Conference Coverage

People with high-frequency episodic migraine and low-frequency chronic migraine may have similar treatment needs because characteristics of the two disorders overlap significantly, calling into question the existing threshold of 15 migraine headache days per month to distinguish low- and high-frequency migraine, according to an analysis of almost 17,000 patients from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“The results showed substantial overlap in levels of burden, anxiety, depression and health utilization, including outpatient, inpatient and emergency department visits, among CaMEO respondents with high-frequency episodic migraine and those with low-frequency chronic migraine,” said Richard B. Lipton, MD, of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York.

The study analyzed data on 16,789 respondents to CaMEO, the longitudinal, web-based study designed to characterize the course of episodic and chronic migraine. The study population consisted of four subgroups based on the number of self-reporting monthly headache days (MHDs):

• Low- and moderate-frequency episodic migraine (LFEM; zero to seven MHDs; n = 13,473).
• High-frequency episodic migraine (HFEM; 8-14 MHDs; n = 1,840).
• Low-frequency chronic migraine (LFCM; 15-23 MHDs; n = 1,035).
• High-frequency chronic migraine (HFCM; 24 or more MHDs; n = 441).

Dr. Lipton pointed out that the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition, defines chronic migraine as 15 or more MHDs for 3 months or more with criteria for migraine with or without aura met on 8 days a month or more. It defines episodic migraine as less than 15 MHDs.

The study characterized migraine subgroups by various demographics. “The more frequent headache categories were associated with slightly older age of onset with a higher proportion of BMI [body mass index] in the obese range and overall with lower levels of household income and education,” Dr. Lipton said.
 

Similar headache characteristics

A comparison of headache characteristics and headache-related disabilities across subgroups revealed a number of commonalities between the HFEM and LFCM subgroups, Dr. Lipton said. Among them were presence of mild to severe allodynia, disability grade, interictal burden, and anxiety and depression scores. For example, 47.3% of the HFEM subgroup and 54.9% of the LFCM subgroup had Patient Health Questionnaire–9 depression test scores greater than 10.

The study also evaluated patterns of consultation, diagnosis, and health resource utilization and found similar rates between the HFEM and LCFM subgroups, Dr. Lipton said. Rates of overnight hospital stay in the past 6 months were almost identical between the two subgroups: 4.1% for the former and 4.2% for the latter. One striking difference between the two subgroups: the rate of medication overuse per ICHD-3 recommendations was 40.5% in HFEM and 63% in LFCM.

“These finding suggest that the treatment needs of people with HFEM may be similar to those of people with LFCM, suggesting that the 15-MHD threshold currently recommended by the ICHD-3 may merit reconsideration,” Dr. Lipton said.
 

An arbitrary cutoff?

The findings raise a valid point about reevaluating the thresholds for low- and high-frequency migraine, said Andrew Charles, MD, director of the Goldberg Migraine Program at the University of California, Los Angeles. “My own personal view is that they’re the same thing,” he said of HFEM and LFCM; The 15-day cutoff, he said, is “somewhat arbitrary.”

Dr. Charles suggested migraine categories address frequency and not characteristics – episodic versus chronic – and use a range rather than a threshold. “Define a range that’s more like 10-20 days per month rather than having that point at 15,” Dr. Charles said. “People sometimes make the mistake of thinking that that classification reflects some underlying pathophysiology, and that may not be necessarily true.”

Dr. Lipton disclosed financial relationships with Alder Biopharmaceuticals, Allergan (now AbbVie), Amgen, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Dr. Reddy’s/Promius, Electrocore, Eli Lilly, eNeura Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Lundbeck (Alder), Merck, Pernix Therapeutics, Pfizer, Supernus, Teva, Trigemina, Axsome Therapeutics, Vector, and Vedanta. Dr. Charles disclosed he is a consultant to Amgen, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, and Novartis.

People with high-frequency episodic migraine and low-frequency chronic migraine may have similar treatment needs because characteristics of the two disorders overlap significantly, calling into question the existing threshold of 15 migraine headache days per month to distinguish low- and high-frequency migraine, according to an analysis of almost 17,000 patients from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“The results showed substantial overlap in levels of burden, anxiety, depression and health utilization, including outpatient, inpatient and emergency department visits, among CaMEO respondents with high-frequency episodic migraine and those with low-frequency chronic migraine,” said Richard B. Lipton, MD, of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York.

The study analyzed data on 16,789 respondents to CaMEO, the longitudinal, web-based study designed to characterize the course of episodic and chronic migraine. The study population consisted of four subgroups based on the number of self-reporting monthly headache days (MHDs):

• Low- and moderate-frequency episodic migraine (LFEM; zero to seven MHDs; n = 13,473).
• High-frequency episodic migraine (HFEM; 8-14 MHDs; n = 1,840).
• Low-frequency chronic migraine (LFCM; 15-23 MHDs; n = 1,035).
• High-frequency chronic migraine (HFCM; 24 or more MHDs; n = 441).

Dr. Lipton pointed out that the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition, defines chronic migraine as 15 or more MHDs for 3 months or more with criteria for migraine with or without aura met on 8 days a month or more. It defines episodic migraine as less than 15 MHDs.

The study characterized migraine subgroups by various demographics. “The more frequent headache categories were associated with slightly older age of onset with a higher proportion of BMI [body mass index] in the obese range and overall with lower levels of household income and education,” Dr. Lipton said.
 

Similar headache characteristics

A comparison of headache characteristics and headache-related disabilities across subgroups revealed a number of commonalities between the HFEM and LFCM subgroups, Dr. Lipton said. Among them were presence of mild to severe allodynia, disability grade, interictal burden, and anxiety and depression scores. For example, 47.3% of the HFEM subgroup and 54.9% of the LFCM subgroup had Patient Health Questionnaire–9 depression test scores greater than 10.

The study also evaluated patterns of consultation, diagnosis, and health resource utilization and found similar rates between the HFEM and LCFM subgroups, Dr. Lipton said. Rates of overnight hospital stay in the past 6 months were almost identical between the two subgroups: 4.1% for the former and 4.2% for the latter. One striking difference between the two subgroups: the rate of medication overuse per ICHD-3 recommendations was 40.5% in HFEM and 63% in LFCM.

“These finding suggest that the treatment needs of people with HFEM may be similar to those of people with LFCM, suggesting that the 15-MHD threshold currently recommended by the ICHD-3 may merit reconsideration,” Dr. Lipton said.
 

An arbitrary cutoff?

The findings raise a valid point about reevaluating the thresholds for low- and high-frequency migraine, said Andrew Charles, MD, director of the Goldberg Migraine Program at the University of California, Los Angeles. “My own personal view is that they’re the same thing,” he said of HFEM and LFCM; The 15-day cutoff, he said, is “somewhat arbitrary.”

Dr. Charles suggested migraine categories address frequency and not characteristics – episodic versus chronic – and use a range rather than a threshold. “Define a range that’s more like 10-20 days per month rather than having that point at 15,” Dr. Charles said. “People sometimes make the mistake of thinking that that classification reflects some underlying pathophysiology, and that may not be necessarily true.”

Dr. Lipton disclosed financial relationships with Alder Biopharmaceuticals, Allergan (now AbbVie), Amgen, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Dr. Reddy’s/Promius, Electrocore, Eli Lilly, eNeura Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Lundbeck (Alder), Merck, Pernix Therapeutics, Pfizer, Supernus, Teva, Trigemina, Axsome Therapeutics, Vector, and Vedanta. Dr. Charles disclosed he is a consultant to Amgen, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, and Novartis.

People with high-frequency episodic migraine and low-frequency chronic migraine may have similar treatment needs because characteristics of the two disorders overlap significantly, calling into question the existing threshold of 15 migraine headache days per month to distinguish low- and high-frequency migraine, according to an analysis of almost 17,000 patients from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“The results showed substantial overlap in levels of burden, anxiety, depression and health utilization, including outpatient, inpatient and emergency department visits, among CaMEO respondents with high-frequency episodic migraine and those with low-frequency chronic migraine,” said Richard B. Lipton, MD, of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York.

The study analyzed data on 16,789 respondents to CaMEO, the longitudinal, web-based study designed to characterize the course of episodic and chronic migraine. The study population consisted of four subgroups based on the number of self-reporting monthly headache days (MHDs):

• Low- and moderate-frequency episodic migraine (LFEM; zero to seven MHDs; n = 13,473).
• High-frequency episodic migraine (HFEM; 8-14 MHDs; n = 1,840).
• Low-frequency chronic migraine (LFCM; 15-23 MHDs; n = 1,035).
• High-frequency chronic migraine (HFCM; 24 or more MHDs; n = 441).

Dr. Lipton pointed out that the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition, defines chronic migraine as 15 or more MHDs for 3 months or more with criteria for migraine with or without aura met on 8 days a month or more. It defines episodic migraine as less than 15 MHDs.

The study characterized migraine subgroups by various demographics. “The more frequent headache categories were associated with slightly older age of onset with a higher proportion of BMI [body mass index] in the obese range and overall with lower levels of household income and education,” Dr. Lipton said.
 

Similar headache characteristics

A comparison of headache characteristics and headache-related disabilities across subgroups revealed a number of commonalities between the HFEM and LFCM subgroups, Dr. Lipton said. Among them were presence of mild to severe allodynia, disability grade, interictal burden, and anxiety and depression scores. For example, 47.3% of the HFEM subgroup and 54.9% of the LFCM subgroup had Patient Health Questionnaire–9 depression test scores greater than 10.

The study also evaluated patterns of consultation, diagnosis, and health resource utilization and found similar rates between the HFEM and LCFM subgroups, Dr. Lipton said. Rates of overnight hospital stay in the past 6 months were almost identical between the two subgroups: 4.1% for the former and 4.2% for the latter. One striking difference between the two subgroups: the rate of medication overuse per ICHD-3 recommendations was 40.5% in HFEM and 63% in LFCM.

“These finding suggest that the treatment needs of people with HFEM may be similar to those of people with LFCM, suggesting that the 15-MHD threshold currently recommended by the ICHD-3 may merit reconsideration,” Dr. Lipton said.
 

An arbitrary cutoff?

The findings raise a valid point about reevaluating the thresholds for low- and high-frequency migraine, said Andrew Charles, MD, director of the Goldberg Migraine Program at the University of California, Los Angeles. “My own personal view is that they’re the same thing,” he said of HFEM and LFCM; The 15-day cutoff, he said, is “somewhat arbitrary.”

Dr. Charles suggested migraine categories address frequency and not characteristics – episodic versus chronic – and use a range rather than a threshold. “Define a range that’s more like 10-20 days per month rather than having that point at 15,” Dr. Charles said. “People sometimes make the mistake of thinking that that classification reflects some underlying pathophysiology, and that may not be necessarily true.”

Dr. Lipton disclosed financial relationships with Alder Biopharmaceuticals, Allergan (now AbbVie), Amgen, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Dr. Reddy’s/Promius, Electrocore, Eli Lilly, eNeura Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Lundbeck (Alder), Merck, Pernix Therapeutics, Pfizer, Supernus, Teva, Trigemina, Axsome Therapeutics, Vector, and Vedanta. Dr. Charles disclosed he is a consultant to Amgen, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, and Novartis.

Magrolimab plus azacitidine (AZA) improved outcomes in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) patients according to the results of a phase 1b study (NCT03248479) presented at the virtual ASCO meeting. The combo especially was promising for the underserved patient population that have the TP53 (p53) mutation.

Magrolimab is a first-in-kind IgG anti-CD47 monoclonal antibody that promotes the elimination of tumor cells through macrophage phagocytosis. CD47 is a “do not eat me” signal on cancer cells that allows the cells to evade macrophages. Its increased expression is predictive of a worse outcome in AML patients, according to David A. Sallman, MD, of the Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Fla., and colleagues.

Dr. Sallman presented the results of a study examining whether magrolimab would provide a synergistic benefit when combined with AZA (which induces other prophagocytic “eat me” signals such as calreticulin on cancer cells). The primary objectives of the study were to examine the safety of magrolimab alone or with AZA, and to assess the efficacy of the magrolimab/AZA combo in 29 untreated AML patients and 39 untreated MDS patients. The majority of both the MDS and AML patients were poor cytogenetic risk at 64% and 72%, respectively. Mutant p53 was present in 13% of the MDS patients and 45% of the AML patients.

No deaths occurred in the first 60 days of the study among either the MDS or AML patients and discontinuation of treatment because of drug-related adverse events was seen in only one of the patients (1.5%) treated with magrolimab/AZA. There was no significant neutropenia or thrombocytopenia caused by the therapy seen, and the majority of the patients improved their neutrophil and platelet counts while on therapy.

Anemia from CD47 blockade was mitigated by the use of a priming dose of magrolimab coupled to a maintenance-dose regimen, resulting in a mild hemoglobin drop on the first dose, which returned to baseline with a majority of patients experiencing significant hemoglobin improvement and a decrease in transfusion frequency over time, according to Dr. Sallman and his colleagues.

The results showed that magrolimab/AZA induced a 91% overall response rate (ORR), with a 42% complete remission (CR) that increased to 56% at 6 months, in the MDS patients. AML patients experienced a 64% ORR (56% CR/CRi [CR with incomplete hematological remission]). These results compare favorably with the CR rate of 6%-17% rate seen for AZA monotherapy, according to Dr. Sallman.

Red blood cell transfusion independence was achieved in 58% of the MDS patients and 64% of the AML patients, and a complete cytogenetic response was seen in 35% and 50% of the MDS and AML patients, respectively.

The combined treatment was especially effective in the patients with p53 mutations, with an overall response rate of 75% for both MDS and AML, and a complete response of 42% and 50%, respectively. During the reported time of the study, the median survival was not reached, which compares favorably with current therapies, according to Dr. Sallman.

“Specifically looking at a very-high-risk p53-mutant subset, complete remissions have been observed in the majority of patients. And again, these have been durable. Based on all of these data, expansion cohorts both in MDS and p53 and AML continue to accrue with registrational studies in progress for MDS and planned for p53-mutant AML,” Dr. Sallman concluded.

The trial was sponsored by Gilead Sciences, and funding was obtained from the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. Dr. Sallman disclosed that he received research funding from Celgene and has acted in a consulting or advisory role for Agios, argenx, and Celyad. He was also on the speaker’s bureau for a variety of pharmaceutical/biotech companies.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Sallman DA et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 7507.

Magrolimab plus azacitidine (AZA) improved outcomes in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) patients according to the results of a phase 1b study (NCT03248479) presented at the virtual ASCO meeting. The combo especially was promising for the underserved patient population that have the TP53 (p53) mutation.

Magrolimab is a first-in-kind IgG anti-CD47 monoclonal antibody that promotes the elimination of tumor cells through macrophage phagocytosis. CD47 is a “do not eat me” signal on cancer cells that allows the cells to evade macrophages. Its increased expression is predictive of a worse outcome in AML patients, according to David A. Sallman, MD, of the Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Fla., and colleagues.

Dr. Sallman presented the results of a study examining whether magrolimab would provide a synergistic benefit when combined with AZA (which induces other prophagocytic “eat me” signals such as calreticulin on cancer cells). The primary objectives of the study were to examine the safety of magrolimab alone or with AZA, and to assess the efficacy of the magrolimab/AZA combo in 29 untreated AML patients and 39 untreated MDS patients. The majority of both the MDS and AML patients were poor cytogenetic risk at 64% and 72%, respectively. Mutant p53 was present in 13% of the MDS patients and 45% of the AML patients.

No deaths occurred in the first 60 days of the study among either the MDS or AML patients and discontinuation of treatment because of drug-related adverse events was seen in only one of the patients (1.5%) treated with magrolimab/AZA. There was no significant neutropenia or thrombocytopenia caused by the therapy seen, and the majority of the patients improved their neutrophil and platelet counts while on therapy.

Anemia from CD47 blockade was mitigated by the use of a priming dose of magrolimab coupled to a maintenance-dose regimen, resulting in a mild hemoglobin drop on the first dose, which returned to baseline with a majority of patients experiencing significant hemoglobin improvement and a decrease in transfusion frequency over time, according to Dr. Sallman and his colleagues.

The results showed that magrolimab/AZA induced a 91% overall response rate (ORR), with a 42% complete remission (CR) that increased to 56% at 6 months, in the MDS patients. AML patients experienced a 64% ORR (56% CR/CRi [CR with incomplete hematological remission]). These results compare favorably with the CR rate of 6%-17% rate seen for AZA monotherapy, according to Dr. Sallman.

Red blood cell transfusion independence was achieved in 58% of the MDS patients and 64% of the AML patients, and a complete cytogenetic response was seen in 35% and 50% of the MDS and AML patients, respectively.

The combined treatment was especially effective in the patients with p53 mutations, with an overall response rate of 75% for both MDS and AML, and a complete response of 42% and 50%, respectively. During the reported time of the study, the median survival was not reached, which compares favorably with current therapies, according to Dr. Sallman.

“Specifically looking at a very-high-risk p53-mutant subset, complete remissions have been observed in the majority of patients. And again, these have been durable. Based on all of these data, expansion cohorts both in MDS and p53 and AML continue to accrue with registrational studies in progress for MDS and planned for p53-mutant AML,” Dr. Sallman concluded.

