Conference Coverage

Early plans for prioritizing vaccination when a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available include placing critical health care workers in the first tier, according to Sarah Mbaeyi, MD, MPH, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

A COVID-19 vaccine work group is developing strategies and identifying priority groups for vaccination to help inform discussions about the use of COVID-19 vaccines, Dr. Mbaeyi said at a virtual meeting of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

“Preparing for vaccination during a pandemic has long been a priority of the CDC and the U.S. government,” said Dr. Mbaeyi. The work group is building on a tiered approach to vaccination that was updated in 2018 after the H1N1 flu pandemic, with occupational and high-risk populations placed in the highest-priority groups, Dr. Mbaeyi said.

There are important differences between COVID-19 and influenza, Dr. Mbaeyi said. “Vaccine prioritization is challenging due to incomplete information on COVID-19 epidemiology and vaccines, including characteristics, timing, and number of doses.”

However, guidance for vaccine prioritization developed after the H1N1 outbreak in 2018 can be adapted for COVID-19.

To help inform ACIP deliberations, the work group reviewed the epidemiology of COVID-19. A large proportion of the population remains susceptible, and prioritizations should be based on data to date and continually refined, she said.

The work group defined the objectives of the COVID-19 vaccine program as follows: “Ensure safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines; reduce transmission, morbidity, and mortality in the population; help minimize disruption to society and economy, including maintaining health care capacity; and ensure equity in vaccine allocation and distribution.”

Based on current information, the work group has proposed that vaccine priority be given to health care personnel, essential workers, adults aged 65 years and older, long-term care facility residents, and persons with high-risk medical conditions.

Among these groups “a subset of critical health care and other workers should receive initial doses,” Dr. Mbaeyi said.

However, vaccines will not be administered until safety and efficacy have been demonstrated, she emphasized. The timing and number of vaccine doses are unknown, and subprioritization may be needed, assuming the vaccine becomes available in incremental quantities over several months.

Next steps for the work group are refinement of priority groups based on ACIP feedback, and assignment of tiers to other groups such as children, pregnant women, and racial/ethnic groups at high risk, Dr. Mbaeyi said.

The goal of the work group is to have a prioritization framework for COVID-19 vaccination to present at the next ACIP meeting.

Committee member Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., emphasized that “one of the things we need to know is how is the virus [is] transmitted and who is transmitting,” and that this information will be key to developing strategies for vaccination.

Sarah E. Oliver, MD, an epidemiologist at the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, responded that household transmission studies are in progress that will help inform the prioritization process.

Dr. Mbaeyi and Dr. Oliver had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Early plans for prioritizing vaccination when a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available include placing critical health care workers in the first tier, according to Sarah Mbaeyi, MD, MPH, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

A COVID-19 vaccine work group is developing strategies and identifying priority groups for vaccination to help inform discussions about the use of COVID-19 vaccines, Dr. Mbaeyi said at a virtual meeting of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

“Preparing for vaccination during a pandemic has long been a priority of the CDC and the U.S. government,” said Dr. Mbaeyi. The work group is building on a tiered approach to vaccination that was updated in 2018 after the H1N1 flu pandemic, with occupational and high-risk populations placed in the highest-priority groups, Dr. Mbaeyi said.

There are important differences between COVID-19 and influenza, Dr. Mbaeyi said. “Vaccine prioritization is challenging due to incomplete information on COVID-19 epidemiology and vaccines, including characteristics, timing, and number of doses.”

However, guidance for vaccine prioritization developed after the H1N1 outbreak in 2018 can be adapted for COVID-19.

To help inform ACIP deliberations, the work group reviewed the epidemiology of COVID-19. A large proportion of the population remains susceptible, and prioritizations should be based on data to date and continually refined, she said.

The work group defined the objectives of the COVID-19 vaccine program as follows: “Ensure safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines; reduce transmission, morbidity, and mortality in the population; help minimize disruption to society and economy, including maintaining health care capacity; and ensure equity in vaccine allocation and distribution.”

Based on current information, the work group has proposed that vaccine priority be given to health care personnel, essential workers, adults aged 65 years and older, long-term care facility residents, and persons with high-risk medical conditions.

Among these groups “a subset of critical health care and other workers should receive initial doses,” Dr. Mbaeyi said.

However, vaccines will not be administered until safety and efficacy have been demonstrated, she emphasized. The timing and number of vaccine doses are unknown, and subprioritization may be needed, assuming the vaccine becomes available in incremental quantities over several months.

Next steps for the work group are refinement of priority groups based on ACIP feedback, and assignment of tiers to other groups such as children, pregnant women, and racial/ethnic groups at high risk, Dr. Mbaeyi said.

The goal of the work group is to have a prioritization framework for COVID-19 vaccination to present at the next ACIP meeting.

Committee member Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., emphasized that “one of the things we need to know is how is the virus [is] transmitted and who is transmitting,” and that this information will be key to developing strategies for vaccination.

Sarah E. Oliver, MD, an epidemiologist at the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, responded that household transmission studies are in progress that will help inform the prioritization process.

Dr. Mbaeyi and Dr. Oliver had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Early plans for prioritizing vaccination when a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available include placing critical health care workers in the first tier, according to Sarah Mbaeyi, MD, MPH, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

A COVID-19 vaccine work group is developing strategies and identifying priority groups for vaccination to help inform discussions about the use of COVID-19 vaccines, Dr. Mbaeyi said at a virtual meeting of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

“Preparing for vaccination during a pandemic has long been a priority of the CDC and the U.S. government,” said Dr. Mbaeyi. The work group is building on a tiered approach to vaccination that was updated in 2018 after the H1N1 flu pandemic, with occupational and high-risk populations placed in the highest-priority groups, Dr. Mbaeyi said.

There are important differences between COVID-19 and influenza, Dr. Mbaeyi said. “Vaccine prioritization is challenging due to incomplete information on COVID-19 epidemiology and vaccines, including characteristics, timing, and number of doses.”

However, guidance for vaccine prioritization developed after the H1N1 outbreak in 2018 can be adapted for COVID-19.

To help inform ACIP deliberations, the work group reviewed the epidemiology of COVID-19. A large proportion of the population remains susceptible, and prioritizations should be based on data to date and continually refined, she said.

The work group defined the objectives of the COVID-19 vaccine program as follows: “Ensure safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines; reduce transmission, morbidity, and mortality in the population; help minimize disruption to society and economy, including maintaining health care capacity; and ensure equity in vaccine allocation and distribution.”

Based on current information, the work group has proposed that vaccine priority be given to health care personnel, essential workers, adults aged 65 years and older, long-term care facility residents, and persons with high-risk medical conditions.

Among these groups “a subset of critical health care and other workers should receive initial doses,” Dr. Mbaeyi said.

However, vaccines will not be administered until safety and efficacy have been demonstrated, she emphasized. The timing and number of vaccine doses are unknown, and subprioritization may be needed, assuming the vaccine becomes available in incremental quantities over several months.

Next steps for the work group are refinement of priority groups based on ACIP feedback, and assignment of tiers to other groups such as children, pregnant women, and racial/ethnic groups at high risk, Dr. Mbaeyi said.

The goal of the work group is to have a prioritization framework for COVID-19 vaccination to present at the next ACIP meeting.

Committee member Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., emphasized that “one of the things we need to know is how is the virus [is] transmitted and who is transmitting,” and that this information will be key to developing strategies for vaccination.

Sarah E. Oliver, MD, an epidemiologist at the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, responded that household transmission studies are in progress that will help inform the prioritization process.

Dr. Mbaeyi and Dr. Oliver had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Patients with Philadelphia chromosome–positive acute lymphoblastic or chronic myeloid leukemias in lymphoid blast phase may have longer event-free and overall survival with a combination of inotuzumab ozogamicin (Besponsa) and bosutinib (Bosulif) than with standard chemotherapy combined with a targeted agent, investigators in a phase 1/2 study reported.

Among patients with relapsed or refractory Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph+ ALL) or chronic myeloid leukemia (Ph+ CML) in lymphoid blast phase treated with inotuzumab ozogamicin (Besponsa) and bosutinib (Bosulif), the median overall survival was 15.4 months. In contrast, median overall survival for similar patients treated with chemotherapy and a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) was less than 6 months, reported Nitin Jain, MD, and colleagues from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

The study was presented in a scientific poster session as part of the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

“Patients with relapsed/refractory Philadelphia chromosome–positive ALL/CML in lymphoid blast crisis are also best managed with a TKI targeting the constitutively active ABL kinase with the TKI selected based on presence of ABL kinase mutations and prior TKI history,” commented Marlise R. Luskin, MD, a leukemia specialist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.

“A critical question for this patient population is whether these two approaches [TKI and inotuzumab ozogamicin] can be administered safely in combination. I congratulate MD Anderson for completion of this Phase I trial which demonstrates that inotuzumab and bosutinib can be safely combined with identification of a maximum tolerated dose of bosutinib 400 mg daily when administered in combination. I look forward to further studies that explore the efficacy of combination versus the approved single-agent regimen,” she said in an interview.
 

Study details

To see whether they could improve the dismal outcomes for patients with Ph+ ALL or Ph+ CML in lymphoid blast phase, they studied the combination of inotuzumab ozogamicin, an anti-CD22 monoclonal antibody conjugated to the cytotoxic antibiotic calicheamicin, and bosutinib, an inhibitor of the ABL kinase. Inotuzumab is approved in the United States for treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory B-cell precursor ALL, bosutinib is approved for the treatment of patients with newly-diagnosed chronic phase Ph+ CML and for adults with chronic, accelerated, or blast phase Ph+ CML with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy.

The investigators enrolled 16 patients with Ph+ ALL and 2 with Ph+ CML with bone marrow blasts greater than 5%, CD22 expressed on at least 20% of blasts, and good to fair performance status. The patients also had adequate organ function as measured by liver enzyme, total bilirubin, and serum creatinine levels. Patients with the T315I mutation, prior anti-CD22 therapy, active graft-versus-host disease, or liver disease were excluded.

The patients received inotuzumab 0.8 mg/m² intravenously on day 1, they received 0.5 mg/m² on days 8 and 15 of cycle 1, and they received 0.5 mg/m² on days 1, 8, and 15 of cycles 2 through 6. Each cycle was 4 weeks. Patients who had a complete remission (CR), had complete cytogenetic remission (CCyR), or became negative for minimal residual disease (MRD) continued on 1 mg/m² every 4 weeks. Bosutinib was dosed continuously day starting on the first day of cycle 1 and continued until disease progression or toxicity.

After a median follow-up of 36.7 months, 11 of the 18 patients had CRs, and 4 had CRs with incomplete recovery of hematologic counts. In addition, 13 of 16 patients with without diploid cytogenetics at the start of the study had CCyr; 14 patients had major molecular remission; 10 had complete molecular remission, and 11 were negative by flow cytometry.

As noted before, the median overall survival was 15.4 months. Event-free survival – time to lack of response, relapse, MRD relapse requiring therapy, or death – was 8 months. The event-free survival data were not censored for allogeneic stem cell transplant. Six patients underwent transplant while in remission.

The primary objective of the phase 1 trial was to evaluate safety of the combination and determine the maximum tolerated dose of bosutinib, which was determined to be 400 mg daily. At this dose level, one patient had a dose-limiting toxicity in the form of a grade 3 skin rash.

The most frequent adverse events were diarrhea and rash, in 50% of patients each, and nausea in 39% of patients. Grade 3 adverse events included were rash in three patients and reversible alanine aminotransferase and hyponatremia in one patient each. No patients developed veno-occlusive disease, and there no deaths within 30 days of the start of therapy.

Dr. Jain disclosed consultancy, honoraria, advisory board/committee activity, and research funding from Pfizer, maker of inotuzumab ozogamicin and bosutinib. Dr. Luskin reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Jain N et al. EHA25, Abstract EP396.

Patients with Philadelphia chromosome–positive acute lymphoblastic or chronic myeloid leukemias in lymphoid blast phase may have longer event-free and overall survival with a combination of inotuzumab ozogamicin (Besponsa) and bosutinib (Bosulif) than with standard chemotherapy combined with a targeted agent, investigators in a phase 1/2 study reported.

Among patients with relapsed or refractory Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph+ ALL) or chronic myeloid leukemia (Ph+ CML) in lymphoid blast phase treated with inotuzumab ozogamicin (Besponsa) and bosutinib (Bosulif), the median overall survival was 15.4 months. In contrast, median overall survival for similar patients treated with chemotherapy and a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) was less than 6 months, reported Nitin Jain, MD, and colleagues from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

The study was presented in a scientific poster session as part of the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

“Patients with relapsed/refractory Philadelphia chromosome–positive ALL/CML in lymphoid blast crisis are also best managed with a TKI targeting the constitutively active ABL kinase with the TKI selected based on presence of ABL kinase mutations and prior TKI history,” commented Marlise R. Luskin, MD, a leukemia specialist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.

“A critical question for this patient population is whether these two approaches [TKI and inotuzumab ozogamicin] can be administered safely in combination. I congratulate MD Anderson for completion of this Phase I trial which demonstrates that inotuzumab and bosutinib can be safely combined with identification of a maximum tolerated dose of bosutinib 400 mg daily when administered in combination. I look forward to further studies that explore the efficacy of combination versus the approved single-agent regimen,” she said in an interview.
 

Study details

To see whether they could improve the dismal outcomes for patients with Ph+ ALL or Ph+ CML in lymphoid blast phase, they studied the combination of inotuzumab ozogamicin, an anti-CD22 monoclonal antibody conjugated to the cytotoxic antibiotic calicheamicin, and bosutinib, an inhibitor of the ABL kinase. Inotuzumab is approved in the United States for treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory B-cell precursor ALL, bosutinib is approved for the treatment of patients with newly-diagnosed chronic phase Ph+ CML and for adults with chronic, accelerated, or blast phase Ph+ CML with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy.

The investigators enrolled 16 patients with Ph+ ALL and 2 with Ph+ CML with bone marrow blasts greater than 5%, CD22 expressed on at least 20% of blasts, and good to fair performance status. The patients also had adequate organ function as measured by liver enzyme, total bilirubin, and serum creatinine levels. Patients with the T315I mutation, prior anti-CD22 therapy, active graft-versus-host disease, or liver disease were excluded.

The patients received inotuzumab 0.8 mg/m² intravenously on day 1, they received 0.5 mg/m² on days 8 and 15 of cycle 1, and they received 0.5 mg/m² on days 1, 8, and 15 of cycles 2 through 6. Each cycle was 4 weeks. Patients who had a complete remission (CR), had complete cytogenetic remission (CCyR), or became negative for minimal residual disease (MRD) continued on 1 mg/m² every 4 weeks. Bosutinib was dosed continuously day starting on the first day of cycle 1 and continued until disease progression or toxicity.

After a median follow-up of 36.7 months, 11 of the 18 patients had CRs, and 4 had CRs with incomplete recovery of hematologic counts. In addition, 13 of 16 patients with without diploid cytogenetics at the start of the study had CCyr; 14 patients had major molecular remission; 10 had complete molecular remission, and 11 were negative by flow cytometry.

As noted before, the median overall survival was 15.4 months. Event-free survival – time to lack of response, relapse, MRD relapse requiring therapy, or death – was 8 months. The event-free survival data were not censored for allogeneic stem cell transplant. Six patients underwent transplant while in remission.

