thus, concomitant use of medications blocking the activation of meningeal C-fibers may provide a synergistic effect on the trigeminal nociceptive pathway,” the authors wrote.
 

Study finding match clinical practice

The results of the new study strengthen the case that the combination is effective, though proof would require prospective, randomized trials. “I think that it really gives credibility to what we are seeing in practice, which is that combined therapy often is much better than therapy with onabotulinumtoxinA alone, said Deborah Friedman, MD, MPH, who was asked to comment on the findings. Dr. Friedman is professor of neurology and ophthalmology at the University of Texas, Dallas.

The extra 4 migraine-free days per month is a significant benefit, said Stewart Tepper, MD, professor of neurology at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H. “It’s an extra month and a half of no disability per year, and that’s on top of what onabotulinumtoxinA does. So it’s really a very important clinical finding,” Dr. Tepper said in an interview.

Improvements with combination therapy

The study was a chart review of 257 patients who started on onabotulinumtoxinA and later initiated anti-CGRP antibody therapy. A total of 104 completed four visits after initiation of anti-CGRP antibody therapy (completers). Before starting any therapy, patients reported an average of 21 headache days per month in the overall group, and 22 among completers. That frequency dropped to 12 in both groups after onabotulinumtoxinA therapy (overall group difference, –9 days; 95% confidence interval, –8 to –11 days; completers group difference, –10; 95% CI, –7 to –12 days).

A total of 77.8% of subjects in the overall cohort took erenumab, 16.3% took galcanezumab, and 5.8% took fremanezumab. In the completers cohort, the percentages were 84.5%, 10.7%, and 4.9%, respectively.

Compared with baseline, both completers and noncompleters had clinically significant improvements in disability, as measured by at least a 5-point improvement in Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) score at the 3-month visit (–5.8 for completers and –6.3 for the overall cohort group), the 6-month visit (–6.6 and –11.1), the 9-month visit (–8.3 and –6.1), and 1 year (–12.7 and –8.4).

At the first visit, 33.0% of completers had at least a 5-point reduction in MIDAS, as did 36.0% of the overall cohort group, and the trend continued at 6 months (39.8% and 45.1%), 9 months (43.7% and 43.7%), and at 1 year (45.3% and 44.8%).

The study was funded by Allergan. Dr. Blumenfeld has served on advisory boards for Aeon, AbbVie, Amgen, Alder, Biohaven, Teva, Supernus, Promius, Eaglet, and Lilly, and has received funding for speaking from AbbVie, Amgen, Pernix, Supernus, Depomed, Avanir, Promius, Teva, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, and Theranica. Dr. Tepper has consulted for Teva. Dr. Friedman has been on the advisory board for Allergan, Amgen, Lundbeck, Eli Lilly, and Teva Pharmaceuticals, and has received grant support from Allergan and Eli Lilly.

OnabotulinumtoxinA alone provides relief from chronic migraine, and addition of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antibodies may boost the benefit, according to a large retrospective analysis. The results lend hope that the combination may be synergistic, according to Andrew Blumenfeld, MD, director of the Headache Center of Southern California in Carlsbad. Dr. Blumenfeld presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting. The study was published online April 21 in Pain Therapy.

The retrospective analysis showed a 4-day reduction in headache days per month. In contrast, in the pivotal study for erenumab, the most commonly used anti-CGRP antibody among subjects in the study, showed a 2-day benefit in a subanalysis of patients who had failed at least two oral preventives.

There is mechanistic evidence to suggest the two therapies could be synergistic. OnabotulinumtoxinA is believed to inhibit the release of CGRP, and antibodies reduce CGRP levels. OnabotulinumtoxinA prevents activation of C-fibers in the trigeminal sensory afferents, but does not affect A-delta fibers.

On the other hand, most data indicate that the anti-CGRP antibody fremanezumab prevents activation of A-delta but not C-fibers, and a recent review argues that CGRP antibody nonresponders may have migraines driven by C-fibers or other pathways. “Thus, concomitant use of medications blocking the activation of meningeal C-fibers may provide a synergistic effect on the trigeminal nociceptive pathway,” the authors wrote.
 

Study finding match clinical practice

The results of the new study strengthen the case that the combination is effective, though proof would require prospective, randomized trials. “I think that it really gives credibility to what we are seeing in practice, which is that combined therapy often is much better than therapy with onabotulinumtoxinA alone, said Deborah Friedman, MD, MPH, who was asked to comment on the findings. Dr. Friedman is professor of neurology and ophthalmology at the University of Texas, Dallas.