The trial was sponsored by Gilead Sciences, and funding was obtained from the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. Dr. Sallman disclosed that he received research funding from Celgene and has acted in a consulting or advisory role for Agios, argenx, and Celyad. He was also on the speaker’s bureau for a variety of pharmaceutical/biotech companies.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Sallman DA et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 7507.

Magrolimab plus azacitidine (AZA) improved outcomes in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) patients according to the results of a phase 1b study (NCT03248479) presented at the virtual ASCO meeting. The combo especially was promising for the underserved patient population that have the TP53 (p53) mutation.

Magrolimab is a first-in-kind IgG anti-CD47 monoclonal antibody that promotes the elimination of tumor cells through macrophage phagocytosis. CD47 is a “do not eat me” signal on cancer cells that allows the cells to evade macrophages. Its increased expression is predictive of a worse outcome in AML patients, according to David A. Sallman, MD, of the Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Fla., and colleagues.

Dr. Sallman presented the results of a study examining whether magrolimab would provide a synergistic benefit when combined with AZA (which induces other prophagocytic “eat me” signals such as calreticulin on cancer cells). The primary objectives of the study were to examine the safety of magrolimab alone or with AZA, and to assess the efficacy of the magrolimab/AZA combo in 29 untreated AML patients and 39 untreated MDS patients. The majority of both the MDS and AML patients were poor cytogenetic risk at 64% and 72%, respectively. Mutant p53 was present in 13% of the MDS patients and 45% of the AML patients.

No deaths occurred in the first 60 days of the study among either the MDS or AML patients and discontinuation of treatment because of drug-related adverse events was seen in only one of the patients (1.5%) treated with magrolimab/AZA. There was no significant neutropenia or thrombocytopenia caused by the therapy seen, and the majority of the patients improved their neutrophil and platelet counts while on therapy.

Anemia from CD47 blockade was mitigated by the use of a priming dose of magrolimab coupled to a maintenance-dose regimen, resulting in a mild hemoglobin drop on the first dose, which returned to baseline with a majority of patients experiencing significant hemoglobin improvement and a decrease in transfusion frequency over time, according to Dr. Sallman and his colleagues.

The results showed that magrolimab/AZA induced a 91% overall response rate (ORR), with a 42% complete remission (CR) that increased to 56% at 6 months, in the MDS patients. AML patients experienced a 64% ORR (56% CR/CRi [CR with incomplete hematological remission]). These results compare favorably with the CR rate of 6%-17% rate seen for AZA monotherapy, according to Dr. Sallman.

Red blood cell transfusion independence was achieved in 58% of the MDS patients and 64% of the AML patients, and a complete cytogenetic response was seen in 35% and 50% of the MDS and AML patients, respectively.

The combined treatment was especially effective in the patients with p53 mutations, with an overall response rate of 75% for both MDS and AML, and a complete response of 42% and 50%, respectively. During the reported time of the study, the median survival was not reached, which compares favorably with current therapies, according to Dr. Sallman.

“Specifically looking at a very-high-risk p53-mutant subset, complete remissions have been observed in the majority of patients. And again, these have been durable. Based on all of these data, expansion cohorts both in MDS and p53 and AML continue to accrue with registrational studies in progress for MDS and planned for p53-mutant AML,” Dr. Sallman concluded.

The trial was sponsored by Gilead Sciences, and funding was obtained from the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. Dr. Sallman disclosed that he received research funding from Celgene and has acted in a consulting or advisory role for Agios, argenx, and Celyad. He was also on the speaker’s bureau for a variety of pharmaceutical/biotech companies.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Sallman DA et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 7507.

A German registry is providing new insight into the characteristics and real-world diagnosis and management of rheumatic immune-related adverse events of cancer therapy. Its first findings were reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

“We have limited knowledge on the interrelationships between malignant and rheumatic diseases on both the clinical and molecular level, and we have a large unmet need for management guidelines in the case of the coincidence of both disease entities,” noted lead author Karolina Benesova, MD, of the department of hematology, oncology, and rheumatology at University Hospital Heidelberg (Germany).

The TRheuMa registry – Therapy-Induced Rheumatic Symptoms in Patients with Malignancy – is one of three registries in a multicenter observational project exploring various contexts between malignant and rheumatic diseases. Over its first 22 months, the registry recruited 69 patients having rheumatic symptoms as a result of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy or other cancer therapies.
 

Registry findings

The largest shares of patients had non–small cell lung cancer (38%) or melanoma (33%), Dr. Benesova reported. The immune checkpoint inhibitors most commonly received were pembrolizumab (Keytruda), nivolumab (Opdivo), and ipilimumab (Yervoy).

The immune-related adverse events usually presented with symptoms of de novo spondyloarthritis or psoriatic arthritis (42%), late-onset RA (17%), or polymyalgia rheumatica (14%). But 16% of the patients were experiencing a flare of a preexisting rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease.

Laboratory findings differed somewhat from those of classical rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, according to Dr. Benesova. Specific findings were rare; in particular, most patients did not have detectable autoantibodies. However, 76% had an elevated C-reactive protein level and 39% had an elevated soluble CD25 level. In addition, nearly all patients (96%) undergoing joint ultrasound had pathologic findings.

“Based on our experiences from interdisciplinary care together with our local oncologists, we have developed a therapeutic algorithm for rheumatic immune-related adverse events,” she reported, noting that the algorithm is consistent with recently published recommendations in this area.

The large majority of patients were adequately treated with prednisone at a dose greater than 10 mg (40%) or at a dose of 10 mg or less with or without an NSAID (40%), while some received NSAID monotherapy (14%).

“We have a growing proportion of patients on conventional or biological [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs],” Dr. Benesova noted. “These are mostly patients with preexisting rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease or highly suspected de novo classical rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease under checkpoint inhibitor therapy.”

Patients with melanoma having a rheumatic immune-related adverse event had a better response to their therapy than historical counterparts who did not have such events: 39% of the former had a complete response, relative to merely 4% of the latter.

Only a small proportion of patients overall (9%) had to discontinue immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy because of their adverse event, and some of them may be eligible for rechallenge if their cancer progresses, Dr. Benesova noted.

“There is still a lot to be done,” she stated, such as better elucidating the nature of these adverse events [whether transient side effects or a triggering of chronic rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases], the need for a defensive treatment strategy, and the advisability of closer monitoring of high-risk patients given immune checkpoint inhibitors. “We are aiming at solving these questions in the next few years,” she concluded.

Findings in context

“Registries are important to gain prospective data on patient outcomes,” Sabina Sandigursky, MD, an instructor in the division of rheumatology at the Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York University, commented in an interview. “One must be careful, while interpreting these data, especially since they are not randomized, controlled trials.”

Patterns may differ at other centers, too, she pointed out. “The German registry reported a predominance of spondyloarthritis-like disease; however, our patients have a predominance of small-joint involvement. It is unclear what accounts for this difference.”

Individual institutions in North America are similarly collecting data on this patient population, with efforts underway to compile those data to provide a larger picture, according to Dr. Sandigursky.

“Many of the syndromes that we consider to be rheumatic immune-related adverse events have been well described by groups from the U.S., Canada, Australia, and European Union,” she concluded. “From this registry, we can observe how patients are being treated in real time since this information is largely consensus based.”

The study did not receive any specific funding. Dr. Benesova disclosed grant/research support from AbbVie, Novartis, Rheumaliga Baden-Wurttemberg, and the University of Heidelberg, and consultancies, speaker fees, and/or travel reimbursements from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Medac, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB. Some of her coauthors also disclosed financial relationships with industry. Dr. Sandigursky disclosed having no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Benesova K et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79[suppl 1]:168-9, Abstract OP0270.

A German registry is providing new insight into the characteristics and real-world diagnosis and management of rheumatic immune-related adverse events of cancer therapy. Its first findings were reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

“We have limited knowledge on the interrelationships between malignant and rheumatic diseases on both the clinical and molecular level, and we have a large unmet need for management guidelines in the case of the coincidence of both disease entities,” noted lead author Karolina Benesova, MD, of the department of hematology, oncology, and rheumatology at University Hospital Heidelberg (Germany).

The TRheuMa registry – Therapy-Induced Rheumatic Symptoms in Patients with Malignancy – is one of three registries in a multicenter observational project exploring various contexts between malignant and rheumatic diseases. Over its first 22 months, the registry recruited 69 patients having rheumatic symptoms as a result of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy or other cancer therapies.
 

Registry findings

The largest shares of patients had non–small cell lung cancer (38%) or melanoma (33%), Dr. Benesova reported. The immune checkpoint inhibitors most commonly received were pembrolizumab (Keytruda), nivolumab (Opdivo), and ipilimumab (Yervoy).

The immune-related adverse events usually presented with symptoms of de novo spondyloarthritis or psoriatic arthritis (42%), late-onset RA (17%), or polymyalgia rheumatica (14%). But 16% of the patients were experiencing a flare of a preexisting rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease.

Laboratory findings differed somewhat from those of classical rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, according to Dr. Benesova. Specific findings were rare; in particular, most patients did not have detectable autoantibodies. However, 76% had an elevated C-reactive protein level and 39% had an elevated soluble CD25 level. In addition, nearly all patients (96%) undergoing joint ultrasound had pathologic findings.

“Based on our experiences from interdisciplinary care together with our local oncologists, we have developed a therapeutic algorithm for rheumatic immune-related adverse events,” she reported, noting that the algorithm is consistent with recently published recommendations in this area.

The large majority of patients were adequately treated with prednisone at a dose greater than 10 mg (40%) or at a dose of 10 mg or less with or without an NSAID (40%), while some received NSAID monotherapy (14%).

“We have a growing proportion of patients on conventional or biological [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs],” Dr. Benesova noted. “These are mostly patients with preexisting rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease or highly suspected de novo classical rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease under checkpoint inhibitor therapy.”

Patients with melanoma having a rheumatic immune-related adverse event had a better response to their therapy than historical counterparts who did not have such events: 39% of the former had a complete response, relative to merely 4% of the latter.

Only a small proportion of patients overall (9%) had to discontinue immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy because of their adverse event, and some of them may be eligible for rechallenge if their cancer progresses, Dr. Benesova noted.

“There is still a lot to be done,” she stated, such as better elucidating the nature of these adverse events [whether transient side effects or a triggering of chronic rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases], the need for a defensive treatment strategy, and the advisability of closer monitoring of high-risk patients given immune checkpoint inhibitors. “We are aiming at solving these questions in the next few years,” she concluded.

Findings in context

“Registries are important to gain prospective data on patient outcomes,” Sabina Sandigursky, MD, an instructor in the division of rheumatology at the Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York University, commented in an interview. “One must be careful, while interpreting these data, especially since they are not randomized, controlled trials.”

Patterns may differ at other centers, too, she pointed out. “The German registry reported a predominance of spondyloarthritis-like disease; however, our patients have a predominance of small-joint involvement. It is unclear what accounts for this difference.”

Individual institutions in North America are similarly collecting data on this patient population, with efforts underway to compile those data to provide a larger picture, according to Dr. Sandigursky.

“Many of the syndromes that we consider to be rheumatic immune-related adverse events have been well described by groups from the U.S., Canada, Australia, and European Union,” she concluded. “From this registry, we can observe how patients are being treated in real time since this information is largely consensus based.”

The study did not receive any specific funding. Dr. Benesova disclosed grant/research support from AbbVie, Novartis, Rheumaliga Baden-Wurttemberg, and the University of Heidelberg, and consultancies, speaker fees, and/or travel reimbursements from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Medac, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB. Some of her coauthors also disclosed financial relationships with industry. Dr. Sandigursky disclosed having no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Benesova K et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79[suppl 1]:168-9, Abstract OP0270.

A German registry is providing new insight into the characteristics and real-world diagnosis and management of rheumatic immune-related adverse events of cancer therapy. Its first findings were reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

“We have limited knowledge on the interrelationships between malignant and rheumatic diseases on both the clinical and molecular level, and we have a large unmet need for management guidelines in the case of the coincidence of both disease entities,” noted lead author Karolina Benesova, MD, of the department of hematology, oncology, and rheumatology at University Hospital Heidelberg (Germany).

The TRheuMa registry – Therapy-Induced Rheumatic Symptoms in Patients with Malignancy – is one of three registries in a multicenter observational project exploring various contexts between malignant and rheumatic diseases. Over its first 22 months, the registry recruited 69 patients having rheumatic symptoms as a result of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy or other cancer therapies.
 

Registry findings

The largest shares of patients had non–small cell lung cancer (38%) or melanoma (33%), Dr. Benesova reported. The immune checkpoint inhibitors most commonly received were pembrolizumab (Keytruda), nivolumab (Opdivo), and ipilimumab (Yervoy).

The immune-related adverse events usually presented with symptoms of de novo spondyloarthritis or psoriatic arthritis (42%), late-onset RA (17%), or polymyalgia rheumatica (14%). But 16% of the patients were experiencing a flare of a preexisting rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease.

Laboratory findings differed somewhat from those of classical rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, according to Dr. Benesova. Specific findings were rare; in particular, most patients did not have detectable autoantibodies. However, 76% had an elevated C-reactive protein level and 39% had an elevated soluble CD25 level. In addition, nearly all patients (96%) undergoing joint ultrasound had pathologic findings.

“Based on our experiences from interdisciplinary care together with our local oncologists, we have developed a therapeutic algorithm for rheumatic immune-related adverse events,” she reported, noting that the algorithm is consistent with recently published recommendations in this area.

The large majority of patients were adequately treated with prednisone at a dose greater than 10 mg (40%) or at a dose of 10 mg or less with or without an NSAID (40%), while some received NSAID monotherapy (14%).

“We have a growing proportion of patients on conventional or biological [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs],” Dr. Benesova noted. “These are mostly patients with preexisting rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease or highly suspected de novo classical rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease under checkpoint inhibitor therapy.”

Patients with melanoma having a rheumatic immune-related adverse event had a better response to their therapy than historical counterparts who did not have such events: 39% of the former had a complete response, relative to merely 4% of the latter.

Only a small proportion of patients overall (9%) had to discontinue immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy because of their adverse event, and some of them may be eligible for rechallenge if their cancer progresses, Dr. Benesova noted.

“There is still a lot to be done,” she stated, such as better elucidating the nature of these adverse events [whether transient side effects or a triggering of chronic rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases], the need for a defensive treatment strategy, and the advisability of closer monitoring of high-risk patients given immune checkpoint inhibitors. “We are aiming at solving these questions in the next few years,” she concluded.

Findings in context

“Registries are important to gain prospective data on patient outcomes,” Sabina Sandigursky, MD, an instructor in the division of rheumatology at the Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York University, commented in an interview. “One must be careful, while interpreting these data, especially since they are not randomized, controlled trials.”

Patterns may differ at other centers, too, she pointed out. “The German registry reported a predominance of spondyloarthritis-like disease; however, our patients have a predominance of small-joint involvement. It is unclear what accounts for this difference.”

Individual institutions in North America are similarly collecting data on this patient population, with efforts underway to compile those data to provide a larger picture, according to Dr. Sandigursky.

“Many of the syndromes that we consider to be rheumatic immune-related adverse events have been well described by groups from the U.S., Canada, Australia, and European Union,” she concluded. “From this registry, we can observe how patients are being treated in real time since this information is largely consensus based.”

The study did not receive any specific funding. Dr. Benesova disclosed grant/research support from AbbVie, Novartis, Rheumaliga Baden-Wurttemberg, and the University of Heidelberg, and consultancies, speaker fees, and/or travel reimbursements from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Medac, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB. Some of her coauthors also disclosed financial relationships with industry. Dr. Sandigursky disclosed having no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Benesova K et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79[suppl 1]:168-9, Abstract OP0270.

Treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes with the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin led to a significant drop in the occurrence of ‘fast decline’ of renal function in more than 15,000 patients enrolled in the drug’s main cardiovascular outcome trial, another example of the potent renal protective effects of agents from this drug class.

Courtesy Joslin Diabetes Center

Among patients with type 2 diabetes enrolled in the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial, the incidence of a fast decline in renal function, defined as a drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of at least 3 mL/min per 1.73 m², was 27% among patients treated with dapagliflozin and 37% in control patients who received placebo, a statistically significant difference for this post-hoc analysis, Itamar Raz, MD, said at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

This finding, which adds to a long list of other renal function parameters reported to have been improved by treatment with sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, “emphasizes the value of SGLT2 inhibitors as an important component of both prevention and treatment of chronic kidney disease among patients with type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Raz, a diabetes researcher and professor of medicine at Hadassah University Hospital in Jerusalem.

The primary, prespecified renal outcomes in DECLARE-TIMI 58 were a cardiorenal composite outcome of sustained decline of at least 40% in eGFR to less than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m², end-stage renal disease (defined as dialysis for at least 90 days, kidney transplantation, or confirmed sustained eGFR of less than 15 mL/min per 1.73 m²), or death from renal or cardiovascular causes; and a second prespecified renal-specific composite outcome that was the same except for excluding death from cardiovascular causes. The results showed that the cardiorenal outcome dropped by a statistically significant 24% with dapagliflozin treatment relative to control patients, and the renal-specific outcome fell by a statistically significant 47% with dapagliflozin relative to control patients (Lancet Diab Endocrinol. 2019 Aug 1;7[8];606-17).