The primary objective of the phase 1 trial was to evaluate safety of the combination and determine the maximum tolerated dose of bosutinib, which was determined to be 400 mg daily. At this dose level, one patient had a dose-limiting toxicity in the form of a grade 3 skin rash.

The most frequent adverse events were diarrhea and rash, in 50% of patients each, and nausea in 39% of patients. Grade 3 adverse events included were rash in three patients and reversible alanine aminotransferase and hyponatremia in one patient each. No patients developed veno-occlusive disease, and there no deaths within 30 days of the start of therapy.

Dr. Jain disclosed consultancy, honoraria, advisory board/committee activity, and research funding from Pfizer, maker of inotuzumab ozogamicin and bosutinib. Dr. Luskin reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Jain N et al. EHA25, Abstract EP396.

Patients with Philadelphia chromosome–positive acute lymphoblastic or chronic myeloid leukemias in lymphoid blast phase may have longer event-free and overall survival with a combination of inotuzumab ozogamicin (Besponsa) and bosutinib (Bosulif) than with standard chemotherapy combined with a targeted agent, investigators in a phase 1/2 study reported.

Among patients with relapsed or refractory Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph+ ALL) or chronic myeloid leukemia (Ph+ CML) in lymphoid blast phase treated with inotuzumab ozogamicin (Besponsa) and bosutinib (Bosulif), the median overall survival was 15.4 months. In contrast, median overall survival for similar patients treated with chemotherapy and a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) was less than 6 months, reported Nitin Jain, MD, and colleagues from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

The study was presented in a scientific poster session as part of the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

“Patients with relapsed/refractory Philadelphia chromosome–positive ALL/CML in lymphoid blast crisis are also best managed with a TKI targeting the constitutively active ABL kinase with the TKI selected based on presence of ABL kinase mutations and prior TKI history,” commented Marlise R. Luskin, MD, a leukemia specialist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.

“A critical question for this patient population is whether these two approaches [TKI and inotuzumab ozogamicin] can be administered safely in combination. I congratulate MD Anderson for completion of this Phase I trial which demonstrates that inotuzumab and bosutinib can be safely combined with identification of a maximum tolerated dose of bosutinib 400 mg daily when administered in combination. I look forward to further studies that explore the efficacy of combination versus the approved single-agent regimen,” she said in an interview.
 

Study details

To see whether they could improve the dismal outcomes for patients with Ph+ ALL or Ph+ CML in lymphoid blast phase, they studied the combination of inotuzumab ozogamicin, an anti-CD22 monoclonal antibody conjugated to the cytotoxic antibiotic calicheamicin, and bosutinib, an inhibitor of the ABL kinase. Inotuzumab is approved in the United States for treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory B-cell precursor ALL, bosutinib is approved for the treatment of patients with newly-diagnosed chronic phase Ph+ CML and for adults with chronic, accelerated, or blast phase Ph+ CML with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy.

The investigators enrolled 16 patients with Ph+ ALL and 2 with Ph+ CML with bone marrow blasts greater than 5%, CD22 expressed on at least 20% of blasts, and good to fair performance status. The patients also had adequate organ function as measured by liver enzyme, total bilirubin, and serum creatinine levels. Patients with the T315I mutation, prior anti-CD22 therapy, active graft-versus-host disease, or liver disease were excluded.

The patients received inotuzumab 0.8 mg/m² intravenously on day 1, they received 0.5 mg/m² on days 8 and 15 of cycle 1, and they received 0.5 mg/m² on days 1, 8, and 15 of cycles 2 through 6. Each cycle was 4 weeks. Patients who had a complete remission (CR), had complete cytogenetic remission (CCyR), or became negative for minimal residual disease (MRD) continued on 1 mg/m² every 4 weeks. Bosutinib was dosed continuously day starting on the first day of cycle 1 and continued until disease progression or toxicity.

After a median follow-up of 36.7 months, 11 of the 18 patients had CRs, and 4 had CRs with incomplete recovery of hematologic counts. In addition, 13 of 16 patients with without diploid cytogenetics at the start of the study had CCyr; 14 patients had major molecular remission; 10 had complete molecular remission, and 11 were negative by flow cytometry.

As noted before, the median overall survival was 15.4 months. Event-free survival – time to lack of response, relapse, MRD relapse requiring therapy, or death – was 8 months. The event-free survival data were not censored for allogeneic stem cell transplant. Six patients underwent transplant while in remission.

The primary objective of the phase 1 trial was to evaluate safety of the combination and determine the maximum tolerated dose of bosutinib, which was determined to be 400 mg daily. At this dose level, one patient had a dose-limiting toxicity in the form of a grade 3 skin rash.

The most frequent adverse events were diarrhea and rash, in 50% of patients each, and nausea in 39% of patients. Grade 3 adverse events included were rash in three patients and reversible alanine aminotransferase and hyponatremia in one patient each. No patients developed veno-occlusive disease, and there no deaths within 30 days of the start of therapy.

Dr. Jain disclosed consultancy, honoraria, advisory board/committee activity, and research funding from Pfizer, maker of inotuzumab ozogamicin and bosutinib. Dr. Luskin reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Jain N et al. EHA25, Abstract EP396.

Past treatment may affect the risk of death among patients with thoracic malignancies who develop COVID-19, according to data from the TERAVOLT registry.

Prior treatment with steroids, anticoagulants, chemotherapy alone, or chemotherapy plus immunotherapy were all associated with an increased risk of death, but prior treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors or immunotherapy alone were not.

At the same time, there were no COVID-19–directed treatments that seemed to affect the risk of death.

“When we look at therapies administered to treat COVID-19 … including anticoagulation, antibiotics, antivirals, hydroxychloroquine, we found that no particular therapy was associated with increased chance of recovery from COVID-19,” said Leora Horn, MD, of Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville, Tenn.

Dr. Horn presented these findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.
 

About TERAVOLT

The TERAVOLT registry is the brainchild of Marina Garassino, MD, of the National Cancer Institute of Milan. On March 15, Dr. Garassino emailed colleagues around the world with the idea of starting the registry. Within 5 days, the final protocol was approved, and the first patient was entered onto TERAVOLT.

In creating a registry, Dr. Garassino and colleagues wanted to “determine the demographic factors, comorbidities, cancer characteristics, and therapies that place patients with thoracic malignancies who develop COVID-19 most at risk for hospitalization and death,” Dr. Horn said.

Other goals of the registry are “to understand the clinical course of patients with thoracic malignancies who are infected by SARS-CoV-2, to provide practitioners with real-time data on therapeutic strategies that may impact survival, [and] to evaluate the long-term impact on cancer outcomes related to care adjustments and delays in patients with thoracic malignancies,” she added.

Dr. Garassino presented the first analysis of TERAVOLT data at the AACR virtual meeting I in April. Results were recently published in The Lancet Oncology as well. That analysis included 200 patients, 98% of whom were from Europe, and the median follow-up was 15 days.

Baseline characteristics and outcomes

Dr. Horn’s updated analysis included 400 patients with a median follow-up of 33 days from COVID-19 diagnosis. The data encompassed patients from North and South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia.

Of the 400 patients, 169 had recovered, 141 had died, and 118 were still in the hospital at the time of analysis. In all, 334 patients (78.3%) required a hospital admission, and 33 (8.3%) were admitted to the ICU. The median length of hospitalization was 10 days.

Across the three outcome groups (recovered, died, ongoing), the median age was 67-70 years. Most patients had non–small cell lung cancer (74.5%-81.9%), and most had stage IV disease (61.4%-76.8%).

A majority of patients were male (63.3%-70.2%), and most were current or former smokers (77.5%-86.9%). The median body mass index was 24-25 kg/m², and 35%-46.4% of patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0.

Most patients (82.2%-90.7%) had COVID-19 diagnosed via real-time polymerase chain reaction, although some patients were diagnosed via clinical findings alone (3.1%-5%).

“[R]egardless of outcome, the most common presenting symptom was fever, cough, or dyspnea,” Dr. Horn noted.

As for complications of COVID-19, 71% of patients who died had pneumonitis/pneumonia, 49.6% had acute respiratory distress syndrome, 14.9% had multiorgan failure, 12.1% had sepsis, and 5.7% had coagulopathy.

Among recovered patients, 59% had pneumonitis/pneumonia, 4.1% had acute respiratory distress syndrome, 3% had coagulopathy, 0.6% had sepsis, and none had multiorgan failure.

Patients who recovered were more likely to have no comorbidities at baseline, and 31.2% of patients who died had at least one comorbidity. The most frequent comorbidities were hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, vascular disease, diabetes, and renal insufficiencies.
 

Prior treatments and COVID therapy

Among patients who died, 33.4% were on ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers, 27% were on anticoagulants, and 23.4% were on steroids (the equivalent of at least 10 mg of prednisone per day) at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis.

Among recovered patients, 20.7% were on ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers, 18.3% were on anticoagulants, and 14.2% were on steroids at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis.

“When we look at cancer therapy in the last 3 months, we can see that, regardless of outcome, the majority of patients had either not been treated or were on first-line therapy at the time of their COVID-19 diagnosis,” Dr. Horn noted.

Among patients who died, 46.8% had received chemotherapy, 22% had received immunotherapy, 12.8% had received targeted therapy, and 9.2% had received radiotherapy.

Among recovered patients, 33.7% had received chemotherapy, 26.6% had received immunotherapy, 19.5% had received targeted therapy, and 14.2% had received radiotherapy.

COVID-19–directed treatments included anticoagulation, antibiotics, antivirals, antifungals, steroids, interleukin-6 inhibitors, and hydroxychloroquine. Use of these therapies was similar among patients who recovered and patients who died.
 

Factors associated with death

In all, 79.4% of deaths were attributed to COVID-19, 10.6% were attributed to cancer, 8.5% were attributed to cancer and COVID-19, and 1.4% of deaths had an unknown cause.

In a univariate analysis, baseline characteristics associated with an increased risk of death were age of 65 years or older (P = .0033), one or more comorbidity (P = .0351), and ECOG performance status of 1 (P < .0001). Therapies associated with an increased risk of death in a univariate analysis included steroids (P = .0186), anticoagulation (P = .0562), and either chemotherapy alone or chemotherapy plus immunotherapy (P = .0256).

In a multivariate analysis, age over 65 years (P = .018), ECOG performance status of 1 (P < .001), prior use of steroids (P = .052), and receipt of chemotherapy alone or in combination with immunotherapy (P = .025) were all associated with an increased risk of death.

“There is no impact of gender [sex], body mass index, smoking status, stage, or type of cancer on risk of death,” Dr. Horn said. “Therapy administered to treat COVID-19 is not significantly associated with outcome.”

“The impact of COVID-19 infection on cancer management and outcomes must be evaluated,” she added. “Data collection is ongoing, with additional analysis and studies planned to look at patient and provider perception of COVID-19 and the impact it has had on cancer care.”

Strengths and limitations

There are several limitations to findings from the TERAVOLT registry, according to invited discussant Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, of the University of Milan.

He said the results are limited by the differences in triage decisions between European and other centers, the fact that most patients in TERAVOLT were hospitalized, the high proportion of patients with stage IV non–small cell lung cancer, and methods of data collection and analysis.

“There is no real-time data capture, no auditing, no standardized outcome definitions, and CRFs [case report forms] had a lot of limitations,” Dr. Curigliano said. “We have multiple biases, including selection bias, recall bias, confounding by indication, and changes in practice or disease evolution.”

Dr. Curigliano noted, however, that TERAVOLT is the largest real-world dataset of patients with COVID-19 and thoracic malignancies.

Furthermore, results from TERAVOLT correspond to results from the CCC-19 registry. Data from both registries suggest that older age, the presence of comorbidities, higher ECOG performances status, and chemotherapy alone or in combination with other therapies are associated with increased mortality among patients with cancer and COVID-19.

The TERAVOLT registry is funded, in part, by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Dr. Horn disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Curigliano disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ellipses Pharma, and other pharmaceutical companies.
 

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Horn L et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract LBA111.

Past treatment may affect the risk of death among patients with thoracic malignancies who develop COVID-19, according to data from the TERAVOLT registry.

Prior treatment with steroids, anticoagulants, chemotherapy alone, or chemotherapy plus immunotherapy were all associated with an increased risk of death, but prior treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors or immunotherapy alone were not.

At the same time, there were no COVID-19–directed treatments that seemed to affect the risk of death.

“When we look at therapies administered to treat COVID-19 … including anticoagulation, antibiotics, antivirals, hydroxychloroquine, we found that no particular therapy was associated with increased chance of recovery from COVID-19,” said Leora Horn, MD, of Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville, Tenn.

Dr. Horn presented these findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.
 

About TERAVOLT

The TERAVOLT registry is the brainchild of Marina Garassino, MD, of the National Cancer Institute of Milan. On March 15, Dr. Garassino emailed colleagues around the world with the idea of starting the registry. Within 5 days, the final protocol was approved, and the first patient was entered onto TERAVOLT.

In creating a registry, Dr. Garassino and colleagues wanted to “determine the demographic factors, comorbidities, cancer characteristics, and therapies that place patients with thoracic malignancies who develop COVID-19 most at risk for hospitalization and death,” Dr. Horn said.

Other goals of the registry are “to understand the clinical course of patients with thoracic malignancies who are infected by SARS-CoV-2, to provide practitioners with real-time data on therapeutic strategies that may impact survival, [and] to evaluate the long-term impact on cancer outcomes related to care adjustments and delays in patients with thoracic malignancies,” she added.

Dr. Garassino presented the first analysis of TERAVOLT data at the AACR virtual meeting I in April. Results were recently published in The Lancet Oncology as well. That analysis included 200 patients, 98% of whom were from Europe, and the median follow-up was 15 days.

Baseline characteristics and outcomes

Dr. Horn’s updated analysis included 400 patients with a median follow-up of 33 days from COVID-19 diagnosis. The data encompassed patients from North and South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia.

Of the 400 patients, 169 had recovered, 141 had died, and 118 were still in the hospital at the time of analysis. In all, 334 patients (78.3%) required a hospital admission, and 33 (8.3%) were admitted to the ICU. The median length of hospitalization was 10 days.

Across the three outcome groups (recovered, died, ongoing), the median age was 67-70 years. Most patients had non–small cell lung cancer (74.5%-81.9%), and most had stage IV disease (61.4%-76.8%).

A majority of patients were male (63.3%-70.2%), and most were current or former smokers (77.5%-86.9%). The median body mass index was 24-25 kg/m², and 35%-46.4% of patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0.

Most patients (82.2%-90.7%) had COVID-19 diagnosed via real-time polymerase chain reaction, although some patients were diagnosed via clinical findings alone (3.1%-5%).

“[R]egardless of outcome, the most common presenting symptom was fever, cough, or dyspnea,” Dr. Horn noted.

As for complications of COVID-19, 71% of patients who died had pneumonitis/pneumonia, 49.6% had acute respiratory distress syndrome, 14.9% had multiorgan failure, 12.1% had sepsis, and 5.7% had coagulopathy.

Among recovered patients, 59% had pneumonitis/pneumonia, 4.1% had acute respiratory distress syndrome, 3% had coagulopathy, 0.6% had sepsis, and none had multiorgan failure.

Patients who recovered were more likely to have no comorbidities at baseline, and 31.2% of patients who died had at least one comorbidity. The most frequent comorbidities were hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, vascular disease, diabetes, and renal insufficiencies.
 

