User login
MDedge conference coverage features onsite reporting of the latest study results and expert perspectives from leading researchers.
In low-risk thyroid cancer, no advantage found for postsurgical iodine
After 3 years of follow-up in patients with low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC), there is no significant difference in the rate of tumor-related events in those treated with postsurgical radioactive iodine (RAI) relative to those who are not, according to a randomized phase 3 trial.
The controversy about whether postoperative RAI is beneficial or an overtreatment in low-risk DTC has persisted for years, but it can now be addressed with level one data, according to Sophie Leboulleux, MD, PhD, who heads the thyroid cancer division at Gustave Roussy Cancer Institute, Villejuif, France.
The trial, called ESTIMABL2, included 776 low-risk DTC patients managed at 35 participating treatment centers in France. Two to five months after surgery, patients were randomized to receive RAI or to follow-up without RAI if there were no suspicious findings, such as changes in lateral neck lymph nodes, on ultrasonography.
Three years after randomization in 729 evaluable patients, tumor-related effects occurred in 4.1% of those randomized to RAI and 4.9% of those randomized to follow-up without RAI.
“Thus, 95.1% of patients in the followed group and 95.9% in the RAI group had no event over 3 years of follow-up. The difference of 0.8% was noninferior by the prespecified definition,” Dr. Leboulleux reported at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
The 0.8% difference in events is noninferior
The prespecified definition was a less than 5% difference in events at the end of 5 years. The 0.8% difference in this study was comfortably within the 95% confidence interval (–3.3%-1.8%).
On yearly evaluations under levothyroxine treatment, events were defined as an indication for treatment, whether surgery or RAI administration if there was abnormal RAI intake on the posttherapeutic whole-body scan or elevated thyroglobulin or thyroglobulin antibodies. In the latter case, this was an event even in the absence of abnormal neck ultrasonography.
“Elevated thyroglobulin levels on levothyroxine treatment were defined as greater than 2 ng/mL in the group that did not received RAI and greater than 1 ng/mL in the group that did,” Dr. Leboulleux reported.
Thyroglobulin antibodies were considered elevated with a greater than 50% increase over the upper limit of normal on two consecutive determinations 6 months apart, Dr. Leboulleux said. The same or similar definitions of an event have been used previously.
Of the study population, 83% were women and almost all (96%) had papillary DTC. The mean age was 52 years. Of the tumors, 81.1% were T1b, of which more than half were unevaluable for node status and about 40% were node negative. The remaining tumors were grade T1a, of which about two-thirds had unevaluable node status and the remainder were confirmed node negative.
Prior studies also question RAI benefit
Several retrospective studies have also failed to associated RAI with a significant protection against thyroid events in low-risk DTC. In the most recent guidelines, the American Thoracic Society recommended against routine use of RAI following surgery in low-risk DTC patients. However, these guidelines acknowledged this is a “weak recommendation” based on “low-quality evidence.”
Recurrence rates following surgery in low-risk DTC are not zero. According to a review article coauthored by Dr. Leboulleux, these may occur in up to 3% of patients. This measurable risk might explain why many published retrospective data suggest low-risk DTC patients are continuing to receive postsurgical RAI. In one, using data taken from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, nearly 25% of 17,286 low-risk papillary thyroid cancers had received postsurgical RAI.
The ESTIMABL2 trial is one of two randomized studies launched over the last several years to address the controversy regarding postsurgical RAI in low-risk DTC with prospective randomized data. The ongoing IoN trial is the other. The researchers plan a much longer follow-up, with data not expected until 2031.
In fact, one criticism of the ESTIMABL2 is “the low event rate and relatively short follow-up,” reported Megan Haymart, MD, a professor in the division of metabolism, endocrinology, and diabetes at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
“The strengths of this study include the involvement of 35 French centers, the use of a cohort that is representative of the distribution of low-risk thyroid cancer at large, and the use of biochemical markers during follow-up,” Dr. Haymart said in an interview.
Ultimately, despite the limited follow-up, “this is a clinically important study as it supports the recent paradigm shift towards less use of RAI for low-risk thyroid cancer,” she said.
Dr. Leboulleux and Dr. Haymart report no relevant conflicts of interest.
After 3 years of follow-up in patients with low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC), there is no significant difference in the rate of tumor-related events in those treated with postsurgical radioactive iodine (RAI) relative to those who are not, according to a randomized phase 3 trial.
The controversy about whether postoperative RAI is beneficial or an overtreatment in low-risk DTC has persisted for years, but it can now be addressed with level one data, according to Sophie Leboulleux, MD, PhD, who heads the thyroid cancer division at Gustave Roussy Cancer Institute, Villejuif, France.
The trial, called ESTIMABL2, included 776 low-risk DTC patients managed at 35 participating treatment centers in France. Two to five months after surgery, patients were randomized to receive RAI or to follow-up without RAI if there were no suspicious findings, such as changes in lateral neck lymph nodes, on ultrasonography.
Three years after randomization in 729 evaluable patients, tumor-related effects occurred in 4.1% of those randomized to RAI and 4.9% of those randomized to follow-up without RAI.
“Thus, 95.1% of patients in the followed group and 95.9% in the RAI group had no event over 3 years of follow-up. The difference of 0.8% was noninferior by the prespecified definition,” Dr. Leboulleux reported at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
The 0.8% difference in events is noninferior
The prespecified definition was a less than 5% difference in events at the end of 5 years. The 0.8% difference in this study was comfortably within the 95% confidence interval (–3.3%-1.8%).
On yearly evaluations under levothyroxine treatment, events were defined as an indication for treatment, whether surgery or RAI administration if there was abnormal RAI intake on the posttherapeutic whole-body scan or elevated thyroglobulin or thyroglobulin antibodies. In the latter case, this was an event even in the absence of abnormal neck ultrasonography.
“Elevated thyroglobulin levels on levothyroxine treatment were defined as greater than 2 ng/mL in the group that did not received RAI and greater than 1 ng/mL in the group that did,” Dr. Leboulleux reported.
Thyroglobulin antibodies were considered elevated with a greater than 50% increase over the upper limit of normal on two consecutive determinations 6 months apart, Dr. Leboulleux said. The same or similar definitions of an event have been used previously.
Of the study population, 83% were women and almost all (96%) had papillary DTC. The mean age was 52 years. Of the tumors, 81.1% were T1b, of which more than half were unevaluable for node status and about 40% were node negative. The remaining tumors were grade T1a, of which about two-thirds had unevaluable node status and the remainder were confirmed node negative.
Prior studies also question RAI benefit
Several retrospective studies have also failed to associated RAI with a significant protection against thyroid events in low-risk DTC. In the most recent guidelines, the American Thoracic Society recommended against routine use of RAI following surgery in low-risk DTC patients. However, these guidelines acknowledged this is a “weak recommendation” based on “low-quality evidence.”
Recurrence rates following surgery in low-risk DTC are not zero. According to a review article coauthored by Dr. Leboulleux, these may occur in up to 3% of patients. This measurable risk might explain why many published retrospective data suggest low-risk DTC patients are continuing to receive postsurgical RAI. In one, using data taken from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, nearly 25% of 17,286 low-risk papillary thyroid cancers had received postsurgical RAI.
The ESTIMABL2 trial is one of two randomized studies launched over the last several years to address the controversy regarding postsurgical RAI in low-risk DTC with prospective randomized data. The ongoing IoN trial is the other. The researchers plan a much longer follow-up, with data not expected until 2031.
In fact, one criticism of the ESTIMABL2 is “the low event rate and relatively short follow-up,” reported Megan Haymart, MD, a professor in the division of metabolism, endocrinology, and diabetes at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
“The strengths of this study include the involvement of 35 French centers, the use of a cohort that is representative of the distribution of low-risk thyroid cancer at large, and the use of biochemical markers during follow-up,” Dr. Haymart said in an interview.
Ultimately, despite the limited follow-up, “this is a clinically important study as it supports the recent paradigm shift towards less use of RAI for low-risk thyroid cancer,” she said.
Dr. Leboulleux and Dr. Haymart report no relevant conflicts of interest.
After 3 years of follow-up in patients with low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC), there is no significant difference in the rate of tumor-related events in those treated with postsurgical radioactive iodine (RAI) relative to those who are not, according to a randomized phase 3 trial.
The controversy about whether postoperative RAI is beneficial or an overtreatment in low-risk DTC has persisted for years, but it can now be addressed with level one data, according to Sophie Leboulleux, MD, PhD, who heads the thyroid cancer division at Gustave Roussy Cancer Institute, Villejuif, France.
The trial, called ESTIMABL2, included 776 low-risk DTC patients managed at 35 participating treatment centers in France. Two to five months after surgery, patients were randomized to receive RAI or to follow-up without RAI if there were no suspicious findings, such as changes in lateral neck lymph nodes, on ultrasonography.
Three years after randomization in 729 evaluable patients, tumor-related effects occurred in 4.1% of those randomized to RAI and 4.9% of those randomized to follow-up without RAI.
“Thus, 95.1% of patients in the followed group and 95.9% in the RAI group had no event over 3 years of follow-up. The difference of 0.8% was noninferior by the prespecified definition,” Dr. Leboulleux reported at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
The 0.8% difference in events is noninferior
The prespecified definition was a less than 5% difference in events at the end of 5 years. The 0.8% difference in this study was comfortably within the 95% confidence interval (–3.3%-1.8%).
On yearly evaluations under levothyroxine treatment, events were defined as an indication for treatment, whether surgery or RAI administration if there was abnormal RAI intake on the posttherapeutic whole-body scan or elevated thyroglobulin or thyroglobulin antibodies. In the latter case, this was an event even in the absence of abnormal neck ultrasonography.
“Elevated thyroglobulin levels on levothyroxine treatment were defined as greater than 2 ng/mL in the group that did not received RAI and greater than 1 ng/mL in the group that did,” Dr. Leboulleux reported.
Thyroglobulin antibodies were considered elevated with a greater than 50% increase over the upper limit of normal on two consecutive determinations 6 months apart, Dr. Leboulleux said. The same or similar definitions of an event have been used previously.
Of the study population, 83% were women and almost all (96%) had papillary DTC. The mean age was 52 years. Of the tumors, 81.1% were T1b, of which more than half were unevaluable for node status and about 40% were node negative. The remaining tumors were grade T1a, of which about two-thirds had unevaluable node status and the remainder were confirmed node negative.
Prior studies also question RAI benefit
Several retrospective studies have also failed to associated RAI with a significant protection against thyroid events in low-risk DTC. In the most recent guidelines, the American Thoracic Society recommended against routine use of RAI following surgery in low-risk DTC patients. However, these guidelines acknowledged this is a “weak recommendation” based on “low-quality evidence.”
Recurrence rates following surgery in low-risk DTC are not zero. According to a review article coauthored by Dr. Leboulleux, these may occur in up to 3% of patients. This measurable risk might explain why many published retrospective data suggest low-risk DTC patients are continuing to receive postsurgical RAI. In one, using data taken from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, nearly 25% of 17,286 low-risk papillary thyroid cancers had received postsurgical RAI.
The ESTIMABL2 trial is one of two randomized studies launched over the last several years to address the controversy regarding postsurgical RAI in low-risk DTC with prospective randomized data. The ongoing IoN trial is the other. The researchers plan a much longer follow-up, with data not expected until 2031.
In fact, one criticism of the ESTIMABL2 is “the low event rate and relatively short follow-up,” reported Megan Haymart, MD, a professor in the division of metabolism, endocrinology, and diabetes at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
“The strengths of this study include the involvement of 35 French centers, the use of a cohort that is representative of the distribution of low-risk thyroid cancer at large, and the use of biochemical markers during follow-up,” Dr. Haymart said in an interview.
Ultimately, despite the limited follow-up, “this is a clinically important study as it supports the recent paradigm shift towards less use of RAI for low-risk thyroid cancer,” she said.
Dr. Leboulleux and Dr. Haymart report no relevant conflicts of interest.
FROM ENDO 2021
Is there a need for tPA before thrombectomy in patients with stroke?
In a new randomized trial that investigated the question of whether thrombolysis can be omitted for patients with stroke who are undergoing endovascular thrombectomy for a large-vessel occlusion, results were similar for both approaches.
and functional outcomes were not significantly different. In addition, hemorrhage rates with or without intravenous alteplase administration before endovascular treatment were similar.
“From the MR CLEAN NO IV results, we cannot change standard practice, as we failed to show superiority of the direct endovascular approach, and we also didn’t meet the noninferiority criteria. So, the standard practice of giving tPA to those eligible still holds,” said co–lead investigator Yvo Roos, MD.
“But I think we can say that these results suggest that there may also not be such a need for tPA in patients who can go straight for endovascular therapy,” said Dr. Roos, who is professor of neurology at Amsterdam Medical Center.
“If we are not sure whether a patient is suitable for tPA because they have a higher bleeding risk, I think we can be reassured about missing the tPA out and going straight to endovascular treatment. So, if in doubt, leave it out,” he added.
Results of the MR CLEAN NO IV trial were presented at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.
“If in doubt, leave it out”
Dr. Roos noted that three trials have investigated the question regarding dropping thrombolysis for patients who can receive thrombectomy quickly. These are the DIRECT MT, SKIP, and DEVT studies. All of these trials were conducted in Asian countries, and none found differences in functional outcomes between the two approaches.
The largest of these studies – the DIRECT-MT trial, from China, which was a sister study to MR CLEAN NO IV – did show noninferiority of the direct endovascular approach to tPA plus endovascular treatment.
But because of differences in health care logistics and trial populations, the benefits and risks of dropping thrombolysis in Western countries are not known, explained Charles Majoie, MD, who is co–lead investigator of the current trial and is chair of neuroradiology at Amsterdam Medical Center.
The MR CLEAN NO IV trial was designed to show superiority of the direct endovascular approach with noninferiority for hemorrhage. It enrolled 540 European patients who were eligible for both thrombolysis and thrombectomy and who presented to a thrombectomy-capable center. They were randomly assigned to receive thrombolysis plus endovascular therapy or direct endovascular therapy alone.
The mean time from stroke onset to groin puncture (the start of endovascular therapy) was very fast in both groups – 130 minutes in the direct group, and 135 minutes in the tPA group.
The primary outcome was a shift analysis of the Modified Rankin Scale (mRS). On that outcome, the trial failed to show significant superiority of the direct approach (odds ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-1.19).
A good functional outcome (mRS, 0-2) was achieved in 49% of the direct thrombectomy group and in 51% of the tPA group (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.65-1.40).
Safety results showed no difference in any of the hemorrhage endpoints between the two groups. The rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was actually numerically higher in the direct thrombectomy group (5.9% vs. 5.3%).
“One of the most intriguing results of this study is that there was no increase in hemorrhage in the tPA group,” Dr. Roos commented. “This is very surprising, as we have always thought thrombolysis causes an increased bleeding risk. But after these results, we may have to rethink that idea – perhaps it is not the tPA itself that causes bleeding risk but rather the opening up of the vessel.”
On the failure to show noninferiority of the direct approach, Dr. Roos suggested that the trial may have been underpowered in this respect.
“Our sister trial, DIRECT-MT, was a noninferiority study. They had 650 patients, and they just reached noninferiority,” he said. “In MR CLEAN NO IV, we were aiming for superiority, and we had fewer patients – 540. We didn’t show superiority, and we didn’t have quite enough patients to show noninferiority.”
He added that, considering all the four studies together, the results look very similar and suggest no difference between the two approaches.
Individualized approach probable
Dr. Majoie suggested that different patients may be suitable for the different approaches.
“I think we are heading for individualized treatment. If we have a young patient and the angiography suite is ready, we could probably skip tPA, but it would be for the neurologist/neuroradiologist to make individualized decisions on this,” he said. “We need to look at subgroups for more information.”
Another large trial that investigated this issue, SWIFT-DIRECT, is expected to be presented later this year. An Australian trial, DIRECT-SAFE, is ongoing and is at an early stage of recruitment.
Dr. Roos said that the data from all the trials will be combined for a more comprehensive analysis of the benefits and risks of the two approaches in various subgroups.
Commenting on the study was cochair of the ISC session at which it was presented, Tudor Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, N.J.
“Putting these results together with the previous Asian studies, I think we can say that direct thrombectomy without tPA is clearly not superior to the combined approach of tPA plus thrombectomy,” he said.
Dr. Jovin explained that, in theory, direct thrombectomy could be faster than the combined approach and that the risk for symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage could be lower. But neither of these two possible benefits were seen in this study.
He agreed with Dr. Roos that MR CLEAN NO IV could have failed to show noninferiority of the direct strategy because the sample was not large enough.
“The results of the two approaches are very similar in this study and in the Asian studies, so it doesn’t appear that tPA adds very much, and it is associated with a significant increase in costs,” he said.
“The answer will probably be that there is not a ‘one-size-fits-all’ strategy, and we may end up using different approaches for different patient groups,” Dr. Jovin added. “Information on this will come from subgroups analyses from these trials.”
MR CLEAN NO-IV trial was part of the CONTRAST consortium, which is supported by the Netherlands Cardiovascular Research Initiative (an initiative of the Dutch Heart Foundation), the Brain Foundation Netherlands, Medtronic, Health-Holland, and Top Sector Life Sciences. The study received additional unrestricted funding from Stryker European Operations. Dr. Roos and Dr. Majoie are shareholders of Nico Lab.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a new randomized trial that investigated the question of whether thrombolysis can be omitted for patients with stroke who are undergoing endovascular thrombectomy for a large-vessel occlusion, results were similar for both approaches.
and functional outcomes were not significantly different. In addition, hemorrhage rates with or without intravenous alteplase administration before endovascular treatment were similar.
“From the MR CLEAN NO IV results, we cannot change standard practice, as we failed to show superiority of the direct endovascular approach, and we also didn’t meet the noninferiority criteria. So, the standard practice of giving tPA to those eligible still holds,” said co–lead investigator Yvo Roos, MD.