The new findings on the incidence of fast decline in renal function help to further flesh out the scope of renal benefit exerted by SGLT2 inhibitors like dapagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes, said experts. Fast decline is a relatively recently devised measure of a high-risk, precipitous loss of renal function that has been defined as a drop of either 3 or 5 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year (Kidney Int. 2017 Jun;91[6]:1300-11); for this analysis Dr. Raz and his associates used the less stringent definition.
 

Finding and treating ‘fast decliners’

The new report from Dr. Raz “confirms the original [renal] findings and looks to expand them to a particularly high risk group: the fast decliners,” commented Robert A. Gabbay, MD, chief science & medical officer of the ADA. “In some ways, the group of patients that we need to find a better treatment for most are those whose GFR declines quickly. We don’t always know who they are until after the fact, and studies have been looking for markers that might prospectively identify them,” he said in an interview.

The new analysis showed that dapagliflozin “was effective in this subgroup of patients. Furthermore, it didn’t matter if they had significant baseline disease or not. Even people with normal kidney function [at baseline] who were still fast decliners fared better with the drug than without it. This suggests that, if it can be confirmed in a prospective study, dapagliflozin might be effective very early in the course of treatment if we can identify who will be the fast decliners.”

Dr. Raz and his associates had the data necessary to calculate the rates of eGFR decline during the full follow-up period for 15,012 of the 17,160 patients enrolled in DECLARE-TIMI 58, and they found that 4,788 (32%) were fast decliners and 10,224 had a slower rate of renal deterioration. The average annual decline in eGFR during the period from 6 months after study entry through 4 years was 6.3 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year (median of 5.1 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year) among the fast decliners, and zero (median of 0.6 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year) among the other patients.
 

Overcoming dapagliflozin’s initial eGFR reduction

The researchers focused on the 6-month to 4-year period of treatment as more representative of the impact of dapagliflozin because the SGLT2 inhibitors have an established pattern of triggering an initial, moderate decline in eGFR over roughly the first 6 months on the drug, which is similar to what happens to patients who start treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker.

“Some patients get as much as a 10% decline in eGFR” when SGLT2 inhibitor treatment starts, but “patients do better over time even with this initial hit,” the same way they do on drugs that act on the renin-angiotensin system, explained Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at Yale University in New Haven who has extensively studied the SGLT2 inhibitors.

The analyses reported by Dr. Raz showed that the protection against fast decline during the 6-month to 4-year period with dapagliflozin treatment was consistent across a range of patient subgroups regardless of age, duration of their type 2 diabetes, their baseline level of hyperglycemia, and their baseline eGFR. Nearly half the patients enrolled in DECLARE-TIMI 58 had an eGFR at baseline of at least 91 mL/min per 1.73 m² and in this subgroup the incidence of fast decliners was 23% with dapagliflozin and 31% on placebo. Among the 45% of patients who began with an eGFR of 60-90 mL/min per 1.73 m² the fast-decliner incidence was 32% and 43% when on or off dapagliflozin. Among the 7% of patients who entered with an eGFR below 60 mL/min per 1.73 m², the fast-decliner incidence was 25% on dapagliflozin and 36% among controls. All the between-group differences were statistically significant.

The incidence of fast decliners was also lower with dapagliflozin treatment when the analysis included the entire first 4 years on treatment, including the first 6 months when SGLT2s usually spikes a loss of renal function. For the entire 4-year period, fast decline occurred among 34% of patients on dapagliflozin and in 37% of control patients, a statistically significant difference.

The mechanisms behind the consistent renal-protective effects of the SGLT2 inhibitors remain unclear right now, but likely seem related to the “perfect” diuretic action the drugs produce, said Dr. Inzucchi. “They’re not as hugely effective as diuretics, but they’re gentler.” While the SGLT2 inhibitors cause a modest amount of fluid loss ”for some reason they don’t activate the compensatory mechanisms that prevent further reductions in plasma volume,” a property that manifests as little or no change in catecholamines or renin-angiotensin activity, which sets this diuretic action apart from what happens with conventional diuretic drugs, he said in an interview.

In DECLARE-TIMI 58 treatment with dapagliflozin met its primary safety outcome of noninferiority to placebo with respect to major adverse cardiovascular events. The results failed to show statistically significant superiority for one of the primary efficacy endpoints, the rate of major adverse coronary events, but they did show significantly better performance for the second primary efficacy outcome of the rate of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure, which occurred in 4.9% of patients treated with dapagliflozin and in 5.8% of the control patients during a median follow-up of 4.2 years (N Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 24;380[4]:347-57).

DECLARE-TIMI 58 was sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Raz has been an advisor to and speaker on behalf of AstraZeneca as well as several other companies. Dr. Gabbay had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Inzucchi has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, and also to Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi/Lexicon, and vTv Therapeutics.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Raz I et al. ADA 2020, Abstract 303-OR.

Treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes with the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin led to a significant drop in the occurrence of ‘fast decline’ of renal function in more than 15,000 patients enrolled in the drug’s main cardiovascular outcome trial, another example of the potent renal protective effects of agents from this drug class.

Courtesy Joslin Diabetes Center

Among patients with type 2 diabetes enrolled in the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial, the incidence of a fast decline in renal function, defined as a drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of at least 3 mL/min per 1.73 m², was 27% among patients treated with dapagliflozin and 37% in control patients who received placebo, a statistically significant difference for this post-hoc analysis, Itamar Raz, MD, said at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

This finding, which adds to a long list of other renal function parameters reported to have been improved by treatment with sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, “emphasizes the value of SGLT2 inhibitors as an important component of both prevention and treatment of chronic kidney disease among patients with type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Raz, a diabetes researcher and professor of medicine at Hadassah University Hospital in Jerusalem.

The primary, prespecified renal outcomes in DECLARE-TIMI 58 were a cardiorenal composite outcome of sustained decline of at least 40% in eGFR to less than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m², end-stage renal disease (defined as dialysis for at least 90 days, kidney transplantation, or confirmed sustained eGFR of less than 15 mL/min per 1.73 m²), or death from renal or cardiovascular causes; and a second prespecified renal-specific composite outcome that was the same except for excluding death from cardiovascular causes. The results showed that the cardiorenal outcome dropped by a statistically significant 24% with dapagliflozin treatment relative to control patients, and the renal-specific outcome fell by a statistically significant 47% with dapagliflozin relative to control patients (Lancet Diab Endocrinol. 2019 Aug 1;7[8];606-17).

The new findings on the incidence of fast decline in renal function help to further flesh out the scope of renal benefit exerted by SGLT2 inhibitors like dapagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes, said experts. Fast decline is a relatively recently devised measure of a high-risk, precipitous loss of renal function that has been defined as a drop of either 3 or 5 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year (Kidney Int. 2017 Jun;91[6]:1300-11); for this analysis Dr. Raz and his associates used the less stringent definition.
 

Finding and treating ‘fast decliners’

The new report from Dr. Raz “confirms the original [renal] findings and looks to expand them to a particularly high risk group: the fast decliners,” commented Robert A. Gabbay, MD, chief science & medical officer of the ADA. “In some ways, the group of patients that we need to find a better treatment for most are those whose GFR declines quickly. We don’t always know who they are until after the fact, and studies have been looking for markers that might prospectively identify them,” he said in an interview.

The new analysis showed that dapagliflozin “was effective in this subgroup of patients. Furthermore, it didn’t matter if they had significant baseline disease or not. Even people with normal kidney function [at baseline] who were still fast decliners fared better with the drug than without it. This suggests that, if it can be confirmed in a prospective study, dapagliflozin might be effective very early in the course of treatment if we can identify who will be the fast decliners.”

Dr. Raz and his associates had the data necessary to calculate the rates of eGFR decline during the full follow-up period for 15,012 of the 17,160 patients enrolled in DECLARE-TIMI 58, and they found that 4,788 (32%) were fast decliners and 10,224 had a slower rate of renal deterioration. The average annual decline in eGFR during the period from 6 months after study entry through 4 years was 6.3 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year (median of 5.1 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year) among the fast decliners, and zero (median of 0.6 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year) among the other patients.
 

Overcoming dapagliflozin’s initial eGFR reduction

The researchers focused on the 6-month to 4-year period of treatment as more representative of the impact of dapagliflozin because the SGLT2 inhibitors have an established pattern of triggering an initial, moderate decline in eGFR over roughly the first 6 months on the drug, which is similar to what happens to patients who start treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker.

“Some patients get as much as a 10% decline in eGFR” when SGLT2 inhibitor treatment starts, but “patients do better over time even with this initial hit,” the same way they do on drugs that act on the renin-angiotensin system, explained Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at Yale University in New Haven who has extensively studied the SGLT2 inhibitors.

The analyses reported by Dr. Raz showed that the protection against fast decline during the 6-month to 4-year period with dapagliflozin treatment was consistent across a range of patient subgroups regardless of age, duration of their type 2 diabetes, their baseline level of hyperglycemia, and their baseline eGFR. Nearly half the patients enrolled in DECLARE-TIMI 58 had an eGFR at baseline of at least 91 mL/min per 1.73 m² and in this subgroup the incidence of fast decliners was 23% with dapagliflozin and 31% on placebo. Among the 45% of patients who began with an eGFR of 60-90 mL/min per 1.73 m² the fast-decliner incidence was 32% and 43% when on or off dapagliflozin. Among the 7% of patients who entered with an eGFR below 60 mL/min per 1.73 m², the fast-decliner incidence was 25% on dapagliflozin and 36% among controls. All the between-group differences were statistically significant.

The incidence of fast decliners was also lower with dapagliflozin treatment when the analysis included the entire first 4 years on treatment, including the first 6 months when SGLT2s usually spikes a loss of renal function. For the entire 4-year period, fast decline occurred among 34% of patients on dapagliflozin and in 37% of control patients, a statistically significant difference.

The mechanisms behind the consistent renal-protective effects of the SGLT2 inhibitors remain unclear right now, but likely seem related to the “perfect” diuretic action the drugs produce, said Dr. Inzucchi. “They’re not as hugely effective as diuretics, but they’re gentler.” While the SGLT2 inhibitors cause a modest amount of fluid loss ”for some reason they don’t activate the compensatory mechanisms that prevent further reductions in plasma volume,” a property that manifests as little or no change in catecholamines or renin-angiotensin activity, which sets this diuretic action apart from what happens with conventional diuretic drugs, he said in an interview.

In DECLARE-TIMI 58 treatment with dapagliflozin met its primary safety outcome of noninferiority to placebo with respect to major adverse cardiovascular events. The results failed to show statistically significant superiority for one of the primary efficacy endpoints, the rate of major adverse coronary events, but they did show significantly better performance for the second primary efficacy outcome of the rate of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure, which occurred in 4.9% of patients treated with dapagliflozin and in 5.8% of the control patients during a median follow-up of 4.2 years (N Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 24;380[4]:347-57).

DECLARE-TIMI 58 was sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Raz has been an advisor to and speaker on behalf of AstraZeneca as well as several other companies. Dr. Gabbay had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Inzucchi has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, and also to Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi/Lexicon, and vTv Therapeutics.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Raz I et al. ADA 2020, Abstract 303-OR.

Treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes with the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin led to a significant drop in the occurrence of ‘fast decline’ of renal function in more than 15,000 patients enrolled in the drug’s main cardiovascular outcome trial, another example of the potent renal protective effects of agents from this drug class.

Courtesy Joslin Diabetes Center

Among patients with type 2 diabetes enrolled in the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial, the incidence of a fast decline in renal function, defined as a drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of at least 3 mL/min per 1.73 m², was 27% among patients treated with dapagliflozin and 37% in control patients who received placebo, a statistically significant difference for this post-hoc analysis, Itamar Raz, MD, said at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

This finding, which adds to a long list of other renal function parameters reported to have been improved by treatment with sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, “emphasizes the value of SGLT2 inhibitors as an important component of both prevention and treatment of chronic kidney disease among patients with type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Raz, a diabetes researcher and professor of medicine at Hadassah University Hospital in Jerusalem.

The primary, prespecified renal outcomes in DECLARE-TIMI 58 were a cardiorenal composite outcome of sustained decline of at least 40% in eGFR to less than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m², end-stage renal disease (defined as dialysis for at least 90 days, kidney transplantation, or confirmed sustained eGFR of less than 15 mL/min per 1.73 m²), or death from renal or cardiovascular causes; and a second prespecified renal-specific composite outcome that was the same except for excluding death from cardiovascular causes. The results showed that the cardiorenal outcome dropped by a statistically significant 24% with dapagliflozin treatment relative to control patients, and the renal-specific outcome fell by a statistically significant 47% with dapagliflozin relative to control patients (Lancet Diab Endocrinol. 2019 Aug 1;7[8];606-17).

The new findings on the incidence of fast decline in renal function help to further flesh out the scope of renal benefit exerted by SGLT2 inhibitors like dapagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes, said experts. Fast decline is a relatively recently devised measure of a high-risk, precipitous loss of renal function that has been defined as a drop of either 3 or 5 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year (Kidney Int. 2017 Jun;91[6]:1300-11); for this analysis Dr. Raz and his associates used the less stringent definition.
 

Finding and treating ‘fast decliners’

The new report from Dr. Raz “confirms the original [renal] findings and looks to expand them to a particularly high risk group: the fast decliners,” commented Robert A. Gabbay, MD, chief science & medical officer of the ADA. “In some ways, the group of patients that we need to find a better treatment for most are those whose GFR declines quickly. We don’t always know who they are until after the fact, and studies have been looking for markers that might prospectively identify them,” he said in an interview.

The new analysis showed that dapagliflozin “was effective in this subgroup of patients. Furthermore, it didn’t matter if they had significant baseline disease or not. Even people with normal kidney function [at baseline] who were still fast decliners fared better with the drug than without it. This suggests that, if it can be confirmed in a prospective study, dapagliflozin might be effective very early in the course of treatment if we can identify who will be the fast decliners.”

Dr. Raz and his associates had the data necessary to calculate the rates of eGFR decline during the full follow-up period for 15,012 of the 17,160 patients enrolled in DECLARE-TIMI 58, and they found that 4,788 (32%) were fast decliners and 10,224 had a slower rate of renal deterioration. The average annual decline in eGFR during the period from 6 months after study entry through 4 years was 6.3 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year (median of 5.1 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year) among the fast decliners, and zero (median of 0.6 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year) among the other patients.
 

Overcoming dapagliflozin’s initial eGFR reduction

The researchers focused on the 6-month to 4-year period of treatment as more representative of the impact of dapagliflozin because the SGLT2 inhibitors have an established pattern of triggering an initial, moderate decline in eGFR over roughly the first 6 months on the drug, which is similar to what happens to patients who start treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker.

“Some patients get as much as a 10% decline in eGFR” when SGLT2 inhibitor treatment starts, but “patients do better over time even with this initial hit,” the same way they do on drugs that act on the renin-angiotensin system, explained Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at Yale University in New Haven who has extensively studied the SGLT2 inhibitors.

The analyses reported by Dr. Raz showed that the protection against fast decline during the 6-month to 4-year period with dapagliflozin treatment was consistent across a range of patient subgroups regardless of age, duration of their type 2 diabetes, their baseline level of hyperglycemia, and their baseline eGFR. Nearly half the patients enrolled in DECLARE-TIMI 58 had an eGFR at baseline of at least 91 mL/min per 1.73 m² and in this subgroup the incidence of fast decliners was 23% with dapagliflozin and 31% on placebo. Among the 45% of patients who began with an eGFR of 60-90 mL/min per 1.73 m² the fast-decliner incidence was 32% and 43% when on or off dapagliflozin. Among the 7% of patients who entered with an eGFR below 60 mL/min per 1.73 m², the fast-decliner incidence was 25% on dapagliflozin and 36% among controls. All the between-group differences were statistically significant.

The incidence of fast decliners was also lower with dapagliflozin treatment when the analysis included the entire first 4 years on treatment, including the first 6 months when SGLT2s usually spikes a loss of renal function. For the entire 4-year period, fast decline occurred among 34% of patients on dapagliflozin and in 37% of control patients, a statistically significant difference.

The mechanisms behind the consistent renal-protective effects of the SGLT2 inhibitors remain unclear right now, but likely seem related to the “perfect” diuretic action the drugs produce, said Dr. Inzucchi. “They’re not as hugely effective as diuretics, but they’re gentler.” While the SGLT2 inhibitors cause a modest amount of fluid loss ”for some reason they don’t activate the compensatory mechanisms that prevent further reductions in plasma volume,” a property that manifests as little or no change in catecholamines or renin-angiotensin activity, which sets this diuretic action apart from what happens with conventional diuretic drugs, he said in an interview.

In DECLARE-TIMI 58 treatment with dapagliflozin met its primary safety outcome of noninferiority to placebo with respect to major adverse cardiovascular events. The results failed to show statistically significant superiority for one of the primary efficacy endpoints, the rate of major adverse coronary events, but they did show significantly better performance for the second primary efficacy outcome of the rate of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure, which occurred in 4.9% of patients treated with dapagliflozin and in 5.8% of the control patients during a median follow-up of 4.2 years (N Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 24;380[4]:347-57).