Prior treatments and COVID therapy

Among patients who died, 33.4% were on ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers, 27% were on anticoagulants, and 23.4% were on steroids (the equivalent of at least 10 mg of prednisone per day) at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis.

Among recovered patients, 20.7% were on ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers, 18.3% were on anticoagulants, and 14.2% were on steroids at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis.

“When we look at cancer therapy in the last 3 months, we can see that, regardless of outcome, the majority of patients had either not been treated or were on first-line therapy at the time of their COVID-19 diagnosis,” Dr. Horn noted.

Among patients who died, 46.8% had received chemotherapy, 22% had received immunotherapy, 12.8% had received targeted therapy, and 9.2% had received radiotherapy.

Among recovered patients, 33.7% had received chemotherapy, 26.6% had received immunotherapy, 19.5% had received targeted therapy, and 14.2% had received radiotherapy.

COVID-19–directed treatments included anticoagulation, antibiotics, antivirals, antifungals, steroids, interleukin-6 inhibitors, and hydroxychloroquine. Use of these therapies was similar among patients who recovered and patients who died.
 

Factors associated with death

In all, 79.4% of deaths were attributed to COVID-19, 10.6% were attributed to cancer, 8.5% were attributed to cancer and COVID-19, and 1.4% of deaths had an unknown cause.

In a univariate analysis, baseline characteristics associated with an increased risk of death were age of 65 years or older (P = .0033), one or more comorbidity (P = .0351), and ECOG performance status of 1 (P < .0001). Therapies associated with an increased risk of death in a univariate analysis included steroids (P = .0186), anticoagulation (P = .0562), and either chemotherapy alone or chemotherapy plus immunotherapy (P = .0256).

In a multivariate analysis, age over 65 years (P = .018), ECOG performance status of 1 (P < .001), prior use of steroids (P = .052), and receipt of chemotherapy alone or in combination with immunotherapy (P = .025) were all associated with an increased risk of death.

“There is no impact of gender [sex], body mass index, smoking status, stage, or type of cancer on risk of death,” Dr. Horn said. “Therapy administered to treat COVID-19 is not significantly associated with outcome.”

“The impact of COVID-19 infection on cancer management and outcomes must be evaluated,” she added. “Data collection is ongoing, with additional analysis and studies planned to look at patient and provider perception of COVID-19 and the impact it has had on cancer care.”

Strengths and limitations

There are several limitations to findings from the TERAVOLT registry, according to invited discussant Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, of the University of Milan.

He said the results are limited by the differences in triage decisions between European and other centers, the fact that most patients in TERAVOLT were hospitalized, the high proportion of patients with stage IV non–small cell lung cancer, and methods of data collection and analysis.

“There is no real-time data capture, no auditing, no standardized outcome definitions, and CRFs [case report forms] had a lot of limitations,” Dr. Curigliano said. “We have multiple biases, including selection bias, recall bias, confounding by indication, and changes in practice or disease evolution.”

Dr. Curigliano noted, however, that TERAVOLT is the largest real-world dataset of patients with COVID-19 and thoracic malignancies.

Furthermore, results from TERAVOLT correspond to results from the CCC-19 registry. Data from both registries suggest that older age, the presence of comorbidities, higher ECOG performances status, and chemotherapy alone or in combination with other therapies are associated with increased mortality among patients with cancer and COVID-19.

The TERAVOLT registry is funded, in part, by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Dr. Horn disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Curigliano disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ellipses Pharma, and other pharmaceutical companies.
 

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Horn L et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract LBA111.

Past treatment may affect the risk of death among patients with thoracic malignancies who develop COVID-19, according to data from the TERAVOLT registry.

Prior treatment with steroids, anticoagulants, chemotherapy alone, or chemotherapy plus immunotherapy were all associated with an increased risk of death, but prior treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors or immunotherapy alone were not.

At the same time, there were no COVID-19–directed treatments that seemed to affect the risk of death.

“When we look at therapies administered to treat COVID-19 … including anticoagulation, antibiotics, antivirals, hydroxychloroquine, we found that no particular therapy was associated with increased chance of recovery from COVID-19,” said Leora Horn, MD, of Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville, Tenn.

Dr. Horn presented these findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.
 

About TERAVOLT

The TERAVOLT registry is the brainchild of Marina Garassino, MD, of the National Cancer Institute of Milan. On March 15, Dr. Garassino emailed colleagues around the world with the idea of starting the registry. Within 5 days, the final protocol was approved, and the first patient was entered onto TERAVOLT.

In creating a registry, Dr. Garassino and colleagues wanted to “determine the demographic factors, comorbidities, cancer characteristics, and therapies that place patients with thoracic malignancies who develop COVID-19 most at risk for hospitalization and death,” Dr. Horn said.

Other goals of the registry are “to understand the clinical course of patients with thoracic malignancies who are infected by SARS-CoV-2, to provide practitioners with real-time data on therapeutic strategies that may impact survival, [and] to evaluate the long-term impact on cancer outcomes related to care adjustments and delays in patients with thoracic malignancies,” she added.

Dr. Garassino presented the first analysis of TERAVOLT data at the AACR virtual meeting I in April. Results were recently published in The Lancet Oncology as well. That analysis included 200 patients, 98% of whom were from Europe, and the median follow-up was 15 days.

Baseline characteristics and outcomes

Dr. Horn’s updated analysis included 400 patients with a median follow-up of 33 days from COVID-19 diagnosis. The data encompassed patients from North and South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia.

Of the 400 patients, 169 had recovered, 141 had died, and 118 were still in the hospital at the time of analysis. In all, 334 patients (78.3%) required a hospital admission, and 33 (8.3%) were admitted to the ICU. The median length of hospitalization was 10 days.

Across the three outcome groups (recovered, died, ongoing), the median age was 67-70 years. Most patients had non–small cell lung cancer (74.5%-81.9%), and most had stage IV disease (61.4%-76.8%).

A majority of patients were male (63.3%-70.2%), and most were current or former smokers (77.5%-86.9%). The median body mass index was 24-25 kg/m², and 35%-46.4% of patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0.

Most patients (82.2%-90.7%) had COVID-19 diagnosed via real-time polymerase chain reaction, although some patients were diagnosed via clinical findings alone (3.1%-5%).

“[R]egardless of outcome, the most common presenting symptom was fever, cough, or dyspnea,” Dr. Horn noted.

As for complications of COVID-19, 71% of patients who died had pneumonitis/pneumonia, 49.6% had acute respiratory distress syndrome, 14.9% had multiorgan failure, 12.1% had sepsis, and 5.7% had coagulopathy.

Among recovered patients, 59% had pneumonitis/pneumonia, 4.1% had acute respiratory distress syndrome, 3% had coagulopathy, 0.6% had sepsis, and none had multiorgan failure.

Patients who recovered were more likely to have no comorbidities at baseline, and 31.2% of patients who died had at least one comorbidity. The most frequent comorbidities were hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, vascular disease, diabetes, and renal insufficiencies.
 

Prior treatments and COVID therapy

Among patients who died, 33.4% were on ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers, 27% were on anticoagulants, and 23.4% were on steroids (the equivalent of at least 10 mg of prednisone per day) at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis.

Among recovered patients, 20.7% were on ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers, 18.3% were on anticoagulants, and 14.2% were on steroids at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis.

“When we look at cancer therapy in the last 3 months, we can see that, regardless of outcome, the majority of patients had either not been treated or were on first-line therapy at the time of their COVID-19 diagnosis,” Dr. Horn noted.

Among patients who died, 46.8% had received chemotherapy, 22% had received immunotherapy, 12.8% had received targeted therapy, and 9.2% had received radiotherapy.

Among recovered patients, 33.7% had received chemotherapy, 26.6% had received immunotherapy, 19.5% had received targeted therapy, and 14.2% had received radiotherapy.

COVID-19–directed treatments included anticoagulation, antibiotics, antivirals, antifungals, steroids, interleukin-6 inhibitors, and hydroxychloroquine. Use of these therapies was similar among patients who recovered and patients who died.
 

Factors associated with death

In all, 79.4% of deaths were attributed to COVID-19, 10.6% were attributed to cancer, 8.5% were attributed to cancer and COVID-19, and 1.4% of deaths had an unknown cause.

In a univariate analysis, baseline characteristics associated with an increased risk of death were age of 65 years or older (P = .0033), one or more comorbidity (P = .0351), and ECOG performance status of 1 (P < .0001). Therapies associated with an increased risk of death in a univariate analysis included steroids (P = .0186), anticoagulation (P = .0562), and either chemotherapy alone or chemotherapy plus immunotherapy (P = .0256).

In a multivariate analysis, age over 65 years (P = .018), ECOG performance status of 1 (P < .001), prior use of steroids (P = .052), and receipt of chemotherapy alone or in combination with immunotherapy (P = .025) were all associated with an increased risk of death.

“There is no impact of gender [sex], body mass index, smoking status, stage, or type of cancer on risk of death,” Dr. Horn said. “Therapy administered to treat COVID-19 is not significantly associated with outcome.”

“The impact of COVID-19 infection on cancer management and outcomes must be evaluated,” she added. “Data collection is ongoing, with additional analysis and studies planned to look at patient and provider perception of COVID-19 and the impact it has had on cancer care.”

Strengths and limitations

There are several limitations to findings from the TERAVOLT registry, according to invited discussant Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, of the University of Milan.

He said the results are limited by the differences in triage decisions between European and other centers, the fact that most patients in TERAVOLT were hospitalized, the high proportion of patients with stage IV non–small cell lung cancer, and methods of data collection and analysis.

“There is no real-time data capture, no auditing, no standardized outcome definitions, and CRFs [case report forms] had a lot of limitations,” Dr. Curigliano said. “We have multiple biases, including selection bias, recall bias, confounding by indication, and changes in practice or disease evolution.”

Dr. Curigliano noted, however, that TERAVOLT is the largest real-world dataset of patients with COVID-19 and thoracic malignancies.

Furthermore, results from TERAVOLT correspond to results from the CCC-19 registry. Data from both registries suggest that older age, the presence of comorbidities, higher ECOG performances status, and chemotherapy alone or in combination with other therapies are associated with increased mortality among patients with cancer and COVID-19.

The TERAVOLT registry is funded, in part, by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Dr. Horn disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Curigliano disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ellipses Pharma, and other pharmaceutical companies.
 

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Horn L et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract LBA111.

Bariatric surgery may yield increases in muscle mass from baseline among older adults, findings from a small study suggest.

Although bariatric surgery can be used to treat obesity and related comorbidities in older adults, “here are concerns of excess loss of muscle mass after bariatric surgery, especially in elderly patients whose muscle tends to be less, compared to younger patients, at baseline,” wrote Moiz Dawood, MD, of Banner Gateway Medical Center, Gilbert, Ariz., and colleagues.

In a study presented in a poster at the virtual Annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium sponsored by Global Academy for Medical Education, the researchers reviewed data from 89 adults older than 65 years (74% women) who underwent either laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (87 patients) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (2 patients) between May 2015 and March 2017.

At baseline, the average total body weight was 251 pounds and the average muscle mass percent was 50%. At 12 months after surgery, the average weight of the patients decreased to 197 pounds and the percentage of muscle mass increased to 55% (P < .001 for both).

The study findings were limited by the small sample size and retrospective design. However, the results support the benefits of bariatric surgery for older adults, not only with reductions in total body weight loss, but also increasing the total percentage of muscle mass, the researchers said.

The study is important in light of the ongoing discussion regarding the age limit for bariatric surgery, Dr. Dawood said in an interview. “Currently there is no upper age cutoff for patients who undergo bariatric surgery, and understanding the relationship between muscle mass and bariatric surgery would help in determining if there was a negative relationship,” he said.

“The results definitely point toward evidence that suggests that elderly patients do not lose muscle mass to a significant degree,” Dr. Dawood noted. “Muscle mass definitions and calculations also include variables such as weight and fat content. With the additional loss in weight after surgery, it was expected that the muscle mass composition would be affected,” he explained. “However, the results clearly show that even up to 1 year after surgery, older patients who lose weight do not lose significant weight from their muscle mass,” he noted.

The take-home message for clinicians, said Dr. Dawood, is “to understand that metabolic and bariatric surgery, when performed cohesively in a unified program that focuses on lifestyle and dietary changes, is the best way to achieve sustained weight loss.” He added, “this study indicates that physiologic changes that occur after weight loss surgery are not detrimental in the elderly population.”

Next steps for research include further studies in the elderly population to examine the physiologic changes that occur after weight loss surgery, said Dr. Dawood. “Being able to characterize the metabolic changes will help in answering the question of whether there is an upper age cut-off for patients undergoing bariatric surgery.”

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. The researchers had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Bariatric surgery may yield increases in muscle mass from baseline among older adults, findings from a small study suggest.

Although bariatric surgery can be used to treat obesity and related comorbidities in older adults, “here are concerns of excess loss of muscle mass after bariatric surgery, especially in elderly patients whose muscle tends to be less, compared to younger patients, at baseline,” wrote Moiz Dawood, MD, of Banner Gateway Medical Center, Gilbert, Ariz., and colleagues.

In a study presented in a poster at the virtual Annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium sponsored by Global Academy for Medical Education, the researchers reviewed data from 89 adults older than 65 years (74% women) who underwent either laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (87 patients) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (2 patients) between May 2015 and March 2017.

At baseline, the average total body weight was 251 pounds and the average muscle mass percent was 50%. At 12 months after surgery, the average weight of the patients decreased to 197 pounds and the percentage of muscle mass increased to 55% (P < .001 for both).

The study findings were limited by the small sample size and retrospective design. However, the results support the benefits of bariatric surgery for older adults, not only with reductions in total body weight loss, but also increasing the total percentage of muscle mass, the researchers said.

The study is important in light of the ongoing discussion regarding the age limit for bariatric surgery, Dr. Dawood said in an interview. “Currently there is no upper age cutoff for patients who undergo bariatric surgery, and understanding the relationship between muscle mass and bariatric surgery would help in determining if there was a negative relationship,” he said.

“The results definitely point toward evidence that suggests that elderly patients do not lose muscle mass to a significant degree,” Dr. Dawood noted. “Muscle mass definitions and calculations also include variables such as weight and fat content. With the additional loss in weight after surgery, it was expected that the muscle mass composition would be affected,” he explained. “However, the results clearly show that even up to 1 year after surgery, older patients who lose weight do not lose significant weight from their muscle mass,” he noted.

The take-home message for clinicians, said Dr. Dawood, is “to understand that metabolic and bariatric surgery, when performed cohesively in a unified program that focuses on lifestyle and dietary changes, is the best way to achieve sustained weight loss.” He added, “this study indicates that physiologic changes that occur after weight loss surgery are not detrimental in the elderly population.”

Next steps for research include further studies in the elderly population to examine the physiologic changes that occur after weight loss surgery, said Dr. Dawood. “Being able to characterize the metabolic changes will help in answering the question of whether there is an upper age cut-off for patients undergoing bariatric surgery.”

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. The researchers had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Bariatric surgery may yield increases in muscle mass from baseline among older adults, findings from a small study suggest.