“But I think we can say that these results suggest that there may also not be such a need for tPA in patients who can go straight for endovascular therapy,” said Dr. Roos, who is professor of neurology at Amsterdam Medical Center.
“If we are not sure whether a patient is suitable for tPA because they have a higher bleeding risk, I think we can be reassured about missing the tPA out and going straight to endovascular treatment. So, if in doubt, leave it out,” he added.
Results of the MR CLEAN NO IV trial were presented at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.
“If in doubt, leave it out”
Dr. Roos noted that three trials have investigated the question regarding dropping thrombolysis for patients who can receive thrombectomy quickly. These are the DIRECT MT, SKIP, and DEVT studies. All of these trials were conducted in Asian countries, and none found differences in functional outcomes between the two approaches.
The largest of these studies – the DIRECT-MT trial, from China, which was a sister study to MR CLEAN NO IV – did show noninferiority of the direct endovascular approach to tPA plus endovascular treatment.
But because of differences in health care logistics and trial populations, the benefits and risks of dropping thrombolysis in Western countries are not known, explained Charles Majoie, MD, who is co–lead investigator of the current trial and is chair of neuroradiology at Amsterdam Medical Center.
The MR CLEAN NO IV trial was designed to show superiority of the direct endovascular approach with noninferiority for hemorrhage. It enrolled 540 European patients who were eligible for both thrombolysis and thrombectomy and who presented to a thrombectomy-capable center. They were randomly assigned to receive thrombolysis plus endovascular therapy or direct endovascular therapy alone.
The mean time from stroke onset to groin puncture (the start of endovascular therapy) was very fast in both groups – 130 minutes in the direct group, and 135 minutes in the tPA group.
The primary outcome was a shift analysis of the Modified Rankin Scale (mRS). On that outcome, the trial failed to show significant superiority of the direct approach (odds ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-1.19).
A good functional outcome (mRS, 0-2) was achieved in 49% of the direct thrombectomy group and in 51% of the tPA group (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.65-1.40).
Safety results showed no difference in any of the hemorrhage endpoints between the two groups. The rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was actually numerically higher in the direct thrombectomy group (5.9% vs. 5.3%).
“One of the most intriguing results of this study is that there was no increase in hemorrhage in the tPA group,” Dr. Roos commented. “This is very surprising, as we have always thought thrombolysis causes an increased bleeding risk. But after these results, we may have to rethink that idea – perhaps it is not the tPA itself that causes bleeding risk but rather the opening up of the vessel.”
On the failure to show noninferiority of the direct approach, Dr. Roos suggested that the trial may have been underpowered in this respect.
“Our sister trial, DIRECT-MT, was a noninferiority study. They had 650 patients, and they just reached noninferiority,” he said. “In MR CLEAN NO IV, we were aiming for superiority, and we had fewer patients – 540. We didn’t show superiority, and we didn’t have quite enough patients to show noninferiority.”
He added that, considering all the four studies together, the results look very similar and suggest no difference between the two approaches.
Individualized approach probable
Dr. Majoie suggested that different patients may be suitable for the different approaches.
“I think we are heading for individualized treatment. If we have a young patient and the angiography suite is ready, we could probably skip tPA, but it would be for the neurologist/neuroradiologist to make individualized decisions on this,” he said. “We need to look at subgroups for more information.”
Another large trial that investigated this issue, SWIFT-DIRECT, is expected to be presented later this year. An Australian trial, DIRECT-SAFE, is ongoing and is at an early stage of recruitment.
Dr. Roos said that the data from all the trials will be combined for a more comprehensive analysis of the benefits and risks of the two approaches in various subgroups.
Commenting on the study was cochair of the ISC session at which it was presented, Tudor Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, N.J.
“Putting these results together with the previous Asian studies, I think we can say that direct thrombectomy without tPA is clearly not superior to the combined approach of tPA plus thrombectomy,” he said.
Dr. Jovin explained that, in theory, direct thrombectomy could be faster than the combined approach and that the risk for symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage could be lower. But neither of these two possible benefits were seen in this study.
He agreed with Dr. Roos that MR CLEAN NO IV could have failed to show noninferiority of the direct strategy because the sample was not large enough.
“The results of the two approaches are very similar in this study and in the Asian studies, so it doesn’t appear that tPA adds very much, and it is associated with a significant increase in costs,” he said.
“The answer will probably be that there is not a ‘one-size-fits-all’ strategy, and we may end up using different approaches for different patient groups,” Dr. Jovin added. “Information on this will come from subgroups analyses from these trials.”
MR CLEAN NO-IV trial was part of the CONTRAST consortium, which is supported by the Netherlands Cardiovascular Research Initiative (an initiative of the Dutch Heart Foundation), the Brain Foundation Netherlands, Medtronic, Health-Holland, and Top Sector Life Sciences. The study received additional unrestricted funding from Stryker European Operations. Dr. Roos and Dr. Majoie are shareholders of Nico Lab.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a new randomized trial that investigated the question of whether thrombolysis can be omitted for patients with stroke who are undergoing endovascular thrombectomy for a large-vessel occlusion, results were similar for both approaches.
and functional outcomes were not significantly different. In addition, hemorrhage rates with or without intravenous alteplase administration before endovascular treatment were similar.
“From the MR CLEAN NO IV results, we cannot change standard practice, as we failed to show superiority of the direct endovascular approach, and we also didn’t meet the noninferiority criteria. So, the standard practice of giving tPA to those eligible still holds,” said co–lead investigator Yvo Roos, MD.
“But I think we can say that these results suggest that there may also not be such a need for tPA in patients who can go straight for endovascular therapy,” said Dr. Roos, who is professor of neurology at Amsterdam Medical Center.
“If we are not sure whether a patient is suitable for tPA because they have a higher bleeding risk, I think we can be reassured about missing the tPA out and going straight to endovascular treatment. So, if in doubt, leave it out,” he added.
Results of the MR CLEAN NO IV trial were presented at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.
“If in doubt, leave it out”
Dr. Roos noted that three trials have investigated the question regarding dropping thrombolysis for patients who can receive thrombectomy quickly. These are the DIRECT MT, SKIP, and DEVT studies. All of these trials were conducted in Asian countries, and none found differences in functional outcomes between the two approaches.
The largest of these studies – the DIRECT-MT trial, from China, which was a sister study to MR CLEAN NO IV – did show noninferiority of the direct endovascular approach to tPA plus endovascular treatment.
But because of differences in health care logistics and trial populations, the benefits and risks of dropping thrombolysis in Western countries are not known, explained Charles Majoie, MD, who is co–lead investigator of the current trial and is chair of neuroradiology at Amsterdam Medical Center.
The MR CLEAN NO IV trial was designed to show superiority of the direct endovascular approach with noninferiority for hemorrhage. It enrolled 540 European patients who were eligible for both thrombolysis and thrombectomy and who presented to a thrombectomy-capable center. They were randomly assigned to receive thrombolysis plus endovascular therapy or direct endovascular therapy alone.
The mean time from stroke onset to groin puncture (the start of endovascular therapy) was very fast in both groups – 130 minutes in the direct group, and 135 minutes in the tPA group.
The primary outcome was a shift analysis of the Modified Rankin Scale (mRS). On that outcome, the trial failed to show significant superiority of the direct approach (odds ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-1.19).
A good functional outcome (mRS, 0-2) was achieved in 49% of the direct thrombectomy group and in 51% of the tPA group (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.65-1.40).
Safety results showed no difference in any of the hemorrhage endpoints between the two groups. The rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was actually numerically higher in the direct thrombectomy group (5.9% vs. 5.3%).
“One of the most intriguing results of this study is that there was no increase in hemorrhage in the tPA group,” Dr. Roos commented. “This is very surprising, as we have always thought thrombolysis causes an increased bleeding risk. But after these results, we may have to rethink that idea – perhaps it is not the tPA itself that causes bleeding risk but rather the opening up of the vessel.”
On the failure to show noninferiority of the direct approach, Dr. Roos suggested that the trial may have been underpowered in this respect.
“Our sister trial, DIRECT-MT, was a noninferiority study. They had 650 patients, and they just reached noninferiority,” he said. “In MR CLEAN NO IV, we were aiming for superiority, and we had fewer patients – 540. We didn’t show superiority, and we didn’t have quite enough patients to show noninferiority.”
He added that, considering all the four studies together, the results look very similar and suggest no difference between the two approaches.
Individualized approach probable
Dr. Majoie suggested that different patients may be suitable for the different approaches.
“I think we are heading for individualized treatment. If we have a young patient and the angiography suite is ready, we could probably skip tPA, but it would be for the neurologist/neuroradiologist to make individualized decisions on this,” he said. “We need to look at subgroups for more information.”
Another large trial that investigated this issue, SWIFT-DIRECT, is expected to be presented later this year. An Australian trial, DIRECT-SAFE, is ongoing and is at an early stage of recruitment.
Dr. Roos said that the data from all the trials will be combined for a more comprehensive analysis of the benefits and risks of the two approaches in various subgroups.
Commenting on the study was cochair of the ISC session at which it was presented, Tudor Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, N.J.
“Putting these results together with the previous Asian studies, I think we can say that direct thrombectomy without tPA is clearly not superior to the combined approach of tPA plus thrombectomy,” he said.
Dr. Jovin explained that, in theory, direct thrombectomy could be faster than the combined approach and that the risk for symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage could be lower. But neither of these two possible benefits were seen in this study.
He agreed with Dr. Roos that MR CLEAN NO IV could have failed to show noninferiority of the direct strategy because the sample was not large enough.
“The results of the two approaches are very similar in this study and in the Asian studies, so it doesn’t appear that tPA adds very much, and it is associated with a significant increase in costs,” he said.
“The answer will probably be that there is not a ‘one-size-fits-all’ strategy, and we may end up using different approaches for different patient groups,” Dr. Jovin added. “Information on this will come from subgroups analyses from these trials.”
MR CLEAN NO-IV trial was part of the CONTRAST consortium, which is supported by the Netherlands Cardiovascular Research Initiative (an initiative of the Dutch Heart Foundation), the Brain Foundation Netherlands, Medtronic, Health-Holland, and Top Sector Life Sciences. The study received additional unrestricted funding from Stryker European Operations. Dr. Roos and Dr. Majoie are shareholders of Nico Lab.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ISC 2021
Technique combines ‘best of both worlds’ to target lung nodules
The technique – bronchoscopic transbronchial microwave ablation – had a 100% technical success rate and produced low rates of complications in a single-center study.
“We combined the best of both worlds [for this] technique,” said investigator Joyce Chan, MBBS, of Prince of Wales Hospital in Hong Kong, when describing the method at the European Lung Cancer Virtual Congress 2021 (Abstract 64MO).
Dr. Chan explained that microwave ablation of lung nodules is faster and produces larger ablation zones, compared with radiofrequency ablation, and bronchoscopic ablation is thought to produce fewer pleural-based complications than percutaneous ablation.
Bronchoscopic transbronchial microwave ablation is performed in a hybrid operating room. First, the patient is intubated and anesthetized. Then, electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy is used to zero in on the lung nodule, which is punctured by a microwave catheter. Cone-beam CT is used to confirm the location of the catheter.
“Next, we connect the system externally to a console, and then we just press the button to microwave it, just like what you do to food,” Dr. Chan explained.
Ablation takes about 10 minutes, and another CT is done to assess success. Ground-glass opacities are seen in the ablated area.
Study results
Dr. Chan and colleagues performed a retrospective analysis of 36 patients who underwent bronchoscopic transbronchial microwave ablation between March 2019 and December 2020.
The patients were unfit for or unwilling to undergo surgical resection. They had to have stage 1a lung cancers, isolated lung oligometastases, or radiologically suspicious lesions. The nodules had to be less than 3 cm in size, preferably with a bronchus leading directly to the lesion.
The patients had a mean age of 68 years. Their lesions had a mean maximal diameter of 15.2 mm, and 68% were in the peripheral one-third of the lung.
In all, 44 nodules were treated with bronchoscopic transbronchial microwave ablation. The technical success rate was 100%, although eight nodules required double ablation.
The majority of patients (95%) were discharged within 3 days, with 77% discharged on day 1. Complications included mild pain (15.9%), pneumothorax (9.1%), fever/ablation reaction (4.5%), self-limiting hemoptysis (2.3%), and bronchopleural fistula (2.3%).
The ablation zone volume decreased “rapidly” in the first 6-9 months, then leveled off, Dr. Chan noted.
In the 16 nodules with 1 year of follow-up, there were 2 complete responses, 13 partial responses, and no progressions.
It’s too soon to know if the recurrence rate will be lower than the up to 30% recurrence rate with percutaneous microwave ablation, and it’s too soon to know if, without transpleural puncture, the risk of tumor seeding is lower, Dr. Chan said.
“This presentation ... is extremely important,” said invited discussant John Edwards, MBChB, PhD, of Sheffield (England) Teaching Hospitals National Health Service Foundation Trust. “There is a great novelty value in the combination. The complications and the radiologic response rates were quite acceptable.”
The research was funded by the University Grants Committee in Hong Kong. Dr. Chan reported having no disclosures. Her colleagues disclosed relationships with Medtronic, Siemens Healthineers, and Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Edwards disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Zimmer Biomet, Stryker Leibinger, Pacific Biosciences, BioNano Genomics, Argenx, and Moderna.
The technique – bronchoscopic transbronchial microwave ablation – had a 100% technical success rate and produced low rates of complications in a single-center study.
“We combined the best of both worlds [for this] technique,” said investigator Joyce Chan, MBBS, of Prince of Wales Hospital in Hong Kong, when describing the method at the European Lung Cancer Virtual Congress 2021 (Abstract 64MO).
Dr. Chan explained that microwave ablation of lung nodules is faster and produces larger ablation zones, compared with radiofrequency ablation, and bronchoscopic ablation is thought to produce fewer pleural-based complications than percutaneous ablation.
Bronchoscopic transbronchial microwave ablation is performed in a hybrid operating room. First, the patient is intubated and anesthetized. Then, electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy is used to zero in on the lung nodule, which is punctured by a microwave catheter. Cone-beam CT is used to confirm the location of the catheter.
“Next, we connect the system externally to a console, and then we just press the button to microwave it, just like what you do to food,” Dr. Chan explained.
Ablation takes about 10 minutes, and another CT is done to assess success. Ground-glass opacities are seen in the ablated area.
Study results
Dr. Chan and colleagues performed a retrospective analysis of 36 patients who underwent bronchoscopic transbronchial microwave ablation between March 2019 and December 2020.
The patients were unfit for or unwilling to undergo surgical resection. They had to have stage 1a lung cancers, isolated lung oligometastases, or radiologically suspicious lesions. The nodules had to be less than 3 cm in size, preferably with a bronchus leading directly to the lesion.
The patients had a mean age of 68 years. Their lesions had a mean maximal diameter of 15.2 mm, and 68% were in the peripheral one-third of the lung.
In all, 44 nodules were treated with bronchoscopic transbronchial microwave ablation. The technical success rate was 100%, although eight nodules required double ablation.
The majority of patients (95%) were discharged within 3 days, with 77% discharged on day 1. Complications included mild pain (15.9%), pneumothorax (9.1%), fever/ablation reaction (4.5%), self-limiting hemoptysis (2.3%), and bronchopleural fistula (2.3%).
The ablation zone volume decreased “rapidly” in the first 6-9 months, then leveled off, Dr. Chan noted.
In the 16 nodules with 1 year of follow-up, there were 2 complete responses, 13 partial responses, and no progressions.
It’s too soon to know if the recurrence rate will be lower than the up to 30% recurrence rate with percutaneous microwave ablation, and it’s too soon to know if, without transpleural puncture, the risk of tumor seeding is lower, Dr. Chan said.
“This presentation ... is extremely important,” said invited discussant John Edwards, MBChB, PhD, of Sheffield (England) Teaching Hospitals National Health Service Foundation Trust. “There is a great novelty value in the combination. The complications and the radiologic response rates were quite acceptable.”
The research was funded by the University Grants Committee in Hong Kong. Dr. Chan reported having no disclosures. Her colleagues disclosed relationships with Medtronic, Siemens Healthineers, and Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Edwards disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Zimmer Biomet, Stryker Leibinger, Pacific Biosciences, BioNano Genomics, Argenx, and Moderna.
The technique – bronchoscopic transbronchial microwave ablation – had a 100% technical success rate and produced low rates of complications in a single-center study.
“We combined the best of both worlds [for this] technique,” said investigator Joyce Chan, MBBS, of Prince of Wales Hospital in Hong Kong, when describing the method at the European Lung Cancer Virtual Congress 2021 (Abstract 64MO).
Dr. Chan explained that microwave ablation of lung nodules is faster and produces larger ablation zones, compared with radiofrequency ablation, and bronchoscopic ablation is thought to produce fewer pleural-based complications than percutaneous ablation.
Bronchoscopic transbronchial microwave ablation is performed in a hybrid operating room. First, the patient is intubated and anesthetized. Then, electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy is used to zero in on the lung nodule, which is punctured by a microwave catheter. Cone-beam CT is used to confirm the location of the catheter.
“Next, we connect the system externally to a console, and then we just press the button to microwave it, just like what you do to food,” Dr. Chan explained.
Ablation takes about 10 minutes, and another CT is done to assess success. Ground-glass opacities are seen in the ablated area.
Study results
Dr. Chan and colleagues performed a retrospective analysis of 36 patients who underwent bronchoscopic transbronchial microwave ablation between March 2019 and December 2020.
The patients were unfit for or unwilling to undergo surgical resection. They had to have stage 1a lung cancers, isolated lung oligometastases, or radiologically suspicious lesions. The nodules had to be less than 3 cm in size, preferably with a bronchus leading directly to the lesion.
The patients had a mean age of 68 years. Their lesions had a mean maximal diameter of 15.2 mm, and 68% were in the peripheral one-third of the lung.