DECLARE-TIMI 58 was sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Raz has been an advisor to and speaker on behalf of AstraZeneca as well as several other companies. Dr. Gabbay had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Inzucchi has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, and also to Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi/Lexicon, and vTv Therapeutics.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Raz I et al. ADA 2020, Abstract 303-OR.

A combination of rizatriptan and the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) meloxicam formulated to improve oral absorption led to better pain control than did rizatriptan alone in a phase 3 clinical trial. The combination (AXS-07), in development by Axsome Therapeutics, was also safe and well tolerated, according to Cedric O’Gorman, MD, Axsome senior vice president for clinical development and medical affairs. It was tested in subjects who had inadequately responded to previous treatment and who had an average of 2-8 migraines per month.

The therapy combines 10-mg rizatriptan with 20-mg meloxicam delivered by the company’s MoSEIC technology. “Treatment with AXS-07 resulted in rapid, sustained, substantial, and statistically significant effect as compared with rizatriptan and placebo. The enhanced effect of AXS-07 may be especially relevant for patients with more difficult-to-treat migraine,” said Dr. O’Gorman during a presentation of the study at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

Matthew Robbins, MD, said in an interview, “This combination may be particularly useful for patients who want to take an oral medication but still need rapid and sustained pain freedom.” Dr. Robbins is the neurology residency program director at New York Presbyterian Hospital and an associate professor of neurology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. He was not involved in the research.

The study randomized 1,594 patients 2:2:2:1 to AXS-07, rizatriptan alone, MoSEIC meloxicam alone, or placebo, which could be administered immediately after a migraine event. Between 35% and 40% of participants across the groups had previously used triptans. The mean migraine treatment optimization questionnaire (mTOQ4) score was 3.6, indicating that the population was made up of people with poor responses to medication. Among patients in the study group, 37%-43% had severe pain intensity, 41%-47% were obese, and 35%-37% had morning migraine.

At 2 hours, more patients in the AXS-07 group than in the placebo group were pain free (19.9% vs. 6.7%; P < 0.001). They were also more likely to experience freedom from the most bothersome symptom at 2 hours (36.9% vs. 24.4%; P = 0.002). Secondary outcome measures favored the AXS-07 group when compared with the rizatriptan-only group, including 1-hour pain relief (44% vs. 37%; P = 0.04), 2- to 24-hour sustained pain relief (53% vs. 44%; P = 0.006), 2- to 48-hour sustained pain relief (47% vs. 37%; P = 0.003), 2- to 24-hour sustained pain freedom (16% vs. 11%; P = 0.038), 2- to 48-hour sustained pain freedom (15% vs. 8.8%; P = 0.003), rescue medication use (23% vs. 35%; P < 0.001), a rating of much or very much improved on the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGI-C) scale (47% vs. 39%; P = 0.022), and functional improvement at 24 hours (64% vs. 56%; P = 0.027).

“The percentage of patients achieving pain relief with AXS-07 was numerically greater than with rizatriptan at every time point measure, starting at 15 minutes, and was statistically significant by 60 minutes. This is significant because rizatriptan is widely recognized as the fastest-acting and one of the most effective oral triptans,” said Dr. O’Gorman.

The frequency of adverse events was 11.0% in the AXS-07, 15.4% in the rizatriptan group, 11.5% in the meloxicam group, and 6.0% in the placebo group.

“The added benefit of this study was the demonstration of efficacy in patients who have previously failed other acute treatments. We know that ineffective acute treatments are a likely risk factor for the progression of episodic migraine to chronic migraine, and the more options that we have for our patients, the better,” Dr. Robbins commented.

He remains concerned about cost and access, however. A limited number of tablets per month for acute treatments prompt clinicians to prescribe the medications individually and advise patients to take them in combination. “Rizatriptan is generally available in 12 monthly tablets by many coverage plans, and I would hope that, if ultimately FDA approved, a similar allotment is made affordable and accessible,” he said.

The study was funded by Axsome Therapeutics. Dr. O’Gorman is an employee of Axsome. Dr. Robbins has no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: O’Gorman C et al. AHS 2020, Abstract 840673.

A combination of rizatriptan and the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) meloxicam formulated to improve oral absorption led to better pain control than did rizatriptan alone in a phase 3 clinical trial. The combination (AXS-07), in development by Axsome Therapeutics, was also safe and well tolerated, according to Cedric O’Gorman, MD, Axsome senior vice president for clinical development and medical affairs. It was tested in subjects who had inadequately responded to previous treatment and who had an average of 2-8 migraines per month.

The therapy combines 10-mg rizatriptan with 20-mg meloxicam delivered by the company’s MoSEIC technology. “Treatment with AXS-07 resulted in rapid, sustained, substantial, and statistically significant effect as compared with rizatriptan and placebo. The enhanced effect of AXS-07 may be especially relevant for patients with more difficult-to-treat migraine,” said Dr. O’Gorman during a presentation of the study at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

Matthew Robbins, MD, said in an interview, “This combination may be particularly useful for patients who want to take an oral medication but still need rapid and sustained pain freedom.” Dr. Robbins is the neurology residency program director at New York Presbyterian Hospital and an associate professor of neurology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. He was not involved in the research.

The study randomized 1,594 patients 2:2:2:1 to AXS-07, rizatriptan alone, MoSEIC meloxicam alone, or placebo, which could be administered immediately after a migraine event. Between 35% and 40% of participants across the groups had previously used triptans. The mean migraine treatment optimization questionnaire (mTOQ4) score was 3.6, indicating that the population was made up of people with poor responses to medication. Among patients in the study group, 37%-43% had severe pain intensity, 41%-47% were obese, and 35%-37% had morning migraine.

At 2 hours, more patients in the AXS-07 group than in the placebo group were pain free (19.9% vs. 6.7%; P < 0.001). They were also more likely to experience freedom from the most bothersome symptom at 2 hours (36.9% vs. 24.4%; P = 0.002). Secondary outcome measures favored the AXS-07 group when compared with the rizatriptan-only group, including 1-hour pain relief (44% vs. 37%; P = 0.04), 2- to 24-hour sustained pain relief (53% vs. 44%; P = 0.006), 2- to 48-hour sustained pain relief (47% vs. 37%; P = 0.003), 2- to 24-hour sustained pain freedom (16% vs. 11%; P = 0.038), 2- to 48-hour sustained pain freedom (15% vs. 8.8%; P = 0.003), rescue medication use (23% vs. 35%; P < 0.001), a rating of much or very much improved on the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGI-C) scale (47% vs. 39%; P = 0.022), and functional improvement at 24 hours (64% vs. 56%; P = 0.027).

“The percentage of patients achieving pain relief with AXS-07 was numerically greater than with rizatriptan at every time point measure, starting at 15 minutes, and was statistically significant by 60 minutes. This is significant because rizatriptan is widely recognized as the fastest-acting and one of the most effective oral triptans,” said Dr. O’Gorman.

The frequency of adverse events was 11.0% in the AXS-07, 15.4% in the rizatriptan group, 11.5% in the meloxicam group, and 6.0% in the placebo group.

“The added benefit of this study was the demonstration of efficacy in patients who have previously failed other acute treatments. We know that ineffective acute treatments are a likely risk factor for the progression of episodic migraine to chronic migraine, and the more options that we have for our patients, the better,” Dr. Robbins commented.

He remains concerned about cost and access, however. A limited number of tablets per month for acute treatments prompt clinicians to prescribe the medications individually and advise patients to take them in combination. “Rizatriptan is generally available in 12 monthly tablets by many coverage plans, and I would hope that, if ultimately FDA approved, a similar allotment is made affordable and accessible,” he said.

The study was funded by Axsome Therapeutics. Dr. O’Gorman is an employee of Axsome. Dr. Robbins has no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: O’Gorman C et al. AHS 2020, Abstract 840673.

A combination of rizatriptan and the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) meloxicam formulated to improve oral absorption led to better pain control than did rizatriptan alone in a phase 3 clinical trial. The combination (AXS-07), in development by Axsome Therapeutics, was also safe and well tolerated, according to Cedric O’Gorman, MD, Axsome senior vice president for clinical development and medical affairs. It was tested in subjects who had inadequately responded to previous treatment and who had an average of 2-8 migraines per month.

The therapy combines 10-mg rizatriptan with 20-mg meloxicam delivered by the company’s MoSEIC technology. “Treatment with AXS-07 resulted in rapid, sustained, substantial, and statistically significant effect as compared with rizatriptan and placebo. The enhanced effect of AXS-07 may be especially relevant for patients with more difficult-to-treat migraine,” said Dr. O’Gorman during a presentation of the study at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

Matthew Robbins, MD, said in an interview, “This combination may be particularly useful for patients who want to take an oral medication but still need rapid and sustained pain freedom.” Dr. Robbins is the neurology residency program director at New York Presbyterian Hospital and an associate professor of neurology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. He was not involved in the research.

The study randomized 1,594 patients 2:2:2:1 to AXS-07, rizatriptan alone, MoSEIC meloxicam alone, or placebo, which could be administered immediately after a migraine event. Between 35% and 40% of participants across the groups had previously used triptans. The mean migraine treatment optimization questionnaire (mTOQ4) score was 3.6, indicating that the population was made up of people with poor responses to medication. Among patients in the study group, 37%-43% had severe pain intensity, 41%-47% were obese, and 35%-37% had morning migraine.

At 2 hours, more patients in the AXS-07 group than in the placebo group were pain free (19.9% vs. 6.7%; P < 0.001). They were also more likely to experience freedom from the most bothersome symptom at 2 hours (36.9% vs. 24.4%; P = 0.002). Secondary outcome measures favored the AXS-07 group when compared with the rizatriptan-only group, including 1-hour pain relief (44% vs. 37%; P = 0.04), 2- to 24-hour sustained pain relief (53% vs. 44%; P = 0.006), 2- to 48-hour sustained pain relief (47% vs. 37%; P = 0.003), 2- to 24-hour sustained pain freedom (16% vs. 11%; P = 0.038), 2- to 48-hour sustained pain freedom (15% vs. 8.8%; P = 0.003), rescue medication use (23% vs. 35%; P < 0.001), a rating of much or very much improved on the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGI-C) scale (47% vs. 39%; P = 0.022), and functional improvement at 24 hours (64% vs. 56%; P = 0.027).

“The percentage of patients achieving pain relief with AXS-07 was numerically greater than with rizatriptan at every time point measure, starting at 15 minutes, and was statistically significant by 60 minutes. This is significant because rizatriptan is widely recognized as the fastest-acting and one of the most effective oral triptans,” said Dr. O’Gorman.

The frequency of adverse events was 11.0% in the AXS-07, 15.4% in the rizatriptan group, 11.5% in the meloxicam group, and 6.0% in the placebo group.

“The added benefit of this study was the demonstration of efficacy in patients who have previously failed other acute treatments. We know that ineffective acute treatments are a likely risk factor for the progression of episodic migraine to chronic migraine, and the more options that we have for our patients, the better,” Dr. Robbins commented.

He remains concerned about cost and access, however. A limited number of tablets per month for acute treatments prompt clinicians to prescribe the medications individually and advise patients to take them in combination. “Rizatriptan is generally available in 12 monthly tablets by many coverage plans, and I would hope that, if ultimately FDA approved, a similar allotment is made affordable and accessible,” he said.

The study was funded by Axsome Therapeutics. Dr. O’Gorman is an employee of Axsome. Dr. Robbins has no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: O’Gorman C et al. AHS 2020, Abstract 840673.

The calcitonin gene–related peptide receptor monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs)for treatment of migraine have gained wide acceptance since their approval in 2018, but a real-world study has reported adverse event rates higher than those the preapproval clinical trials reported and has found that patients who fail on one of the treatments are likely to fail again if they’re switched to another.

At the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society, Larry Robbins, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Chicago Medical School, North Chicago, reported on the results of his postapproval study of 369 migraine patients taking one of the three approved CGRP mAbs. “If patients do not do well on one mAb, it is sometimes worthwhile to switch, but most patients do not do well from the second or third mAb as well,” Dr. Robbins said in an interview. “In addition, there are numerous adverse effects that were not captured in the official phase 3 studies. Efficacy has held up well, but for a number of reasons, the true adverse event profile is often missed.”
 

Assessing efficacy and adverse events

In evaluating the efficacy of the three approved CGRP mAbs, Dr. Robbins used measures of degree of relief based on percentage decrease of symptoms versus baseline and the number of migraine days, combined with the number of moderate or severe headache days. Most of the patients kept calendars and were interviewed by two headache specialists. The study also utilized a 10-point visual analog scale and averaged relief over 3 months.

Of the patients on erenumab (n = 220), 10% described 95%-100% relief of symptoms, 24% reported 71%-100% relief, 34% described 31%-70% relief, and 43% experienced 0%-30% relief. Adverse events among this group included constipation (20%), nausea (7%), increased headache and fatigue (5% for each), and joint pain and depression (3% for each). Three patients on erenumab experienced unspecified serious adverse reactions.

In the fremanezumab group (n = 79), 8% described 95%-100% relief, 18% had 71%-100% relief, 33% experienced 31%-70% improvement, and 50% had 30% improvement or less. Adverse events in these patients included nausea, constipation, and depression (6% each); increased headache and muscle pain or cramps (5% each); rash, joint pain, anxiety, fatigue, or weight gain (4% for each ); and injection-site reactions, irritability, or alopecia (3% combined).

Patients taking galcanezumab (n = 70) reported the following outcomes: 3% had 95%-100% relief of symptoms, 14% had 71%-100% relief, 46% with 31%-70% relief, and 40% had 0%-30% relief. This group’s adverse events included constipation (10%); depression and increased headache (6% for each); nausea, fatigue, or injection-site reactions (4% each ); and muscle pain or cramps, rash, anxiety, weight gain, or alopecia (3% each).

Dr. Robbins also assessed switching from one CGRP mAb to another for various reasons. “When the reason for switching was poor efficacy, only 27% of patients did well,” he stated in the presentation. “If the reason was adverse events, 33% did well. When insurance/financial reasons alone were the reason, but efficacy was adequate, 58% did well after switching.”

Overall, postapproval efficacy of the medications “held up well,” Dr. Robbins noted. “Efficacy after 2 months somewhat predicted how patients would do after 6 months.” Among the predictors of poor response his study identified were opioid use and moderate or severe refractory chronic migraine at baseline.

However, the rates of adverse events he reported were significantly greater than those reported in the clinical trials, Dr. Robbins said. He noted four reasons to explain this discrepancy: the trials did not use an 18-item supplemental checklist that he has advocated to identify patients at risk of side effects, the trials weren’t powered for adverse events, patients in the trials tended to be less refractory than those in the clinic, and that adverse events tend to be underreported in trials.

“Adverse events become disaggregated, with the same descriptors used for an adverse event,” Dr. Robbins said. “Examples include fatigue, somnolence, and tiredness; all may be 1%, while different patients are describing the same adverse event. It is possible to reaggregate the adverse events after the study, but this is fraught with error.”
 

Uncovering shortcomings in clinical trials

Emily Rubenstein Engel, MD, director of the Dalessio Headache Center at the Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, Calif., noted that Dr. Robbins’ findings are significant for two reasons. “Dr. Robbins has uncovered a general flaw in clinical trials, whereby the lack of consistency of adverse event terminology as well as the lack of a standardized questionnaire format for adverse events can result in significant under-reporting of adverse events,” she said.

“Specifically for the CGRPs,” Dr. Engel continued, “he has raised awareness that this new class of medication, however promising from an efficacy standpoint, has side effects that are much more frequent and severe than seen in the initial clinical trials.”

Dr. Robbins reported financial relationships with Allergan, Amgen and Teva. Dr. Engel has no financial relationships to disclose.

The calcitonin gene–related peptide receptor monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs)for treatment of migraine have gained wide acceptance since their approval in 2018, but a real-world study has reported adverse event rates higher than those the preapproval clinical trials reported and has found that patients who fail on one of the treatments are likely to fail again if they’re switched to another.

At the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society, Larry Robbins, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Chicago Medical School, North Chicago, reported on the results of his postapproval study of 369 migraine patients taking one of the three approved CGRP mAbs. “If patients do not do well on one mAb, it is sometimes worthwhile to switch, but most patients do not do well from the second or third mAb as well,” Dr. Robbins said in an interview. “In addition, there are numerous adverse effects that were not captured in the official phase 3 studies. Efficacy has held up well, but for a number of reasons, the true adverse event profile is often missed.”
 

Assessing efficacy and adverse events

In evaluating the efficacy of the three approved CGRP mAbs, Dr. Robbins used measures of degree of relief based on percentage decrease of symptoms versus baseline and the number of migraine days, combined with the number of moderate or severe headache days. Most of the patients kept calendars and were interviewed by two headache specialists. The study also utilized a 10-point visual analog scale and averaged relief over 3 months.