Although bariatric surgery can be used to treat obesity and related comorbidities in older adults, “here are concerns of excess loss of muscle mass after bariatric surgery, especially in elderly patients whose muscle tends to be less, compared to younger patients, at baseline,” wrote Moiz Dawood, MD, of Banner Gateway Medical Center, Gilbert, Ariz., and colleagues.

In a study presented in a poster at the virtual Annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium sponsored by Global Academy for Medical Education, the researchers reviewed data from 89 adults older than 65 years (74% women) who underwent either laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (87 patients) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (2 patients) between May 2015 and March 2017.

At baseline, the average total body weight was 251 pounds and the average muscle mass percent was 50%. At 12 months after surgery, the average weight of the patients decreased to 197 pounds and the percentage of muscle mass increased to 55% (P < .001 for both).

The study findings were limited by the small sample size and retrospective design. However, the results support the benefits of bariatric surgery for older adults, not only with reductions in total body weight loss, but also increasing the total percentage of muscle mass, the researchers said.

The study is important in light of the ongoing discussion regarding the age limit for bariatric surgery, Dr. Dawood said in an interview. “Currently there is no upper age cutoff for patients who undergo bariatric surgery, and understanding the relationship between muscle mass and bariatric surgery would help in determining if there was a negative relationship,” he said.

“The results definitely point toward evidence that suggests that elderly patients do not lose muscle mass to a significant degree,” Dr. Dawood noted. “Muscle mass definitions and calculations also include variables such as weight and fat content. With the additional loss in weight after surgery, it was expected that the muscle mass composition would be affected,” he explained. “However, the results clearly show that even up to 1 year after surgery, older patients who lose weight do not lose significant weight from their muscle mass,” he noted.

The take-home message for clinicians, said Dr. Dawood, is “to understand that metabolic and bariatric surgery, when performed cohesively in a unified program that focuses on lifestyle and dietary changes, is the best way to achieve sustained weight loss.” He added, “this study indicates that physiologic changes that occur after weight loss surgery are not detrimental in the elderly population.”

Next steps for research include further studies in the elderly population to examine the physiologic changes that occur after weight loss surgery, said Dr. Dawood. “Being able to characterize the metabolic changes will help in answering the question of whether there is an upper age cut-off for patients undergoing bariatric surgery.”

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. The researchers had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

The first validated classification criteria for discoid lupus erythematosus has a sensitivity that ranges between 73.9% and 84.1% and a specificity that ranges between 75.9% and 92.9%.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“Discoid lupus erythematosus [DLE] is the most common type of chronic cutaneous lupus,” lead study author Scott A. Elman, MD, said during the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “It’s one of the most potentially disfiguring forms of cutaneous lupus erythematosus [CLE], which can lead to scarring, hair loss, and dyspigmentation if not treated early or promptly. It has a significant impact on patient quality of life and there are currently no classification criteria for DLE, which has led to problematic heterogeneity in observational and interventional research efforts. As there is increasing interest in drug development programs for CLE and DLE, there is a need to develop classification criteria.”

Dr. Elman, of the Harvard combined medicine-dermatology training program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, pointed out that classification criteria are the standard definitions that are primarily intended to enroll uniform cohorts for research. “These emphasize high specificity, whereas diagnostic criteria reflect a more broad and variable set of features of a given disease, and therefore require a higher sensitivity,” he explained. “While classification criteria are not synonymous with diagnostic criteria, they typically mirror the list of criteria that are used for diagnosis.”

In 2017, Dr. Elman and colleagues generated an item list of 12 potential classification criteria using an international Delphi consensus process: 5 criteria represented disease morphology, 2 represented discoid lupus location, and 5 represented histopathology (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017 Aug 1;77[2]:261-7). The purpose of the current study, which was presented as a late-breaking abstract, was to validate the proposed classification criteria in a multicenter, international trial. “The point is to be able to differentiate between discoid lupus and its disease mimickers, which could be confused in enrollment in clinical trials,” he said.

At nine participating sites, patients were identified at clinical visits as having either DLE or a DLE mimicker. After each visit, dermatologists determined if morphological features were present. One dermatopathologist at each site reviewed pathology, if available, to see if the histopathologic features were present. Diagnosis by clinical features and dermatopathology were tabulated and presented as counts and percentages. Clinical features among those with and without DLE were calculated and compared with chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests. The researchers used best subsets logistic regression analysis to identify candidate models.

A total of 215 patients were enrolled: 94 that were consistent with DLE and 121 that were consistent with a DLE mimicker. Most cases (83%) were from North America, 11% were from Asia, and 6% were from Europe. Only 86 cases (40%) had biopsies for dermatopathology review.

The following clinical features were found to be more commonly associated with DLE, compared with DLE mimickers: atrophic scarring (83% vs. 24%; P < .001), dyspigmentation (84% vs. 55%; P < .001), follicular hyperkeratosis/plugging (43% vs. 11%; P < .001), scarring alopecia (61% vs. 21%; P < .001), location in the conchal bowl (49% vs. 10%; P < .001), preference for the head and neck (87% vs. 49%; P < .001), and erythematous to violaceous in color (93% vs. 85%, a nonsignificant difference; P = .09).

When histopathological items were assessed, the following features were found to be more commonly associated with DLE, compared with DLE mimickers: interface/vacuolar dermatitis (83% vs. 53%; P = .004), perivascular and/or periappendageal lymphohistiocytic infiltrate (95% vs. 84%, a nonsignificant difference; P = .18), follicular keratin plugs (57% vs. 20%; P < .001), mucin deposition (73% vs. 39%; P = .002), and basement membrane thickening (57% vs. 14%; P < .001).

“There was good agreement between the diagnoses made by dermatologists and dermatopathologists, with a Cohen’s kappa statistic of 0.83,” Dr. Elman added. “Similarly, in many of the cases, the dermatopathologists and the dermatologists felt confident in their diagnosis.”

For the final model, the researchers excluded patients who had any missing data as well as those who had a diagnosis that was uncertain. This left 200 cases in the final model. Clinical variables associated with DLE were: atrophic scarring (odds ratio, 8.70; P < .001), location in the conchal bowl (OR, 6.80; P < .001), preference for head and neck (OR, 9.41; P < .001), dyspigmentation (OR, 3.23; P = .020), follicular hyperkeratosis/plugging (OR, 2.94; P = .054), and erythematous to violaceous in color (OR, 3.44; P = .056). The area under the curve for the model was 0.91.

According to Dr. Elman, the final model is a points-based model with 3 points assigned to atrophic scarring, 2 points assigned to location in the conchal bowl, 2 points assigned to preference for head and neck, 1 point assigned to dyspigmentation, 1 point assigned to follicular hyperkeratosis/plugging, and 1 point assigned to erythematous to violaceous in color. A score of 5 or greater yields a classification as DLE with 84.1% sensitivity and 75.9% specificity, while a score of 7 or greater yields a 73.9% sensitivity and 92.9% specificity.

Dr. Elman acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that information related to histopathology was not included in the final model. “This was a result of having only 40% of cases with relevant dermatopathology,” he said. “This limited our ability to meaningfully incorporate these items into a classification criteria set. However, with the data we’ve collected, efforts are under way to make a DLE-specific histopathology classification criteria.”

Another limitation is that the researchers relied on expert diagnosis as the preferred option. “Similarly, many of the cases came from large referral centers, and no demographic data were obtained, so this limits the generalizability of our study,” he said.

Dr. Elman reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

The first validated classification criteria for discoid lupus erythematosus has a sensitivity that ranges between 73.9% and 84.1% and a specificity that ranges between 75.9% and 92.9%.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“Discoid lupus erythematosus [DLE] is the most common type of chronic cutaneous lupus,” lead study author Scott A. Elman, MD, said during the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “It’s one of the most potentially disfiguring forms of cutaneous lupus erythematosus [CLE], which can lead to scarring, hair loss, and dyspigmentation if not treated early or promptly. It has a significant impact on patient quality of life and there are currently no classification criteria for DLE, which has led to problematic heterogeneity in observational and interventional research efforts. As there is increasing interest in drug development programs for CLE and DLE, there is a need to develop classification criteria.”

Dr. Elman, of the Harvard combined medicine-dermatology training program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, pointed out that classification criteria are the standard definitions that are primarily intended to enroll uniform cohorts for research. “These emphasize high specificity, whereas diagnostic criteria reflect a more broad and variable set of features of a given disease, and therefore require a higher sensitivity,” he explained. “While classification criteria are not synonymous with diagnostic criteria, they typically mirror the list of criteria that are used for diagnosis.”

In 2017, Dr. Elman and colleagues generated an item list of 12 potential classification criteria using an international Delphi consensus process: 5 criteria represented disease morphology, 2 represented discoid lupus location, and 5 represented histopathology (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017 Aug 1;77[2]:261-7). The purpose of the current study, which was presented as a late-breaking abstract, was to validate the proposed classification criteria in a multicenter, international trial. “The point is to be able to differentiate between discoid lupus and its disease mimickers, which could be confused in enrollment in clinical trials,” he said.

At nine participating sites, patients were identified at clinical visits as having either DLE or a DLE mimicker. After each visit, dermatologists determined if morphological features were present. One dermatopathologist at each site reviewed pathology, if available, to see if the histopathologic features were present. Diagnosis by clinical features and dermatopathology were tabulated and presented as counts and percentages. Clinical features among those with and without DLE were calculated and compared with chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests. The researchers used best subsets logistic regression analysis to identify candidate models.

A total of 215 patients were enrolled: 94 that were consistent with DLE and 121 that were consistent with a DLE mimicker. Most cases (83%) were from North America, 11% were from Asia, and 6% were from Europe. Only 86 cases (40%) had biopsies for dermatopathology review.

The following clinical features were found to be more commonly associated with DLE, compared with DLE mimickers: atrophic scarring (83% vs. 24%; P < .001), dyspigmentation (84% vs. 55%; P < .001), follicular hyperkeratosis/plugging (43% vs. 11%; P < .001), scarring alopecia (61% vs. 21%; P < .001), location in the conchal bowl (49% vs. 10%; P < .001), preference for the head and neck (87% vs. 49%; P < .001), and erythematous to violaceous in color (93% vs. 85%, a nonsignificant difference; P = .09).

When histopathological items were assessed, the following features were found to be more commonly associated with DLE, compared with DLE mimickers: interface/vacuolar dermatitis (83% vs. 53%; P = .004), perivascular and/or periappendageal lymphohistiocytic infiltrate (95% vs. 84%, a nonsignificant difference; P = .18), follicular keratin plugs (57% vs. 20%; P < .001), mucin deposition (73% vs. 39%; P = .002), and basement membrane thickening (57% vs. 14%; P < .001).

“There was good agreement between the diagnoses made by dermatologists and dermatopathologists, with a Cohen’s kappa statistic of 0.83,” Dr. Elman added. “Similarly, in many of the cases, the dermatopathologists and the dermatologists felt confident in their diagnosis.”

For the final model, the researchers excluded patients who had any missing data as well as those who had a diagnosis that was uncertain. This left 200 cases in the final model. Clinical variables associated with DLE were: atrophic scarring (odds ratio, 8.70; P < .001), location in the conchal bowl (OR, 6.80; P < .001), preference for head and neck (OR, 9.41; P < .001), dyspigmentation (OR, 3.23; P = .020), follicular hyperkeratosis/plugging (OR, 2.94; P = .054), and erythematous to violaceous in color (OR, 3.44; P = .056). The area under the curve for the model was 0.91.

According to Dr. Elman, the final model is a points-based model with 3 points assigned to atrophic scarring, 2 points assigned to location in the conchal bowl, 2 points assigned to preference for head and neck, 1 point assigned to dyspigmentation, 1 point assigned to follicular hyperkeratosis/plugging, and 1 point assigned to erythematous to violaceous in color. A score of 5 or greater yields a classification as DLE with 84.1% sensitivity and 75.9% specificity, while a score of 7 or greater yields a 73.9% sensitivity and 92.9% specificity.

Dr. Elman acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that information related to histopathology was not included in the final model. “This was a result of having only 40% of cases with relevant dermatopathology,” he said. “This limited our ability to meaningfully incorporate these items into a classification criteria set. However, with the data we’ve collected, efforts are under way to make a DLE-specific histopathology classification criteria.”

Another limitation is that the researchers relied on expert diagnosis as the preferred option. “Similarly, many of the cases came from large referral centers, and no demographic data were obtained, so this limits the generalizability of our study,” he said.

Dr. Elman reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

The first validated classification criteria for discoid lupus erythematosus has a sensitivity that ranges between 73.9% and 84.1% and a specificity that ranges between 75.9% and 92.9%.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“Discoid lupus erythematosus [DLE] is the most common type of chronic cutaneous lupus,” lead study author Scott A. Elman, MD, said during the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “It’s one of the most potentially disfiguring forms of cutaneous lupus erythematosus [CLE], which can lead to scarring, hair loss, and dyspigmentation if not treated early or promptly. It has a significant impact on patient quality of life and there are currently no classification criteria for DLE, which has led to problematic heterogeneity in observational and interventional research efforts. As there is increasing interest in drug development programs for CLE and DLE, there is a need to develop classification criteria.”

Dr. Elman, of the Harvard combined medicine-dermatology training program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, pointed out that classification criteria are the standard definitions that are primarily intended to enroll uniform cohorts for research. “These emphasize high specificity, whereas diagnostic criteria reflect a more broad and variable set of features of a given disease, and therefore require a higher sensitivity,” he explained. “While classification criteria are not synonymous with diagnostic criteria, they typically mirror the list of criteria that are used for diagnosis.”

In 2017, Dr. Elman and colleagues generated an item list of 12 potential classification criteria using an international Delphi consensus process: 5 criteria represented disease morphology, 2 represented discoid lupus location, and 5 represented histopathology (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017 Aug 1;77[2]:261-7). The purpose of the current study, which was presented as a late-breaking abstract, was to validate the proposed classification criteria in a multicenter, international trial. “The point is to be able to differentiate between discoid lupus and its disease mimickers, which could be confused in enrollment in clinical trials,” he said.

At nine participating sites, patients were identified at clinical visits as having either DLE or a DLE mimicker. After each visit, dermatologists determined if morphological features were present. One dermatopathologist at each site reviewed pathology, if available, to see if the histopathologic features were present. Diagnosis by clinical features and dermatopathology were tabulated and presented as counts and percentages. Clinical features among those with and without DLE were calculated and compared with chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests. The researchers used best subsets logistic regression analysis to identify candidate models.

A total of 215 patients were enrolled: 94 that were consistent with DLE and 121 that were consistent with a DLE mimicker. Most cases (83%) were from North America, 11% were from Asia, and 6% were from Europe. Only 86 cases (40%) had biopsies for dermatopathology review.

The following clinical features were found to be more commonly associated with DLE, compared with DLE mimickers: atrophic scarring (83% vs. 24%; P < .001), dyspigmentation (84% vs. 55%; P < .001), follicular hyperkeratosis/plugging (43% vs. 11%; P < .001), scarring alopecia (61% vs. 21%; P < .001), location in the conchal bowl (49% vs. 10%; P < .001), preference for the head and neck (87% vs. 49%; P < .001), and erythematous to violaceous in color (93% vs. 85%, a nonsignificant difference; P = .09).