The extra 4 migraine-free days per month is a significant benefit, said Stewart Tepper, MD, professor of neurology at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H. “It’s an extra month and a half of no disability per year, and that’s on top of what onabotulinumtoxinA does. So it’s really a very important clinical finding,” Dr. Tepper said in an interview.

Improvements with combination therapy

The study was a chart review of 257 patients who started on onabotulinumtoxinA and later initiated anti-CGRP antibody therapy. A total of 104 completed four visits after initiation of anti-CGRP antibody therapy (completers). Before starting any therapy, patients reported an average of 21 headache days per month in the overall group, and 22 among completers. That frequency dropped to 12 in both groups after onabotulinumtoxinA therapy (overall group difference, –9 days; 95% confidence interval, –8 to –11 days; completers group difference, –10; 95% CI, –7 to –12 days).

A total of 77.8% of subjects in the overall cohort took erenumab, 16.3% took galcanezumab, and 5.8% took fremanezumab. In the completers cohort, the percentages were 84.5%, 10.7%, and 4.9%, respectively.

Compared with baseline, both completers and noncompleters had clinically significant improvements in disability, as measured by at least a 5-point improvement in Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) score at the 3-month visit (–5.8 for completers and –6.3 for the overall cohort group), the 6-month visit (–6.6 and –11.1), the 9-month visit (–8.3 and –6.1), and 1 year (–12.7 and –8.4).

At the first visit, 33.0% of completers had at least a 5-point reduction in MIDAS, as did 36.0% of the overall cohort group, and the trend continued at 6 months (39.8% and 45.1%), 9 months (43.7% and 43.7%), and at 1 year (45.3% and 44.8%).

The study was funded by Allergan. Dr. Blumenfeld has served on advisory boards for Aeon, AbbVie, Amgen, Alder, Biohaven, Teva, Supernus, Promius, Eaglet, and Lilly, and has received funding for speaking from AbbVie, Amgen, Pernix, Supernus, Depomed, Avanir, Promius, Teva, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, and Theranica. Dr. Tepper has consulted for Teva. Dr. Friedman has been on the advisory board for Allergan, Amgen, Lundbeck, Eli Lilly, and Teva Pharmaceuticals, and has received grant support from Allergan and Eli Lilly.

Ustekinumab (Stelara, Janssen) appears superior to vedolizumab (Entyvio, Takeda) on multiple measures of response and remission among patients with Crohn’s disease who failed at least one anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy, in a retrospective analysis.

Of patients taking ustekinumab, a higher proportion (51%) met the primary endpoint of corticosteroid-free clinical remission at week 54. In the vedolizumab group, only 41% achieved the same outcome.

“Failure to anti-TNF therapy is a major concern in Crohn’s disease,” Anthony Buisson, MD, PhD, head of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Unit, University Hospital Estaing, Clermont-Ferrand, France, said during the Digestive Disease Week 2021 virtual meeting.

Dr. Buisson estimated that 15% of patients with Crohn’s disease experience primary failure from an anti-TNF agent. Also, only slightly more than one-third (37%) remain in clinical remission at 1 year.

With that in mind, Dr. Buisson and his colleagues conducted the VENUS study to evaluate outcomes between ustekinumab and vedolizumab. These two biologic agents are indicated for Crohn’s disease and feature different mechanisms of action, compared with anti-TNF agents.

They assessed 312 adults with Crohn’s disease from two patient cohorts in France. All participants failed prior treatment with at least one anti-TNF agent, including approximately 20% who experienced a primary nonresponse.

The retrospective analysis included 224 patients treated with ustekinumab and another 88 with vedolizumab between July 2014 and May 2020. The two groups were comparable based on a propensity analysis. Other medications were allowed at the physician’s discretion.
 

Nonresponders and other outcomes

“Vedolizumab patients were more likely to be primary nonresponders than ustekinumab patients,” Dr. Buisson said. This group included 6% of patients taking ustekinumab versus 14% of those taking vedolizumab.

In contrast, regarding secondary loss of response, “we did not observe any [significant] difference between two groups,” he added.

The investigators defined corticosteroid-free remission as a Crohn’s Disease Activity Index less than 150 at week 54. They also assessed “deep remission” at 14 weeks, which was defined as meeting corticosteroid-free remission and a fecal calprotectin of less than 100 mcg/g.

They found that 26% of patients who received ustekinumab met the deep remission criteria versus 4% of those who received vedolizumab.

Dr. Buisson and colleagues also looked at time to drug escalation. A Kaplan Meier curve revealed that patients taking vedolizumab were more likely to be escalated, compared with those taking ustekinumab (hazard ratio, 1.35).

Furthermore, those treated with vedolizumab also featured a higher risk for drug discontinuation because of therapeutic failure (HR, 1.53).