In all, 44 nodules were treated with bronchoscopic transbronchial microwave ablation. The technical success rate was 100%, although eight nodules required double ablation.
The majority of patients (95%) were discharged within 3 days, with 77% discharged on day 1. Complications included mild pain (15.9%), pneumothorax (9.1%), fever/ablation reaction (4.5%), self-limiting hemoptysis (2.3%), and bronchopleural fistula (2.3%).
The ablation zone volume decreased “rapidly” in the first 6-9 months, then leveled off, Dr. Chan noted.
In the 16 nodules with 1 year of follow-up, there were 2 complete responses, 13 partial responses, and no progressions.
It’s too soon to know if the recurrence rate will be lower than the up to 30% recurrence rate with percutaneous microwave ablation, and it’s too soon to know if, without transpleural puncture, the risk of tumor seeding is lower, Dr. Chan said.
“This presentation ... is extremely important,” said invited discussant John Edwards, MBChB, PhD, of Sheffield (England) Teaching Hospitals National Health Service Foundation Trust. “There is a great novelty value in the combination. The complications and the radiologic response rates were quite acceptable.”
The research was funded by the University Grants Committee in Hong Kong. Dr. Chan reported having no disclosures. Her colleagues disclosed relationships with Medtronic, Siemens Healthineers, and Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Edwards disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Zimmer Biomet, Stryker Leibinger, Pacific Biosciences, BioNano Genomics, Argenx, and Moderna.
FROM ELCC 2021
Coffee could be the secret weapon against NAFLD
Treatment of obesity through exercise and diet is unquestionably the foundation of care for patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)/nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). But drinking at least several cups of coffee a day makes for additional powerful medicine, said Manal F. Abdelmalek, MD, MPH, at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease Conference.
“I do recommend at least two to three cups of coffee per day for my patients with NAFLD,” said Dr. Abdelmalek, professor of medicine and a gastroenterologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
Her thinking on this recommendation has been influenced by a meta-analysis of 16 studies including more than 3,000 coffee drinkers and 132,000 nonconsumers; the meta-analysis concluded that coffee drinkers were 39% less likely to develop cirrhosis. There was evidence of a dose-response effect: Consumers of two or more cups daily had a 47% reduction in the risk of cirrhosis, compared with the nondrinkers, while more modest consumption was associated with a 34% reduction. Moreover, the investigators found that coffee consumption was also associated with a 27% reduction in the likelihood of developing advanced hepatic fibrosis, compared with that of non–coffee drinkers.
“What’s even more provocative is the evidence that coffee decreases risk of hepatocellular carcinoma,” the gastroenterologist said.
She highlighted a U.K. meta-analysis of 18 cohort studies with 2.27 million participants and 2,905 cases, along with 8 case-control studies featuring a collective 1,825 cases and 4,652 controls. The investigators reported that drinking at least two cups of coffee per day was associated with a 35% reduction in the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma independent of a patient’s stage of liver disease or the presence or absence of high alcohol consumption, smoking, obesity, type 2 diabetes, or hepatitis B or C infection.
“This is very impressive data and certainly not something you should ignore,” according to Dr. Abdelmalek.
There is also “fairly strong” data that coffee reduces the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, she continued. The mechanism of these benefits is unclear.
“It’s not known if it’s caffeine or some other constituent of the bean; a phenol, for example. The story behind tea is not as compelling as for coffee, so it may be something beyond caffeine,” according to Dr. Abdelmalek.
Session moderator Norah A. Terrault, MD, MPH, noted that drinking at least two cups of coffee per day has also been associated with reduced risk of cirrhosis in patients with hepatitis B or hepatitis C infection. So she too is on board the coffee express.
“I’m also a big proponent of recommending coffee. We take so much away from the patients, it’s nice to give them back something, right?” said Dr. Terrault, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology and liver diseases at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Diet and exercise
Most of the major gastroenterology professional societies emphasize in their practice guidelines for NAFLD that diet and routine physical activity are mandatory. If sustained, these lifestyle modifications can improve NASH and hepatic fibrosis, as well as reduce the risk of portal hypertension and liver cancer. Dr. Abdelmalek counsels her patients to aim for at least 150 minutes per week of moderate or vigorous aerobic and/or resistance exercise. She doesn’t care about the exercise intensity or type, noting that what she considers to be “a beautifully done intervention trial” in 220 patients over the course of 12 months concluded that both moderate and vigorous exercise achieved a significant reduction in intrahepatic triglyceride content.
“Tailor exercise to what patients can do, what they enjoy, and what they can sustain,” she advised.
She identifies and addresses all modifiable risk factors for NAFLD, including hypertension, diabetes, abdominal obesity, smoking, excessive alcohol intake, obstructive sleep apnea, and an unhealthy diet high in fat, red meat, and fructose.
“The primary message I tell my patients interested in dieting is: I want you to find the right approach for you. There is no right or wrong answer. For some of my patients, it’s intermittent fasting and having their first meal at 2 or 3 o’clock in the afternoon. For others it’s a Weight Watchers approach, or a Mediterranean diet, or it’s high protein. The bottom line of my approach is a gravitation away from excess carbohydrates and fats, and beyond that if I can achieve weight loss through caloric restriction or intermittent fasting, I try to tailor that to my patients’ preferences. I do send them to nutritionists,” the gastroenterologist said.
A 7%-10% weight loss has been shown to result in resolution of NASH in 64%-90% of patients. However, only about 10% of patients who achieve clinically meaningful weight loss short term are able to maintain it at 1 year, so ongoing follow-up is essential.
At present there is no FDA-approved therapy for NAFLD/NASH. Beyond diet and exercise – and coffee – there is the option of antiobesity weight-loss drug therapy, which is about as effective as successful lifestyle modification, and bariatric surgery, which is dramatically effective. French surgeons recently reported in a prospective single-center study of 180 severely obese patients with NASH who underwent bariatric surgery that, at 5 years’ follow-up, 84% of them had resolution of NASH with no worsening of liver fibrosis. Indeed, 63% of patients with mild fibrosis at baseline experienced complete resolution of their fibrosis at follow-up, as did 46% of those with more severe baseline bridging fibrosis.
Dr. Abdelmalek reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding her presentation.
Treatment of obesity through exercise and diet is unquestionably the foundation of care for patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)/nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). But drinking at least several cups of coffee a day makes for additional powerful medicine, said Manal F. Abdelmalek, MD, MPH, at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease Conference.
“I do recommend at least two to three cups of coffee per day for my patients with NAFLD,” said Dr. Abdelmalek, professor of medicine and a gastroenterologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
Her thinking on this recommendation has been influenced by a meta-analysis of 16 studies including more than 3,000 coffee drinkers and 132,000 nonconsumers; the meta-analysis concluded that coffee drinkers were 39% less likely to develop cirrhosis. There was evidence of a dose-response effect: Consumers of two or more cups daily had a 47% reduction in the risk of cirrhosis, compared with the nondrinkers, while more modest consumption was associated with a 34% reduction. Moreover, the investigators found that coffee consumption was also associated with a 27% reduction in the likelihood of developing advanced hepatic fibrosis, compared with that of non–coffee drinkers.
“What’s even more provocative is the evidence that coffee decreases risk of hepatocellular carcinoma,” the gastroenterologist said.
She highlighted a U.K. meta-analysis of 18 cohort studies with 2.27 million participants and 2,905 cases, along with 8 case-control studies featuring a collective 1,825 cases and 4,652 controls. The investigators reported that drinking at least two cups of coffee per day was associated with a 35% reduction in the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma independent of a patient’s stage of liver disease or the presence or absence of high alcohol consumption, smoking, obesity, type 2 diabetes, or hepatitis B or C infection.
“This is very impressive data and certainly not something you should ignore,” according to Dr. Abdelmalek.
There is also “fairly strong” data that coffee reduces the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, she continued. The mechanism of these benefits is unclear.
“It’s not known if it’s caffeine or some other constituent of the bean; a phenol, for example. The story behind tea is not as compelling as for coffee, so it may be something beyond caffeine,” according to Dr. Abdelmalek.
Session moderator Norah A. Terrault, MD, MPH, noted that drinking at least two cups of coffee per day has also been associated with reduced risk of cirrhosis in patients with hepatitis B or hepatitis C infection. So she too is on board the coffee express.
“I’m also a big proponent of recommending coffee. We take so much away from the patients, it’s nice to give them back something, right?” said Dr. Terrault, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology and liver diseases at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Diet and exercise
Most of the major gastroenterology professional societies emphasize in their practice guidelines for NAFLD that diet and routine physical activity are mandatory. If sustained, these lifestyle modifications can improve NASH and hepatic fibrosis, as well as reduce the risk of portal hypertension and liver cancer. Dr. Abdelmalek counsels her patients to aim for at least 150 minutes per week of moderate or vigorous aerobic and/or resistance exercise. She doesn’t care about the exercise intensity or type, noting that what she considers to be “a beautifully done intervention trial” in 220 patients over the course of 12 months concluded that both moderate and vigorous exercise achieved a significant reduction in intrahepatic triglyceride content.
“Tailor exercise to what patients can do, what they enjoy, and what they can sustain,” she advised.
She identifies and addresses all modifiable risk factors for NAFLD, including hypertension, diabetes, abdominal obesity, smoking, excessive alcohol intake, obstructive sleep apnea, and an unhealthy diet high in fat, red meat, and fructose.
“The primary message I tell my patients interested in dieting is: I want you to find the right approach for you. There is no right or wrong answer. For some of my patients, it’s intermittent fasting and having their first meal at 2 or 3 o’clock in the afternoon. For others it’s a Weight Watchers approach, or a Mediterranean diet, or it’s high protein. The bottom line of my approach is a gravitation away from excess carbohydrates and fats, and beyond that if I can achieve weight loss through caloric restriction or intermittent fasting, I try to tailor that to my patients’ preferences. I do send them to nutritionists,” the gastroenterologist said.
A 7%-10% weight loss has been shown to result in resolution of NASH in 64%-90% of patients. However, only about 10% of patients who achieve clinically meaningful weight loss short term are able to maintain it at 1 year, so ongoing follow-up is essential.
At present there is no FDA-approved therapy for NAFLD/NASH. Beyond diet and exercise – and coffee – there is the option of antiobesity weight-loss drug therapy, which is about as effective as successful lifestyle modification, and bariatric surgery, which is dramatically effective. French surgeons recently reported in a prospective single-center study of 180 severely obese patients with NASH who underwent bariatric surgery that, at 5 years’ follow-up, 84% of them had resolution of NASH with no worsening of liver fibrosis. Indeed, 63% of patients with mild fibrosis at baseline experienced complete resolution of their fibrosis at follow-up, as did 46% of those with more severe baseline bridging fibrosis.
Dr. Abdelmalek reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding her presentation.
Treatment of obesity through exercise and diet is unquestionably the foundation of care for patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)/nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). But drinking at least several cups of coffee a day makes for additional powerful medicine, said Manal F. Abdelmalek, MD, MPH, at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease Conference.
“I do recommend at least two to three cups of coffee per day for my patients with NAFLD,” said Dr. Abdelmalek, professor of medicine and a gastroenterologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
Her thinking on this recommendation has been influenced by a meta-analysis of 16 studies including more than 3,000 coffee drinkers and 132,000 nonconsumers; the meta-analysis concluded that coffee drinkers were 39% less likely to develop cirrhosis. There was evidence of a dose-response effect: Consumers of two or more cups daily had a 47% reduction in the risk of cirrhosis, compared with the nondrinkers, while more modest consumption was associated with a 34% reduction. Moreover, the investigators found that coffee consumption was also associated with a 27% reduction in the likelihood of developing advanced hepatic fibrosis, compared with that of non–coffee drinkers.
“What’s even more provocative is the evidence that coffee decreases risk of hepatocellular carcinoma,” the gastroenterologist said.
She highlighted a U.K. meta-analysis of 18 cohort studies with 2.27 million participants and 2,905 cases, along with 8 case-control studies featuring a collective 1,825 cases and 4,652 controls. The investigators reported that drinking at least two cups of coffee per day was associated with a 35% reduction in the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma independent of a patient’s stage of liver disease or the presence or absence of high alcohol consumption, smoking, obesity, type 2 diabetes, or hepatitis B or C infection.
“This is very impressive data and certainly not something you should ignore,” according to Dr. Abdelmalek.
There is also “fairly strong” data that coffee reduces the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, she continued. The mechanism of these benefits is unclear.
“It’s not known if it’s caffeine or some other constituent of the bean; a phenol, for example. The story behind tea is not as compelling as for coffee, so it may be something beyond caffeine,” according to Dr. Abdelmalek.
Session moderator Norah A. Terrault, MD, MPH, noted that drinking at least two cups of coffee per day has also been associated with reduced risk of cirrhosis in patients with hepatitis B or hepatitis C infection. So she too is on board the coffee express.
“I’m also a big proponent of recommending coffee. We take so much away from the patients, it’s nice to give them back something, right?” said Dr. Terrault, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology and liver diseases at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Diet and exercise
Most of the major gastroenterology professional societies emphasize in their practice guidelines for NAFLD that diet and routine physical activity are mandatory. If sustained, these lifestyle modifications can improve NASH and hepatic fibrosis, as well as reduce the risk of portal hypertension and liver cancer. Dr. Abdelmalek counsels her patients to aim for at least 150 minutes per week of moderate or vigorous aerobic and/or resistance exercise. She doesn’t care about the exercise intensity or type, noting that what she considers to be “a beautifully done intervention trial” in 220 patients over the course of 12 months concluded that both moderate and vigorous exercise achieved a significant reduction in intrahepatic triglyceride content.
“Tailor exercise to what patients can do, what they enjoy, and what they can sustain,” she advised.
She identifies and addresses all modifiable risk factors for NAFLD, including hypertension, diabetes, abdominal obesity, smoking, excessive alcohol intake, obstructive sleep apnea, and an unhealthy diet high in fat, red meat, and fructose.
“The primary message I tell my patients interested in dieting is: I want you to find the right approach for you. There is no right or wrong answer. For some of my patients, it’s intermittent fasting and having their first meal at 2 or 3 o’clock in the afternoon. For others it’s a Weight Watchers approach, or a Mediterranean diet, or it’s high protein. The bottom line of my approach is a gravitation away from excess carbohydrates and fats, and beyond that if I can achieve weight loss through caloric restriction or intermittent fasting, I try to tailor that to my patients’ preferences. I do send them to nutritionists,” the gastroenterologist said.
A 7%-10% weight loss has been shown to result in resolution of NASH in 64%-90% of patients. However, only about 10% of patients who achieve clinically meaningful weight loss short term are able to maintain it at 1 year, so ongoing follow-up is essential.
At present there is no FDA-approved therapy for NAFLD/NASH. Beyond diet and exercise – and coffee – there is the option of antiobesity weight-loss drug therapy, which is about as effective as successful lifestyle modification, and bariatric surgery, which is dramatically effective. French surgeons recently reported in a prospective single-center study of 180 severely obese patients with NASH who underwent bariatric surgery that, at 5 years’ follow-up, 84% of them had resolution of NASH with no worsening of liver fibrosis. Indeed, 63% of patients with mild fibrosis at baseline experienced complete resolution of their fibrosis at follow-up, as did 46% of those with more severe baseline bridging fibrosis.
Dr. Abdelmalek reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding her presentation.
FROM GUILD 2021
Camrelizumab ‘another brick in the wall’ against squamous NSCLC
.
Results of the CAMEL-sq trial showed a progression-free survival (PFS) advantage of 3.6 months with camrelizumab plus chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy plus placebo (P < .0001). The median overall survival (OS) was not reached in the camrelizumab arm, but it was significantly better than in the placebo arm (P < .0001).
Camrelizumab plus chemotherapy is already a standard of care in China for patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC who are negative for EGFR and ALK mutations, study investigator Caicun Zhou, MD, PhD, said when presenting the CAMEL-sq results at the European Lung Cancer Virtual Congress 2021 (Abstract 96O).
The CAMEL-sq findings now support the combination as a “standard first-line treatment for advanced squamous NSCLC,” said Dr. Zhou of Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital and Tongji University.
“The study has kind of changed our daily practice,” he said. “I do think we will have the label, camrelizumab plus chemo as first-line treatment for squamous [NSCLC] in China, maybe in a couple of months.”
“Camrelizumab will most likely be another brick in the wall for our Chinese patients and colleagues to use for patients with squamous histology, non–small cell lung cancer in addition to pembrolizumab,” said Julie Renee Brahmer, MD, of Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, who was the invited discussant for the trial.
Dr. Brahmer noted that the PFS hazard ratio in this trial – 0.37 – was “impressive.”
Patients and treatment
CAMEL-sq is a phase 3, double-blind, multicenter trial. The 390 patients enrolled had pathologically-confirmed stage IIIB or IV squamous NSCLC, and they had not received any prior treatment.
Patients received four to six cycles of chemotherapy, consisting of carboplatin and paclitaxel given every 3 weeks. Camrelizumab was added to one arm at a dose of 200 mg, and placebo was added to the other.
This was followed by a maintenance phase in which patients remained on active treatment with camrelizumab or placebo for up to 2 years. Patients in the placebo arm could cross over to camrelizumab at progression.
The median age of patients was similar in the camrelizumab and placebo arms (64 years and 62 years, respectively). The majority of study subjects in both arms were men (more than 90%), had a history of smoking (more than 80%), and had stage IV disease (more than 70%).
Efficacy and safety
The median PFS was 8.5 months in the camrelizumab arm and 4.9 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.37; P < .0001). The median OS was not reached in the camrelizumab arm and was 14.5 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.55, P < .0001).
The survival benefits were observed in spite of a crossover rate of 46.9%, Dr. Zhou noted.
Furthermore, survival benefits were consistent across all the subgroups tested. Regardless of age, sex, performance status, smoking history, disease stage, presence of liver or brain metastases, or PD-L1 expression, there was an apparent advantage of camrelizumab over placebo.