When histopathological items were assessed, the following features were found to be more commonly associated with DLE, compared with DLE mimickers: interface/vacuolar dermatitis (83% vs. 53%; P = .004), perivascular and/or periappendageal lymphohistiocytic infiltrate (95% vs. 84%, a nonsignificant difference; P = .18), follicular keratin plugs (57% vs. 20%; P < .001), mucin deposition (73% vs. 39%; P = .002), and basement membrane thickening (57% vs. 14%; P < .001).

“There was good agreement between the diagnoses made by dermatologists and dermatopathologists, with a Cohen’s kappa statistic of 0.83,” Dr. Elman added. “Similarly, in many of the cases, the dermatopathologists and the dermatologists felt confident in their diagnosis.”

For the final model, the researchers excluded patients who had any missing data as well as those who had a diagnosis that was uncertain. This left 200 cases in the final model. Clinical variables associated with DLE were: atrophic scarring (odds ratio, 8.70; P < .001), location in the conchal bowl (OR, 6.80; P < .001), preference for head and neck (OR, 9.41; P < .001), dyspigmentation (OR, 3.23; P = .020), follicular hyperkeratosis/plugging (OR, 2.94; P = .054), and erythematous to violaceous in color (OR, 3.44; P = .056). The area under the curve for the model was 0.91.

According to Dr. Elman, the final model is a points-based model with 3 points assigned to atrophic scarring, 2 points assigned to location in the conchal bowl, 2 points assigned to preference for head and neck, 1 point assigned to dyspigmentation, 1 point assigned to follicular hyperkeratosis/plugging, and 1 point assigned to erythematous to violaceous in color. A score of 5 or greater yields a classification as DLE with 84.1% sensitivity and 75.9% specificity, while a score of 7 or greater yields a 73.9% sensitivity and 92.9% specificity.

Dr. Elman acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that information related to histopathology was not included in the final model. “This was a result of having only 40% of cases with relevant dermatopathology,” he said. “This limited our ability to meaningfully incorporate these items into a classification criteria set. However, with the data we’ve collected, efforts are under way to make a DLE-specific histopathology classification criteria.”

Another limitation is that the researchers relied on expert diagnosis as the preferred option. “Similarly, many of the cases came from large referral centers, and no demographic data were obtained, so this limits the generalizability of our study,” he said.

Dr. Elman reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Six Oregon teenagers ingested flualprazolam, a designer benzodiazepine, and developed symptoms of central nervous system depression. When evaluated at local emergency departments, lethargy and slurred speech were the most common clinical findings.

Nick Matthews/CC BY-SA 2.0

One student had mild respiratory depression with a respiratory rate of 10 breaths per minute.

“All patients had sufficient clinical improvement within 6 hours such that they could be discharged from the hospital,” according to a description of the cases that was published online in Pediatrics.

The report is the first to detail clinical toxicity from flualprazolam, and “it is likely that physicians will again encounter patients” with intoxication from this new psychoactive drug, said Adam Blumenberg, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University in Portland and colleagues.

Internet purchasing has increased rates of exposure to new psychoactive substances since the early 2000s, and law enforcement agents have seized tons of these drugs. “In the United States, the incidence of exposures to designer benzodiazepines in particular has been rising since 2014,” the authors said.

According to an addiction researcher, the COVID-19 pandemic may exacerbate abuse of designer benzodiazepines.

“This is an important paper describing what medical examiners, pathologists, and emergency rooms have been seeing recently – an increase in designer benzodiazepines,” commented Mark S. Gold, MD, adjunct professor of psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis. “Recent increases in these drugs have started to be seen in many locations as the traditional drugs of abuse, grown and distributed in bulk, have been disrupted” by the pandemic, he said in an interview. Although it may be too early for such cases to appear in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports, they can be described in studies like this one and, “I suspect, sadly, in medical examiner case reports.”

Flualprazolam, known colloquially as Hulk, is structurally related to the Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs alprazolam and triazolam. During 1 week in June 2019, the patients in Oregon received the drug as a free sample from another student from their Oregon high school. They believed it was commercial Xanax (alprazolam). “The flualprazolam tablets were identical in appearance and labeling to 2-mg tablets of alprazolam,” according to the report. “This indicates an intentionally counterfeit product entering the drug supply chain.”

Five of the six patients were boys, and they ranged in age from 14 to 16 years. The patient with mild respiratory depression received 0.4-mg naloxone, which physicians gave empirically because of the unknown identity of the drug, but did not respond. Two of the six patients initially felt drowsy but were asymptomatic during the clinical evaluation.

A urine immunoassay was performed in five of the patients, and all tested positive for benzodiazepines. One patient also tested positive for cannabinoids. Analysis of a tablet fragment revealed that it contained flualprazolam.

“Although flualprazolam intoxication cannot be clinically differentiated from that of other benzodiazepines without advanced testing, patient management should be the same,” Dr. Blumenberg and coauthors said. “For mild to moderate intoxication, patients should be treated with close monitoring and supportive care until symptom resolution. The benzodiazepine antidote flumazenil may be considered a safe and effective antidote in pediatric patients with significant CNS or respiratory depression. In patients for whom there is a concern of benzodiazepine dependence and flumazenil-induced seizures, airway protection and mechanical ventilation may be considered.”

Although patients rarely die from isolated benzodiazepine toxicity, death from respiratory depression or aspiration is more common when benzodiazepine toxicity occurs “in combination with alcohol, opioids, or other sedatives,” the authors noted. In addition, counterfeit alprazolam tablets have contained adulterants such as fentanyl and the opioid U-47700, which can be deadly.

The authors had no relevant financial disclosures, and there was no external funding for the study.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Blumenberg A et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jun 24. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2953.

Six Oregon teenagers ingested flualprazolam, a designer benzodiazepine, and developed symptoms of central nervous system depression. When evaluated at local emergency departments, lethargy and slurred speech were the most common clinical findings.

Nick Matthews/CC BY-SA 2.0

One student had mild respiratory depression with a respiratory rate of 10 breaths per minute.

“All patients had sufficient clinical improvement within 6 hours such that they could be discharged from the hospital,” according to a description of the cases that was published online in Pediatrics.

The report is the first to detail clinical toxicity from flualprazolam, and “it is likely that physicians will again encounter patients” with intoxication from this new psychoactive drug, said Adam Blumenberg, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University in Portland and colleagues.

Internet purchasing has increased rates of exposure to new psychoactive substances since the early 2000s, and law enforcement agents have seized tons of these drugs. “In the United States, the incidence of exposures to designer benzodiazepines in particular has been rising since 2014,” the authors said.

According to an addiction researcher, the COVID-19 pandemic may exacerbate abuse of designer benzodiazepines.

“This is an important paper describing what medical examiners, pathologists, and emergency rooms have been seeing recently – an increase in designer benzodiazepines,” commented Mark S. Gold, MD, adjunct professor of psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis. “Recent increases in these drugs have started to be seen in many locations as the traditional drugs of abuse, grown and distributed in bulk, have been disrupted” by the pandemic, he said in an interview. Although it may be too early for such cases to appear in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports, they can be described in studies like this one and, “I suspect, sadly, in medical examiner case reports.”

Flualprazolam, known colloquially as Hulk, is structurally related to the Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs alprazolam and triazolam. During 1 week in June 2019, the patients in Oregon received the drug as a free sample from another student from their Oregon high school. They believed it was commercial Xanax (alprazolam). “The flualprazolam tablets were identical in appearance and labeling to 2-mg tablets of alprazolam,” according to the report. “This indicates an intentionally counterfeit product entering the drug supply chain.”

Five of the six patients were boys, and they ranged in age from 14 to 16 years. The patient with mild respiratory depression received 0.4-mg naloxone, which physicians gave empirically because of the unknown identity of the drug, but did not respond. Two of the six patients initially felt drowsy but were asymptomatic during the clinical evaluation.

A urine immunoassay was performed in five of the patients, and all tested positive for benzodiazepines. One patient also tested positive for cannabinoids. Analysis of a tablet fragment revealed that it contained flualprazolam.

“Although flualprazolam intoxication cannot be clinically differentiated from that of other benzodiazepines without advanced testing, patient management should be the same,” Dr. Blumenberg and coauthors said. “For mild to moderate intoxication, patients should be treated with close monitoring and supportive care until symptom resolution. The benzodiazepine antidote flumazenil may be considered a safe and effective antidote in pediatric patients with significant CNS or respiratory depression. In patients for whom there is a concern of benzodiazepine dependence and flumazenil-induced seizures, airway protection and mechanical ventilation may be considered.”

Although patients rarely die from isolated benzodiazepine toxicity, death from respiratory depression or aspiration is more common when benzodiazepine toxicity occurs “in combination with alcohol, opioids, or other sedatives,” the authors noted. In addition, counterfeit alprazolam tablets have contained adulterants such as fentanyl and the opioid U-47700, which can be deadly.

The authors had no relevant financial disclosures, and there was no external funding for the study.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Blumenberg A et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jun 24. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2953.

Six Oregon teenagers ingested flualprazolam, a designer benzodiazepine, and developed symptoms of central nervous system depression. When evaluated at local emergency departments, lethargy and slurred speech were the most common clinical findings.

Nick Matthews/CC BY-SA 2.0

One student had mild respiratory depression with a respiratory rate of 10 breaths per minute.

“All patients had sufficient clinical improvement within 6 hours such that they could be discharged from the hospital,” according to a description of the cases that was published online in Pediatrics.

The report is the first to detail clinical toxicity from flualprazolam, and “it is likely that physicians will again encounter patients” with intoxication from this new psychoactive drug, said Adam Blumenberg, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University in Portland and colleagues.

Internet purchasing has increased rates of exposure to new psychoactive substances since the early 2000s, and law enforcement agents have seized tons of these drugs. “In the United States, the incidence of exposures to designer benzodiazepines in particular has been rising since 2014,” the authors said.

According to an addiction researcher, the COVID-19 pandemic may exacerbate abuse of designer benzodiazepines.

“This is an important paper describing what medical examiners, pathologists, and emergency rooms have been seeing recently – an increase in designer benzodiazepines,” commented Mark S. Gold, MD, adjunct professor of psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis. “Recent increases in these drugs have started to be seen in many locations as the traditional drugs of abuse, grown and distributed in bulk, have been disrupted” by the pandemic, he said in an interview. Although it may be too early for such cases to appear in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports, they can be described in studies like this one and, “I suspect, sadly, in medical examiner case reports.”

Flualprazolam, known colloquially as Hulk, is structurally related to the Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs alprazolam and triazolam. During 1 week in June 2019, the patients in Oregon received the drug as a free sample from another student from their Oregon high school. They believed it was commercial Xanax (alprazolam). “The flualprazolam tablets were identical in appearance and labeling to 2-mg tablets of alprazolam,” according to the report. “This indicates an intentionally counterfeit product entering the drug supply chain.”

Five of the six patients were boys, and they ranged in age from 14 to 16 years. The patient with mild respiratory depression received 0.4-mg naloxone, which physicians gave empirically because of the unknown identity of the drug, but did not respond. Two of the six patients initially felt drowsy but were asymptomatic during the clinical evaluation.

A urine immunoassay was performed in five of the patients, and all tested positive for benzodiazepines. One patient also tested positive for cannabinoids. Analysis of a tablet fragment revealed that it contained flualprazolam.

“Although flualprazolam intoxication cannot be clinically differentiated from that of other benzodiazepines without advanced testing, patient management should be the same,” Dr. Blumenberg and coauthors said. “For mild to moderate intoxication, patients should be treated with close monitoring and supportive care until symptom resolution. The benzodiazepine antidote flumazenil may be considered a safe and effective antidote in pediatric patients with significant CNS or respiratory depression. In patients for whom there is a concern of benzodiazepine dependence and flumazenil-induced seizures, airway protection and mechanical ventilation may be considered.”

Although patients rarely die from isolated benzodiazepine toxicity, death from respiratory depression or aspiration is more common when benzodiazepine toxicity occurs “in combination with alcohol, opioids, or other sedatives,” the authors noted. In addition, counterfeit alprazolam tablets have contained adulterants such as fentanyl and the opioid U-47700, which can be deadly.

The authors had no relevant financial disclosures, and there was no external funding for the study.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Blumenberg A et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jun 24. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2953.

Outpatient medical care has been severely disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic with a reduction of nearly 70% in outpatient visits since March before starting to rebound, Melinda Wharton, MD, said at the virtual meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

MarianVejcik/Getty Images

Pediatrics was among the hardest hit specialties, with a 62% reduction in outpatient visits by April 5, said Dr. Wharton, director of the immunization services division at the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. However, visits for all pediatric age groups increased in May, compared with April, and the CDC emphasized the need to educate families about the importance of routine vaccination and well-child visits, Dr. Wharton said.

The CDC strategies to support routine childhood vaccination include monitoring vaccination service delivery to inform targeted interventions, said Dr. Wharton. In addition, the CDC will continue to support providers by identifying gaps in the Vaccines For Children (VFC) program network, increasing VFC funding, developing guidance materials, and identifying policy interventions.

Many small practices have struggled during the pandemic, and financial support is available through the Provider Relief Fund, which is now available to all Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) providers, said Dr. Wharton.

Providing information to families about the importance of vaccination and about the VFC program to patients is important because more families may now qualify for the program because of changes in job status and income, and parents may not be aware that their children may be eligible, she said.

“Vaccination is an essential medical service for all children and adolescents, ideally in the medical home,” Dr. Wharton said. The CDC’s interim guidance for immunization during the COVID-19 pandemic calls for administering all current or overdue vaccines according to the routine immunization schedule during the same visit, and implementing strategies to get patients caught up, prioritizing newborns, infants, and children up to age 24 months. The guidance includes details on safe delivery of vaccines, including physical distance and the use of personal protective equipment.

In addition, encourage parents to return for well-child visits, and use reminder systems to help keep patients current on visits and vaccines. “Discuss the safety protocols that have been put in place,” Dr. Wharton emphasized. The CDC also offers resources for providers to help communicate with parents about routine vaccination.

Looking ahead, back-to-school vaccination requirements “provide a critical checkpoint for children’s vaccination status,” Dr. Wharton said. Catch-up vaccination during the summer will help clinical capacity manage back-to-school and influenza vaccination in the fall, she emphasized. “Influenza vaccination will be an important strategy to decrease stress on our health care system.”

Flu vaccination strategies should focus on adults at higher risk for COVID-19 infections, such as health care providers. In addition, identifying and reducing disparities will be important for future COVID-19 vaccines, as well as for the flu this season, she noted.

View the complete guidance online.

Dr. Wharton had no relevant financial disclosures.

Outpatient medical care has been severely disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic with a reduction of nearly 70% in outpatient visits since March before starting to rebound, Melinda Wharton, MD, said at the virtual meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

MarianVejcik/Getty Images

Pediatrics was among the hardest hit specialties, with a 62% reduction in outpatient visits by April 5, said Dr. Wharton, director of the immunization services division at the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. However, visits for all pediatric age groups increased in May, compared with April, and the CDC emphasized the need to educate families about the importance of routine vaccination and well-child visits, Dr. Wharton said.

The CDC strategies to support routine childhood vaccination include monitoring vaccination service delivery to inform targeted interventions, said Dr. Wharton. In addition, the CDC will continue to support providers by identifying gaps in the Vaccines For Children (VFC) program network, increasing VFC funding, developing guidance materials, and identifying policy interventions.

Many small practices have struggled during the pandemic, and financial support is available through the Provider Relief Fund, which is now available to all Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) providers, said Dr. Wharton.