Of the patients on erenumab (n = 220), 10% described 95%-100% relief of symptoms, 24% reported 71%-100% relief, 34% described 31%-70% relief, and 43% experienced 0%-30% relief. Adverse events among this group included constipation (20%), nausea (7%), increased headache and fatigue (5% for each), and joint pain and depression (3% for each). Three patients on erenumab experienced unspecified serious adverse reactions.

In the fremanezumab group (n = 79), 8% described 95%-100% relief, 18% had 71%-100% relief, 33% experienced 31%-70% improvement, and 50% had 30% improvement or less. Adverse events in these patients included nausea, constipation, and depression (6% each); increased headache and muscle pain or cramps (5% each); rash, joint pain, anxiety, fatigue, or weight gain (4% for each ); and injection-site reactions, irritability, or alopecia (3% combined).

Patients taking galcanezumab (n = 70) reported the following outcomes: 3% had 95%-100% relief of symptoms, 14% had 71%-100% relief, 46% with 31%-70% relief, and 40% had 0%-30% relief. This group’s adverse events included constipation (10%); depression and increased headache (6% for each); nausea, fatigue, or injection-site reactions (4% each ); and muscle pain or cramps, rash, anxiety, weight gain, or alopecia (3% each).

Dr. Robbins also assessed switching from one CGRP mAb to another for various reasons. “When the reason for switching was poor efficacy, only 27% of patients did well,” he stated in the presentation. “If the reason was adverse events, 33% did well. When insurance/financial reasons alone were the reason, but efficacy was adequate, 58% did well after switching.”

Overall, postapproval efficacy of the medications “held up well,” Dr. Robbins noted. “Efficacy after 2 months somewhat predicted how patients would do after 6 months.” Among the predictors of poor response his study identified were opioid use and moderate or severe refractory chronic migraine at baseline.

However, the rates of adverse events he reported were significantly greater than those reported in the clinical trials, Dr. Robbins said. He noted four reasons to explain this discrepancy: the trials did not use an 18-item supplemental checklist that he has advocated to identify patients at risk of side effects, the trials weren’t powered for adverse events, patients in the trials tended to be less refractory than those in the clinic, and that adverse events tend to be underreported in trials.

“Adverse events become disaggregated, with the same descriptors used for an adverse event,” Dr. Robbins said. “Examples include fatigue, somnolence, and tiredness; all may be 1%, while different patients are describing the same adverse event. It is possible to reaggregate the adverse events after the study, but this is fraught with error.”
 

Uncovering shortcomings in clinical trials

Emily Rubenstein Engel, MD, director of the Dalessio Headache Center at the Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, Calif., noted that Dr. Robbins’ findings are significant for two reasons. “Dr. Robbins has uncovered a general flaw in clinical trials, whereby the lack of consistency of adverse event terminology as well as the lack of a standardized questionnaire format for adverse events can result in significant under-reporting of adverse events,” she said.

“Specifically for the CGRPs,” Dr. Engel continued, “he has raised awareness that this new class of medication, however promising from an efficacy standpoint, has side effects that are much more frequent and severe than seen in the initial clinical trials.”

Dr. Robbins reported financial relationships with Allergan, Amgen and Teva. Dr. Engel has no financial relationships to disclose.

The calcitonin gene–related peptide receptor monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs)for treatment of migraine have gained wide acceptance since their approval in 2018, but a real-world study has reported adverse event rates higher than those the preapproval clinical trials reported and has found that patients who fail on one of the treatments are likely to fail again if they’re switched to another.

At the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society, Larry Robbins, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Chicago Medical School, North Chicago, reported on the results of his postapproval study of 369 migraine patients taking one of the three approved CGRP mAbs. “If patients do not do well on one mAb, it is sometimes worthwhile to switch, but most patients do not do well from the second or third mAb as well,” Dr. Robbins said in an interview. “In addition, there are numerous adverse effects that were not captured in the official phase 3 studies. Efficacy has held up well, but for a number of reasons, the true adverse event profile is often missed.”
 

Assessing efficacy and adverse events

In evaluating the efficacy of the three approved CGRP mAbs, Dr. Robbins used measures of degree of relief based on percentage decrease of symptoms versus baseline and the number of migraine days, combined with the number of moderate or severe headache days. Most of the patients kept calendars and were interviewed by two headache specialists. The study also utilized a 10-point visual analog scale and averaged relief over 3 months.

Of the patients on erenumab (n = 220), 10% described 95%-100% relief of symptoms, 24% reported 71%-100% relief, 34% described 31%-70% relief, and 43% experienced 0%-30% relief. Adverse events among this group included constipation (20%), nausea (7%), increased headache and fatigue (5% for each), and joint pain and depression (3% for each). Three patients on erenumab experienced unspecified serious adverse reactions.

In the fremanezumab group (n = 79), 8% described 95%-100% relief, 18% had 71%-100% relief, 33% experienced 31%-70% improvement, and 50% had 30% improvement or less. Adverse events in these patients included nausea, constipation, and depression (6% each); increased headache and muscle pain or cramps (5% each); rash, joint pain, anxiety, fatigue, or weight gain (4% for each ); and injection-site reactions, irritability, or alopecia (3% combined).

Patients taking galcanezumab (n = 70) reported the following outcomes: 3% had 95%-100% relief of symptoms, 14% had 71%-100% relief, 46% with 31%-70% relief, and 40% had 0%-30% relief. This group’s adverse events included constipation (10%); depression and increased headache (6% for each); nausea, fatigue, or injection-site reactions (4% each ); and muscle pain or cramps, rash, anxiety, weight gain, or alopecia (3% each).

Dr. Robbins also assessed switching from one CGRP mAb to another for various reasons. “When the reason for switching was poor efficacy, only 27% of patients did well,” he stated in the presentation. “If the reason was adverse events, 33% did well. When insurance/financial reasons alone were the reason, but efficacy was adequate, 58% did well after switching.”

Overall, postapproval efficacy of the medications “held up well,” Dr. Robbins noted. “Efficacy after 2 months somewhat predicted how patients would do after 6 months.” Among the predictors of poor response his study identified were opioid use and moderate or severe refractory chronic migraine at baseline.

However, the rates of adverse events he reported were significantly greater than those reported in the clinical trials, Dr. Robbins said. He noted four reasons to explain this discrepancy: the trials did not use an 18-item supplemental checklist that he has advocated to identify patients at risk of side effects, the trials weren’t powered for adverse events, patients in the trials tended to be less refractory than those in the clinic, and that adverse events tend to be underreported in trials.

“Adverse events become disaggregated, with the same descriptors used for an adverse event,” Dr. Robbins said. “Examples include fatigue, somnolence, and tiredness; all may be 1%, while different patients are describing the same adverse event. It is possible to reaggregate the adverse events after the study, but this is fraught with error.”
 

Uncovering shortcomings in clinical trials

Emily Rubenstein Engel, MD, director of the Dalessio Headache Center at the Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, Calif., noted that Dr. Robbins’ findings are significant for two reasons. “Dr. Robbins has uncovered a general flaw in clinical trials, whereby the lack of consistency of adverse event terminology as well as the lack of a standardized questionnaire format for adverse events can result in significant under-reporting of adverse events,” she said.

“Specifically for the CGRPs,” Dr. Engel continued, “he has raised awareness that this new class of medication, however promising from an efficacy standpoint, has side effects that are much more frequent and severe than seen in the initial clinical trials.”

Dr. Robbins reported financial relationships with Allergan, Amgen and Teva. Dr. Engel has no financial relationships to disclose.

The cardiovascular outcome trial results for a fourth sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, ertugliflozin, were most notable for their consistency with the four prior, similar trials run on the three other drugs from this class on the U.S. market, canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and empagliflozin, further solidifying the important role this drug class has recently taken on for patients with type 2 diabetes.

But the ertugliflozin results, which showed statistically significant superiority to placebo for just one endpoint, hospitalization for heart failure, made it unclear whether clinicians will regard ertugliflozin as the top agent from this class to prescribe.

“Our big takeaway is that the findings are consistent with what’s been seen in the other studies” of cardiovascular and renal outcomes in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME study of empagliflozin (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373[22]:2117-28 ), the CANVAS (N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 17;377[7]:644-57) and CREDENCE (N Engl J Med. 2019 June 13;380[24]:2295-306 ) studies of canagliflozin, and the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial with dapagliflozin (N Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 24;380[4]:347-57), Christopher P. Cannon, MD, said at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

The cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs), mandated in 2008 by Food and Drug Administration guidance for type 2 diabetes drugs that is now in the process of undergoing an update, have had the main goal of proving safety, and the primary endpoint of the new ertugliflozin trial, VERTIS-CV, was noninferiority to placebo when used on top of standard type 2 diabetes medications for the combined endpoint of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke.
 

Key findings

Both of the tested dosages of ertugliflozin, 5 mg and 15 mg daily, met this endpoint, with event rates over a median 3.0 years of follow-up that ran very close to the placebo rate, clearly proving noninferiority. But the results showed no suggestion of superiority in a study that randomized 5,499 patients to either of the ertugliflozin regimens and 2,747 to placebo, reported Dr. Cannon, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The primary outcome also showed similar event rates for each component of the composite endpoint, and subgroup analysis showed consistent results from ertugliflozin, compared with placebo, regardless of study-cohort subdivision by demographic, clinical, or treatment factors.

The trial design called for a hierarchical sequence of secondary-outcome superiority analyses, starting with the impact of ertugliflozin on cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization, and for this outcome ertugliflozin showed a point estimate of a 12% relative risk reduction, compared with placebo-treated patients, but this difference was not statistically significant. This meant that all subsequent superiority analyses in this trial could only be hypothesis generating and not definitive.

This negated the statistical validity of the only statistically significant treatment difference between ertugliflozin and placebo seen in VERTIS-CV, for the outcome of hospitalization for heart failure, where ertugliflozin treatment cut this outcome by 30%, compared with placebo patients. The rate of cardiovascular death alone, as well as a renal composite endpoint each showed no statistically significant benefit of ertugliflozin, compared with placebo, although the renal endpoint came close, with ertugliflozin reducing the combined rate of renal death, need for dialysis, need for renal transplant, or a doubling of serum creatinine from baseline by 19%, compared with placebo (P = .08).

How results compare with prior CVOTs

In some ways, these results seemed to contrast with outcomes from the CVOTs for the other SGLT2 inhibitors, which all showed at least two statistically significant benefits for major endpoints when compared with placebo.

As summarized in a new meta-analysis of all the CVOTs by Darren K. McGuire, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at the University of Texas, Dallas, both empagliflozin and canagliflozin showed statistically significant superiority compared with placebo for their trial’s primary, combined major cardiovascular adverse event endpoint, but dapagliflozin and ertugliflozin did not. Empagliflozin was the sole SGLT2 inhibitor to show a statistically significant cut in cardiovascular deaths, compared with placebo.

The primary, composite renal efficacy endpoints used in these trials were hardest to compare because they differed from study to study, but unlike ertugliflozin, all the other three drugs in the class showed a statistically significant improvement, compared with placebo, for their respective renal outcomes. On the other hand, the pattern of estimated glomerular filtration rates measured at multiple times during the various trials showed a high level of consistency across the CVOTs.

The greatest consistently among the major endpoints across the trials was for heart failure hospitalization. All four agents showed statistically significant improvements, compared with placebo, and all four had roughly equal magnitudes of effect, a cut in event rates by about one-third.

“The greatest magnitude of benefit is for reductions in heart failure hospitalizations and for renal outcomes,” with the heart failure outcomes the “most consistent” across the studies and the renal outcomes “largely consistent,” concluded Dr. McGuire. All together, the five CVOTs for these four SGLT2 inhibitors involved more than 46,000 patients.

“A lot of data suggest these are all class effects,” that are roughly similar across all four of these SGLT2 inhibitors, commented Mark E. Cooper, MBBS, a professor and head of the department of diabetes at Monash University, Melbourne, and designated discussant for the study.

There was “clear homogeneity” between the VERTIS-CV results for hospitalization for heart failure and the other CVOTs, he noted. “I think there is a difference” in the cardiovascular death outcomes, specifically the sole statistically significant, 38% relative risk reduction with empagliflozin that stood out from the other CVOTs, but this difference is “totally unexplained,” added Dr. Cooper. “To really determine differences you’d need head-to-head studies that are unlikely to happen.”

The results of new SGLT2 inhibitor meta-analysis appeared to also “support contemporary society recommendations to prioritize the use of SGLT2 inhibitors independent of glucose-control considerations in patients with type 2 diabetes with or at high risk for cardiovascular and renal complications,” said Dr. McGuire.

“The guidelines have it right. Now it’s on us to implement these treatments to appropriate patients,” concluded Dr. Cannon.
 

Study details

VERTIS-CV (Cardiovascular Outcomes Following Ertugliflozin Treatment in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Participants With Vascular Disease) enrolled and followed patients with type 2 diabetes and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease at 531 centers in 34 countries during December 2013–December 2019. Other effects from ertugliflozin recorded during the trial were consistent with prior studies of the drug, which is already FDA approved for glycemic control: Compared with placebo, ertugliflozin treatment reduced hemoglobin A1c by an average of 0.5% after 1 year, cut average body weight by about 2.5 kg after 1 year with additional modest weight loss, during subsequent years on the drug, and reduced systolic blood pressure by about 3 mm Hg after 1 year.

The drug’s safety profile was generally reassuring and consistent with prior studies of this drug and others in the class, with overall no increase in total adverse events or serious adverse events, compared with placebo, and modestly increased rates of urinary tract and mycotic genital infections.

VERTIS-CV was sponsored by Merck and Pfizer, the companies that market ertugliflozin (Steglatro). Dr. Cannon has received research funding and fees from Merck and Pfizer and from several other companies. Dr. McGuire has received honoraria from Merck, has been a consultant to Pfizer, and has had similar relationships with several other companies. Dr. Cooper has been an advisor to and received honoraria from Merck. He has also received honoraria from or been an adviser to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, MundiPharma, Novartis, Reata, and Servier, and he has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim and Novo Nordisk.

mzoler@mdedge.com

The cardiovascular outcome trial results for a fourth sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, ertugliflozin, were most notable for their consistency with the four prior, similar trials run on the three other drugs from this class on the U.S. market, canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and empagliflozin, further solidifying the important role this drug class has recently taken on for patients with type 2 diabetes.

But the ertugliflozin results, which showed statistically significant superiority to placebo for just one endpoint, hospitalization for heart failure, made it unclear whether clinicians will regard ertugliflozin as the top agent from this class to prescribe.

“Our big takeaway is that the findings are consistent with what’s been seen in the other studies” of cardiovascular and renal outcomes in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME study of empagliflozin (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373[22]:2117-28 ), the CANVAS (N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 17;377[7]:644-57) and CREDENCE (N Engl J Med. 2019 June 13;380[24]:2295-306 ) studies of canagliflozin, and the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial with dapagliflozin (N Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 24;380[4]:347-57), Christopher P. Cannon, MD, said at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

The cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs), mandated in 2008 by Food and Drug Administration guidance for type 2 diabetes drugs that is now in the process of undergoing an update, have had the main goal of proving safety, and the primary endpoint of the new ertugliflozin trial, VERTIS-CV, was noninferiority to placebo when used on top of standard type 2 diabetes medications for the combined endpoint of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke.
 

Key findings

Both of the tested dosages of ertugliflozin, 5 mg and 15 mg daily, met this endpoint, with event rates over a median 3.0 years of follow-up that ran very close to the placebo rate, clearly proving noninferiority. But the results showed no suggestion of superiority in a study that randomized 5,499 patients to either of the ertugliflozin regimens and 2,747 to placebo, reported Dr. Cannon, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The primary outcome also showed similar event rates for each component of the composite endpoint, and subgroup analysis showed consistent results from ertugliflozin, compared with placebo, regardless of study-cohort subdivision by demographic, clinical, or treatment factors.

The trial design called for a hierarchical sequence of secondary-outcome superiority analyses, starting with the impact of ertugliflozin on cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization, and for this outcome ertugliflozin showed a point estimate of a 12% relative risk reduction, compared with placebo-treated patients, but this difference was not statistically significant. This meant that all subsequent superiority analyses in this trial could only be hypothesis generating and not definitive.

This negated the statistical validity of the only statistically significant treatment difference between ertugliflozin and placebo seen in VERTIS-CV, for the outcome of hospitalization for heart failure, where ertugliflozin treatment cut this outcome by 30%, compared with placebo patients. The rate of cardiovascular death alone, as well as a renal composite endpoint each showed no statistically significant benefit of ertugliflozin, compared with placebo, although the renal endpoint came close, with ertugliflozin reducing the combined rate of renal death, need for dialysis, need for renal transplant, or a doubling of serum creatinine from baseline by 19%, compared with placebo (P = .08).

How results compare with prior CVOTs

In some ways, these results seemed to contrast with outcomes from the CVOTs for the other SGLT2 inhibitors, which all showed at least two statistically significant benefits for major endpoints when compared with placebo.

As summarized in a new meta-analysis of all the CVOTs by Darren K. McGuire, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at the University of Texas, Dallas, both empagliflozin and canagliflozin showed statistically significant superiority compared with placebo for their trial’s primary, combined major cardiovascular adverse event endpoint, but dapagliflozin and ertugliflozin did not. Empagliflozin was the sole SGLT2 inhibitor to show a statistically significant cut in cardiovascular deaths, compared with placebo.