The objective response rate was higher in the camrelizumab arm than in the placebo arm, at 64.8% and 36.7%, respectively (P < .0001).
The clinical response seen with camrelizumab was “robust and durable,” Dr. Zhou said. Indeed, the duration of response was 13.1 months in the camrelizumab arm and 4.4 months in the placebo arm.
Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were reported in a similar percentage of camrelizumab- or placebo-treated patients (73.6% and 71.4%, respectively). However, “the majority of treatment-related adverse effects were chemotherapy related,” Dr. Zhou pointed out. This included decreased total white blood cell, neutrophil, red blood cell, and platelet counts as well as alopecia and increased liver enzymes.
Immune-related AEs occurred in 76.7% of patients in the camrelizumab arm and 20.4% of those in the placebo arm.
“The majority of immune-related adverse events were grade 1 or grade 2; easily manageable in our daily practice,” Dr. Zhou noted.
Putting CAMEL-sq into perspective
Data from other trials of immunotherapy-chemotherapy combinations in squamous NSCLC have been presented recently but with less impressive results, Dr. Brahmer said.
In one trial – ORIENT-12 – sintilimab was combined with gemcitabine and cisplatin (ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA56). The median PFS, per investigators, was 5.5 months with sintilimab and 4.9 months without it, both of which are lower than the 8.5 months seen with camrelizumab plus chemotherapy in the CAMEL-sq trial.
Another trial is KEYNOTE-407, in which patients received pembrolizumab or placebo plus a carboplatin-paclitaxel (or nab-paclitaxel) regimen. Three-year follow-up data from the trial were presented at ELCC 2021 (Abstract 97O). Continued improvements in second PFS (HR, 0.59) and OS (HR, 0.71) were observed with pembrolizumab-chemotherapy versus placebo-chemotherapy.
“We have to remember the high PD-L1-negative disease rate in the CAMEL-sq study, compared to the KEYNOTE-407 rate,” before stacking the two studies against each other, Dr. Brahmer noted. In KEYNOTE-407, almost 35% of patients had PD-L1 expression of less than 1%, compared with nearly 50% in the CAMEL-sq study.
That aside, “very similar impressive 1-year progression-free survival rates are seen on both studies,” Dr. Brahmer said. “I hope that camrelizumab has continued follow-up so we can see how these patients will do long-term.
“My eyebrows were raised a little bit at the camrelizumab immune-related AE rate of almost 76%, compared to the immune-related AE rate of about 36% in the KEYNOTE-407 study,” Dr. Brahmer said.
She noted, however, that almost two-thirds of the immune-related AEs in CAMEL-sq were due to reactive cutaneous capillary endothelial proliferation, which doesn’t appear to have been previously reported with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors. This is a side effect seen in studies of liver cancer and may be linked to PFS, Dr. Brahmer said.
CAMEL-sq is funded by Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine Co. Ltd. Dr. Zhou disclosed honoraria from multiple pharmaceutical companies, including the study sponsor. Two of Dr. Zhou’s coauthors are employees of the company. Dr. Brahmer disclosed relationships with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lily, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sanofi, Easi, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Regeneron, and RAPT Therapeutics Inc.
.
Results of the CAMEL-sq trial showed a progression-free survival (PFS) advantage of 3.6 months with camrelizumab plus chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy plus placebo (P < .0001). The median overall survival (OS) was not reached in the camrelizumab arm, but it was significantly better than in the placebo arm (P < .0001).
Camrelizumab plus chemotherapy is already a standard of care in China for patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC who are negative for EGFR and ALK mutations, study investigator Caicun Zhou, MD, PhD, said when presenting the CAMEL-sq results at the European Lung Cancer Virtual Congress 2021 (Abstract 96O).
The CAMEL-sq findings now support the combination as a “standard first-line treatment for advanced squamous NSCLC,” said Dr. Zhou of Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital and Tongji University.
“The study has kind of changed our daily practice,” he said. “I do think we will have the label, camrelizumab plus chemo as first-line treatment for squamous [NSCLC] in China, maybe in a couple of months.”
“Camrelizumab will most likely be another brick in the wall for our Chinese patients and colleagues to use for patients with squamous histology, non–small cell lung cancer in addition to pembrolizumab,” said Julie Renee Brahmer, MD, of Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, who was the invited discussant for the trial.
Dr. Brahmer noted that the PFS hazard ratio in this trial – 0.37 – was “impressive.”
Patients and treatment
CAMEL-sq is a phase 3, double-blind, multicenter trial. The 390 patients enrolled had pathologically-confirmed stage IIIB or IV squamous NSCLC, and they had not received any prior treatment.
Patients received four to six cycles of chemotherapy, consisting of carboplatin and paclitaxel given every 3 weeks. Camrelizumab was added to one arm at a dose of 200 mg, and placebo was added to the other.
This was followed by a maintenance phase in which patients remained on active treatment with camrelizumab or placebo for up to 2 years. Patients in the placebo arm could cross over to camrelizumab at progression.
The median age of patients was similar in the camrelizumab and placebo arms (64 years and 62 years, respectively). The majority of study subjects in both arms were men (more than 90%), had a history of smoking (more than 80%), and had stage IV disease (more than 70%).
Efficacy and safety
The median PFS was 8.5 months in the camrelizumab arm and 4.9 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.37; P < .0001). The median OS was not reached in the camrelizumab arm and was 14.5 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.55, P < .0001).
The survival benefits were observed in spite of a crossover rate of 46.9%, Dr. Zhou noted.
Furthermore, survival benefits were consistent across all the subgroups tested. Regardless of age, sex, performance status, smoking history, disease stage, presence of liver or brain metastases, or PD-L1 expression, there was an apparent advantage of camrelizumab over placebo.
The objective response rate was higher in the camrelizumab arm than in the placebo arm, at 64.8% and 36.7%, respectively (P < .0001).
The clinical response seen with camrelizumab was “robust and durable,” Dr. Zhou said. Indeed, the duration of response was 13.1 months in the camrelizumab arm and 4.4 months in the placebo arm.
Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were reported in a similar percentage of camrelizumab- or placebo-treated patients (73.6% and 71.4%, respectively). However, “the majority of treatment-related adverse effects were chemotherapy related,” Dr. Zhou pointed out. This included decreased total white blood cell, neutrophil, red blood cell, and platelet counts as well as alopecia and increased liver enzymes.
Immune-related AEs occurred in 76.7% of patients in the camrelizumab arm and 20.4% of those in the placebo arm.
“The majority of immune-related adverse events were grade 1 or grade 2; easily manageable in our daily practice,” Dr. Zhou noted.
Putting CAMEL-sq into perspective
Data from other trials of immunotherapy-chemotherapy combinations in squamous NSCLC have been presented recently but with less impressive results, Dr. Brahmer said.
In one trial – ORIENT-12 – sintilimab was combined with gemcitabine and cisplatin (ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA56). The median PFS, per investigators, was 5.5 months with sintilimab and 4.9 months without it, both of which are lower than the 8.5 months seen with camrelizumab plus chemotherapy in the CAMEL-sq trial.
Another trial is KEYNOTE-407, in which patients received pembrolizumab or placebo plus a carboplatin-paclitaxel (or nab-paclitaxel) regimen. Three-year follow-up data from the trial were presented at ELCC 2021 (Abstract 97O). Continued improvements in second PFS (HR, 0.59) and OS (HR, 0.71) were observed with pembrolizumab-chemotherapy versus placebo-chemotherapy.
“We have to remember the high PD-L1-negative disease rate in the CAMEL-sq study, compared to the KEYNOTE-407 rate,” before stacking the two studies against each other, Dr. Brahmer noted. In KEYNOTE-407, almost 35% of patients had PD-L1 expression of less than 1%, compared with nearly 50% in the CAMEL-sq study.
That aside, “very similar impressive 1-year progression-free survival rates are seen on both studies,” Dr. Brahmer said. “I hope that camrelizumab has continued follow-up so we can see how these patients will do long-term.
“My eyebrows were raised a little bit at the camrelizumab immune-related AE rate of almost 76%, compared to the immune-related AE rate of about 36% in the KEYNOTE-407 study,” Dr. Brahmer said.
She noted, however, that almost two-thirds of the immune-related AEs in CAMEL-sq were due to reactive cutaneous capillary endothelial proliferation, which doesn’t appear to have been previously reported with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors. This is a side effect seen in studies of liver cancer and may be linked to PFS, Dr. Brahmer said.
CAMEL-sq is funded by Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine Co. Ltd. Dr. Zhou disclosed honoraria from multiple pharmaceutical companies, including the study sponsor. Two of Dr. Zhou’s coauthors are employees of the company. Dr. Brahmer disclosed relationships with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lily, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sanofi, Easi, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Regeneron, and RAPT Therapeutics Inc.
.
Results of the CAMEL-sq trial showed a progression-free survival (PFS) advantage of 3.6 months with camrelizumab plus chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy plus placebo (P < .0001). The median overall survival (OS) was not reached in the camrelizumab arm, but it was significantly better than in the placebo arm (P < .0001).
Camrelizumab plus chemotherapy is already a standard of care in China for patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC who are negative for EGFR and ALK mutations, study investigator Caicun Zhou, MD, PhD, said when presenting the CAMEL-sq results at the European Lung Cancer Virtual Congress 2021 (Abstract 96O).
The CAMEL-sq findings now support the combination as a “standard first-line treatment for advanced squamous NSCLC,” said Dr. Zhou of Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital and Tongji University.
“The study has kind of changed our daily practice,” he said. “I do think we will have the label, camrelizumab plus chemo as first-line treatment for squamous [NSCLC] in China, maybe in a couple of months.”
“Camrelizumab will most likely be another brick in the wall for our Chinese patients and colleagues to use for patients with squamous histology, non–small cell lung cancer in addition to pembrolizumab,” said Julie Renee Brahmer, MD, of Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, who was the invited discussant for the trial.
Dr. Brahmer noted that the PFS hazard ratio in this trial – 0.37 – was “impressive.”
Patients and treatment
CAMEL-sq is a phase 3, double-blind, multicenter trial. The 390 patients enrolled had pathologically-confirmed stage IIIB or IV squamous NSCLC, and they had not received any prior treatment.
Patients received four to six cycles of chemotherapy, consisting of carboplatin and paclitaxel given every 3 weeks. Camrelizumab was added to one arm at a dose of 200 mg, and placebo was added to the other.
This was followed by a maintenance phase in which patients remained on active treatment with camrelizumab or placebo for up to 2 years. Patients in the placebo arm could cross over to camrelizumab at progression.
The median age of patients was similar in the camrelizumab and placebo arms (64 years and 62 years, respectively). The majority of study subjects in both arms were men (more than 90%), had a history of smoking (more than 80%), and had stage IV disease (more than 70%).
Efficacy and safety
The median PFS was 8.5 months in the camrelizumab arm and 4.9 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.37; P < .0001). The median OS was not reached in the camrelizumab arm and was 14.5 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.55, P < .0001).
The survival benefits were observed in spite of a crossover rate of 46.9%, Dr. Zhou noted.
Furthermore, survival benefits were consistent across all the subgroups tested. Regardless of age, sex, performance status, smoking history, disease stage, presence of liver or brain metastases, or PD-L1 expression, there was an apparent advantage of camrelizumab over placebo.
The objective response rate was higher in the camrelizumab arm than in the placebo arm, at 64.8% and 36.7%, respectively (P < .0001).
The clinical response seen with camrelizumab was “robust and durable,” Dr. Zhou said. Indeed, the duration of response was 13.1 months in the camrelizumab arm and 4.4 months in the placebo arm.
Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were reported in a similar percentage of camrelizumab- or placebo-treated patients (73.6% and 71.4%, respectively). However, “the majority of treatment-related adverse effects were chemotherapy related,” Dr. Zhou pointed out. This included decreased total white blood cell, neutrophil, red blood cell, and platelet counts as well as alopecia and increased liver enzymes.
Immune-related AEs occurred in 76.7% of patients in the camrelizumab arm and 20.4% of those in the placebo arm.
“The majority of immune-related adverse events were grade 1 or grade 2; easily manageable in our daily practice,” Dr. Zhou noted.
Putting CAMEL-sq into perspective
Data from other trials of immunotherapy-chemotherapy combinations in squamous NSCLC have been presented recently but with less impressive results, Dr. Brahmer said.
In one trial – ORIENT-12 – sintilimab was combined with gemcitabine and cisplatin (ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA56). The median PFS, per investigators, was 5.5 months with sintilimab and 4.9 months without it, both of which are lower than the 8.5 months seen with camrelizumab plus chemotherapy in the CAMEL-sq trial.
Another trial is KEYNOTE-407, in which patients received pembrolizumab or placebo plus a carboplatin-paclitaxel (or nab-paclitaxel) regimen. Three-year follow-up data from the trial were presented at ELCC 2021 (Abstract 97O). Continued improvements in second PFS (HR, 0.59) and OS (HR, 0.71) were observed with pembrolizumab-chemotherapy versus placebo-chemotherapy.
“We have to remember the high PD-L1-negative disease rate in the CAMEL-sq study, compared to the KEYNOTE-407 rate,” before stacking the two studies against each other, Dr. Brahmer noted. In KEYNOTE-407, almost 35% of patients had PD-L1 expression of less than 1%, compared with nearly 50% in the CAMEL-sq study.
That aside, “very similar impressive 1-year progression-free survival rates are seen on both studies,” Dr. Brahmer said. “I hope that camrelizumab has continued follow-up so we can see how these patients will do long-term.
“My eyebrows were raised a little bit at the camrelizumab immune-related AE rate of almost 76%, compared to the immune-related AE rate of about 36% in the KEYNOTE-407 study,” Dr. Brahmer said.
She noted, however, that almost two-thirds of the immune-related AEs in CAMEL-sq were due to reactive cutaneous capillary endothelial proliferation, which doesn’t appear to have been previously reported with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors. This is a side effect seen in studies of liver cancer and may be linked to PFS, Dr. Brahmer said.
CAMEL-sq is funded by Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine Co. Ltd. Dr. Zhou disclosed honoraria from multiple pharmaceutical companies, including the study sponsor. Two of Dr. Zhou’s coauthors are employees of the company. Dr. Brahmer disclosed relationships with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lily, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sanofi, Easi, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Regeneron, and RAPT Therapeutics Inc.
FROM ELCC 2021
Children could become eligible for a COVID-19 vaccine by fall, expert predicts
If everything goes as planned,
According to Yvonne Maldonado, MD, Pfizer has fully enrolled adolescent trials and Moderna is currently enrolling 3,000 adolescents in a safety and reactogenicity trial known as TeenCOVE, in which participants will receive an intramuscular injection of 100 mcg mRNA-1273 on day 1 and on day 29. Meanwhile, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca will be starting to enroll older children and adolescents into studies within the next several weeks.
The companies are also planning to enroll younger children, Dr. Maldonado, the Taube professor of global health and infectious diseases at Stanford (Calif.) University, said during the Society for Pediatric Dermatology pre-AAD meeting. “At least two of the vaccine companies have indicated that they would like to start enrolling children as young as 2-5 years of age and eventually getting down to infants and toddlers if the vaccines prove to be safe and effective in the older children. Eventually, we hope to get to the level where we can have several vaccine candidates for all children 6 months of age and older.”
In the future, she said, infectious disease experts hope to see antiviral, immunomodulatory, anti-inflammatory, and monoclonal therapies for all populations including children, although trials in this population have not begun. “Clinical trials must be flexible and adaptive to deal with children and adolescents,” added Dr. Maldonado, who is also senior associate dean for faculty development and diversity at Stanford.
“We would ideally like to have new correlates of protection, as well as biomarkers to follow for evidence of effectiveness. We also would love to see vaccines in the pediatric population as soon as possible, because herd immunity is the ultimate goal for protection against this disease and prevention of additional transmission over time.” However, she said, the degree and durability of immunity has yet to be determined, and vaccine-associated immune effects are unknown. In the meantime, infectious disease researchers expect nonpharmacologic interventions, such as wearing face masks and social distancing to continue for an undefined period.
(Less than 2 weeks after Dr. Maldonado spoke at the SPD meeting, Pfizer announced in a press release that, in phase 3 clinical trials, the company’s coronavirus vaccine was 100% effective in protecting children aged 12-15 years from infection, with a “robust” antibody responses and side effects similar to those experienced by those aged 16-25 years. The company also announced that it plans to seek Food and Drug Administration EUA for this age group. Asked to comment on this update, Dr. Maldonado said the results released by Pfizer “suggest that their COVID-19 vaccine is very safe and highly effective in preventing COVID-19 among children 12-15 years of age.” She added that additional data from the Pfizer trials as well as from Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccine trials “will hopefully lead to FDA EUA review in the coming weeks,” and that COVID-19 vaccinations for children “may be possible by this summer.”)
Children with underlying diseases or on immune suppressants
At the SPD meeting, an attendee asked if there were any pediatric patients for whom she would not recommend receiving a COVID-19 vaccine because of an underlying disease or concurrent therapy with immune suppressants. “We don’t have those data yet,” Dr. Maldonado said. “Based on what we’re seeing with adults, it does appear that those with underlying conditions are at somewhat higher risk of developing severe infection and may therefore most likely to need vaccination. Most of those risks are cardiovascular, obesity, and other factors, but not necessarily immunocompromising conditions. More likely what we’re seeing is that people with underlying immunocompromising conditions may not mount a good response to the vaccines at this time. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t give the vaccines, but we need to learn more about that.”
Dr. Maldonado went on to note that, as vaccine manufacturers commence pediatric trials, healthy children will be tested first, followed in due time with children who have immunocompromised conditions. “The question will be whether or not we should give monoclonal antibodies to those particular children to help boost their immunity to SARS-CoV-2, because they might not have a good response to the vaccines,” she said. “Those things need to be sorted out, but there’s no safety signal or concerns at this point for vaccine to be given to immunocompromised individuals.”