Providing information to families about the importance of vaccination and about the VFC program to patients is important because more families may now qualify for the program because of changes in job status and income, and parents may not be aware that their children may be eligible, she said.

“Vaccination is an essential medical service for all children and adolescents, ideally in the medical home,” Dr. Wharton said. The CDC’s interim guidance for immunization during the COVID-19 pandemic calls for administering all current or overdue vaccines according to the routine immunization schedule during the same visit, and implementing strategies to get patients caught up, prioritizing newborns, infants, and children up to age 24 months. The guidance includes details on safe delivery of vaccines, including physical distance and the use of personal protective equipment.

In addition, encourage parents to return for well-child visits, and use reminder systems to help keep patients current on visits and vaccines. “Discuss the safety protocols that have been put in place,” Dr. Wharton emphasized. The CDC also offers resources for providers to help communicate with parents about routine vaccination.

Looking ahead, back-to-school vaccination requirements “provide a critical checkpoint for children’s vaccination status,” Dr. Wharton said. Catch-up vaccination during the summer will help clinical capacity manage back-to-school and influenza vaccination in the fall, she emphasized. “Influenza vaccination will be an important strategy to decrease stress on our health care system.”

Flu vaccination strategies should focus on adults at higher risk for COVID-19 infections, such as health care providers. In addition, identifying and reducing disparities will be important for future COVID-19 vaccines, as well as for the flu this season, she noted.

View the complete guidance online.

Dr. Wharton had no relevant financial disclosures.

Outpatient medical care has been severely disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic with a reduction of nearly 70% in outpatient visits since March before starting to rebound, Melinda Wharton, MD, said at the virtual meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

MarianVejcik/Getty Images

Pediatrics was among the hardest hit specialties, with a 62% reduction in outpatient visits by April 5, said Dr. Wharton, director of the immunization services division at the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. However, visits for all pediatric age groups increased in May, compared with April, and the CDC emphasized the need to educate families about the importance of routine vaccination and well-child visits, Dr. Wharton said.

The CDC strategies to support routine childhood vaccination include monitoring vaccination service delivery to inform targeted interventions, said Dr. Wharton. In addition, the CDC will continue to support providers by identifying gaps in the Vaccines For Children (VFC) program network, increasing VFC funding, developing guidance materials, and identifying policy interventions.

Many small practices have struggled during the pandemic, and financial support is available through the Provider Relief Fund, which is now available to all Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) providers, said Dr. Wharton.

Providing information to families about the importance of vaccination and about the VFC program to patients is important because more families may now qualify for the program because of changes in job status and income, and parents may not be aware that their children may be eligible, she said.

“Vaccination is an essential medical service for all children and adolescents, ideally in the medical home,” Dr. Wharton said. The CDC’s interim guidance for immunization during the COVID-19 pandemic calls for administering all current or overdue vaccines according to the routine immunization schedule during the same visit, and implementing strategies to get patients caught up, prioritizing newborns, infants, and children up to age 24 months. The guidance includes details on safe delivery of vaccines, including physical distance and the use of personal protective equipment.

In addition, encourage parents to return for well-child visits, and use reminder systems to help keep patients current on visits and vaccines. “Discuss the safety protocols that have been put in place,” Dr. Wharton emphasized. The CDC also offers resources for providers to help communicate with parents about routine vaccination.

Looking ahead, back-to-school vaccination requirements “provide a critical checkpoint for children’s vaccination status,” Dr. Wharton said. Catch-up vaccination during the summer will help clinical capacity manage back-to-school and influenza vaccination in the fall, she emphasized. “Influenza vaccination will be an important strategy to decrease stress on our health care system.”

Flu vaccination strategies should focus on adults at higher risk for COVID-19 infections, such as health care providers. In addition, identifying and reducing disparities will be important for future COVID-19 vaccines, as well as for the flu this season, she noted.

View the complete guidance online.

Dr. Wharton had no relevant financial disclosures.

Patients with schizophrenia appear to prefer long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics, compared with oral versions of these medications, primarily because injectables are more convenient and give individuals more control over their lives, new research shows.

Patients also prefer injections once every 3 months to monthly injections, citing the need for fewer doctor visits and less pain as key reasons. They also reported a preference for deltoid versus gluteal injections, as they were faster and easier to administer, and less embarrassing.

Study investigator Srihari Gopal, MD, senior director at Janssen Research and Development in Titusville, N.J., said in an interview that stigma, which is a “is a really powerful force in mental health treatment,” underlies these findings in terms of the disease itself and its management.

“It’s one of the [key] reasons that schizophrenia patients decide to abandon their drugs and not go to the doctor,” he added.

The study was scheduled to be presented at the Congress of the Schizophrenia International Research Society 2020, but the meeting was canceled because of the coronavirus pandemic.
 

Outdated perceptions

The investigators noted that there is limited information on patient preference with regard to LAI versus oral antipsychotics in the management of schizophrenia.

They also noted that LAIs have been shown to reduce the risk of relapse and rehospitalization because of treatment discontinuation and may help to improve to medication adherence.

However, these medications are still underutilized in clinical practice. Dr. Gopal estimated that only around 1 in 10 patients with schizophrenia in the United States take an LAI, although that figure varies considerably at a global level and is as high as 1 in 2 in Spain.

This is the result of a number of factors that act as potential barriers to LAI use, not the least of which is misconceptions among caregiver and health care professionals about the drugs.

“When I first was in medical school, this was in the 1990s ... there were really only first-generation antipsychotics available in a depot or a long-acting form, and those had very severe side effects,” said Dr. Gopal.

“They would tend to cause all sorts of movement disorders and would make patients feel really drowsy throughout the day, so they really hated taking them,” he said, noting that these depot medications were oil based, which was painful on injection and caused reactions.

While the newer generations of LAIs are water based and have a much-improved adverse effect profile, doctors “on my end of the age spectrum have all those negative connotations and memories in their minds about what these older LAIs were like, ” Dr. Gopal said

“It’s only the newer generation of doctors who were not around at the time that have a more forward-thinking attitude about the newer long-actings.”
 

Differences by country

To assess factors that determine patients’ medication preferences in order to better understand expectations and reduce potential barriers to treatment, the researchers analyzed data on 1,429 patients with schizophrenia who were participants in a double-blind, randomized, noninferiority study of paliperidone palmitate taken monthly versus once every 3 months.

Participants had a mean age of 38.4 years, and 55% were men. The majority (54%) were white, 8% were black or African American, and 38% were from other races. About one-eighth (12%) of the patients were from the United States.

LAIs were preferred by 77% of patients, ranging from 84.2% among whites, 57.7% among blacks, and 71.2% from other races. The highest preference for LAIs was in Europe, at 88%, vs 59.1% in the United States and 70.7% in the rest of the world.

Interestingly, the preference for LAIs in the United States was comparable across different races, at 59.6% among black patients, 58.8% among whites, and 57.1% for other races.

All study participants had a confirmed diagnosis of schizophrenia and a Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score of between 70 and 120 at baseline, with worsening symptoms.

They completed the Medication Preference Questionnaire on day 1, day 120, and at the end of the study, with the current analysis focusing on day 1 responses, as that was the only time when patients would not have received any study medication.
 

Patient empowerment key

The most common reason patients cited for preferring LAIs over oral antipsychotics were that they felt healthier (57%), could get back to their favorite activities (56%), and didn’t have to think about taking their medication (54%).

In terms of their personal experiences, patients preferred LAIs to pills because they “are easier for me” (67% vs. 18%) and offered a greater sense of control and relieved them from having to think about taking medication (64% vs. 14%).

Finally, 50% of patients preferred LAI injections once every 3 months versus 38% for monthly and 3% for daily injections. Main reason cited were fewer injections (96%), less pain (84%), and fewer doctor visits (80%).

The preferred site for LAI injection was deltoid muscle over gluteal muscle, at 59%, with faster administration (63%), easier use (51%), and the location being less embarrassing (44%) cited as the primary reasons.

“Overall, patient empowerment and quality of life–related goals were important for patients who preferred LAI antipsychotics,” the investigators noted.

Logistic regression analysis indicated that only race and country were significantly associated with medication preferences, with white patients significantly more likely than others to prefer LAIs versus oral medications (adjusted odds ratio, 2.39; P < .001). U.S. patients were significantly less likely to prefer the drugs than those from other countries (aOR, 0.41; P < .001).

Dr. Gopal added that significant differences in patient preference for LAIs likely have a lot to do with the prevailing attitudes of doctors from different countries, with low LAI use corresponding to “more negative attitudes.”

“Better understanding of patients’ treatment priorities and perspective could help overcome barriers to LAI use and inform best course of personalized schizophrenia treatment for improved patient satisfaction and medication adherence,” the investigators noted.

Approached for comment, Matej Markota, MD, a psychiatrist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., who was not involved with the research, said that he agreed with the findings of the study.

He said in an interview that, in his clinical experience, the convenience of not having to take medications daily is an important factor that drives patient preference for LAI use over oral medications.

The study was funded by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Gopal reports he is an employee of Janssen Research & Developmentand owns stock/equity in Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Markota has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with schizophrenia appear to prefer long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics, compared with oral versions of these medications, primarily because injectables are more convenient and give individuals more control over their lives, new research shows.

Patients also prefer injections once every 3 months to monthly injections, citing the need for fewer doctor visits and less pain as key reasons. They also reported a preference for deltoid versus gluteal injections, as they were faster and easier to administer, and less embarrassing.

Study investigator Srihari Gopal, MD, senior director at Janssen Research and Development in Titusville, N.J., said in an interview that stigma, which is a “is a really powerful force in mental health treatment,” underlies these findings in terms of the disease itself and its management.

“It’s one of the [key] reasons that schizophrenia patients decide to abandon their drugs and not go to the doctor,” he added.

The study was scheduled to be presented at the Congress of the Schizophrenia International Research Society 2020, but the meeting was canceled because of the coronavirus pandemic.
 

Outdated perceptions

The investigators noted that there is limited information on patient preference with regard to LAI versus oral antipsychotics in the management of schizophrenia.

They also noted that LAIs have been shown to reduce the risk of relapse and rehospitalization because of treatment discontinuation and may help to improve to medication adherence.

However, these medications are still underutilized in clinical practice. Dr. Gopal estimated that only around 1 in 10 patients with schizophrenia in the United States take an LAI, although that figure varies considerably at a global level and is as high as 1 in 2 in Spain.

This is the result of a number of factors that act as potential barriers to LAI use, not the least of which is misconceptions among caregiver and health care professionals about the drugs.

“When I first was in medical school, this was in the 1990s ... there were really only first-generation antipsychotics available in a depot or a long-acting form, and those had very severe side effects,” said Dr. Gopal.

“They would tend to cause all sorts of movement disorders and would make patients feel really drowsy throughout the day, so they really hated taking them,” he said, noting that these depot medications were oil based, which was painful on injection and caused reactions.

While the newer generations of LAIs are water based and have a much-improved adverse effect profile, doctors “on my end of the age spectrum have all those negative connotations and memories in their minds about what these older LAIs were like, ” Dr. Gopal said

“It’s only the newer generation of doctors who were not around at the time that have a more forward-thinking attitude about the newer long-actings.”
 

Differences by country

To assess factors that determine patients’ medication preferences in order to better understand expectations and reduce potential barriers to treatment, the researchers analyzed data on 1,429 patients with schizophrenia who were participants in a double-blind, randomized, noninferiority study of paliperidone palmitate taken monthly versus once every 3 months.

Participants had a mean age of 38.4 years, and 55% were men. The majority (54%) were white, 8% were black or African American, and 38% were from other races. About one-eighth (12%) of the patients were from the United States.

LAIs were preferred by 77% of patients, ranging from 84.2% among whites, 57.7% among blacks, and 71.2% from other races. The highest preference for LAIs was in Europe, at 88%, vs 59.1% in the United States and 70.7% in the rest of the world.

Interestingly, the preference for LAIs in the United States was comparable across different races, at 59.6% among black patients, 58.8% among whites, and 57.1% for other races.

All study participants had a confirmed diagnosis of schizophrenia and a Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score of between 70 and 120 at baseline, with worsening symptoms.

They completed the Medication Preference Questionnaire on day 1, day 120, and at the end of the study, with the current analysis focusing on day 1 responses, as that was the only time when patients would not have received any study medication.
 

Patient empowerment key

The most common reason patients cited for preferring LAIs over oral antipsychotics were that they felt healthier (57%), could get back to their favorite activities (56%), and didn’t have to think about taking their medication (54%).

In terms of their personal experiences, patients preferred LAIs to pills because they “are easier for me” (67% vs. 18%) and offered a greater sense of control and relieved them from having to think about taking medication (64% vs. 14%).

Finally, 50% of patients preferred LAI injections once every 3 months versus 38% for monthly and 3% for daily injections. Main reason cited were fewer injections (96%), less pain (84%), and fewer doctor visits (80%).

The preferred site for LAI injection was deltoid muscle over gluteal muscle, at 59%, with faster administration (63%), easier use (51%), and the location being less embarrassing (44%) cited as the primary reasons.

“Overall, patient empowerment and quality of life–related goals were important for patients who preferred LAI antipsychotics,” the investigators noted.

Logistic regression analysis indicated that only race and country were significantly associated with medication preferences, with white patients significantly more likely than others to prefer LAIs versus oral medications (adjusted odds ratio, 2.39; P < .001). U.S. patients were significantly less likely to prefer the drugs than those from other countries (aOR, 0.41; P < .001).

Dr. Gopal added that significant differences in patient preference for LAIs likely have a lot to do with the prevailing attitudes of doctors from different countries, with low LAI use corresponding to “more negative attitudes.”

“Better understanding of patients’ treatment priorities and perspective could help overcome barriers to LAI use and inform best course of personalized schizophrenia treatment for improved patient satisfaction and medication adherence,” the investigators noted.

Approached for comment, Matej Markota, MD, a psychiatrist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., who was not involved with the research, said that he agreed with the findings of the study.

He said in an interview that, in his clinical experience, the convenience of not having to take medications daily is an important factor that drives patient preference for LAI use over oral medications.

The study was funded by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Gopal reports he is an employee of Janssen Research & Developmentand owns stock/equity in Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Markota has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with schizophrenia appear to prefer long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics, compared with oral versions of these medications, primarily because injectables are more convenient and give individuals more control over their lives, new research shows.

Patients also prefer injections once every 3 months to monthly injections, citing the need for fewer doctor visits and less pain as key reasons. They also reported a preference for deltoid versus gluteal injections, as they were faster and easier to administer, and less embarrassing.

Study investigator Srihari Gopal, MD, senior director at Janssen Research and Development in Titusville, N.J., said in an interview that stigma, which is a “is a really powerful force in mental health treatment,” underlies these findings in terms of the disease itself and its management.

“It’s one of the [key] reasons that schizophrenia patients decide to abandon their drugs and not go to the doctor,” he added.

The study was scheduled to be presented at the Congress of the Schizophrenia International Research Society 2020, but the meeting was canceled because of the coronavirus pandemic.
 

Outdated perceptions

The investigators noted that there is limited information on patient preference with regard to LAI versus oral antipsychotics in the management of schizophrenia.

They also noted that LAIs have been shown to reduce the risk of relapse and rehospitalization because of treatment discontinuation and may help to improve to medication adherence.