“This is an interesting study comparing ustekinumab with vedolizumab in Crohn’s disease patients who have failed prior anti-TNF therapy,” Farah Monzur, MD, who was not affiliated with the study, told this news organization. “Although the researchers assessed corticosteroid-free remission and ‘deep remission,’ ” she said, endoscopic and histologic remission were not studied, “which have become the new targets to achieve.”

“Even so, this study adds to the literature, aiming to position these newer biologics in the treatment algorithm,” added Dr. Monzur, assistant professor of medicine and medical director of ambulatory GI at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Medicine.
 

Superior in subgroup analyses as well

“No subgroups were identified where vedolizumab was more effective than ustekinumab,” Dr. Buisson said. “In contrast, ustekinumab was more effective in five subgroups.”

The subgroups favoring ustekinumab included those patients not taking steroids at baseline, with no prior bowel resection, with a noncomplicated phenotype, with upper gastrointestinal involvement, and older than 35 years of age.

The retrospective analysis design was a limitation. The long follow-up and large sample size were strengths.

The authors concluded that ustekinumab was more effective to achieve early and long-term efficacy than vedolizumab in patients with Crohn’s disease who previously failed to anti-TNF agents.

“However, these data should be confirmed in a head-to-head randomized controlled trial,” Dr. Buisson said.

Dr. Buisson disclosed that he is a consultant for Janssen and Takeda. Dr. Monzur has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Ustekinumab (Stelara, Janssen) appears superior to vedolizumab (Entyvio, Takeda) on multiple measures of response and remission among patients with Crohn’s disease who failed at least one anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy, in a retrospective analysis.

Of patients taking ustekinumab, a higher proportion (51%) met the primary endpoint of corticosteroid-free clinical remission at week 54. In the vedolizumab group, only 41% achieved the same outcome.

“Failure to anti-TNF therapy is a major concern in Crohn’s disease,” Anthony Buisson, MD, PhD, head of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Unit, University Hospital Estaing, Clermont-Ferrand, France, said during the Digestive Disease Week 2021 virtual meeting.

Dr. Buisson estimated that 15% of patients with Crohn’s disease experience primary failure from an anti-TNF agent. Also, only slightly more than one-third (37%) remain in clinical remission at 1 year.

With that in mind, Dr. Buisson and his colleagues conducted the VENUS study to evaluate outcomes between ustekinumab and vedolizumab. These two biologic agents are indicated for Crohn’s disease and feature different mechanisms of action, compared with anti-TNF agents.

They assessed 312 adults with Crohn’s disease from two patient cohorts in France. All participants failed prior treatment with at least one anti-TNF agent, including approximately 20% who experienced a primary nonresponse.

The retrospective analysis included 224 patients treated with ustekinumab and another 88 with vedolizumab between July 2014 and May 2020. The two groups were comparable based on a propensity analysis. Other medications were allowed at the physician’s discretion.
 

Nonresponders and other outcomes

“Vedolizumab patients were more likely to be primary nonresponders than ustekinumab patients,” Dr. Buisson said. This group included 6% of patients taking ustekinumab versus 14% of those taking vedolizumab.

In contrast, regarding secondary loss of response, “we did not observe any [significant] difference between two groups,” he added.

The investigators defined corticosteroid-free remission as a Crohn’s Disease Activity Index less than 150 at week 54. They also assessed “deep remission” at 14 weeks, which was defined as meeting corticosteroid-free remission and a fecal calprotectin of less than 100 mcg/g.

They found that 26% of patients who received ustekinumab met the deep remission criteria versus 4% of those who received vedolizumab.

Dr. Buisson and colleagues also looked at time to drug escalation. A Kaplan Meier curve revealed that patients taking vedolizumab were more likely to be escalated, compared with those taking ustekinumab (hazard ratio, 1.35).

Furthermore, those treated with vedolizumab also featured a higher risk for drug discontinuation because of therapeutic failure (HR, 1.53).

“This is an interesting study comparing ustekinumab with vedolizumab in Crohn’s disease patients who have failed prior anti-TNF therapy,” Farah Monzur, MD, who was not affiliated with the study, told this news organization. “Although the researchers assessed corticosteroid-free remission and ‘deep remission,’ ” she said, endoscopic and histologic remission were not studied, “which have become the new targets to achieve.”

“Even so, this study adds to the literature, aiming to position these newer biologics in the treatment algorithm,” added Dr. Monzur, assistant professor of medicine and medical director of ambulatory GI at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Medicine.
 

Superior in subgroup analyses as well

“No subgroups were identified where vedolizumab was more effective than ustekinumab,” Dr. Buisson said. “In contrast, ustekinumab was more effective in five subgroups.”