Another meeting attendee asked Dr. Maldonado if she thinks there is a practical role for assessing markers of T-cell immunity when evaluating suspected COVID-19 patients who may test negative on serology, Dr. Maldonado said that she and her colleagues are seeking pediatric patients who were treated for COVID-19 at Stanford, in an effort to sort this out.
They are checking peripheral blood mononuclear cells in these patients “to try and tease out what the immune response is in kids who have serious disease, versus those who came in with acute disease, versus those who are asymptomatic,” and comparing them with children who don’t have infection, she explained. “The question is, what is the role of T cells and how much do they contribute? One of the biggest questions we have is, do we have an immune correlate? Can we detect a particular level of neutralizing antibody that seems to be protective? If so, how long is it protective, and can we look for T- and B-cell memory cells and effector vector cells and see how long those effector vector cells can be active in protection? Those are studies that are ongoing now.”
Dr. Maldonado disclosed that she is a member of the data safety monitoring board for a non–COVID-19 vaccine being developed by Pfizer.
If everything goes as planned,
According to Yvonne Maldonado, MD, Pfizer has fully enrolled adolescent trials and Moderna is currently enrolling 3,000 adolescents in a safety and reactogenicity trial known as TeenCOVE, in which participants will receive an intramuscular injection of 100 mcg mRNA-1273 on day 1 and on day 29. Meanwhile, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca will be starting to enroll older children and adolescents into studies within the next several weeks.
The companies are also planning to enroll younger children, Dr. Maldonado, the Taube professor of global health and infectious diseases at Stanford (Calif.) University, said during the Society for Pediatric Dermatology pre-AAD meeting. “At least two of the vaccine companies have indicated that they would like to start enrolling children as young as 2-5 years of age and eventually getting down to infants and toddlers if the vaccines prove to be safe and effective in the older children. Eventually, we hope to get to the level where we can have several vaccine candidates for all children 6 months of age and older.”
In the future, she said, infectious disease experts hope to see antiviral, immunomodulatory, anti-inflammatory, and monoclonal therapies for all populations including children, although trials in this population have not begun. “Clinical trials must be flexible and adaptive to deal with children and adolescents,” added Dr. Maldonado, who is also senior associate dean for faculty development and diversity at Stanford.
“We would ideally like to have new correlates of protection, as well as biomarkers to follow for evidence of effectiveness. We also would love to see vaccines in the pediatric population as soon as possible, because herd immunity is the ultimate goal for protection against this disease and prevention of additional transmission over time.” However, she said, the degree and durability of immunity has yet to be determined, and vaccine-associated immune effects are unknown. In the meantime, infectious disease researchers expect nonpharmacologic interventions, such as wearing face masks and social distancing to continue for an undefined period.
(Less than 2 weeks after Dr. Maldonado spoke at the SPD meeting, Pfizer announced in a press release that, in phase 3 clinical trials, the company’s coronavirus vaccine was 100% effective in protecting children aged 12-15 years from infection, with a “robust” antibody responses and side effects similar to those experienced by those aged 16-25 years. The company also announced that it plans to seek Food and Drug Administration EUA for this age group. Asked to comment on this update, Dr. Maldonado said the results released by Pfizer “suggest that their COVID-19 vaccine is very safe and highly effective in preventing COVID-19 among children 12-15 years of age.” She added that additional data from the Pfizer trials as well as from Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccine trials “will hopefully lead to FDA EUA review in the coming weeks,” and that COVID-19 vaccinations for children “may be possible by this summer.”)
Children with underlying diseases or on immune suppressants
At the SPD meeting, an attendee asked if there were any pediatric patients for whom she would not recommend receiving a COVID-19 vaccine because of an underlying disease or concurrent therapy with immune suppressants. “We don’t have those data yet,” Dr. Maldonado said. “Based on what we’re seeing with adults, it does appear that those with underlying conditions are at somewhat higher risk of developing severe infection and may therefore most likely to need vaccination. Most of those risks are cardiovascular, obesity, and other factors, but not necessarily immunocompromising conditions. More likely what we’re seeing is that people with underlying immunocompromising conditions may not mount a good response to the vaccines at this time. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t give the vaccines, but we need to learn more about that.”
Dr. Maldonado went on to note that, as vaccine manufacturers commence pediatric trials, healthy children will be tested first, followed in due time with children who have immunocompromised conditions. “The question will be whether or not we should give monoclonal antibodies to those particular children to help boost their immunity to SARS-CoV-2, because they might not have a good response to the vaccines,” she said. “Those things need to be sorted out, but there’s no safety signal or concerns at this point for vaccine to be given to immunocompromised individuals.”
Another meeting attendee asked Dr. Maldonado if she thinks there is a practical role for assessing markers of T-cell immunity when evaluating suspected COVID-19 patients who may test negative on serology, Dr. Maldonado said that she and her colleagues are seeking pediatric patients who were treated for COVID-19 at Stanford, in an effort to sort this out.
They are checking peripheral blood mononuclear cells in these patients “to try and tease out what the immune response is in kids who have serious disease, versus those who came in with acute disease, versus those who are asymptomatic,” and comparing them with children who don’t have infection, she explained. “The question is, what is the role of T cells and how much do they contribute? One of the biggest questions we have is, do we have an immune correlate? Can we detect a particular level of neutralizing antibody that seems to be protective? If so, how long is it protective, and can we look for T- and B-cell memory cells and effector vector cells and see how long those effector vector cells can be active in protection? Those are studies that are ongoing now.”
Dr. Maldonado disclosed that she is a member of the data safety monitoring board for a non–COVID-19 vaccine being developed by Pfizer.
If everything goes as planned,
According to Yvonne Maldonado, MD, Pfizer has fully enrolled adolescent trials and Moderna is currently enrolling 3,000 adolescents in a safety and reactogenicity trial known as TeenCOVE, in which participants will receive an intramuscular injection of 100 mcg mRNA-1273 on day 1 and on day 29. Meanwhile, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca will be starting to enroll older children and adolescents into studies within the next several weeks.
The companies are also planning to enroll younger children, Dr. Maldonado, the Taube professor of global health and infectious diseases at Stanford (Calif.) University, said during the Society for Pediatric Dermatology pre-AAD meeting. “At least two of the vaccine companies have indicated that they would like to start enrolling children as young as 2-5 years of age and eventually getting down to infants and toddlers if the vaccines prove to be safe and effective in the older children. Eventually, we hope to get to the level where we can have several vaccine candidates for all children 6 months of age and older.”
In the future, she said, infectious disease experts hope to see antiviral, immunomodulatory, anti-inflammatory, and monoclonal therapies for all populations including children, although trials in this population have not begun. “Clinical trials must be flexible and adaptive to deal with children and adolescents,” added Dr. Maldonado, who is also senior associate dean for faculty development and diversity at Stanford.
“We would ideally like to have new correlates of protection, as well as biomarkers to follow for evidence of effectiveness. We also would love to see vaccines in the pediatric population as soon as possible, because herd immunity is the ultimate goal for protection against this disease and prevention of additional transmission over time.” However, she said, the degree and durability of immunity has yet to be determined, and vaccine-associated immune effects are unknown. In the meantime, infectious disease researchers expect nonpharmacologic interventions, such as wearing face masks and social distancing to continue for an undefined period.
(Less than 2 weeks after Dr. Maldonado spoke at the SPD meeting, Pfizer announced in a press release that, in phase 3 clinical trials, the company’s coronavirus vaccine was 100% effective in protecting children aged 12-15 years from infection, with a “robust” antibody responses and side effects similar to those experienced by those aged 16-25 years. The company also announced that it plans to seek Food and Drug Administration EUA for this age group. Asked to comment on this update, Dr. Maldonado said the results released by Pfizer “suggest that their COVID-19 vaccine is very safe and highly effective in preventing COVID-19 among children 12-15 years of age.” She added that additional data from the Pfizer trials as well as from Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccine trials “will hopefully lead to FDA EUA review in the coming weeks,” and that COVID-19 vaccinations for children “may be possible by this summer.”)
Children with underlying diseases or on immune suppressants
At the SPD meeting, an attendee asked if there were any pediatric patients for whom she would not recommend receiving a COVID-19 vaccine because of an underlying disease or concurrent therapy with immune suppressants. “We don’t have those data yet,” Dr. Maldonado said. “Based on what we’re seeing with adults, it does appear that those with underlying conditions are at somewhat higher risk of developing severe infection and may therefore most likely to need vaccination. Most of those risks are cardiovascular, obesity, and other factors, but not necessarily immunocompromising conditions. More likely what we’re seeing is that people with underlying immunocompromising conditions may not mount a good response to the vaccines at this time. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t give the vaccines, but we need to learn more about that.”
Dr. Maldonado went on to note that, as vaccine manufacturers commence pediatric trials, healthy children will be tested first, followed in due time with children who have immunocompromised conditions. “The question will be whether or not we should give monoclonal antibodies to those particular children to help boost their immunity to SARS-CoV-2, because they might not have a good response to the vaccines,” she said. “Those things need to be sorted out, but there’s no safety signal or concerns at this point for vaccine to be given to immunocompromised individuals.”
Another meeting attendee asked Dr. Maldonado if she thinks there is a practical role for assessing markers of T-cell immunity when evaluating suspected COVID-19 patients who may test negative on serology, Dr. Maldonado said that she and her colleagues are seeking pediatric patients who were treated for COVID-19 at Stanford, in an effort to sort this out.
They are checking peripheral blood mononuclear cells in these patients “to try and tease out what the immune response is in kids who have serious disease, versus those who came in with acute disease, versus those who are asymptomatic,” and comparing them with children who don’t have infection, she explained. “The question is, what is the role of T cells and how much do they contribute? One of the biggest questions we have is, do we have an immune correlate? Can we detect a particular level of neutralizing antibody that seems to be protective? If so, how long is it protective, and can we look for T- and B-cell memory cells and effector vector cells and see how long those effector vector cells can be active in protection? Those are studies that are ongoing now.”
Dr. Maldonado disclosed that she is a member of the data safety monitoring board for a non–COVID-19 vaccine being developed by Pfizer.
FROM THE SPD PRE-AAD MEETING
AI system beats endoscopists for detecting early neoplasia in Barrett’s
One of the top publications in gastroenterology in 2020 was a Dutch study demonstrating that a computer-aided system suitable for real-time use in clinical practice detected early neoplasia in patients with Barrett’s esophagus with impressively greater accuracy than did a group of general endoscopists, according to Douglas A. Corley, MD, PhD.
It’s not just his personal opinion that this was one of the major studies of the past year, either. Analytic tools showed the Dutch report was one of the most frequently downloaded studies in 2020 by both clinical gastroenterologists and researchers, said Dr. Corley, director of delivery science and applied research at Kaiser Permanente of Northern California, Oakland, and a faculty gastroenterologist at the University of California, San Francisco.
The deep-learning system developed, evaluated, and externally validated by the Dutch investigators is designed to reduce the rate of failed detection of high-grade dysplasia and early adenocarcinoma in patients undergoing surveillance by general practice gastrointestinal endoscopists. The false-negative rate in looking for the sometimes subtle mucosal surface abnormalities indicative of early neoplasia is known to be higher among these general endoscopists than that among expert endoscopists, and yet it’s the general endoscopists who perform the majority of cancer surveillance in patients with Barrett’s esophagus.
The Dutch group developed the computer-aided detection system by applying artificial intelligence methods to analyze nearly one half-million endoscopic images of confirmed early neoplasia. Once the system was ready to go, they compared its diagnostic accuracy in 80 patients to that of 53 general, nonexpert endoscopists. The deep-learning system had 93% sensitivity and 83% specificity for identification of early neoplasia, significantly better than the 72% sensitivity and 74% specificity for the general endoscopists. The overall accuracy of the computer-assisted detection system was 88%, compared to 73% for the general endoscopists. Moreover, the deep-learning system achieved greater accuracy than did any single one of the endoscopists.
“I think this will be a really helpful addition, the equivalent of a second endoscopist raising a yellow flag to take a closer look at a particular area. It’ll be complementary,” Dr. Corley said at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease Conference.
An audience member said he’s aware that other computer-assisted detection systems have also shown outstanding performance for the detection of early neoplasia in Barrett’s esophagus. He asked, why aren’t these being deployed yet in routine clinical practice?
Two reasons, Dr. Corley replied. One is that some of those systems aren’t capable of working during real-time endoscopy. Also, industry seems to be taking a wait-and-see approach. The field of applied artificial intelligence is moving incredibly rapidly, and none of the endoscopic equipment manufacturers wants to incorporate a computer-assisted detection system into their gear when rumor has it that an even better system is going to be announced 6 months later. The manufacturers want to make sure they’re operationalizing the right one.
He suspects the major players in the endoscopic imaging industry are waiting to find a computer-assisted detection system that’s been published and widely accepted as clearly a winner. Then they’ll introduce it into their equipment.
“I do think we’re probably going to be seeing these increasingly. Some computer-assisted detection systems for colon cancer are starting to be put into equipment,” he observed.
Dr. Corley reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
Help your patients better understand the risks, testing, and treatment options for Barrett’s esophagus by sharing education from the AGA GI Patient Center: www.gastro.org/BE.
One of the top publications in gastroenterology in 2020 was a Dutch study demonstrating that a computer-aided system suitable for real-time use in clinical practice detected early neoplasia in patients with Barrett’s esophagus with impressively greater accuracy than did a group of general endoscopists, according to Douglas A. Corley, MD, PhD.
It’s not just his personal opinion that this was one of the major studies of the past year, either. Analytic tools showed the Dutch report was one of the most frequently downloaded studies in 2020 by both clinical gastroenterologists and researchers, said Dr. Corley, director of delivery science and applied research at Kaiser Permanente of Northern California, Oakland, and a faculty gastroenterologist at the University of California, San Francisco.
The deep-learning system developed, evaluated, and externally validated by the Dutch investigators is designed to reduce the rate of failed detection of high-grade dysplasia and early adenocarcinoma in patients undergoing surveillance by general practice gastrointestinal endoscopists. The false-negative rate in looking for the sometimes subtle mucosal surface abnormalities indicative of early neoplasia is known to be higher among these general endoscopists than that among expert endoscopists, and yet it’s the general endoscopists who perform the majority of cancer surveillance in patients with Barrett’s esophagus.
The Dutch group developed the computer-aided detection system by applying artificial intelligence methods to analyze nearly one half-million endoscopic images of confirmed early neoplasia. Once the system was ready to go, they compared its diagnostic accuracy in 80 patients to that of 53 general, nonexpert endoscopists. The deep-learning system had 93% sensitivity and 83% specificity for identification of early neoplasia, significantly better than the 72% sensitivity and 74% specificity for the general endoscopists. The overall accuracy of the computer-assisted detection system was 88%, compared to 73% for the general endoscopists. Moreover, the deep-learning system achieved greater accuracy than did any single one of the endoscopists.
“I think this will be a really helpful addition, the equivalent of a second endoscopist raising a yellow flag to take a closer look at a particular area. It’ll be complementary,” Dr. Corley said at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease Conference.
An audience member said he’s aware that other computer-assisted detection systems have also shown outstanding performance for the detection of early neoplasia in Barrett’s esophagus. He asked, why aren’t these being deployed yet in routine clinical practice?
Two reasons, Dr. Corley replied. One is that some of those systems aren’t capable of working during real-time endoscopy. Also, industry seems to be taking a wait-and-see approach. The field of applied artificial intelligence is moving incredibly rapidly, and none of the endoscopic equipment manufacturers wants to incorporate a computer-assisted detection system into their gear when rumor has it that an even better system is going to be announced 6 months later. The manufacturers want to make sure they’re operationalizing the right one.
He suspects the major players in the endoscopic imaging industry are waiting to find a computer-assisted detection system that’s been published and widely accepted as clearly a winner. Then they’ll introduce it into their equipment.
“I do think we’re probably going to be seeing these increasingly. Some computer-assisted detection systems for colon cancer are starting to be put into equipment,” he observed.
Dr. Corley reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
Help your patients better understand the risks, testing, and treatment options for Barrett’s esophagus by sharing education from the AGA GI Patient Center: www.gastro.org/BE.
One of the top publications in gastroenterology in 2020 was a Dutch study demonstrating that a computer-aided system suitable for real-time use in clinical practice detected early neoplasia in patients with Barrett’s esophagus with impressively greater accuracy than did a group of general endoscopists, according to Douglas A. Corley, MD, PhD.
It’s not just his personal opinion that this was one of the major studies of the past year, either. Analytic tools showed the Dutch report was one of the most frequently downloaded studies in 2020 by both clinical gastroenterologists and researchers, said Dr. Corley, director of delivery science and applied research at Kaiser Permanente of Northern California, Oakland, and a faculty gastroenterologist at the University of California, San Francisco.
The deep-learning system developed, evaluated, and externally validated by the Dutch investigators is designed to reduce the rate of failed detection of high-grade dysplasia and early adenocarcinoma in patients undergoing surveillance by general practice gastrointestinal endoscopists. The false-negative rate in looking for the sometimes subtle mucosal surface abnormalities indicative of early neoplasia is known to be higher among these general endoscopists than that among expert endoscopists, and yet it’s the general endoscopists who perform the majority of cancer surveillance in patients with Barrett’s esophagus.
The Dutch group developed the computer-aided detection system by applying artificial intelligence methods to analyze nearly one half-million endoscopic images of confirmed early neoplasia. Once the system was ready to go, they compared its diagnostic accuracy in 80 patients to that of 53 general, nonexpert endoscopists. The deep-learning system had 93% sensitivity and 83% specificity for identification of early neoplasia, significantly better than the 72% sensitivity and 74% specificity for the general endoscopists. The overall accuracy of the computer-assisted detection system was 88%, compared to 73% for the general endoscopists. Moreover, the deep-learning system achieved greater accuracy than did any single one of the endoscopists.