The primary, composite renal efficacy endpoints used in these trials were hardest to compare because they differed from study to study, but unlike ertugliflozin, all the other three drugs in the class showed a statistically significant improvement, compared with placebo, for their respective renal outcomes. On the other hand, the pattern of estimated glomerular filtration rates measured at multiple times during the various trials showed a high level of consistency across the CVOTs.

The greatest consistently among the major endpoints across the trials was for heart failure hospitalization. All four agents showed statistically significant improvements, compared with placebo, and all four had roughly equal magnitudes of effect, a cut in event rates by about one-third.

“The greatest magnitude of benefit is for reductions in heart failure hospitalizations and for renal outcomes,” with the heart failure outcomes the “most consistent” across the studies and the renal outcomes “largely consistent,” concluded Dr. McGuire. All together, the five CVOTs for these four SGLT2 inhibitors involved more than 46,000 patients.

“A lot of data suggest these are all class effects,” that are roughly similar across all four of these SGLT2 inhibitors, commented Mark E. Cooper, MBBS, a professor and head of the department of diabetes at Monash University, Melbourne, and designated discussant for the study.

There was “clear homogeneity” between the VERTIS-CV results for hospitalization for heart failure and the other CVOTs, he noted. “I think there is a difference” in the cardiovascular death outcomes, specifically the sole statistically significant, 38% relative risk reduction with empagliflozin that stood out from the other CVOTs, but this difference is “totally unexplained,” added Dr. Cooper. “To really determine differences you’d need head-to-head studies that are unlikely to happen.”

The results of new SGLT2 inhibitor meta-analysis appeared to also “support contemporary society recommendations to prioritize the use of SGLT2 inhibitors independent of glucose-control considerations in patients with type 2 diabetes with or at high risk for cardiovascular and renal complications,” said Dr. McGuire.

“The guidelines have it right. Now it’s on us to implement these treatments to appropriate patients,” concluded Dr. Cannon.
 

Study details

VERTIS-CV (Cardiovascular Outcomes Following Ertugliflozin Treatment in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Participants With Vascular Disease) enrolled and followed patients with type 2 diabetes and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease at 531 centers in 34 countries during December 2013–December 2019. Other effects from ertugliflozin recorded during the trial were consistent with prior studies of the drug, which is already FDA approved for glycemic control: Compared with placebo, ertugliflozin treatment reduced hemoglobin A1c by an average of 0.5% after 1 year, cut average body weight by about 2.5 kg after 1 year with additional modest weight loss, during subsequent years on the drug, and reduced systolic blood pressure by about 3 mm Hg after 1 year.

The drug’s safety profile was generally reassuring and consistent with prior studies of this drug and others in the class, with overall no increase in total adverse events or serious adverse events, compared with placebo, and modestly increased rates of urinary tract and mycotic genital infections.

VERTIS-CV was sponsored by Merck and Pfizer, the companies that market ertugliflozin (Steglatro). Dr. Cannon has received research funding and fees from Merck and Pfizer and from several other companies. Dr. McGuire has received honoraria from Merck, has been a consultant to Pfizer, and has had similar relationships with several other companies. Dr. Cooper has been an advisor to and received honoraria from Merck. He has also received honoraria from or been an adviser to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, MundiPharma, Novartis, Reata, and Servier, and he has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim and Novo Nordisk.

mzoler@mdedge.com

The cardiovascular outcome trial results for a fourth sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, ertugliflozin, were most notable for their consistency with the four prior, similar trials run on the three other drugs from this class on the U.S. market, canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and empagliflozin, further solidifying the important role this drug class has recently taken on for patients with type 2 diabetes.

But the ertugliflozin results, which showed statistically significant superiority to placebo for just one endpoint, hospitalization for heart failure, made it unclear whether clinicians will regard ertugliflozin as the top agent from this class to prescribe.

“Our big takeaway is that the findings are consistent with what’s been seen in the other studies” of cardiovascular and renal outcomes in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME study of empagliflozin (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373[22]:2117-28 ), the CANVAS (N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 17;377[7]:644-57) and CREDENCE (N Engl J Med. 2019 June 13;380[24]:2295-306 ) studies of canagliflozin, and the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial with dapagliflozin (N Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 24;380[4]:347-57), Christopher P. Cannon, MD, said at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

The cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs), mandated in 2008 by Food and Drug Administration guidance for type 2 diabetes drugs that is now in the process of undergoing an update, have had the main goal of proving safety, and the primary endpoint of the new ertugliflozin trial, VERTIS-CV, was noninferiority to placebo when used on top of standard type 2 diabetes medications for the combined endpoint of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke.
 

Key findings

Both of the tested dosages of ertugliflozin, 5 mg and 15 mg daily, met this endpoint, with event rates over a median 3.0 years of follow-up that ran very close to the placebo rate, clearly proving noninferiority. But the results showed no suggestion of superiority in a study that randomized 5,499 patients to either of the ertugliflozin regimens and 2,747 to placebo, reported Dr. Cannon, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The primary outcome also showed similar event rates for each component of the composite endpoint, and subgroup analysis showed consistent results from ertugliflozin, compared with placebo, regardless of study-cohort subdivision by demographic, clinical, or treatment factors.

The trial design called for a hierarchical sequence of secondary-outcome superiority analyses, starting with the impact of ertugliflozin on cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization, and for this outcome ertugliflozin showed a point estimate of a 12% relative risk reduction, compared with placebo-treated patients, but this difference was not statistically significant. This meant that all subsequent superiority analyses in this trial could only be hypothesis generating and not definitive.

This negated the statistical validity of the only statistically significant treatment difference between ertugliflozin and placebo seen in VERTIS-CV, for the outcome of hospitalization for heart failure, where ertugliflozin treatment cut this outcome by 30%, compared with placebo patients. The rate of cardiovascular death alone, as well as a renal composite endpoint each showed no statistically significant benefit of ertugliflozin, compared with placebo, although the renal endpoint came close, with ertugliflozin reducing the combined rate of renal death, need for dialysis, need for renal transplant, or a doubling of serum creatinine from baseline by 19%, compared with placebo (P = .08).

How results compare with prior CVOTs

In some ways, these results seemed to contrast with outcomes from the CVOTs for the other SGLT2 inhibitors, which all showed at least two statistically significant benefits for major endpoints when compared with placebo.

As summarized in a new meta-analysis of all the CVOTs by Darren K. McGuire, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at the University of Texas, Dallas, both empagliflozin and canagliflozin showed statistically significant superiority compared with placebo for their trial’s primary, combined major cardiovascular adverse event endpoint, but dapagliflozin and ertugliflozin did not. Empagliflozin was the sole SGLT2 inhibitor to show a statistically significant cut in cardiovascular deaths, compared with placebo.

The primary, composite renal efficacy endpoints used in these trials were hardest to compare because they differed from study to study, but unlike ertugliflozin, all the other three drugs in the class showed a statistically significant improvement, compared with placebo, for their respective renal outcomes. On the other hand, the pattern of estimated glomerular filtration rates measured at multiple times during the various trials showed a high level of consistency across the CVOTs.

The greatest consistently among the major endpoints across the trials was for heart failure hospitalization. All four agents showed statistically significant improvements, compared with placebo, and all four had roughly equal magnitudes of effect, a cut in event rates by about one-third.

“The greatest magnitude of benefit is for reductions in heart failure hospitalizations and for renal outcomes,” with the heart failure outcomes the “most consistent” across the studies and the renal outcomes “largely consistent,” concluded Dr. McGuire. All together, the five CVOTs for these four SGLT2 inhibitors involved more than 46,000 patients.

“A lot of data suggest these are all class effects,” that are roughly similar across all four of these SGLT2 inhibitors, commented Mark E. Cooper, MBBS, a professor and head of the department of diabetes at Monash University, Melbourne, and designated discussant for the study.

There was “clear homogeneity” between the VERTIS-CV results for hospitalization for heart failure and the other CVOTs, he noted. “I think there is a difference” in the cardiovascular death outcomes, specifically the sole statistically significant, 38% relative risk reduction with empagliflozin that stood out from the other CVOTs, but this difference is “totally unexplained,” added Dr. Cooper. “To really determine differences you’d need head-to-head studies that are unlikely to happen.”

The results of new SGLT2 inhibitor meta-analysis appeared to also “support contemporary society recommendations to prioritize the use of SGLT2 inhibitors independent of glucose-control considerations in patients with type 2 diabetes with or at high risk for cardiovascular and renal complications,” said Dr. McGuire.

“The guidelines have it right. Now it’s on us to implement these treatments to appropriate patients,” concluded Dr. Cannon.
 

Study details

VERTIS-CV (Cardiovascular Outcomes Following Ertugliflozin Treatment in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Participants With Vascular Disease) enrolled and followed patients with type 2 diabetes and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease at 531 centers in 34 countries during December 2013–December 2019. Other effects from ertugliflozin recorded during the trial were consistent with prior studies of the drug, which is already FDA approved for glycemic control: Compared with placebo, ertugliflozin treatment reduced hemoglobin A1c by an average of 0.5% after 1 year, cut average body weight by about 2.5 kg after 1 year with additional modest weight loss, during subsequent years on the drug, and reduced systolic blood pressure by about 3 mm Hg after 1 year.

The drug’s safety profile was generally reassuring and consistent with prior studies of this drug and others in the class, with overall no increase in total adverse events or serious adverse events, compared with placebo, and modestly increased rates of urinary tract and mycotic genital infections.

VERTIS-CV was sponsored by Merck and Pfizer, the companies that market ertugliflozin (Steglatro). Dr. Cannon has received research funding and fees from Merck and Pfizer and from several other companies. Dr. McGuire has received honoraria from Merck, has been a consultant to Pfizer, and has had similar relationships with several other companies. Dr. Cooper has been an advisor to and received honoraria from Merck. He has also received honoraria from or been an adviser to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, MundiPharma, Novartis, Reata, and Servier, and he has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim and Novo Nordisk.

mzoler@mdedge.com

An intranasal form of dihydroergotamine (DHE) targeting the upper nasal region is safe and effective for the treatment of migraine, and ranks high in patient satisfaction, according to results from a phase 3 clinical trial. In development by Impel NeuroPharma, the new formulation could offer patients an at-home alternative to intramuscular infusions or intravenous injections currently used to deliver DHE.

“Our analysis of the data suggests that nothing new or untoward seemed to be happening as a result of delivering DHE to the upper nasal space,” Stephen Shrewsbury, MD, chief medical officer of Impel NeuroPharma, said in an interview. The company released key results from its phase 3 clinical trial, while a poster examining patient satisfaction was presented by Dr. Shrewsbury at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
 

An improved intranasal formulation

The product isn’t the first effort to develop an inhaled form of DHE. An inhaled version called Migranal, marketed by Bausch Health, delivers DHE to the front part of the nose, where it may be lost to the upper lip or down the throat, according to Dr. Shrewsbury. Impel’s formulation (INP104) delivers the drug to the upper nasal space, where an earlier phase 1 trial demonstrated it could achieve higher serum concentrations compared with Migranal.

In 2018, MAP Pharmaceuticals came close to a product, but it was ultimately rejected by the Food and Drug Administration because DHE was not stable in the propellant used in the formulation. This time is different, said Dr. Shrewsbury, who was chief medical officer at MAP before joining Impel. The new device holds DHE and the propellant in separate compartments until they are combined right before use, which should circumvent stability problems.

Dr. Shrewsbury believes that patients will welcome an inhaled version of DHE. “People with migraines don’t want to have to go into hospital or even an infusion center if they can help it,” he said.

The study was one of a number of presentations at the AHS meeting that focused on novel delivery methods for established drugs. “The idea of taking things that we know work and improving upon them, both in terms of formulation and then delivery, that’s a common theme. My impression is that this will be an interesting arrow to have in our sling,” said Andrew Charles, MD, professor of neurology and director of the UCLA Goldberg Migraine Program, who was not involved in the study.
 

Open-label trial results

The STOP 301 phase 3 open-label safety and tolerability trial treated over 5,650 migraine attacks in 354 patients who self-administered INP104 for up to 52 weeks. They were provided up to three doses per week (1.45 mg in a dose of two puffs, one per nostril). Maximum doses included two per day and three per week.

There were no new safety signals or concern trends in nasal safety findings. 15.0% of patients experienced nasal congestion, 6.8% nausea, 5.1% nasal discomfort, and 5.1% unpleasant taste.

A total of 66.3% of participants reported pain relief by 2 hours (severe or moderate pain reduced to mild or none, or mild pain reduced to none) following a dose, and 38% had freedom from pain. 16.3% reported pain relief onset at 15 minutes, with continued improvement over time. During weeks 21-24 of the study, 98.4% and 95% of patients reporting no recurrence of their migraine or use of rescue medications during the 24- and 48-hour periods after using INP104. “Once they got rid of the pain, it didn’t come back, and that’s been one of the shortcomings of many of the available oral therapies – although some of them can be quite effective, that effect can wear off and people can find their migraine comes back within a 24- or 48-hour period,” said Dr. Shrewsbury.

The drug was also rated as convenient, with 83.6% of participants strongly agreeing (50%) or agreeing (33.6%) that it is easy to use.

“It certainly looks like compliance will be good. The possibility is that this will be quite useful,” said Dr. Charles, who is also enthusiastic about some of the other drug formulations announced at the meeting. “It really is just fun times for us as clinicians to be able to have so many different options for patients,” he said.

Dr. Shrewsbury is an employee of Impel NeuroPharma, which funded the study.* Dr. Charles consults for Amgen, BioHaven, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Lundbeck.

SOURCE: Shrewsbury S, et al. AHS 2020. Abstract 832509.

*Correction, 6/19/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of Impel NeuroPharma.

An intranasal form of dihydroergotamine (DHE) targeting the upper nasal region is safe and effective for the treatment of migraine, and ranks high in patient satisfaction, according to results from a phase 3 clinical trial. In development by Impel NeuroPharma, the new formulation could offer patients an at-home alternative to intramuscular infusions or intravenous injections currently used to deliver DHE.

“Our analysis of the data suggests that nothing new or untoward seemed to be happening as a result of delivering DHE to the upper nasal space,” Stephen Shrewsbury, MD, chief medical officer of Impel NeuroPharma, said in an interview. The company released key results from its phase 3 clinical trial, while a poster examining patient satisfaction was presented by Dr. Shrewsbury at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
 

An improved intranasal formulation

The product isn’t the first effort to develop an inhaled form of DHE. An inhaled version called Migranal, marketed by Bausch Health, delivers DHE to the front part of the nose, where it may be lost to the upper lip or down the throat, according to Dr. Shrewsbury. Impel’s formulation (INP104) delivers the drug to the upper nasal space, where an earlier phase 1 trial demonstrated it could achieve higher serum concentrations compared with Migranal.

In 2018, MAP Pharmaceuticals came close to a product, but it was ultimately rejected by the Food and Drug Administration because DHE was not stable in the propellant used in the formulation. This time is different, said Dr. Shrewsbury, who was chief medical officer at MAP before joining Impel. The new device holds DHE and the propellant in separate compartments until they are combined right before use, which should circumvent stability problems.

Dr. Shrewsbury believes that patients will welcome an inhaled version of DHE. “People with migraines don’t want to have to go into hospital or even an infusion center if they can help it,” he said.

The study was one of a number of presentations at the AHS meeting that focused on novel delivery methods for established drugs. “The idea of taking things that we know work and improving upon them, both in terms of formulation and then delivery, that’s a common theme. My impression is that this will be an interesting arrow to have in our sling,” said Andrew Charles, MD, professor of neurology and director of the UCLA Goldberg Migraine Program, who was not involved in the study.
 

Open-label trial results

The STOP 301 phase 3 open-label safety and tolerability trial treated over 5,650 migraine attacks in 354 patients who self-administered INP104 for up to 52 weeks. They were provided up to three doses per week (1.45 mg in a dose of two puffs, one per nostril). Maximum doses included two per day and three per week.

There were no new safety signals or concern trends in nasal safety findings. 15.0% of patients experienced nasal congestion, 6.8% nausea, 5.1% nasal discomfort, and 5.1% unpleasant taste.

A total of 66.3% of participants reported pain relief by 2 hours (severe or moderate pain reduced to mild or none, or mild pain reduced to none) following a dose, and 38% had freedom from pain. 16.3% reported pain relief onset at 15 minutes, with continued improvement over time. During weeks 21-24 of the study, 98.4% and 95% of patients reporting no recurrence of their migraine or use of rescue medications during the 24- and 48-hour periods after using INP104. “Once they got rid of the pain, it didn’t come back, and that’s been one of the shortcomings of many of the available oral therapies – although some of them can be quite effective, that effect can wear off and people can find their migraine comes back within a 24- or 48-hour period,” said Dr. Shrewsbury.

The drug was also rated as convenient, with 83.6% of participants strongly agreeing (50%) or agreeing (33.6%) that it is easy to use.