The subgroups favoring ustekinumab included those patients not taking steroids at baseline, with no prior bowel resection, with a noncomplicated phenotype, with upper gastrointestinal involvement, and older than 35 years of age.

The retrospective analysis design was a limitation. The long follow-up and large sample size were strengths.

The authors concluded that ustekinumab was more effective to achieve early and long-term efficacy than vedolizumab in patients with Crohn’s disease who previously failed to anti-TNF agents.

“However, these data should be confirmed in a head-to-head randomized controlled trial,” Dr. Buisson said.

Dr. Buisson disclosed that he is a consultant for Janssen and Takeda. Dr. Monzur has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Ustekinumab (Stelara, Janssen) appears superior to vedolizumab (Entyvio, Takeda) on multiple measures of response and remission among patients with Crohn’s disease who failed at least one anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy, in a retrospective analysis.

Of patients taking ustekinumab, a higher proportion (51%) met the primary endpoint of corticosteroid-free clinical remission at week 54. In the vedolizumab group, only 41% achieved the same outcome.

“Failure to anti-TNF therapy is a major concern in Crohn’s disease,” Anthony Buisson, MD, PhD, head of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Unit, University Hospital Estaing, Clermont-Ferrand, France, said during the Digestive Disease Week 2021 virtual meeting.

Dr. Buisson estimated that 15% of patients with Crohn’s disease experience primary failure from an anti-TNF agent. Also, only slightly more than one-third (37%) remain in clinical remission at 1 year.

With that in mind, Dr. Buisson and his colleagues conducted the VENUS study to evaluate outcomes between ustekinumab and vedolizumab. These two biologic agents are indicated for Crohn’s disease and feature different mechanisms of action, compared with anti-TNF agents.

They assessed 312 adults with Crohn’s disease from two patient cohorts in France. All participants failed prior treatment with at least one anti-TNF agent, including approximately 20% who experienced a primary nonresponse.

The retrospective analysis included 224 patients treated with ustekinumab and another 88 with vedolizumab between July 2014 and May 2020. The two groups were comparable based on a propensity analysis. Other medications were allowed at the physician’s discretion.
 

Nonresponders and other outcomes

“Vedolizumab patients were more likely to be primary nonresponders than ustekinumab patients,” Dr. Buisson said. This group included 6% of patients taking ustekinumab versus 14% of those taking vedolizumab.

In contrast, regarding secondary loss of response, “we did not observe any [significant] difference between two groups,” he added.

The investigators defined corticosteroid-free remission as a Crohn’s Disease Activity Index less than 150 at week 54. They also assessed “deep remission” at 14 weeks, which was defined as meeting corticosteroid-free remission and a fecal calprotectin of less than 100 mcg/g.

They found that 26% of patients who received ustekinumab met the deep remission criteria versus 4% of those who received vedolizumab.

Dr. Buisson and colleagues also looked at time to drug escalation. A Kaplan Meier curve revealed that patients taking vedolizumab were more likely to be escalated, compared with those taking ustekinumab (hazard ratio, 1.35).

Furthermore, those treated with vedolizumab also featured a higher risk for drug discontinuation because of therapeutic failure (HR, 1.53).

“This is an interesting study comparing ustekinumab with vedolizumab in Crohn’s disease patients who have failed prior anti-TNF therapy,” Farah Monzur, MD, who was not affiliated with the study, told this news organization. “Although the researchers assessed corticosteroid-free remission and ‘deep remission,’ ” she said, endoscopic and histologic remission were not studied, “which have become the new targets to achieve.”

“Even so, this study adds to the literature, aiming to position these newer biologics in the treatment algorithm,” added Dr. Monzur, assistant professor of medicine and medical director of ambulatory GI at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Medicine.
 

Superior in subgroup analyses as well

“No subgroups were identified where vedolizumab was more effective than ustekinumab,” Dr. Buisson said. “In contrast, ustekinumab was more effective in five subgroups.”

The subgroups favoring ustekinumab included those patients not taking steroids at baseline, with no prior bowel resection, with a noncomplicated phenotype, with upper gastrointestinal involvement, and older than 35 years of age.

The retrospective analysis design was a limitation. The long follow-up and large sample size were strengths.

The authors concluded that ustekinumab was more effective to achieve early and long-term efficacy than vedolizumab in patients with Crohn’s disease who previously failed to anti-TNF agents.

“However, these data should be confirmed in a head-to-head randomized controlled trial,” Dr. Buisson said.

Dr. Buisson disclosed that he is a consultant for Janssen and Takeda. Dr. Monzur has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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