“I think this will be a really helpful addition, the equivalent of a second endoscopist raising a yellow flag to take a closer look at a particular area. It’ll be complementary,” Dr. Corley said at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease Conference.
An audience member said he’s aware that other computer-assisted detection systems have also shown outstanding performance for the detection of early neoplasia in Barrett’s esophagus. He asked, why aren’t these being deployed yet in routine clinical practice?
Two reasons, Dr. Corley replied. One is that some of those systems aren’t capable of working during real-time endoscopy. Also, industry seems to be taking a wait-and-see approach. The field of applied artificial intelligence is moving incredibly rapidly, and none of the endoscopic equipment manufacturers wants to incorporate a computer-assisted detection system into their gear when rumor has it that an even better system is going to be announced 6 months later. The manufacturers want to make sure they’re operationalizing the right one.
He suspects the major players in the endoscopic imaging industry are waiting to find a computer-assisted detection system that’s been published and widely accepted as clearly a winner. Then they’ll introduce it into their equipment.
“I do think we’re probably going to be seeing these increasingly. Some computer-assisted detection systems for colon cancer are starting to be put into equipment,” he observed.
Dr. Corley reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
Help your patients better understand the risks, testing, and treatment options for Barrett’s esophagus by sharing education from the AGA GI Patient Center: www.gastro.org/BE.
FROM GUILD 2021
Meta-analysis supports late thrombectomy in selected stroke patients
of data from six clinical trials.
Results of the AURORA analysis showed that for every 100 patients treated with thrombectomy, 33 patients will have less disability, and 27 patients will achieve an independent level of functioning compared with patients who receive only standard medical care.
The benefit of mechanical removal of the clot for selected patients who may have salvageable brain tissue, as identified through the use of various imaging modalities, was maintained whether the patient had a “wake-up stroke” or the onset of symptoms was witnessed, regardless of the point in time within the late window. In fact, the benefit of intervention was greater for patients who presented in the latter part of the late time window.
Never too late for urgent medical care
“While the findings of this analysis do not contradict the mantra that the earlier treatment is instituted, the higher the chance of a good outcome, they highlight the fact that it is never too late to seek urgent medical care,” said lead investigator Tudor Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, New Jersey.
“The implications of the findings from AURORA are that they could lead to a change in guidelines from endorsement of thrombectomy as level 1a recommendation in eligible patients presenting in the 6- to 16-hour time window to a 6- to 24-hour time window,” said Dr. Jovin.
“Furthermore, there are strong signals of benefit of thrombectomy in patients who are not selected based on volumetric analysis of baseline infarct (core) or extent of tissue at risk (penumbra), such that when those imaging modalities are not available or contraindicated, selection based on noncontrast CT and clinical information only may be acceptable,” he added. “Finally, the possibility of benefit from thrombectomy performed beyond 24 hours from last seen well is real and should be explored in future studies.”
The AURORA findings were presented at the virtual International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2021.
The objective of the study was to provide a more precise estimate of the benefit of thrombectomy for patients with stroke when performed within 6-24 hours after the patient was last seen well, Dr. Jovin explained.
He said the 6-hour cutoff was chosen somewhat arbitrarily, but added, “It is highly consequential, as it marks the point of demarcation between the early and late time window, and virtually all guidelines recommend different approaches, dependent on whether patients present before or after 6 hours from symptom onset.”
The 6+ hour window
Dr. Jovin pointed out that for patients who present beyond 6 hours, treatment options are more restricted, because the data on thrombectomy in this later period come mainly from two North American trials (DEFUSE 3 and DAWN) that had very stringent imaging criteria for enrollment.
“We wanted to create a heterogeneous dataset with regard to geography and selection criteria by forming the AURORA collaboration,” he commented. Their study involved an individual-level pooled analysis of all patients who underwent randomization after 6 hours from the time that they were last seen well. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either best medical therapy alone or best medical therapy plus thrombectomy (either with stent retrievers or aspiration) for anterior circulation proximal large-vessel occlusion stroke.
The data came from six trials: DAWN (which enrolled patients 6-24 hours from stroke onset), DEFUSE 3 (6-16 hours), ESCAPE (0-12 hours), REVASCAT (0-8 hours), RESILIENT (0-8 hours), and POSITIVE (0-12 hours). In total, 505 patients were included in the meta-analysis, 266 in the intervention group, and 239 in the control group.
“By pooling data on patients presenting after 6 hours from all these trails, we achieve greater precision for treatment effect estimation and increased the power for subgroup analysis,” Dr. Jovin noted.
Although the majority of the patients were in the DAWN and DIFFUSE 3 trials (n = 388), “there are still a good number from the other four trials (n = 117),” Dr. Jovin reported.
Most of the trials used Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) ordinal or shift analysis as their primary endpoint, which was the also the endpoint chosen for this meta-analysis.
Imaging selection criteria ranged from fully automated software-generated quantitative volumetric analysis of baseline infarct (core) or tissue at risk to CT perfusion and plain CT/CTA. The minimum ASPECTS score was 5 or 6.
There were no imbalances in baseline characteristics. The median NIH Stroke Scale score was 16, and the median ASPECTS score was 8. The median time to randomization was 10.5 hours.
With regard to safety, there was no significant difference in rates of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (5.3% in the intervention group vs. 3.3% in the control group; P = .23) or in mortality at 90 days (16.5% vs. 19.3%; P = .87). Jovin noted that these results are very similar to those from the HERMES meta-analysis of patients treated in the early time window.
The primary outcome – ordinal analysis of the mRS distribution – showed an adjusted odds ratio of 2.54 (P < .0001) for benefit in the intervention group. The number needed to treat to reduce disability was 3. “This is again very similar to the HERMES meta-analysis of patients in the early window,” Dr. Jovin said.
The P value for heterogeneity of treatment effect across the six studies was nonsignificant.
Secondary outcome analysis showed an “almost 27%” difference in good functional outcome (MRS, 0-2) between the two groups (45.9% in the intervention group vs. 19.3% in the control group), which translates into a number needed to treat of 3.8, Dr. Jovin reported.
Subgroup analysis showed a treatment effect favoring intervention across all prespecified subgroup factors, including age, sex, occlusion location, mode of presentation (wake-up vs. witnessed), and ASPECTS score, with the caveat that most of the patients were enrolled with ASPECTS scores of 7 or greater.
Early versus late
Surprisingly, although thrombectomy was found to be beneficial in both the 6- to 12-hour and 12- to 24-hour time window, the magnitude of benefit was significantly higher in the later rather than the earlier time window. The odds ratio of a better outcome with thrombectomy on the mRS shift analysis in those presenting in the 6- to 12-hour period was 1.78, compared with 5.86 in the 12- to 24-hour time window.
“This should not be interpreted as a higher chance of a good outcome if treated late. In fact, the rate of good outcomes were numerically higher in the earlier treated patients, but the difference comes from the control group, which did much worse in patients randomized in the later time period,” Dr. Jovin said.
“Aurora was the goddess of dawn [in ancient Roman mythology], so this is a very fitting name, as it reminds us that we are in the dawn of a new era where patients are selected based on physiological data rather than on time, and we certainly hope that this work has brought us closer to this reality,” Dr. Jovin concluded.
Commenting on the study, Michael Hill, MD, University of Calgary (Alta.), said: “The work provides pooled empiric data to support the concept that time to treatment is no longer the sole threshold variable to be used in treatment decision-making. Instead, time is now simply another variable to consider in the context of clinical and imaging factors.”
Dr. Hill, who headed up the ESCAPE trial and was also involved in the current meta-analysis, added: “This meta-analysis supports the concept of patient selection using the ‘good scan’ model, rather than using a time-based concept of patient eligibility for endovascular therapy. It will further push changes in care, because the implication is that all patients with more severe acute stroke presentations need emergency neurovascular imaging to decide if they are eligible for treatment.”
The AURORA meta-analysis was funded by Stryker Neurovascular. Dr. Jovin reports stock holdings in Anaconda, Route 92, VizAi, FreeOx, Blockade Medical, Methinks, and Corindus; personal fees from Cerenovus and Contego Medical; travel support from Fundacio Ictus; and grant support from Medtronic and Stryker Neurovascular.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
of data from six clinical trials.
Results of the AURORA analysis showed that for every 100 patients treated with thrombectomy, 33 patients will have less disability, and 27 patients will achieve an independent level of functioning compared with patients who receive only standard medical care.
The benefit of mechanical removal of the clot for selected patients who may have salvageable brain tissue, as identified through the use of various imaging modalities, was maintained whether the patient had a “wake-up stroke” or the onset of symptoms was witnessed, regardless of the point in time within the late window. In fact, the benefit of intervention was greater for patients who presented in the latter part of the late time window.
Never too late for urgent medical care
“While the findings of this analysis do not contradict the mantra that the earlier treatment is instituted, the higher the chance of a good outcome, they highlight the fact that it is never too late to seek urgent medical care,” said lead investigator Tudor Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, New Jersey.
“The implications of the findings from AURORA are that they could lead to a change in guidelines from endorsement of thrombectomy as level 1a recommendation in eligible patients presenting in the 6- to 16-hour time window to a 6- to 24-hour time window,” said Dr. Jovin.
“Furthermore, there are strong signals of benefit of thrombectomy in patients who are not selected based on volumetric analysis of baseline infarct (core) or extent of tissue at risk (penumbra), such that when those imaging modalities are not available or contraindicated, selection based on noncontrast CT and clinical information only may be acceptable,” he added. “Finally, the possibility of benefit from thrombectomy performed beyond 24 hours from last seen well is real and should be explored in future studies.”
The AURORA findings were presented at the virtual International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2021.
The objective of the study was to provide a more precise estimate of the benefit of thrombectomy for patients with stroke when performed within 6-24 hours after the patient was last seen well, Dr. Jovin explained.
He said the 6-hour cutoff was chosen somewhat arbitrarily, but added, “It is highly consequential, as it marks the point of demarcation between the early and late time window, and virtually all guidelines recommend different approaches, dependent on whether patients present before or after 6 hours from symptom onset.”
The 6+ hour window
Dr. Jovin pointed out that for patients who present beyond 6 hours, treatment options are more restricted, because the data on thrombectomy in this later period come mainly from two North American trials (DEFUSE 3 and DAWN) that had very stringent imaging criteria for enrollment.
“We wanted to create a heterogeneous dataset with regard to geography and selection criteria by forming the AURORA collaboration,” he commented. Their study involved an individual-level pooled analysis of all patients who underwent randomization after 6 hours from the time that they were last seen well. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either best medical therapy alone or best medical therapy plus thrombectomy (either with stent retrievers or aspiration) for anterior circulation proximal large-vessel occlusion stroke.
The data came from six trials: DAWN (which enrolled patients 6-24 hours from stroke onset), DEFUSE 3 (6-16 hours), ESCAPE (0-12 hours), REVASCAT (0-8 hours), RESILIENT (0-8 hours), and POSITIVE (0-12 hours). In total, 505 patients were included in the meta-analysis, 266 in the intervention group, and 239 in the control group.
“By pooling data on patients presenting after 6 hours from all these trails, we achieve greater precision for treatment effect estimation and increased the power for subgroup analysis,” Dr. Jovin noted.
Although the majority of the patients were in the DAWN and DIFFUSE 3 trials (n = 388), “there are still a good number from the other four trials (n = 117),” Dr. Jovin reported.
Most of the trials used Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) ordinal or shift analysis as their primary endpoint, which was the also the endpoint chosen for this meta-analysis.
Imaging selection criteria ranged from fully automated software-generated quantitative volumetric analysis of baseline infarct (core) or tissue at risk to CT perfusion and plain CT/CTA. The minimum ASPECTS score was 5 or 6.
There were no imbalances in baseline characteristics. The median NIH Stroke Scale score was 16, and the median ASPECTS score was 8. The median time to randomization was 10.5 hours.
With regard to safety, there was no significant difference in rates of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (5.3% in the intervention group vs. 3.3% in the control group; P = .23) or in mortality at 90 days (16.5% vs. 19.3%; P = .87). Jovin noted that these results are very similar to those from the HERMES meta-analysis of patients treated in the early time window.
The primary outcome – ordinal analysis of the mRS distribution – showed an adjusted odds ratio of 2.54 (P < .0001) for benefit in the intervention group. The number needed to treat to reduce disability was 3. “This is again very similar to the HERMES meta-analysis of patients in the early window,” Dr. Jovin said.
The P value for heterogeneity of treatment effect across the six studies was nonsignificant.
Secondary outcome analysis showed an “almost 27%” difference in good functional outcome (MRS, 0-2) between the two groups (45.9% in the intervention group vs. 19.3% in the control group), which translates into a number needed to treat of 3.8, Dr. Jovin reported.
Subgroup analysis showed a treatment effect favoring intervention across all prespecified subgroup factors, including age, sex, occlusion location, mode of presentation (wake-up vs. witnessed), and ASPECTS score, with the caveat that most of the patients were enrolled with ASPECTS scores of 7 or greater.
Early versus late
Surprisingly, although thrombectomy was found to be beneficial in both the 6- to 12-hour and 12- to 24-hour time window, the magnitude of benefit was significantly higher in the later rather than the earlier time window. The odds ratio of a better outcome with thrombectomy on the mRS shift analysis in those presenting in the 6- to 12-hour period was 1.78, compared with 5.86 in the 12- to 24-hour time window.
“This should not be interpreted as a higher chance of a good outcome if treated late. In fact, the rate of good outcomes were numerically higher in the earlier treated patients, but the difference comes from the control group, which did much worse in patients randomized in the later time period,” Dr. Jovin said.
“Aurora was the goddess of dawn [in ancient Roman mythology], so this is a very fitting name, as it reminds us that we are in the dawn of a new era where patients are selected based on physiological data rather than on time, and we certainly hope that this work has brought us closer to this reality,” Dr. Jovin concluded.
Commenting on the study, Michael Hill, MD, University of Calgary (Alta.), said: “The work provides pooled empiric data to support the concept that time to treatment is no longer the sole threshold variable to be used in treatment decision-making. Instead, time is now simply another variable to consider in the context of clinical and imaging factors.”
Dr. Hill, who headed up the ESCAPE trial and was also involved in the current meta-analysis, added: “This meta-analysis supports the concept of patient selection using the ‘good scan’ model, rather than using a time-based concept of patient eligibility for endovascular therapy. It will further push changes in care, because the implication is that all patients with more severe acute stroke presentations need emergency neurovascular imaging to decide if they are eligible for treatment.”
The AURORA meta-analysis was funded by Stryker Neurovascular. Dr. Jovin reports stock holdings in Anaconda, Route 92, VizAi, FreeOx, Blockade Medical, Methinks, and Corindus; personal fees from Cerenovus and Contego Medical; travel support from Fundacio Ictus; and grant support from Medtronic and Stryker Neurovascular.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
of data from six clinical trials.
Results of the AURORA analysis showed that for every 100 patients treated with thrombectomy, 33 patients will have less disability, and 27 patients will achieve an independent level of functioning compared with patients who receive only standard medical care.
The benefit of mechanical removal of the clot for selected patients who may have salvageable brain tissue, as identified through the use of various imaging modalities, was maintained whether the patient had a “wake-up stroke” or the onset of symptoms was witnessed, regardless of the point in time within the late window. In fact, the benefit of intervention was greater for patients who presented in the latter part of the late time window.
Never too late for urgent medical care
“While the findings of this analysis do not contradict the mantra that the earlier treatment is instituted, the higher the chance of a good outcome, they highlight the fact that it is never too late to seek urgent medical care,” said lead investigator Tudor Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, New Jersey.
“The implications of the findings from AURORA are that they could lead to a change in guidelines from endorsement of thrombectomy as level 1a recommendation in eligible patients presenting in the 6- to 16-hour time window to a 6- to 24-hour time window,” said Dr. Jovin.
“Furthermore, there are strong signals of benefit of thrombectomy in patients who are not selected based on volumetric analysis of baseline infarct (core) or extent of tissue at risk (penumbra), such that when those imaging modalities are not available or contraindicated, selection based on noncontrast CT and clinical information only may be acceptable,” he added. “Finally, the possibility of benefit from thrombectomy performed beyond 24 hours from last seen well is real and should be explored in future studies.”
The AURORA findings were presented at the virtual International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2021.
The objective of the study was to provide a more precise estimate of the benefit of thrombectomy for patients with stroke when performed within 6-24 hours after the patient was last seen well, Dr. Jovin explained.
He said the 6-hour cutoff was chosen somewhat arbitrarily, but added, “It is highly consequential, as it marks the point of demarcation between the early and late time window, and virtually all guidelines recommend different approaches, dependent on whether patients present before or after 6 hours from symptom onset.”
The 6+ hour window
Dr. Jovin pointed out that for patients who present beyond 6 hours, treatment options are more restricted, because the data on thrombectomy in this later period come mainly from two North American trials (DEFUSE 3 and DAWN) that had very stringent imaging criteria for enrollment.
“We wanted to create a heterogeneous dataset with regard to geography and selection criteria by forming the AURORA collaboration,” he commented. Their study involved an individual-level pooled analysis of all patients who underwent randomization after 6 hours from the time that they were last seen well. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either best medical therapy alone or best medical therapy plus thrombectomy (either with stent retrievers or aspiration) for anterior circulation proximal large-vessel occlusion stroke.
The data came from six trials: DAWN (which enrolled patients 6-24 hours from stroke onset), DEFUSE 3 (6-16 hours), ESCAPE (0-12 hours), REVASCAT (0-8 hours), RESILIENT (0-8 hours), and POSITIVE (0-12 hours). In total, 505 patients were included in the meta-analysis, 266 in the intervention group, and 239 in the control group.
“By pooling data on patients presenting after 6 hours from all these trails, we achieve greater precision for treatment effect estimation and increased the power for subgroup analysis,” Dr. Jovin noted.