“It certainly looks like compliance will be good. The possibility is that this will be quite useful,” said Dr. Charles, who is also enthusiastic about some of the other drug formulations announced at the meeting. “It really is just fun times for us as clinicians to be able to have so many different options for patients,” he said.

Dr. Shrewsbury is an employee of Impel NeuroPharma, which funded the study.* Dr. Charles consults for Amgen, BioHaven, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Lundbeck.

SOURCE: Shrewsbury S, et al. AHS 2020. Abstract 832509.

*Correction, 6/19/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of Impel NeuroPharma.

An intranasal form of dihydroergotamine (DHE) targeting the upper nasal region is safe and effective for the treatment of migraine, and ranks high in patient satisfaction, according to results from a phase 3 clinical trial. In development by Impel NeuroPharma, the new formulation could offer patients an at-home alternative to intramuscular infusions or intravenous injections currently used to deliver DHE.

“Our analysis of the data suggests that nothing new or untoward seemed to be happening as a result of delivering DHE to the upper nasal space,” Stephen Shrewsbury, MD, chief medical officer of Impel NeuroPharma, said in an interview. The company released key results from its phase 3 clinical trial, while a poster examining patient satisfaction was presented by Dr. Shrewsbury at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
 

An improved intranasal formulation

The product isn’t the first effort to develop an inhaled form of DHE. An inhaled version called Migranal, marketed by Bausch Health, delivers DHE to the front part of the nose, where it may be lost to the upper lip or down the throat, according to Dr. Shrewsbury. Impel’s formulation (INP104) delivers the drug to the upper nasal space, where an earlier phase 1 trial demonstrated it could achieve higher serum concentrations compared with Migranal.

In 2018, MAP Pharmaceuticals came close to a product, but it was ultimately rejected by the Food and Drug Administration because DHE was not stable in the propellant used in the formulation. This time is different, said Dr. Shrewsbury, who was chief medical officer at MAP before joining Impel. The new device holds DHE and the propellant in separate compartments until they are combined right before use, which should circumvent stability problems.

Dr. Shrewsbury believes that patients will welcome an inhaled version of DHE. “People with migraines don’t want to have to go into hospital or even an infusion center if they can help it,” he said.

The study was one of a number of presentations at the AHS meeting that focused on novel delivery methods for established drugs. “The idea of taking things that we know work and improving upon them, both in terms of formulation and then delivery, that’s a common theme. My impression is that this will be an interesting arrow to have in our sling,” said Andrew Charles, MD, professor of neurology and director of the UCLA Goldberg Migraine Program, who was not involved in the study.
 

Open-label trial results

The STOP 301 phase 3 open-label safety and tolerability trial treated over 5,650 migraine attacks in 354 patients who self-administered INP104 for up to 52 weeks. They were provided up to three doses per week (1.45 mg in a dose of two puffs, one per nostril). Maximum doses included two per day and three per week.

There were no new safety signals or concern trends in nasal safety findings. 15.0% of patients experienced nasal congestion, 6.8% nausea, 5.1% nasal discomfort, and 5.1% unpleasant taste.

A total of 66.3% of participants reported pain relief by 2 hours (severe or moderate pain reduced to mild or none, or mild pain reduced to none) following a dose, and 38% had freedom from pain. 16.3% reported pain relief onset at 15 minutes, with continued improvement over time. During weeks 21-24 of the study, 98.4% and 95% of patients reporting no recurrence of their migraine or use of rescue medications during the 24- and 48-hour periods after using INP104. “Once they got rid of the pain, it didn’t come back, and that’s been one of the shortcomings of many of the available oral therapies – although some of them can be quite effective, that effect can wear off and people can find their migraine comes back within a 24- or 48-hour period,” said Dr. Shrewsbury.

The drug was also rated as convenient, with 83.6% of participants strongly agreeing (50%) or agreeing (33.6%) that it is easy to use.

“It certainly looks like compliance will be good. The possibility is that this will be quite useful,” said Dr. Charles, who is also enthusiastic about some of the other drug formulations announced at the meeting. “It really is just fun times for us as clinicians to be able to have so many different options for patients,” he said.

Dr. Shrewsbury is an employee of Impel NeuroPharma, which funded the study.* Dr. Charles consults for Amgen, BioHaven, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Lundbeck.

SOURCE: Shrewsbury S, et al. AHS 2020. Abstract 832509.

*Correction, 6/19/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of Impel NeuroPharma.

The combination of nivolumab, ipilimumab, and two cycles of platinum doublet chemotherapy appears to be an important new option for patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Data from the CheckMate 9LA study suggest the combination amplifies the rapid response expected from chemotherapy and the long-term benefit from immunotherapy. Furthermore, the very limited exposure to chemotherapy appears to mitigate long-term risks.

Martin Reck, MD, PhD, of LungenClinic Grosshansdorf in Germany, reported the data as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program (Abstract 9501).

A prior trial, CheckMate 227, demonstrated that nivolumab plus ipilimumab improved overall survival (OS) and durability of response in comparison with conventional chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC, regardless of PD-L1 expression (N Engl J Med 2019; 381:2020-31).

In CheckMate 9LA, researchers tested whether adding a limited course of chemotherapy – just two cycles – could improve outcomes further. Dr. Reck reported that, at the first preplanned interim analysis, the combination met its primary goal of improving OS as well as meeting multiple secondary endpoints.
 

Details of CheckMate 9LA

CheckMate 9LA included 719 treatment-naive patients with histologically confirmed stage IV or recurrent NSCLC and no known sensitizing alterations in EGFR or ALK. All patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1.

Patients received either nivolumab plus ipilimumab at standard NSCLC doses plus two cycles of chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone for four cycles.

The chemotherapy regimen was tailored by histology. Pemetrexed plus either cisplatin or carboplatin, with optional pemetrexed maintenance, was administered to patients with non-squamous histology. Paclitaxel plus carboplatin was chosen for patients with squamous disease.

If there was no disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab could continue immunotherapy for up to 2 years.

Patients were stratified by PD-L1 expression (< 1% vs. ≥ 1%), gender, and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous). Tumor and clinical characteristics were balanced across the trial arms.

The primary endpoint was OS, with secondary endpoints of progression-free survival, objective response rate by blinded independent central review, and efficacy by PD-L1 subgroups. Exploratory endpoints included safety/tolerability.
 

Results prompt FDA approval

Dr. Reck and colleagues found significantly better OS with nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy, in comparison with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.69; P = .0006).

With longer follow-up (minimum 12.7 months), nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy continued to provide longer OS compared with chemotherapy alone. The median OS was 15.6 months and 10.9 months, respectively (HR, 0.66).

Despite more patients receiving subsequent systemic therapy in the chemotherapy-alone arm (34% of whom eventually received an immune checkpoint inhibitor), the immunotherapy-chemotherapy arm still yielded superior OS in the overall population.

One-year OS rates were 63% in the immunotherapy arm and 47% in the chemotherapy-alone arm.

Statistically significant improvements in progression-free survival and objective response rate were seen. The median response duration was 11.3 months in the immunotherapy arm and 5.6 months in the chemotherapy-alone arm.

Benefit was consistent by all efficacy measures and in all subgroups, including by PD-L1 expression and histology.

Based on the strength of these results, in May, the Food and Drug Administration approved nivolumab plus ipilimumab and two cycles of platinum-doublet chemotherapy for the frontline treatment of patients with metastatic or recurrent NSCLC with no EGFR or ALK genomic tumor aberrations.


 

Challenges to overcome

In the forest plots for OS, the 70 patients who were 75 years of age and older had inferior survival with the combination regimen, compared with chemotherapy alone.

Grade 3-4 treatment-related toxicity was reported in 47% of patients in the immunotherapy arm and 38% of those in the chemotherapy-alone arm.

With nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy, more adverse events were considered serious (25.4% vs. 15%). Furthermore, grade 3-4 adverse events led to a higher rate of treatment discontinuation in the immunotherapy arm than in the chemotherapy-alone arm (16% vs. 5%).

Although cross-trial comparisons are treacherous, in CheckMate 227, only 12% of patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab stopped treatment because of a grade 3-4 adverse event.
 

Better by design

In the updated analysis of CheckMate 227 (ASCO 2020, Abstract 9500), the nivolumab-ipilimumab regimen showed inferior OS results for the first 6 months of treatment, with more disease progression during that time. However, at 6 months, the OS curves crossed over to become consistently superior for the immunotherapy regimen thereafter.

Platinum-based chemotherapy is thought to augment antitumor immunity by inducing immunogenic cell death, increasing tumor neoantigen expression, and disturbing the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment that prevents immune detection.

Therefore, CheckMate 9LA incorporated a short exposure to chemotherapy for the patients receiving nivolumab-ipilimumab in an effort to attain rapid disease control and retain the durable OS benefit that was seen with dual immunotherapy in CheckMate 227.

Indeed, in CheckMate 9LA, the Kaplan-Meier curves in both the initial and follow-up OS analyses diverged early in favor of the nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy regimen and never crossed the curve for chemotherapy alone. Progressive disease was observed in fewer patients with the immunotherapy combination than with chemotherapy alone.

Longer follow-up needed

In recent years, a large number of treatment options for stage IV NSCLC patients have emerged. In the current report of CheckMate 9LA, the OS curve extended only to 27 months.

As was noted by invited discussant Benjamin Levy, MD, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, it may be premature to put the regimen of two cycles of chemotherapy plus dual checkpoint/CTLA4 blockade in its proper context until follow-up extends for 3-5 years.

It would be ideal to know whether the tail of the OS curve will flatten out.
 

Do the best you can

Clinical investigators have a responsibility to retain the successes of prior regimens while overcoming the challenges of adverse events. New regimens also need to be practical when applied in general oncology practice.

In 2014, the American poet Maya Angelou advised, “Do the best you can until you know better. Then, when you know better, do better.” In many regards, the immunotherapy-chemotherapy combination tested in CheckMate 9LA appears to do better than preceding regimens.

Further refinements in dose, schedule, and supportive care, as well as real-time reporting of and response to patient-reported outcomes, will likely help us build on the CheckMate 9LA regimen and do even better.


Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Reck M et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 9501.

The combination of nivolumab, ipilimumab, and two cycles of platinum doublet chemotherapy appears to be an important new option for patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Data from the CheckMate 9LA study suggest the combination amplifies the rapid response expected from chemotherapy and the long-term benefit from immunotherapy. Furthermore, the very limited exposure to chemotherapy appears to mitigate long-term risks.

Martin Reck, MD, PhD, of LungenClinic Grosshansdorf in Germany, reported the data as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program (Abstract 9501).

A prior trial, CheckMate 227, demonstrated that nivolumab plus ipilimumab improved overall survival (OS) and durability of response in comparison with conventional chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC, regardless of PD-L1 expression (N Engl J Med 2019; 381:2020-31).

In CheckMate 9LA, researchers tested whether adding a limited course of chemotherapy – just two cycles – could improve outcomes further. Dr. Reck reported that, at the first preplanned interim analysis, the combination met its primary goal of improving OS as well as meeting multiple secondary endpoints.
 

Details of CheckMate 9LA

CheckMate 9LA included 719 treatment-naive patients with histologically confirmed stage IV or recurrent NSCLC and no known sensitizing alterations in EGFR or ALK. All patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1.

Patients received either nivolumab plus ipilimumab at standard NSCLC doses plus two cycles of chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone for four cycles.

The chemotherapy regimen was tailored by histology. Pemetrexed plus either cisplatin or carboplatin, with optional pemetrexed maintenance, was administered to patients with non-squamous histology. Paclitaxel plus carboplatin was chosen for patients with squamous disease.

If there was no disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab could continue immunotherapy for up to 2 years.

Patients were stratified by PD-L1 expression (< 1% vs. ≥ 1%), gender, and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous). Tumor and clinical characteristics were balanced across the trial arms.

The primary endpoint was OS, with secondary endpoints of progression-free survival, objective response rate by blinded independent central review, and efficacy by PD-L1 subgroups. Exploratory endpoints included safety/tolerability.
 

Results prompt FDA approval

Dr. Reck and colleagues found significantly better OS with nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy, in comparison with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.69; P = .0006).

With longer follow-up (minimum 12.7 months), nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy continued to provide longer OS compared with chemotherapy alone. The median OS was 15.6 months and 10.9 months, respectively (HR, 0.66).

Despite more patients receiving subsequent systemic therapy in the chemotherapy-alone arm (34% of whom eventually received an immune checkpoint inhibitor), the immunotherapy-chemotherapy arm still yielded superior OS in the overall population.

One-year OS rates were 63% in the immunotherapy arm and 47% in the chemotherapy-alone arm.

Statistically significant improvements in progression-free survival and objective response rate were seen. The median response duration was 11.3 months in the immunotherapy arm and 5.6 months in the chemotherapy-alone arm.

Benefit was consistent by all efficacy measures and in all subgroups, including by PD-L1 expression and histology.

Based on the strength of these results, in May, the Food and Drug Administration approved nivolumab plus ipilimumab and two cycles of platinum-doublet chemotherapy for the frontline treatment of patients with metastatic or recurrent NSCLC with no EGFR or ALK genomic tumor aberrations.


 

Challenges to overcome

In the forest plots for OS, the 70 patients who were 75 years of age and older had inferior survival with the combination regimen, compared with chemotherapy alone.

Grade 3-4 treatment-related toxicity was reported in 47% of patients in the immunotherapy arm and 38% of those in the chemotherapy-alone arm.

With nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy, more adverse events were considered serious (25.4% vs. 15%). Furthermore, grade 3-4 adverse events led to a higher rate of treatment discontinuation in the immunotherapy arm than in the chemotherapy-alone arm (16% vs. 5%).

Although cross-trial comparisons are treacherous, in CheckMate 227, only 12% of patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab stopped treatment because of a grade 3-4 adverse event.
 

Better by design

In the updated analysis of CheckMate 227 (ASCO 2020, Abstract 9500), the nivolumab-ipilimumab regimen showed inferior OS results for the first 6 months of treatment, with more disease progression during that time. However, at 6 months, the OS curves crossed over to become consistently superior for the immunotherapy regimen thereafter.

Platinum-based chemotherapy is thought to augment antitumor immunity by inducing immunogenic cell death, increasing tumor neoantigen expression, and disturbing the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment that prevents immune detection.

Therefore, CheckMate 9LA incorporated a short exposure to chemotherapy for the patients receiving nivolumab-ipilimumab in an effort to attain rapid disease control and retain the durable OS benefit that was seen with dual immunotherapy in CheckMate 227.

Indeed, in CheckMate 9LA, the Kaplan-Meier curves in both the initial and follow-up OS analyses diverged early in favor of the nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy regimen and never crossed the curve for chemotherapy alone. Progressive disease was observed in fewer patients with the immunotherapy combination than with chemotherapy alone.

Longer follow-up needed

In recent years, a large number of treatment options for stage IV NSCLC patients have emerged. In the current report of CheckMate 9LA, the OS curve extended only to 27 months.

As was noted by invited discussant Benjamin Levy, MD, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, it may be premature to put the regimen of two cycles of chemotherapy plus dual checkpoint/CTLA4 blockade in its proper context until follow-up extends for 3-5 years.

It would be ideal to know whether the tail of the OS curve will flatten out.
 

Do the best you can

Clinical investigators have a responsibility to retain the successes of prior regimens while overcoming the challenges of adverse events. New regimens also need to be practical when applied in general oncology practice.

In 2014, the American poet Maya Angelou advised, “Do the best you can until you know better. Then, when you know better, do better.” In many regards, the immunotherapy-chemotherapy combination tested in CheckMate 9LA appears to do better than preceding regimens.

Further refinements in dose, schedule, and supportive care, as well as real-time reporting of and response to patient-reported outcomes, will likely help us build on the CheckMate 9LA regimen and do even better.


Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Reck M et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 9501.

The combination of nivolumab, ipilimumab, and two cycles of platinum doublet chemotherapy appears to be an important new option for patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Data from the CheckMate 9LA study suggest the combination amplifies the rapid response expected from chemotherapy and the long-term benefit from immunotherapy. Furthermore, the very limited exposure to chemotherapy appears to mitigate long-term risks.

Martin Reck, MD, PhD, of LungenClinic Grosshansdorf in Germany, reported the data as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program (Abstract 9501).

A prior trial, CheckMate 227, demonstrated that nivolumab plus ipilimumab improved overall survival (OS) and durability of response in comparison with conventional chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC, regardless of PD-L1 expression (N Engl J Med 2019; 381:2020-31).

In CheckMate 9LA, researchers tested whether adding a limited course of chemotherapy – just two cycles – could improve outcomes further. Dr. Reck reported that, at the first preplanned interim analysis, the combination met its primary goal of improving OS as well as meeting multiple secondary endpoints.
 

Details of CheckMate 9LA

CheckMate 9LA included 719 treatment-naive patients with histologically confirmed stage IV or recurrent NSCLC and no known sensitizing alterations in EGFR or ALK. All patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1.

Patients received either nivolumab plus ipilimumab at standard NSCLC doses plus two cycles of chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone for four cycles.