However, these medications are still underutilized in clinical practice. Dr. Gopal estimated that only around 1 in 10 patients with schizophrenia in the United States take an LAI, although that figure varies considerably at a global level and is as high as 1 in 2 in Spain.

This is the result of a number of factors that act as potential barriers to LAI use, not the least of which is misconceptions among caregiver and health care professionals about the drugs.

“When I first was in medical school, this was in the 1990s ... there were really only first-generation antipsychotics available in a depot or a long-acting form, and those had very severe side effects,” said Dr. Gopal.

“They would tend to cause all sorts of movement disorders and would make patients feel really drowsy throughout the day, so they really hated taking them,” he said, noting that these depot medications were oil based, which was painful on injection and caused reactions.

While the newer generations of LAIs are water based and have a much-improved adverse effect profile, doctors “on my end of the age spectrum have all those negative connotations and memories in their minds about what these older LAIs were like, ” Dr. Gopal said

“It’s only the newer generation of doctors who were not around at the time that have a more forward-thinking attitude about the newer long-actings.”
 

Differences by country

To assess factors that determine patients’ medication preferences in order to better understand expectations and reduce potential barriers to treatment, the researchers analyzed data on 1,429 patients with schizophrenia who were participants in a double-blind, randomized, noninferiority study of paliperidone palmitate taken monthly versus once every 3 months.

Participants had a mean age of 38.4 years, and 55% were men. The majority (54%) were white, 8% were black or African American, and 38% were from other races. About one-eighth (12%) of the patients were from the United States.

LAIs were preferred by 77% of patients, ranging from 84.2% among whites, 57.7% among blacks, and 71.2% from other races. The highest preference for LAIs was in Europe, at 88%, vs 59.1% in the United States and 70.7% in the rest of the world.

Interestingly, the preference for LAIs in the United States was comparable across different races, at 59.6% among black patients, 58.8% among whites, and 57.1% for other races.

All study participants had a confirmed diagnosis of schizophrenia and a Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score of between 70 and 120 at baseline, with worsening symptoms.

They completed the Medication Preference Questionnaire on day 1, day 120, and at the end of the study, with the current analysis focusing on day 1 responses, as that was the only time when patients would not have received any study medication.
 

Patient empowerment key

The most common reason patients cited for preferring LAIs over oral antipsychotics were that they felt healthier (57%), could get back to their favorite activities (56%), and didn’t have to think about taking their medication (54%).

In terms of their personal experiences, patients preferred LAIs to pills because they “are easier for me” (67% vs. 18%) and offered a greater sense of control and relieved them from having to think about taking medication (64% vs. 14%).

Finally, 50% of patients preferred LAI injections once every 3 months versus 38% for monthly and 3% for daily injections. Main reason cited were fewer injections (96%), less pain (84%), and fewer doctor visits (80%).

The preferred site for LAI injection was deltoid muscle over gluteal muscle, at 59%, with faster administration (63%), easier use (51%), and the location being less embarrassing (44%) cited as the primary reasons.

“Overall, patient empowerment and quality of life–related goals were important for patients who preferred LAI antipsychotics,” the investigators noted.

Logistic regression analysis indicated that only race and country were significantly associated with medication preferences, with white patients significantly more likely than others to prefer LAIs versus oral medications (adjusted odds ratio, 2.39; P < .001). U.S. patients were significantly less likely to prefer the drugs than those from other countries (aOR, 0.41; P < .001).

Dr. Gopal added that significant differences in patient preference for LAIs likely have a lot to do with the prevailing attitudes of doctors from different countries, with low LAI use corresponding to “more negative attitudes.”

“Better understanding of patients’ treatment priorities and perspective could help overcome barriers to LAI use and inform best course of personalized schizophrenia treatment for improved patient satisfaction and medication adherence,” the investigators noted.

Approached for comment, Matej Markota, MD, a psychiatrist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., who was not involved with the research, said that he agreed with the findings of the study.

He said in an interview that, in his clinical experience, the convenience of not having to take medications daily is an important factor that drives patient preference for LAI use over oral medications.

The study was funded by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Gopal reports he is an employee of Janssen Research & Developmentand owns stock/equity in Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Markota has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The use of CPX-351, a dual-drug liposomal encapsulation of cytarabine and daunorubicin, was tied to long-term remission and survival in older patients with newly diagnosed high-risk or secondary acute myeloid leukemia (AML), according to final results of a phase 3 study.

As part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program, Jeffrey E. Lancet, MD, of the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla., presented the 5-year final data from a trial comparing CPX-351 vs. the conventional 7+3 regimen of cytarabine and daunorubicin in more than 300 older adult patients (age 60-75 years) with newly diagnosed high-risk or secondary AML. Early mortality rates for CPX-351 vs. 7+3 were 6% vs. 11% at Day 30 and 14% vs. 21% at day 60, respectively.

The final 5-year follow-up results had a median follow-up of just greater than 60 months, and maintained the improved median overall survival previously observed in the trial with CPX-351 (153 patients), compared with 7+3 (155 patients), Dr. Lancet reported.

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant was received by 35% of the patients in the CPX-351 arm and 25% of patients in the 7+3 arm. The median overall survival after transplant was not reached for the CPX-351 arm, compared with 10.3 months with the 7+3 treated patients.

Remission, either complete remission or complete remission with incomplete neutrophil or platelet recovery, was achieved by 48% of patients in the CPX-351 arm and 33% of patients in the 7+3 arm, according to the results of the 5-year follow-up. In addition, among all patients who achieved remission, median overall survival was longer with CPX-351 than with 7+3, and the Kaplan-Meier estimated survival rate was higher for CPX-351 at both 3 years and 5 years.

At 5 years of follow-up, 81% of patients in the CPX-351 arm and 93% of patients in the 7+3 arm had died, with similar causes cited in each arm. Progressive leukemia was the most common primary cause of death in both treatment arms, according to Dr. Lancet.

“The final 5-year follow-up results from this phase 3 study support the prior evidence that CPX-351 has the ability to produce or contribute to long-term remission and survival in older patients with newly diagnosed high-risk or secondary AML,” Dr. Lancet concluded.

CPX-351 (Vyxeos) has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of adults with newly diagnosed therapy-related AML or AML with myelodysplastic syndrome–related changes.

The study was funded by Jazz Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lancet disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role for Agios, Daiichi Sankyo, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Lancet JE et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 7510.

The use of CPX-351, a dual-drug liposomal encapsulation of cytarabine and daunorubicin, was tied to long-term remission and survival in older patients with newly diagnosed high-risk or secondary acute myeloid leukemia (AML), according to final results of a phase 3 study.

As part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program, Jeffrey E. Lancet, MD, of the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla., presented the 5-year final data from a trial comparing CPX-351 vs. the conventional 7+3 regimen of cytarabine and daunorubicin in more than 300 older adult patients (age 60-75 years) with newly diagnosed high-risk or secondary AML. Early mortality rates for CPX-351 vs. 7+3 were 6% vs. 11% at Day 30 and 14% vs. 21% at day 60, respectively.

The final 5-year follow-up results had a median follow-up of just greater than 60 months, and maintained the improved median overall survival previously observed in the trial with CPX-351 (153 patients), compared with 7+3 (155 patients), Dr. Lancet reported.

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant was received by 35% of the patients in the CPX-351 arm and 25% of patients in the 7+3 arm. The median overall survival after transplant was not reached for the CPX-351 arm, compared with 10.3 months with the 7+3 treated patients.

Remission, either complete remission or complete remission with incomplete neutrophil or platelet recovery, was achieved by 48% of patients in the CPX-351 arm and 33% of patients in the 7+3 arm, according to the results of the 5-year follow-up. In addition, among all patients who achieved remission, median overall survival was longer with CPX-351 than with 7+3, and the Kaplan-Meier estimated survival rate was higher for CPX-351 at both 3 years and 5 years.

At 5 years of follow-up, 81% of patients in the CPX-351 arm and 93% of patients in the 7+3 arm had died, with similar causes cited in each arm. Progressive leukemia was the most common primary cause of death in both treatment arms, according to Dr. Lancet.

“The final 5-year follow-up results from this phase 3 study support the prior evidence that CPX-351 has the ability to produce or contribute to long-term remission and survival in older patients with newly diagnosed high-risk or secondary AML,” Dr. Lancet concluded.

CPX-351 (Vyxeos) has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of adults with newly diagnosed therapy-related AML or AML with myelodysplastic syndrome–related changes.

The study was funded by Jazz Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lancet disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role for Agios, Daiichi Sankyo, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Lancet JE et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 7510.

The use of CPX-351, a dual-drug liposomal encapsulation of cytarabine and daunorubicin, was tied to long-term remission and survival in older patients with newly diagnosed high-risk or secondary acute myeloid leukemia (AML), according to final results of a phase 3 study.

As part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program, Jeffrey E. Lancet, MD, of the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla., presented the 5-year final data from a trial comparing CPX-351 vs. the conventional 7+3 regimen of cytarabine and daunorubicin in more than 300 older adult patients (age 60-75 years) with newly diagnosed high-risk or secondary AML. Early mortality rates for CPX-351 vs. 7+3 were 6% vs. 11% at Day 30 and 14% vs. 21% at day 60, respectively.

The final 5-year follow-up results had a median follow-up of just greater than 60 months, and maintained the improved median overall survival previously observed in the trial with CPX-351 (153 patients), compared with 7+3 (155 patients), Dr. Lancet reported.

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant was received by 35% of the patients in the CPX-351 arm and 25% of patients in the 7+3 arm. The median overall survival after transplant was not reached for the CPX-351 arm, compared with 10.3 months with the 7+3 treated patients.

Remission, either complete remission or complete remission with incomplete neutrophil or platelet recovery, was achieved by 48% of patients in the CPX-351 arm and 33% of patients in the 7+3 arm, according to the results of the 5-year follow-up. In addition, among all patients who achieved remission, median overall survival was longer with CPX-351 than with 7+3, and the Kaplan-Meier estimated survival rate was higher for CPX-351 at both 3 years and 5 years.

At 5 years of follow-up, 81% of patients in the CPX-351 arm and 93% of patients in the 7+3 arm had died, with similar causes cited in each arm. Progressive leukemia was the most common primary cause of death in both treatment arms, according to Dr. Lancet.

“The final 5-year follow-up results from this phase 3 study support the prior evidence that CPX-351 has the ability to produce or contribute to long-term remission and survival in older patients with newly diagnosed high-risk or secondary AML,” Dr. Lancet concluded.

CPX-351 (Vyxeos) has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of adults with newly diagnosed therapy-related AML or AML with myelodysplastic syndrome–related changes.

The study was funded by Jazz Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lancet disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role for Agios, Daiichi Sankyo, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Lancet JE et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 7510.

At about 18 months’ follow-up in treatment naive acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) patients who were 75 years or older or otherwise unfit for intensive chemotherapy, median overall survival (OS) was 8.4 months when they were randomized to low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) plus the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax versus 4.1 months with LDAC plus placebo. The results from the phase 3 trial were reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

The combination also improved rates of remission, event-free survival, and patient reported outcomes and lessened transfusion requirements. Adverse events were manageable.

The findings position venetoclax add-on with LDAC “as a potential new standard of care” for untreated patients ineligible for intensive chemotherapy, lead investigator Andrew Wei, MD, PhD, an AML researcher at Monash University, Melbourne, said at the meeting.

The study addresses a substantial unmet need. The median age at AML diagnosis is over 68 years old and comorbidities such as heart failure and reduced creatinine clearance are common, which make the risk of toxicity with standard chemotherapy too high. Single-agent alternatives are of limited benefit, so Dr. Wei’s group and others are looking for better options to plug the treatment gap when standard chemotherapy is contraindicated.

Several combinations are under investigation, including LDAC plus venetoclax, which appears to have a synergistic effect greater than either agent on its own, Dr. Wei and colleagues explained in their journal report, which was published online to coincide with his presentation (Blood. 2020 Jun 11;135(24):2137-45).

“A challenging AML population”

In the study, 143 patients were randomized to oral venetoclax 600 mg daily and 68 to placebo in 28-day cycles, on a background of LDAC 20 mg/m² administered subcutaneously on days 1-10 of each cycle.

“This study enrolled a challenging AML population, with nearly 60% age ≥75 years and a high proportion of patients with secondary disease (38%), prior hypomethylating agent (HMA) treatment (20%), poor cytogenetic risk (32%), and TP53 mutations (15%), which are known factors associated with dismal prognosis in AML,” the investigators noted in their report.

There was a numerical benefit in OS at 12 months – the preplanned primary outcome – but it was not statistically significant. At 18 months, however, and after adjustment for a higher rate of secondary AML in the venetoclax arm and other confounders in a post hoc analysis, survival differences reached significance. The 4.3-month OS benefit with the combination translated into a 30% reduction in the risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.99; P = .04)

Survival outcomes “were particularly promising for patient subgroups with NPM1- (median OS, not reached) and IDH1/2-mutant AML (median OS, 19.4 months),” the team noted.

Complete remission (CR) were 48% in the venetoclax arm, compared with 13% in the placebo group, and 34% of venetoclax patients versus 3% of placebo patients went into remission after their first cycle. Venetoclax subjects also had longer median event free survival (4.7 months vs. 2 months); higher rates of red blood cell and platelet transfusion independence (37% vs. 16%); and higher rates of cytometric minimal residual disease levels below 0.1% (6% vs. 1%).

The findings correlated with “strong improvements” in patient-reported outcomes, including fatigue and quality of life, the investigators reported.
 

Risk mitigation

Grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs) included febrile neutropenia (32% in the venetoclax arm versus 29% in the placebo group), neutropenia (47% venetoclax vs. 16% placebo), thrombocytopenia (45% vs. 37%), and anemia (25% vs. 22%). The eight cases of tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) were all in the venetoclax arm. Grade 3 or higher bleeding was higher in the venetoclax arm (11% versus 7%), but the incidence of fatal bleeding was similar between the groups (1.4% venetoclax versus 1.5%).

“Although the venetoclax arm showed modest increases in hematologic AEs, the rate of AEs leading to treatment discontinuation (24% vs. 25%) and the rate of serious AEs such as pneumonia” and sepsis “were nearly identical between” the arms, the team said.

The combination “is more myelosuppressive,” but the effects “were mostly mitigated by venetoclax dose interruptions and reductions.” To mitigate the TLS risk, patients were hospitalized for TLS evaluation and prophylaxis during the 4-day venetoclax ramp-up in the first treatment cycle and for 24 hours after the 600-mg target was reached. “I think this is an extremely important measure to avoid this small but important complication,” Dr. Wei said at the meeting.
 

A moderate step forward

Dr. Lowenberg and Dr. Huls noted in their commentary that, despite the favorable outcomes, “the results are still sobering with a rapid drop of the survival curves to values of [around] 25% or less within 18 months, and event-free survival rates even falling to considerably lower levels.”

Also, there was a “weak correlation between the relatively wide differences in comparative CR/CRi rates and the much smaller differences in survival,” perhaps “due to a limited depth of the complete responses following venetoclax-LDAC therapy or the early development of therapeutic resistance,” they said.

The commentary also noted another option, adding the hedgehog pathway inhibitor glasdegib, instead of venetoclax, to LDAC. It also improved survival in a similar randomized study in unfit AML and high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome patients, from a median survival of 4.9 months with LDAC alone to 8.8 months with the combination (Leukemia. 2019 Feb;33(2):379-389. doi: 10.1038/s41375-018-0312-9).
 