Although the majority of the patients were in the DAWN and DIFFUSE 3 trials (n = 388), “there are still a good number from the other four trials (n = 117),” Dr. Jovin reported.
Most of the trials used Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) ordinal or shift analysis as their primary endpoint, which was the also the endpoint chosen for this meta-analysis.
Imaging selection criteria ranged from fully automated software-generated quantitative volumetric analysis of baseline infarct (core) or tissue at risk to CT perfusion and plain CT/CTA. The minimum ASPECTS score was 5 or 6.
There were no imbalances in baseline characteristics. The median NIH Stroke Scale score was 16, and the median ASPECTS score was 8. The median time to randomization was 10.5 hours.
With regard to safety, there was no significant difference in rates of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (5.3% in the intervention group vs. 3.3% in the control group; P = .23) or in mortality at 90 days (16.5% vs. 19.3%; P = .87). Jovin noted that these results are very similar to those from the HERMES meta-analysis of patients treated in the early time window.
The primary outcome – ordinal analysis of the mRS distribution – showed an adjusted odds ratio of 2.54 (P < .0001) for benefit in the intervention group. The number needed to treat to reduce disability was 3. “This is again very similar to the HERMES meta-analysis of patients in the early window,” Dr. Jovin said.
The P value for heterogeneity of treatment effect across the six studies was nonsignificant.
Secondary outcome analysis showed an “almost 27%” difference in good functional outcome (MRS, 0-2) between the two groups (45.9% in the intervention group vs. 19.3% in the control group), which translates into a number needed to treat of 3.8, Dr. Jovin reported.
Subgroup analysis showed a treatment effect favoring intervention across all prespecified subgroup factors, including age, sex, occlusion location, mode of presentation (wake-up vs. witnessed), and ASPECTS score, with the caveat that most of the patients were enrolled with ASPECTS scores of 7 or greater.
Early versus late
Surprisingly, although thrombectomy was found to be beneficial in both the 6- to 12-hour and 12- to 24-hour time window, the magnitude of benefit was significantly higher in the later rather than the earlier time window. The odds ratio of a better outcome with thrombectomy on the mRS shift analysis in those presenting in the 6- to 12-hour period was 1.78, compared with 5.86 in the 12- to 24-hour time window.
“This should not be interpreted as a higher chance of a good outcome if treated late. In fact, the rate of good outcomes were numerically higher in the earlier treated patients, but the difference comes from the control group, which did much worse in patients randomized in the later time period,” Dr. Jovin said.
“Aurora was the goddess of dawn [in ancient Roman mythology], so this is a very fitting name, as it reminds us that we are in the dawn of a new era where patients are selected based on physiological data rather than on time, and we certainly hope that this work has brought us closer to this reality,” Dr. Jovin concluded.
Commenting on the study, Michael Hill, MD, University of Calgary (Alta.), said: “The work provides pooled empiric data to support the concept that time to treatment is no longer the sole threshold variable to be used in treatment decision-making. Instead, time is now simply another variable to consider in the context of clinical and imaging factors.”
Dr. Hill, who headed up the ESCAPE trial and was also involved in the current meta-analysis, added: “This meta-analysis supports the concept of patient selection using the ‘good scan’ model, rather than using a time-based concept of patient eligibility for endovascular therapy. It will further push changes in care, because the implication is that all patients with more severe acute stroke presentations need emergency neurovascular imaging to decide if they are eligible for treatment.”
The AURORA meta-analysis was funded by Stryker Neurovascular. Dr. Jovin reports stock holdings in Anaconda, Route 92, VizAi, FreeOx, Blockade Medical, Methinks, and Corindus; personal fees from Cerenovus and Contego Medical; travel support from Fundacio Ictus; and grant support from Medtronic and Stryker Neurovascular.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ISC 2021
Radially adjustable ‘Tigertriever’ safe, effective in stroke
in a new study. The novel device may increase the options for endovascular therapy, researchers say.
In this study, the Tigertriever (Rapid Medical) was noninferior to a prespecified performance goal and superior to established devices, as determined from historical rates derived from trials. The device achieved first-pass successful reperfusion in approximately 6 of 10 patients and final successful reperfusion in more than 9 of 10 patients.
“The Tigertriever is a highly effective and safe device to remove thrombus in patients with large-vessel occlusion who are eligible for mechanical thrombectomy,” Rishi Gupta, MD, a vascular neurologist at Wellstar Health System Kennestone Hospital, Marietta, Ga., said during his presentation.
Results of the TIGER trial were presented at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association, and were published online March 19, 2021, in Stroke.
Endovascular therapy significantly improves outcomes of acute ischemic stroke resulting from large-vessel occlusion. However, current devices fail to achieve successful reperfusion in approximately 27% of patients, the researchers noted. In addition, the devices are associated with complications such as embolization to a new territory and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage.
The Tigertriever is a radially adjustable, fully visible stent retriever. The operator controls the device’s radial expansion and force, enabling the operator to minimize vessel tension. The Tigertriever is available in Europe.
Effective revascularization
Dr. Gupta and colleagues conducted the prospective, single-arm TIGER study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the Tigertriever in restoring blood flow by removing clots for patients with ischemic stroke resulting from large-vessel occlusion. The investigators compared the performance of the Tigertriever with a composite performance goal criterion derived from six pivotal trials of the Solitaire and Trevo devices.
The researchers enrolled patients at 16 U.S. sites and one site in Israel. Eligible participants had acute ischemic stroke resulting from large-vessel occlusion and moderate to severe neurologic deficits within 8 hours of symptom onset.
The study’s primary efficacy endpoint was successful revascularization within three Tigertriever passes. The investigators defined successful revascularization as achieving a modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Ischemia score of 2b-3. Secondary efficacy endpoints were first-pass successful revascularization and good clinical outcome, which was defined as a Modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2.
The primary safety endpoint was the composite of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage at 24 hours and all-cause mortality at 3 months.
The researchers enrolled 160 patients between May 2018 and March 2020. The mean age of the patients was 65 years, and 61.5% were men. The median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 17. Approximately 66% of patients received tissue plasminogen activator, and the median time to tPA administration was 95 minutes.
Most occlusions were in the M1 segment of the middle cerebral artery (57.3%) or the M2 segment of the MCA (19.7%). Approximately 21% of occlusions were in the internal carotid artery.
Successful revascularization was achieved in 84.6% of participants within three passes of the Tigertriever device. This rate surpassed the 63.4% performance goal and the 73.4% historical rate.
Successful revascularization was achieved in 57.8% of cases on first pass. After three passes, the rate was 84.6%. The rate of good clinical outcome at 90 days was 58% with the Tigertriever and 43% with the historical control.
The rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage at 24 hours and mortality at 90 days was 18.1% with the Tigertriever and 20.4% with the historical control.
The rates of symptomatic hemorrhage and of embolization to a new territory with the Tigertriever were lower than with other devices, despite the relatively infrequent use of balloon guide catheters in the study, said Dr. Gupta.
Unmeasured confounding
“I congratulate the TIGER investigators for an interesting study that looked at a novel stentriever with adjustable radial size and force,” said Adam de Havenon, MD, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who was asked to comment on the study. “This intuitive concept shows promise in comparison to historical controls, and I look forward to hearing more about this exciting technology.”
The major advantage of the use of a composite historical control in the study is that fewer patients are needed for a trial, said Dr. de Havenon. This design makes the trial more economical and enables it to be completed more quickly.
“The impact is that a real-world patient could receive a beneficial treatment even sooner if it was shown to be beneficial with this study design,” he added. “The disadvantage is that there is unmeasured confounding because the historical controls come from trials during different time periods and at different centers and countries, with unique demographics that may not match well with your cohort.”
Statistical methodology helps mitigate this unmeasured confounding, but it remains a concern in the quest for a high level of evidence, Dr. de Havenon added.
The data suggest that the Tigertriever is a viable alternative to other stent retrievers, but they do not support its preferential use. “If the goal is to have the Tigertriever be considered a viable treatment option for large-vessel occlusion stroke, then [the researchers] have accomplished that with this study, which provides the needed data for FDA approval of the device,” said Dr. de Havenon.
“However, these data introduce the possibility of superiority but do not definitely show that,” he concluded. “To do so, they would need a randomized trial with a comparator device or devices and, as a result, a larger sample size.”
The study was funded by Rapid Medical. Dr. Gupta was one of the principal investigators for this study and for studies sponsored by Stryker Neurovascular, Zoll, and Vesalio. He served on the clinical events committee of a trial sponsored by Penumbra and has acted as a consultant for Cerenovous. Dr de Havenon disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
in a new study. The novel device may increase the options for endovascular therapy, researchers say.
In this study, the Tigertriever (Rapid Medical) was noninferior to a prespecified performance goal and superior to established devices, as determined from historical rates derived from trials. The device achieved first-pass successful reperfusion in approximately 6 of 10 patients and final successful reperfusion in more than 9 of 10 patients.
“The Tigertriever is a highly effective and safe device to remove thrombus in patients with large-vessel occlusion who are eligible for mechanical thrombectomy,” Rishi Gupta, MD, a vascular neurologist at Wellstar Health System Kennestone Hospital, Marietta, Ga., said during his presentation.
Results of the TIGER trial were presented at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association, and were published online March 19, 2021, in Stroke.
Endovascular therapy significantly improves outcomes of acute ischemic stroke resulting from large-vessel occlusion. However, current devices fail to achieve successful reperfusion in approximately 27% of patients, the researchers noted. In addition, the devices are associated with complications such as embolization to a new territory and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage.
The Tigertriever is a radially adjustable, fully visible stent retriever. The operator controls the device’s radial expansion and force, enabling the operator to minimize vessel tension. The Tigertriever is available in Europe.
Effective revascularization
Dr. Gupta and colleagues conducted the prospective, single-arm TIGER study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the Tigertriever in restoring blood flow by removing clots for patients with ischemic stroke resulting from large-vessel occlusion. The investigators compared the performance of the Tigertriever with a composite performance goal criterion derived from six pivotal trials of the Solitaire and Trevo devices.
The researchers enrolled patients at 16 U.S. sites and one site in Israel. Eligible participants had acute ischemic stroke resulting from large-vessel occlusion and moderate to severe neurologic deficits within 8 hours of symptom onset.
The study’s primary efficacy endpoint was successful revascularization within three Tigertriever passes. The investigators defined successful revascularization as achieving a modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Ischemia score of 2b-3. Secondary efficacy endpoints were first-pass successful revascularization and good clinical outcome, which was defined as a Modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2.
The primary safety endpoint was the composite of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage at 24 hours and all-cause mortality at 3 months.
The researchers enrolled 160 patients between May 2018 and March 2020. The mean age of the patients was 65 years, and 61.5% were men. The median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 17. Approximately 66% of patients received tissue plasminogen activator, and the median time to tPA administration was 95 minutes.
Most occlusions were in the M1 segment of the middle cerebral artery (57.3%) or the M2 segment of the MCA (19.7%). Approximately 21% of occlusions were in the internal carotid artery.
Successful revascularization was achieved in 84.6% of participants within three passes of the Tigertriever device. This rate surpassed the 63.4% performance goal and the 73.4% historical rate.
Successful revascularization was achieved in 57.8% of cases on first pass. After three passes, the rate was 84.6%. The rate of good clinical outcome at 90 days was 58% with the Tigertriever and 43% with the historical control.
The rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage at 24 hours and mortality at 90 days was 18.1% with the Tigertriever and 20.4% with the historical control.
The rates of symptomatic hemorrhage and of embolization to a new territory with the Tigertriever were lower than with other devices, despite the relatively infrequent use of balloon guide catheters in the study, said Dr. Gupta.
Unmeasured confounding
“I congratulate the TIGER investigators for an interesting study that looked at a novel stentriever with adjustable radial size and force,” said Adam de Havenon, MD, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who was asked to comment on the study. “This intuitive concept shows promise in comparison to historical controls, and I look forward to hearing more about this exciting technology.”
The major advantage of the use of a composite historical control in the study is that fewer patients are needed for a trial, said Dr. de Havenon. This design makes the trial more economical and enables it to be completed more quickly.
“The impact is that a real-world patient could receive a beneficial treatment even sooner if it was shown to be beneficial with this study design,” he added. “The disadvantage is that there is unmeasured confounding because the historical controls come from trials during different time periods and at different centers and countries, with unique demographics that may not match well with your cohort.”
Statistical methodology helps mitigate this unmeasured confounding, but it remains a concern in the quest for a high level of evidence, Dr. de Havenon added.
The data suggest that the Tigertriever is a viable alternative to other stent retrievers, but they do not support its preferential use. “If the goal is to have the Tigertriever be considered a viable treatment option for large-vessel occlusion stroke, then [the researchers] have accomplished that with this study, which provides the needed data for FDA approval of the device,” said Dr. de Havenon.
“However, these data introduce the possibility of superiority but do not definitely show that,” he concluded. “To do so, they would need a randomized trial with a comparator device or devices and, as a result, a larger sample size.”
The study was funded by Rapid Medical. Dr. Gupta was one of the principal investigators for this study and for studies sponsored by Stryker Neurovascular, Zoll, and Vesalio. He served on the clinical events committee of a trial sponsored by Penumbra and has acted as a consultant for Cerenovous. Dr de Havenon disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
in a new study. The novel device may increase the options for endovascular therapy, researchers say.
In this study, the Tigertriever (Rapid Medical) was noninferior to a prespecified performance goal and superior to established devices, as determined from historical rates derived from trials. The device achieved first-pass successful reperfusion in approximately 6 of 10 patients and final successful reperfusion in more than 9 of 10 patients.
“The Tigertriever is a highly effective and safe device to remove thrombus in patients with large-vessel occlusion who are eligible for mechanical thrombectomy,” Rishi Gupta, MD, a vascular neurologist at Wellstar Health System Kennestone Hospital, Marietta, Ga., said during his presentation.
Results of the TIGER trial were presented at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association, and were published online March 19, 2021, in Stroke.
Endovascular therapy significantly improves outcomes of acute ischemic stroke resulting from large-vessel occlusion. However, current devices fail to achieve successful reperfusion in approximately 27% of patients, the researchers noted. In addition, the devices are associated with complications such as embolization to a new territory and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage.
The Tigertriever is a radially adjustable, fully visible stent retriever. The operator controls the device’s radial expansion and force, enabling the operator to minimize vessel tension. The Tigertriever is available in Europe.
Effective revascularization
Dr. Gupta and colleagues conducted the prospective, single-arm TIGER study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the Tigertriever in restoring blood flow by removing clots for patients with ischemic stroke resulting from large-vessel occlusion. The investigators compared the performance of the Tigertriever with a composite performance goal criterion derived from six pivotal trials of the Solitaire and Trevo devices.
The researchers enrolled patients at 16 U.S. sites and one site in Israel. Eligible participants had acute ischemic stroke resulting from large-vessel occlusion and moderate to severe neurologic deficits within 8 hours of symptom onset.
The study’s primary efficacy endpoint was successful revascularization within three Tigertriever passes. The investigators defined successful revascularization as achieving a modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Ischemia score of 2b-3. Secondary efficacy endpoints were first-pass successful revascularization and good clinical outcome, which was defined as a Modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2.
The primary safety endpoint was the composite of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage at 24 hours and all-cause mortality at 3 months.
The researchers enrolled 160 patients between May 2018 and March 2020. The mean age of the patients was 65 years, and 61.5% were men. The median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 17. Approximately 66% of patients received tissue plasminogen activator, and the median time to tPA administration was 95 minutes.
Most occlusions were in the M1 segment of the middle cerebral artery (57.3%) or the M2 segment of the MCA (19.7%). Approximately 21% of occlusions were in the internal carotid artery.
Successful revascularization was achieved in 84.6% of participants within three passes of the Tigertriever device. This rate surpassed the 63.4% performance goal and the 73.4% historical rate.
Successful revascularization was achieved in 57.8% of cases on first pass. After three passes, the rate was 84.6%. The rate of good clinical outcome at 90 days was 58% with the Tigertriever and 43% with the historical control.
The rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage at 24 hours and mortality at 90 days was 18.1% with the Tigertriever and 20.4% with the historical control.
The rates of symptomatic hemorrhage and of embolization to a new territory with the Tigertriever were lower than with other devices, despite the relatively infrequent use of balloon guide catheters in the study, said Dr. Gupta.
Unmeasured confounding
“I congratulate the TIGER investigators for an interesting study that looked at a novel stentriever with adjustable radial size and force,” said Adam de Havenon, MD, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who was asked to comment on the study. “This intuitive concept shows promise in comparison to historical controls, and I look forward to hearing more about this exciting technology.”
The major advantage of the use of a composite historical control in the study is that fewer patients are needed for a trial, said Dr. de Havenon. This design makes the trial more economical and enables it to be completed more quickly.
“The impact is that a real-world patient could receive a beneficial treatment even sooner if it was shown to be beneficial with this study design,” he added. “The disadvantage is that there is unmeasured confounding because the historical controls come from trials during different time periods and at different centers and countries, with unique demographics that may not match well with your cohort.”
Statistical methodology helps mitigate this unmeasured confounding, but it remains a concern in the quest for a high level of evidence, Dr. de Havenon added.
The data suggest that the Tigertriever is a viable alternative to other stent retrievers, but they do not support its preferential use. “If the goal is to have the Tigertriever be considered a viable treatment option for large-vessel occlusion stroke, then [the researchers] have accomplished that with this study, which provides the needed data for FDA approval of the device,” said Dr. de Havenon.
“However, these data introduce the possibility of superiority but do not definitely show that,” he concluded. “To do so, they would need a randomized trial with a comparator device or devices and, as a result, a larger sample size.”
The study was funded by Rapid Medical. Dr. Gupta was one of the principal investigators for this study and for studies sponsored by Stryker Neurovascular, Zoll, and Vesalio. He served on the clinical events committee of a trial sponsored by Penumbra and has acted as a consultant for Cerenovous. Dr de Havenon disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Vitiligo patients share their experiences, frustrations with treatment options with FDA
Patients with vitiligo have faced significant impacts psychosocially and in many cases, profound losses of identity – and they’ve had only minimal success with treatment, according to participants who spoke at and provided input at a public meeting on patient-focused drug development for the disease.
The virtual meeting, held in March, was part of the Food and Drug Administration’s Patient-Focused Drug Development (PFDD) initiative, which began in 2012 and aims to provide a systematic way for patients’ experiences, needs and priorities to be “captured and meaningfully incorporated” into drug development and evaluation.
Seemal Desai, MD, of the department of dermatology at the University of Texas, Dallas, who attended the meeting as an observer, said in a later interview that while “all skin diseases have a psychosocial component … vitiligo is a really unique one, because it really relates to the patient’s own identity.
“What I heard loud and clear from the FDA [leaders who ran and attended the meeting] is recognition that patients are suffering. They needed to hear about the emotional devastation of the disease and how it is a medical condition,” Dr. Desai said.
The meeting was the “first-ever vitiligo meeting at the FDA” and was a “historic moment for the vitiligo community,” he added.
The pigmentation disorder affects 1% of the world’s population. Nearly 50% have an onset before age 20, and onset before age 12 is common, Brenda Carr, MD, medical officer with the FDA’s Division of Dermatology and Dentistry in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in an introductory overview.
The only FDA-approved treatment for vitiligo is monobenzone cream, but this is indicated for final depigmentation in extensive vitiligo and is no longer marketed. Treatment options include corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, vitamin D analogues, phototherapy, surgical treatments (tissue grafts and cellular grafts), and camouflage (make-up, tattoos, self-tanning products), Dr. Carr said.
Patients participated in one of two panels – one about the health effects and daily impacts of vitiligo and the other about treatments – or submitted input electronically. All patients were invited to answer poll questions and open-ended queries, including questions about how they would assess new treatments.
Several panel members who are Black shared series of photos that showed the evolution of defined white patches into widespread, generalized depigmentation. One man with skin of color who lives in the Netherlands said he has had vitiligo since the age of 12, but that when he became older, over a 4-year period, he was “transformed from a man of Indonesian roots to a totally white man.”
Experiencing only minimal benefit from treatment and the short-term effectiveness of treatments were the top two answers to a poll question asking participants about the most burdensome impacts of the medical products and interventions they have used. Difficulty in accessing treatment, concern about serious risks of treatment, and uncertainty about long-term effects of treatment were other frequently chosen answers.
Patients described the onerous nature of phototherapy (treatments repeated several times a week over long periods) and other treatments, and several described feeling that some physicians did not take the condition seriously or fully know of treatment options.
In her closing remarks, Kendall Marcus, MD, director of the Division of Dermatology and Dentistry at the FDA, acknowledged the input. “Some of you have had difficulty having your disease taken seriously by physicians who view it as a cosmetic condition and are reluctant to treat because they believe your expectations will not be met, that it will be an exercise in frustration,” she said.
Regarding the impacts of treatments that have been utilized, “some of the treatments make it impossible to do other activities such as work or care for yourself in other ways,” Dr. Marcus said. “Certainly that’s not the kind of treatment … that anybody wants to have.”
Dr. Desai, who utilizes an array of oral and topical treatments and phototherapies in his practice, said he was surprised and disheartened to hear the level of concern about side effects of treatment. Most of those who expressed concerns alluded to phototherapy. “I think light treatments are very safe and effective,” he said in the interview. “I might equate [such concerns] to the older PUVA [psoralen plus UVA ultraviolet light] therapy, but not so much the newer therapies.”
The FDA participants probed patients for their perspective on a meaningful level of repigmentation and an acceptable level of risk for any new hypothetical treatment. Specifically, they asked whether patients would use a new topical cream approved for vitiligo if the cream needed to be applied once a day, would have up to 50% efficacy in some people, and would have common side effects of redness and irritation at the application site, mild acne, and burning, as well as several rarer but more serious side effects.
Only 36% answered yes; 24% said no, and 40% answered maybe. Some patients said during the meeting that they had accepted their condition and were not pursuing any treatment. Others said they were very interested in treatment but only if the level of repigmentation were significantly higher than 50%. Some described their fear that positive treatment effects would be short term only.
Meri Izrail Kohen, who lives in France and has lost half of her skin’s pigmentation, said that treatment efficacy is “not only about how much recovery of pigment it allows, but how long the recovery will last.” Some treatments will work for some patients, she said, “but even in these cases when we stop the treatment, it will come back somehow.”
Lee Thomas, a TV anchor in Detroit, and a reporter and author of the book “Turning White,” described how he tried “every treatment he could afford” but stopped trying 10 years ago. A treatment in Germany “gave me 80% of my pigment back, but it has gone again,” he said. “I would love to have my face back again. I was born a Black child, and I’d like to die a Black man.”
Patients also spoke of their skin burning easily outdoors; skin sensitivity, itchiness, and burning with the spread of disease; treatment expenses and not being able to afford treatment; and worsening of their vitiligo with the stress of the pandemic. Parents expressed having fear that their children would develop vitiligo and experience bullying, isolation, or other emotional or psychosocial impacts that they had experienced; one described having an almost-paralyzing anxiety when he saw patchy white spots on his 20-month-old daughter (it was not diagnosed as vitiligo).
Calls for further advancement with home phototherapy – which Dr. Desai said is a growing market but not yet adequately covered by insurance plans – were also made, as were pleas for research on the root causes of the disease.
Patients clearly indicated “that they need more efficacious treatments, and more comprehensive treatments,” said Dr. Desai, who chairs the advisory committee of the Global Vitiligo Foundation. “It’s disappointing to me that patients come in with a not fully optimistic viewpoint, with a lot of anxiety and angst that treatments are not going to work. … But the Agency needs to hear that. This means that there haven’t been good treatments and we need more.”
The FDA will accept public comments until May 10, 2021, at which time comments will be compiled into a summary report. FDA officials assured patients that the report would be visible and circulated not only within the FDA but among drug companies, researchers, and other product developers.
Patients with vitiligo have faced significant impacts psychosocially and in many cases, profound losses of identity – and they’ve had only minimal success with treatment, according to participants who spoke at and provided input at a public meeting on patient-focused drug development for the disease.
The virtual meeting, held in March, was part of the Food and Drug Administration’s Patient-Focused Drug Development (PFDD) initiative, which began in 2012 and aims to provide a systematic way for patients’ experiences, needs and priorities to be “captured and meaningfully incorporated” into drug development and evaluation.
Seemal Desai, MD, of the department of dermatology at the University of Texas, Dallas, who attended the meeting as an observer, said in a later interview that while “all skin diseases have a psychosocial component … vitiligo is a really unique one, because it really relates to the patient’s own identity.
“What I heard loud and clear from the FDA [leaders who ran and attended the meeting] is recognition that patients are suffering. They needed to hear about the emotional devastation of the disease and how it is a medical condition,” Dr. Desai said.
The meeting was the “first-ever vitiligo meeting at the FDA” and was a “historic moment for the vitiligo community,” he added.
The pigmentation disorder affects 1% of the world’s population. Nearly 50% have an onset before age 20, and onset before age 12 is common, Brenda Carr, MD, medical officer with the FDA’s Division of Dermatology and Dentistry in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in an introductory overview.
The only FDA-approved treatment for vitiligo is monobenzone cream, but this is indicated for final depigmentation in extensive vitiligo and is no longer marketed. Treatment options include corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, vitamin D analogues, phototherapy, surgical treatments (tissue grafts and cellular grafts), and camouflage (make-up, tattoos, self-tanning products), Dr. Carr said.
Patients participated in one of two panels – one about the health effects and daily impacts of vitiligo and the other about treatments – or submitted input electronically. All patients were invited to answer poll questions and open-ended queries, including questions about how they would assess new treatments.
Several panel members who are Black shared series of photos that showed the evolution of defined white patches into widespread, generalized depigmentation. One man with skin of color who lives in the Netherlands said he has had vitiligo since the age of 12, but that when he became older, over a 4-year period, he was “transformed from a man of Indonesian roots to a totally white man.”
Experiencing only minimal benefit from treatment and the short-term effectiveness of treatments were the top two answers to a poll question asking participants about the most burdensome impacts of the medical products and interventions they have used. Difficulty in accessing treatment, concern about serious risks of treatment, and uncertainty about long-term effects of treatment were other frequently chosen answers.
Patients described the onerous nature of phototherapy (treatments repeated several times a week over long periods) and other treatments, and several described feeling that some physicians did not take the condition seriously or fully know of treatment options.
In her closing remarks, Kendall Marcus, MD, director of the Division of Dermatology and Dentistry at the FDA, acknowledged the input. “Some of you have had difficulty having your disease taken seriously by physicians who view it as a cosmetic condition and are reluctant to treat because they believe your expectations will not be met, that it will be an exercise in frustration,” she said.
Regarding the impacts of treatments that have been utilized, “some of the treatments make it impossible to do other activities such as work or care for yourself in other ways,” Dr. Marcus said. “Certainly that’s not the kind of treatment … that anybody wants to have.”
Dr. Desai, who utilizes an array of oral and topical treatments and phototherapies in his practice, said he was surprised and disheartened to hear the level of concern about side effects of treatment. Most of those who expressed concerns alluded to phototherapy. “I think light treatments are very safe and effective,” he said in the interview. “I might equate [such concerns] to the older PUVA [psoralen plus UVA ultraviolet light] therapy, but not so much the newer therapies.”
The FDA participants probed patients for their perspective on a meaningful level of repigmentation and an acceptable level of risk for any new hypothetical treatment. Specifically, they asked whether patients would use a new topical cream approved for vitiligo if the cream needed to be applied once a day, would have up to 50% efficacy in some people, and would have common side effects of redness and irritation at the application site, mild acne, and burning, as well as several rarer but more serious side effects.
Only 36% answered yes; 24% said no, and 40% answered maybe. Some patients said during the meeting that they had accepted their condition and were not pursuing any treatment. Others said they were very interested in treatment but only if the level of repigmentation were significantly higher than 50%. Some described their fear that positive treatment effects would be short term only.
Meri Izrail Kohen, who lives in France and has lost half of her skin’s pigmentation, said that treatment efficacy is “not only about how much recovery of pigment it allows, but how long the recovery will last.” Some treatments will work for some patients, she said, “but even in these cases when we stop the treatment, it will come back somehow.”
Lee Thomas, a TV anchor in Detroit, and a reporter and author of the book “Turning White,” described how he tried “every treatment he could afford” but stopped trying 10 years ago. A treatment in Germany “gave me 80% of my pigment back, but it has gone again,” he said. “I would love to have my face back again. I was born a Black child, and I’d like to die a Black man.”
Patients also spoke of their skin burning easily outdoors; skin sensitivity, itchiness, and burning with the spread of disease; treatment expenses and not being able to afford treatment; and worsening of their vitiligo with the stress of the pandemic. Parents expressed having fear that their children would develop vitiligo and experience bullying, isolation, or other emotional or psychosocial impacts that they had experienced; one described having an almost-paralyzing anxiety when he saw patchy white spots on his 20-month-old daughter (it was not diagnosed as vitiligo).
Calls for further advancement with home phototherapy – which Dr. Desai said is a growing market but not yet adequately covered by insurance plans – were also made, as were pleas for research on the root causes of the disease.
Patients clearly indicated “that they need more efficacious treatments, and more comprehensive treatments,” said Dr. Desai, who chairs the advisory committee of the Global Vitiligo Foundation. “It’s disappointing to me that patients come in with a not fully optimistic viewpoint, with a lot of anxiety and angst that treatments are not going to work. … But the Agency needs to hear that. This means that there haven’t been good treatments and we need more.”
The FDA will accept public comments until May 10, 2021, at which time comments will be compiled into a summary report. FDA officials assured patients that the report would be visible and circulated not only within the FDA but among drug companies, researchers, and other product developers.
Patients with vitiligo have faced significant impacts psychosocially and in many cases, profound losses of identity – and they’ve had only minimal success with treatment, according to participants who spoke at and provided input at a public meeting on patient-focused drug development for the disease.
The virtual meeting, held in March, was part of the Food and Drug Administration’s Patient-Focused Drug Development (PFDD) initiative, which began in 2012 and aims to provide a systematic way for patients’ experiences, needs and priorities to be “captured and meaningfully incorporated” into drug development and evaluation.
Seemal Desai, MD, of the department of dermatology at the University of Texas, Dallas, who attended the meeting as an observer, said in a later interview that while “all skin diseases have a psychosocial component … vitiligo is a really unique one, because it really relates to the patient’s own identity.
“What I heard loud and clear from the FDA [leaders who ran and attended the meeting] is recognition that patients are suffering. They needed to hear about the emotional devastation of the disease and how it is a medical condition,” Dr. Desai said.
The meeting was the “first-ever vitiligo meeting at the FDA” and was a “historic moment for the vitiligo community,” he added.
The pigmentation disorder affects 1% of the world’s population. Nearly 50% have an onset before age 20, and onset before age 12 is common, Brenda Carr, MD, medical officer with the FDA’s Division of Dermatology and Dentistry in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in an introductory overview.
The only FDA-approved treatment for vitiligo is monobenzone cream, but this is indicated for final depigmentation in extensive vitiligo and is no longer marketed. Treatment options include corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, vitamin D analogues, phototherapy, surgical treatments (tissue grafts and cellular grafts), and camouflage (make-up, tattoos, self-tanning products), Dr. Carr said.
Patients participated in one of two panels – one about the health effects and daily impacts of vitiligo and the other about treatments – or submitted input electronically. All patients were invited to answer poll questions and open-ended queries, including questions about how they would assess new treatments.
Several panel members who are Black shared series of photos that showed the evolution of defined white patches into widespread, generalized depigmentation. One man with skin of color who lives in the Netherlands said he has had vitiligo since the age of 12, but that when he became older, over a 4-year period, he was “transformed from a man of Indonesian roots to a totally white man.”
Experiencing only minimal benefit from treatment and the short-term effectiveness of treatments were the top two answers to a poll question asking participants about the most burdensome impacts of the medical products and interventions they have used. Difficulty in accessing treatment, concern about serious risks of treatment, and uncertainty about long-term effects of treatment were other frequently chosen answers.
Patients described the onerous nature of phototherapy (treatments repeated several times a week over long periods) and other treatments, and several described feeling that some physicians did not take the condition seriously or fully know of treatment options.
In her closing remarks, Kendall Marcus, MD, director of the Division of Dermatology and Dentistry at the FDA, acknowledged the input. “Some of you have had difficulty having your disease taken seriously by physicians who view it as a cosmetic condition and are reluctant to treat because they believe your expectations will not be met, that it will be an exercise in frustration,” she said.
Regarding the impacts of treatments that have been utilized, “some of the treatments make it impossible to do other activities such as work or care for yourself in other ways,” Dr. Marcus said. “Certainly that’s not the kind of treatment … that anybody wants to have.”
Dr. Desai, who utilizes an array of oral and topical treatments and phototherapies in his practice, said he was surprised and disheartened to hear the level of concern about side effects of treatment. Most of those who expressed concerns alluded to phototherapy. “I think light treatments are very safe and effective,” he said in the interview. “I might equate [such concerns] to the older PUVA [psoralen plus UVA ultraviolet light] therapy, but not so much the newer therapies.”
The FDA participants probed patients for their perspective on a meaningful level of repigmentation and an acceptable level of risk for any new hypothetical treatment. Specifically, they asked whether patients would use a new topical cream approved for vitiligo if the cream needed to be applied once a day, would have up to 50% efficacy in some people, and would have common side effects of redness and irritation at the application site, mild acne, and burning, as well as several rarer but more serious side effects.
Only 36% answered yes; 24% said no, and 40% answered maybe. Some patients said during the meeting that they had accepted their condition and were not pursuing any treatment. Others said they were very interested in treatment but only if the level of repigmentation were significantly higher than 50%. Some described their fear that positive treatment effects would be short term only.
Meri Izrail Kohen, who lives in France and has lost half of her skin’s pigmentation, said that treatment efficacy is “not only about how much recovery of pigment it allows, but how long the recovery will last.” Some treatments will work for some patients, she said, “but even in these cases when we stop the treatment, it will come back somehow.”
Lee Thomas, a TV anchor in Detroit, and a reporter and author of the book “Turning White,” described how he tried “every treatment he could afford” but stopped trying 10 years ago. A treatment in Germany “gave me 80% of my pigment back, but it has gone again,” he said. “I would love to have my face back again. I was born a Black child, and I’d like to die a Black man.”
Patients also spoke of their skin burning easily outdoors; skin sensitivity, itchiness, and burning with the spread of disease; treatment expenses and not being able to afford treatment; and worsening of their vitiligo with the stress of the pandemic. Parents expressed having fear that their children would develop vitiligo and experience bullying, isolation, or other emotional or psychosocial impacts that they had experienced; one described having an almost-paralyzing anxiety when he saw patchy white spots on his 20-month-old daughter (it was not diagnosed as vitiligo).
Calls for further advancement with home phototherapy – which Dr. Desai said is a growing market but not yet adequately covered by insurance plans – were also made, as were pleas for research on the root causes of the disease.
Patients clearly indicated “that they need more efficacious treatments, and more comprehensive treatments,” said Dr. Desai, who chairs the advisory committee of the Global Vitiligo Foundation. “It’s disappointing to me that patients come in with a not fully optimistic viewpoint, with a lot of anxiety and angst that treatments are not going to work. … But the Agency needs to hear that. This means that there haven’t been good treatments and we need more.”
The FDA will accept public comments until May 10, 2021, at which time comments will be compiled into a summary report. FDA officials assured patients that the report would be visible and circulated not only within the FDA but among drug companies, researchers, and other product developers.
FROM AN FDA PATIENT-FOCUSED DRUG DEVELOPMENT MEETING