Dueling regimens

Another alternative approach – venetoclax plus the HMA agent azacitidine – garnered a lot of attention at the meeting when it was reported that the combination had a median overall survival of 14.7 months, versus 9.6 months with azacitidine alone, in patients ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. CR/CRi rates were 66% with the combination, versus 28%.

“It seems like the results were better with the combination of venetoclax and azacitidine” than venetoclax plus LDAC, said Gunnar Juliusson, MD, PhD, of Lund (Sweden) University, who moderated Dr. Wei’s presentation.

He wanted to know if there was a way to identify patients who would do better on one regimen versus the other and was curious about the fact that the azacitidine study used a dose of 400 mg venetoclax, instead of 600 mg.

Dr. Wei noted the high incidence of poor prognostic factors in his study, including prior HMA treatment in 20%, but also that “we don’t know for sure” if there’s a clinically meaningful benefit with the higher dose.

He also said the optimal number of venetoclax cycles for best response is unknown. For now, treatment is “recommend until either [disease] progression, dose intolerance, or patient or physician preference,” he noted. Venetoclax subjects in his study had a median of four treatment cycles versus two in the placebo group. Combination patients in the azacitidine study had a median of seven cycles versus 4.5 with placebo.

Venetoclax already carries an indication in the United States in combination with azacitidine, decitabine, or LDAC for newly-diagnosed AML in adults 75 years or older or who have comorbidities that preclude use of intensive induction chemotherapy, at a daily dosage of 400 mg with HMAs and 600 mg with LDAC.

Labeling notes that “continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.”

Both venetoclax trials were sponsored by the drug’s maker, AbbVie, which was involved with data interpretation and other matters. Dr. Wei is a consultant for and receives research funding from the company and also receives royalty payments in relation to venetoclax. The commentators did not have any competing financial interests. Disclosures, if any, were not reported for Dr. Juliusson.
 

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Wei AH et al. EHA Congress, Abstract S136.

At about 18 months’ follow-up in treatment naive acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) patients who were 75 years or older or otherwise unfit for intensive chemotherapy, median overall survival (OS) was 8.4 months when they were randomized to low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) plus the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax versus 4.1 months with LDAC plus placebo. The results from the phase 3 trial were reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

The combination also improved rates of remission, event-free survival, and patient reported outcomes and lessened transfusion requirements. Adverse events were manageable.

The findings position venetoclax add-on with LDAC “as a potential new standard of care” for untreated patients ineligible for intensive chemotherapy, lead investigator Andrew Wei, MD, PhD, an AML researcher at Monash University, Melbourne, said at the meeting.

The study addresses a substantial unmet need. The median age at AML diagnosis is over 68 years old and comorbidities such as heart failure and reduced creatinine clearance are common, which make the risk of toxicity with standard chemotherapy too high. Single-agent alternatives are of limited benefit, so Dr. Wei’s group and others are looking for better options to plug the treatment gap when standard chemotherapy is contraindicated.

Several combinations are under investigation, including LDAC plus venetoclax, which appears to have a synergistic effect greater than either agent on its own, Dr. Wei and colleagues explained in their journal report, which was published online to coincide with his presentation (Blood. 2020 Jun 11;135(24):2137-45).

“A challenging AML population”

In the study, 143 patients were randomized to oral venetoclax 600 mg daily and 68 to placebo in 28-day cycles, on a background of LDAC 20 mg/m² administered subcutaneously on days 1-10 of each cycle.

“This study enrolled a challenging AML population, with nearly 60% age ≥75 years and a high proportion of patients with secondary disease (38%), prior hypomethylating agent (HMA) treatment (20%), poor cytogenetic risk (32%), and TP53 mutations (15%), which are known factors associated with dismal prognosis in AML,” the investigators noted in their report.

There was a numerical benefit in OS at 12 months – the preplanned primary outcome – but it was not statistically significant. At 18 months, however, and after adjustment for a higher rate of secondary AML in the venetoclax arm and other confounders in a post hoc analysis, survival differences reached significance. The 4.3-month OS benefit with the combination translated into a 30% reduction in the risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.99; P = .04)

Survival outcomes “were particularly promising for patient subgroups with NPM1- (median OS, not reached) and IDH1/2-mutant AML (median OS, 19.4 months),” the team noted.

Complete remission (CR) were 48% in the venetoclax arm, compared with 13% in the placebo group, and 34% of venetoclax patients versus 3% of placebo patients went into remission after their first cycle. Venetoclax subjects also had longer median event free survival (4.7 months vs. 2 months); higher rates of red blood cell and platelet transfusion independence (37% vs. 16%); and higher rates of cytometric minimal residual disease levels below 0.1% (6% vs. 1%).

The findings correlated with “strong improvements” in patient-reported outcomes, including fatigue and quality of life, the investigators reported.
 

Risk mitigation

Grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs) included febrile neutropenia (32% in the venetoclax arm versus 29% in the placebo group), neutropenia (47% venetoclax vs. 16% placebo), thrombocytopenia (45% vs. 37%), and anemia (25% vs. 22%). The eight cases of tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) were all in the venetoclax arm. Grade 3 or higher bleeding was higher in the venetoclax arm (11% versus 7%), but the incidence of fatal bleeding was similar between the groups (1.4% venetoclax versus 1.5%).

“Although the venetoclax arm showed modest increases in hematologic AEs, the rate of AEs leading to treatment discontinuation (24% vs. 25%) and the rate of serious AEs such as pneumonia” and sepsis “were nearly identical between” the arms, the team said.

The combination “is more myelosuppressive,” but the effects “were mostly mitigated by venetoclax dose interruptions and reductions.” To mitigate the TLS risk, patients were hospitalized for TLS evaluation and prophylaxis during the 4-day venetoclax ramp-up in the first treatment cycle and for 24 hours after the 600-mg target was reached. “I think this is an extremely important measure to avoid this small but important complication,” Dr. Wei said at the meeting.
 

A moderate step forward

Dr. Lowenberg and Dr. Huls noted in their commentary that, despite the favorable outcomes, “the results are still sobering with a rapid drop of the survival curves to values of [around] 25% or less within 18 months, and event-free survival rates even falling to considerably lower levels.”

Also, there was a “weak correlation between the relatively wide differences in comparative CR/CRi rates and the much smaller differences in survival,” perhaps “due to a limited depth of the complete responses following venetoclax-LDAC therapy or the early development of therapeutic resistance,” they said.

The commentary also noted another option, adding the hedgehog pathway inhibitor glasdegib, instead of venetoclax, to LDAC. It also improved survival in a similar randomized study in unfit AML and high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome patients, from a median survival of 4.9 months with LDAC alone to 8.8 months with the combination (Leukemia. 2019 Feb;33(2):379-389. doi: 10.1038/s41375-018-0312-9).
 

Dueling regimens

Another alternative approach – venetoclax plus the HMA agent azacitidine – garnered a lot of attention at the meeting when it was reported that the combination had a median overall survival of 14.7 months, versus 9.6 months with azacitidine alone, in patients ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. CR/CRi rates were 66% with the combination, versus 28%.

“It seems like the results were better with the combination of venetoclax and azacitidine” than venetoclax plus LDAC, said Gunnar Juliusson, MD, PhD, of Lund (Sweden) University, who moderated Dr. Wei’s presentation.

He wanted to know if there was a way to identify patients who would do better on one regimen versus the other and was curious about the fact that the azacitidine study used a dose of 400 mg venetoclax, instead of 600 mg.

Dr. Wei noted the high incidence of poor prognostic factors in his study, including prior HMA treatment in 20%, but also that “we don’t know for sure” if there’s a clinically meaningful benefit with the higher dose.

He also said the optimal number of venetoclax cycles for best response is unknown. For now, treatment is “recommend until either [disease] progression, dose intolerance, or patient or physician preference,” he noted. Venetoclax subjects in his study had a median of four treatment cycles versus two in the placebo group. Combination patients in the azacitidine study had a median of seven cycles versus 4.5 with placebo.

Venetoclax already carries an indication in the United States in combination with azacitidine, decitabine, or LDAC for newly-diagnosed AML in adults 75 years or older or who have comorbidities that preclude use of intensive induction chemotherapy, at a daily dosage of 400 mg with HMAs and 600 mg with LDAC.

Labeling notes that “continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.”

Both venetoclax trials were sponsored by the drug’s maker, AbbVie, which was involved with data interpretation and other matters. Dr. Wei is a consultant for and receives research funding from the company and also receives royalty payments in relation to venetoclax. The commentators did not have any competing financial interests. Disclosures, if any, were not reported for Dr. Juliusson.
 

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Wei AH et al. EHA Congress, Abstract S136.

At about 18 months’ follow-up in treatment naive acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) patients who were 75 years or older or otherwise unfit for intensive chemotherapy, median overall survival (OS) was 8.4 months when they were randomized to low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) plus the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax versus 4.1 months with LDAC plus placebo. The results from the phase 3 trial were reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

The combination also improved rates of remission, event-free survival, and patient reported outcomes and lessened transfusion requirements. Adverse events were manageable.

The findings position venetoclax add-on with LDAC “as a potential new standard of care” for untreated patients ineligible for intensive chemotherapy, lead investigator Andrew Wei, MD, PhD, an AML researcher at Monash University, Melbourne, said at the meeting.

The study addresses a substantial unmet need. The median age at AML diagnosis is over 68 years old and comorbidities such as heart failure and reduced creatinine clearance are common, which make the risk of toxicity with standard chemotherapy too high. Single-agent alternatives are of limited benefit, so Dr. Wei’s group and others are looking for better options to plug the treatment gap when standard chemotherapy is contraindicated.

Several combinations are under investigation, including LDAC plus venetoclax, which appears to have a synergistic effect greater than either agent on its own, Dr. Wei and colleagues explained in their journal report, which was published online to coincide with his presentation (Blood. 2020 Jun 11;135(24):2137-45).

“A challenging AML population”

In the study, 143 patients were randomized to oral venetoclax 600 mg daily and 68 to placebo in 28-day cycles, on a background of LDAC 20 mg/m² administered subcutaneously on days 1-10 of each cycle.

“This study enrolled a challenging AML population, with nearly 60% age ≥75 years and a high proportion of patients with secondary disease (38%), prior hypomethylating agent (HMA) treatment (20%), poor cytogenetic risk (32%), and TP53 mutations (15%), which are known factors associated with dismal prognosis in AML,” the investigators noted in their report.

There was a numerical benefit in OS at 12 months – the preplanned primary outcome – but it was not statistically significant. At 18 months, however, and after adjustment for a higher rate of secondary AML in the venetoclax arm and other confounders in a post hoc analysis, survival differences reached significance. The 4.3-month OS benefit with the combination translated into a 30% reduction in the risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.99; P = .04)

Survival outcomes “were particularly promising for patient subgroups with NPM1- (median OS, not reached) and IDH1/2-mutant AML (median OS, 19.4 months),” the team noted.

Complete remission (CR) were 48% in the venetoclax arm, compared with 13% in the placebo group, and 34% of venetoclax patients versus 3% of placebo patients went into remission after their first cycle. Venetoclax subjects also had longer median event free survival (4.7 months vs. 2 months); higher rates of red blood cell and platelet transfusion independence (37% vs. 16%); and higher rates of cytometric minimal residual disease levels below 0.1% (6% vs. 1%).

The findings correlated with “strong improvements” in patient-reported outcomes, including fatigue and quality of life, the investigators reported.
 

Risk mitigation

Grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs) included febrile neutropenia (32% in the venetoclax arm versus 29% in the placebo group), neutropenia (47% venetoclax vs. 16% placebo), thrombocytopenia (45% vs. 37%), and anemia (25% vs. 22%). The eight cases of tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) were all in the venetoclax arm. Grade 3 or higher bleeding was higher in the venetoclax arm (11% versus 7%), but the incidence of fatal bleeding was similar between the groups (1.4% venetoclax versus 1.5%).

“Although the venetoclax arm showed modest increases in hematologic AEs, the rate of AEs leading to treatment discontinuation (24% vs. 25%) and the rate of serious AEs such as pneumonia” and sepsis “were nearly identical between” the arms, the team said.

The combination “is more myelosuppressive,” but the effects “were mostly mitigated by venetoclax dose interruptions and reductions.” To mitigate the TLS risk, patients were hospitalized for TLS evaluation and prophylaxis during the 4-day venetoclax ramp-up in the first treatment cycle and for 24 hours after the 600-mg target was reached. “I think this is an extremely important measure to avoid this small but important complication,” Dr. Wei said at the meeting.
 

A moderate step forward

Dr. Lowenberg and Dr. Huls noted in their commentary that, despite the favorable outcomes, “the results are still sobering with a rapid drop of the survival curves to values of [around] 25% or less within 18 months, and event-free survival rates even falling to considerably lower levels.”

Also, there was a “weak correlation between the relatively wide differences in comparative CR/CRi rates and the much smaller differences in survival,” perhaps “due to a limited depth of the complete responses following venetoclax-LDAC therapy or the early development of therapeutic resistance,” they said.

The commentary also noted another option, adding the hedgehog pathway inhibitor glasdegib, instead of venetoclax, to LDAC. It also improved survival in a similar randomized study in unfit AML and high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome patients, from a median survival of 4.9 months with LDAC alone to 8.8 months with the combination (Leukemia. 2019 Feb;33(2):379-389. doi: 10.1038/s41375-018-0312-9).
 

Dueling regimens

Another alternative approach – venetoclax plus the HMA agent azacitidine – garnered a lot of attention at the meeting when it was reported that the combination had a median overall survival of 14.7 months, versus 9.6 months with azacitidine alone, in patients ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. CR/CRi rates were 66% with the combination, versus 28%.

“It seems like the results were better with the combination of venetoclax and azacitidine” than venetoclax plus LDAC, said Gunnar Juliusson, MD, PhD, of Lund (Sweden) University, who moderated Dr. Wei’s presentation.

He wanted to know if there was a way to identify patients who would do better on one regimen versus the other and was curious about the fact that the azacitidine study used a dose of 400 mg venetoclax, instead of 600 mg.

Dr. Wei noted the high incidence of poor prognostic factors in his study, including prior HMA treatment in 20%, but also that “we don’t know for sure” if there’s a clinically meaningful benefit with the higher dose.

He also said the optimal number of venetoclax cycles for best response is unknown. For now, treatment is “recommend until either [disease] progression, dose intolerance, or patient or physician preference,” he noted. Venetoclax subjects in his study had a median of four treatment cycles versus two in the placebo group. Combination patients in the azacitidine study had a median of seven cycles versus 4.5 with placebo.

Venetoclax already carries an indication in the United States in combination with azacitidine, decitabine, or LDAC for newly-diagnosed AML in adults 75 years or older or who have comorbidities that preclude use of intensive induction chemotherapy, at a daily dosage of 400 mg with HMAs and 600 mg with LDAC.

Labeling notes that “continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.”

Both venetoclax trials were sponsored by the drug’s maker, AbbVie, which was involved with data interpretation and other matters. Dr. Wei is a consultant for and receives research funding from the company and also receives royalty payments in relation to venetoclax. The commentators did not have any competing financial interests. Disclosures, if any, were not reported for Dr. Juliusson.
 

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Wei AH et al. EHA Congress, Abstract S136.