The chemotherapy regimen was tailored by histology. Pemetrexed plus either cisplatin or carboplatin, with optional pemetrexed maintenance, was administered to patients with non-squamous histology. Paclitaxel plus carboplatin was chosen for patients with squamous disease.

If there was no disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab could continue immunotherapy for up to 2 years.

Patients were stratified by PD-L1 expression (< 1% vs. ≥ 1%), gender, and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous). Tumor and clinical characteristics were balanced across the trial arms.

The primary endpoint was OS, with secondary endpoints of progression-free survival, objective response rate by blinded independent central review, and efficacy by PD-L1 subgroups. Exploratory endpoints included safety/tolerability.
 

Results prompt FDA approval

Dr. Reck and colleagues found significantly better OS with nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy, in comparison with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.69; P = .0006).

With longer follow-up (minimum 12.7 months), nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy continued to provide longer OS compared with chemotherapy alone. The median OS was 15.6 months and 10.9 months, respectively (HR, 0.66).

Despite more patients receiving subsequent systemic therapy in the chemotherapy-alone arm (34% of whom eventually received an immune checkpoint inhibitor), the immunotherapy-chemotherapy arm still yielded superior OS in the overall population.

One-year OS rates were 63% in the immunotherapy arm and 47% in the chemotherapy-alone arm.

Statistically significant improvements in progression-free survival and objective response rate were seen. The median response duration was 11.3 months in the immunotherapy arm and 5.6 months in the chemotherapy-alone arm.

Benefit was consistent by all efficacy measures and in all subgroups, including by PD-L1 expression and histology.

Based on the strength of these results, in May, the Food and Drug Administration approved nivolumab plus ipilimumab and two cycles of platinum-doublet chemotherapy for the frontline treatment of patients with metastatic or recurrent NSCLC with no EGFR or ALK genomic tumor aberrations.


 

Challenges to overcome

In the forest plots for OS, the 70 patients who were 75 years of age and older had inferior survival with the combination regimen, compared with chemotherapy alone.

Grade 3-4 treatment-related toxicity was reported in 47% of patients in the immunotherapy arm and 38% of those in the chemotherapy-alone arm.

With nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy, more adverse events were considered serious (25.4% vs. 15%). Furthermore, grade 3-4 adverse events led to a higher rate of treatment discontinuation in the immunotherapy arm than in the chemotherapy-alone arm (16% vs. 5%).

Although cross-trial comparisons are treacherous, in CheckMate 227, only 12% of patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab stopped treatment because of a grade 3-4 adverse event.
 

Better by design

In the updated analysis of CheckMate 227 (ASCO 2020, Abstract 9500), the nivolumab-ipilimumab regimen showed inferior OS results for the first 6 months of treatment, with more disease progression during that time. However, at 6 months, the OS curves crossed over to become consistently superior for the immunotherapy regimen thereafter.

Platinum-based chemotherapy is thought to augment antitumor immunity by inducing immunogenic cell death, increasing tumor neoantigen expression, and disturbing the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment that prevents immune detection.

Therefore, CheckMate 9LA incorporated a short exposure to chemotherapy for the patients receiving nivolumab-ipilimumab in an effort to attain rapid disease control and retain the durable OS benefit that was seen with dual immunotherapy in CheckMate 227.

Indeed, in CheckMate 9LA, the Kaplan-Meier curves in both the initial and follow-up OS analyses diverged early in favor of the nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy regimen and never crossed the curve for chemotherapy alone. Progressive disease was observed in fewer patients with the immunotherapy combination than with chemotherapy alone.

Longer follow-up needed

In recent years, a large number of treatment options for stage IV NSCLC patients have emerged. In the current report of CheckMate 9LA, the OS curve extended only to 27 months.

As was noted by invited discussant Benjamin Levy, MD, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, it may be premature to put the regimen of two cycles of chemotherapy plus dual checkpoint/CTLA4 blockade in its proper context until follow-up extends for 3-5 years.

It would be ideal to know whether the tail of the OS curve will flatten out.
 

Do the best you can

Clinical investigators have a responsibility to retain the successes of prior regimens while overcoming the challenges of adverse events. New regimens also need to be practical when applied in general oncology practice.

In 2014, the American poet Maya Angelou advised, “Do the best you can until you know better. Then, when you know better, do better.” In many regards, the immunotherapy-chemotherapy combination tested in CheckMate 9LA appears to do better than preceding regimens.

Further refinements in dose, schedule, and supportive care, as well as real-time reporting of and response to patient-reported outcomes, will likely help us build on the CheckMate 9LA regimen and do even better.


Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Reck M et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 9501.

Adding venetoclax to azacitidine significantly extended survival of patients with previously untreated acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who were ineligible for standard induction therapy, results of the phase 3 VIALE-A trial showed.

Median overall survival for patients treated with venetoclax (Venclexta) and azacitidine was 14.7 months, compared with 9.6 months for patients who received azacitidine with a placebo, reported Courtney DiNardo, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“The combination of [azacitidine] and [venetoclax] was associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in overall survival, response rates, duration of remission, and transfusion independence, representing a true paradigm shift in the treatment of our older patients with AML,” she said in a late-breaking abstract presentation at the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

Patients with newly diagnosed AML who are aged 75 years and older or have significant comorbidities are often not able to withstand the rigors of standard induction therapy for AML and have instead been treated with low-dose hypomethylating agents or cytarabine, but these therapies typically are associated with inferior outcomes, Dr. DiNardo said.

Venetoclax has shown good single-agent activity against relapsed/refractory AML. Early efficacy results of a phase 1b study, reported at the 2017 EHA Congress, showed that, among 100 patients age 65 years and older with previously untreated AML, the combination of venetoclax with either decitabine or azacitidine was associated with a 69% overall response rate, and that older patients were able to tolerate the regimen.
 

No surprise

The results of the VIALE-A study merely confirm what hematologists/oncologists have known for several years, said Joshua F. Zeidner, MD, from the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center in Chapel Hill.

“Most leukemia clinicians have been using this regimen as a standard of care prior to these results,” he said in an interview. Dr. Zeidner was not involved in the study.

In November 2018, the Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval to venetoclax in combination with either azacitidine or decitabine or low-dose cytarabine in adults with newly diagnosed AML who because of age or comorbidities were ineligible for standard intensive induction regimens. Dr. Zeidner noted, however, that there are still questions about the combination in this population that need further exploration.

Despite being labeled as a “low-intensity” therapy, “I think low intensity is sort of a misnomer here,” he said. “It’s very challenging to give this regimen in the community because of all of the cytopenias, a high degree of transfusion dependence that these patients have, at least in the first few cycles, and all the rigorous laboratory monitoring and drug interactions that are common with venetoclax really lead to a lot of challenges in the community.”

Also still unanswered are questions about how to dose patients with early responses who have potential dose-limiting toxicities such as neutropenia and thrombocytopenia, he said.

It’s also unclear whether patients will require hospitalization during the ramp-up phase of venetoclax, as was done in some clinical trials, because of risk of tumor lysis syndrome. In the VIALE-A study, however, there were only three minor biochemical cases of tumor lysis syndrome in the experimental arm, and none of these cases required dose modification or treatment discontinuation.

“This begets the question whether patients need to be hospitalized at for the initiation of this treatment,” Dr. Zeidner said. Additional studies will also be needed to see whether certain subgroups of patients would be likely to derive particular benefit from venetoclax plus azacitidine, such as patients with IDH1 or IDH2 somatic mutations.
 

Randomized confirmatory trial

The VIALE-A study was a randomized, placebo-controlled trial designed to put the early promise of the combination to the test.

Investigators enrolled 433 adults with newly diagnosed AML who were ineligible for induction therapy either because they were 75 or older or were younger than 75 but had one or more of the following comorbidities: heart failure requiring treatment or a left ventricular ejection fraction of 50% or less, chronic stable angina, diffusion lung capacity for carbon monoxide of 65% or less or forced expiratory volume in 1 second of 65% or less, or Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 2-3.

After stratification by age, cytogenetic risk, and geographic region, the patients were randomized in a 2:1 fashion to receive azacitidine 75 mg/m² either subcutaneously or intravenously on days 1-7 of each 28-day cycle, plus either oral venetoclax 400 mg daily following a 3-day ramp up in the first cycle (286 patients) or placebo (145 patients).

The median age in each arm was 76 years. Approximately 75% of patients in each arm had de novo AML.

Approximately half of all patients in each arm has bone marrow blast counts of 50% or greater. Two-thirds of patients had intermediate cytogenetic risk and one-third had poor risk disease. Somatic mutation rates, including mutations in IDH1/2, FLT3, NPM1 and TP53, were roughly comparable between the arms.

As noted before, median overall survival, the primary endpoint, was significantly longer with venetoclax, at 14.7 versus 9.6 months, translating into a hazard ratio for death with venetoclax of 0.66 (P < .001).

Although the numbers were relatively small, an analysis of overall survival by subgroups showed either a significant advantage or trend favoring venetoclax in all subgroups, notably among patients with difficult-to-treat disease, including patients 75 years and older and those with secondary AML, Dr. DiNardo said.

The combined complete response and CR with incomplete recovery (CRi) response rate was 66.4% with venetoclax, compared with 28.3% with azacitidine alone. The median time to a CR/CRi was shorter with the combination at 1.3 versus 2.8 months for azacitidine plus placebo, and the median duration of a CR/CRi response was longer, at 17.5 versus 13.4 months, respectively.

Response rates were also notably higher with venetoclax in all cytogenetic risk, AML subtype, molecular mutation, age, ECOG score, and bone marrow blast subgroups.

Additionally, significantly more patients treated with venetoclax/azacitidine were transfusion independent for a minimum of 8 weeks for platelets or combined red cells and platelets, Dr. DiNardo noted.

Median event-free survival – time from randomization to relapse, death, or treatment failure – was 9.8 months in the venetoclax arm versus 7 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.63; P < .001).

All patients experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event. Grade 3 or greater hematologic adverse events were seen 82% of patients in the venetoclax arm and 68% in the placebo arm. The respective rates of grade 3 or greater neutropenia were 42% versus 29%, and febrile neutropenia were 42% versus 19%. Thrombocytopenia, anemia, and leukopenia rates were also higher among patients who received venetoclax.

Grade 1-2 gastrointestinal events were the most frequent nonhematologic adverse events. There was no increase in early deaths seen with the study combination.

The study was supported by AbbVie and Genentech. Dr. DiNardo disclosed research funding from and advisory board activities for those companies and from others. Dr. Zeidner disclosed serving on an independent review committee for AbbVie and advisory board activity for Genentech and others.

SOURCE: DiNardo C et al. EHA25, Abstract LB2601.

Adding venetoclax to azacitidine significantly extended survival of patients with previously untreated acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who were ineligible for standard induction therapy, results of the phase 3 VIALE-A trial showed.

Median overall survival for patients treated with venetoclax (Venclexta) and azacitidine was 14.7 months, compared with 9.6 months for patients who received azacitidine with a placebo, reported Courtney DiNardo, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“The combination of [azacitidine] and [venetoclax] was associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in overall survival, response rates, duration of remission, and transfusion independence, representing a true paradigm shift in the treatment of our older patients with AML,” she said in a late-breaking abstract presentation at the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

Patients with newly diagnosed AML who are aged 75 years and older or have significant comorbidities are often not able to withstand the rigors of standard induction therapy for AML and have instead been treated with low-dose hypomethylating agents or cytarabine, but these therapies typically are associated with inferior outcomes, Dr. DiNardo said.

Venetoclax has shown good single-agent activity against relapsed/refractory AML. Early efficacy results of a phase 1b study, reported at the 2017 EHA Congress, showed that, among 100 patients age 65 years and older with previously untreated AML, the combination of venetoclax with either decitabine or azacitidine was associated with a 69% overall response rate, and that older patients were able to tolerate the regimen.
 

No surprise

The results of the VIALE-A study merely confirm what hematologists/oncologists have known for several years, said Joshua F. Zeidner, MD, from the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center in Chapel Hill.

“Most leukemia clinicians have been using this regimen as a standard of care prior to these results,” he said in an interview. Dr. Zeidner was not involved in the study.

In November 2018, the Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval to venetoclax in combination with either azacitidine or decitabine or low-dose cytarabine in adults with newly diagnosed AML who because of age or comorbidities were ineligible for standard intensive induction regimens. Dr. Zeidner noted, however, that there are still questions about the combination in this population that need further exploration.

Despite being labeled as a “low-intensity” therapy, “I think low intensity is sort of a misnomer here,” he said. “It’s very challenging to give this regimen in the community because of all of the cytopenias, a high degree of transfusion dependence that these patients have, at least in the first few cycles, and all the rigorous laboratory monitoring and drug interactions that are common with venetoclax really lead to a lot of challenges in the community.”

Also still unanswered are questions about how to dose patients with early responses who have potential dose-limiting toxicities such as neutropenia and thrombocytopenia, he said.

It’s also unclear whether patients will require hospitalization during the ramp-up phase of venetoclax, as was done in some clinical trials, because of risk of tumor lysis syndrome. In the VIALE-A study, however, there were only three minor biochemical cases of tumor lysis syndrome in the experimental arm, and none of these cases required dose modification or treatment discontinuation.

“This begets the question whether patients need to be hospitalized at for the initiation of this treatment,” Dr. Zeidner said. Additional studies will also be needed to see whether certain subgroups of patients would be likely to derive particular benefit from venetoclax plus azacitidine, such as patients with IDH1 or IDH2 somatic mutations.
 

Randomized confirmatory trial

The VIALE-A study was a randomized, placebo-controlled trial designed to put the early promise of the combination to the test.

Investigators enrolled 433 adults with newly diagnosed AML who were ineligible for induction therapy either because they were 75 or older or were younger than 75 but had one or more of the following comorbidities: heart failure requiring treatment or a left ventricular ejection fraction of 50% or less, chronic stable angina, diffusion lung capacity for carbon monoxide of 65% or less or forced expiratory volume in 1 second of 65% or less, or Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 2-3.

After stratification by age, cytogenetic risk, and geographic region, the patients were randomized in a 2:1 fashion to receive azacitidine 75 mg/m² either subcutaneously or intravenously on days 1-7 of each 28-day cycle, plus either oral venetoclax 400 mg daily following a 3-day ramp up in the first cycle (286 patients) or placebo (145 patients).

The median age in each arm was 76 years. Approximately 75% of patients in each arm had de novo AML.

Approximately half of all patients in each arm has bone marrow blast counts of 50% or greater. Two-thirds of patients had intermediate cytogenetic risk and one-third had poor risk disease. Somatic mutation rates, including mutations in IDH1/2, FLT3, NPM1 and TP53, were roughly comparable between the arms.

As noted before, median overall survival, the primary endpoint, was significantly longer with venetoclax, at 14.7 versus 9.6 months, translating into a hazard ratio for death with venetoclax of 0.66 (P < .001).

Although the numbers were relatively small, an analysis of overall survival by subgroups showed either a significant advantage or trend favoring venetoclax in all subgroups, notably among patients with difficult-to-treat disease, including patients 75 years and older and those with secondary AML, Dr. DiNardo said.

The combined complete response and CR with incomplete recovery (CRi) response rate was 66.4% with venetoclax, compared with 28.3% with azacitidine alone. The median time to a CR/CRi was shorter with the combination at 1.3 versus 2.8 months for azacitidine plus placebo, and the median duration of a CR/CRi response was longer, at 17.5 versus 13.4 months, respectively.

Response rates were also notably higher with venetoclax in all cytogenetic risk, AML subtype, molecular mutation, age, ECOG score, and bone marrow blast subgroups.

Additionally, significantly more patients treated with venetoclax/azacitidine were transfusion independent for a minimum of 8 weeks for platelets or combined red cells and platelets, Dr. DiNardo noted.

Median event-free survival – time from randomization to relapse, death, or treatment failure – was 9.8 months in the venetoclax arm versus 7 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.63; P < .001).

All patients experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event. Grade 3 or greater hematologic adverse events were seen 82% of patients in the venetoclax arm and 68% in the placebo arm. The respective rates of grade 3 or greater neutropenia were 42% versus 29%, and febrile neutropenia were 42% versus 19%. Thrombocytopenia, anemia, and leukopenia rates were also higher among patients who received venetoclax.

Grade 1-2 gastrointestinal events were the most frequent nonhematologic adverse events. There was no increase in early deaths seen with the study combination.

The study was supported by AbbVie and Genentech. Dr. DiNardo disclosed research funding from and advisory board activities for those companies and from others. Dr. Zeidner disclosed serving on an independent review committee for AbbVie and advisory board activity for Genentech and others.

SOURCE: DiNardo C et al. EHA25, Abstract LB2601.

Adding venetoclax to azacitidine significantly extended survival of patients with previously untreated acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who were ineligible for standard induction therapy, results of the phase 3 VIALE-A trial showed.

Median overall survival for patients treated with venetoclax (Venclexta) and azacitidine was 14.7 months, compared with 9.6 months for patients who received azacitidine with a placebo, reported Courtney DiNardo, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“The combination of [azacitidine] and [venetoclax] was associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in overall survival, response rates, duration of remission, and transfusion independence, representing a true paradigm shift in the treatment of our older patients with AML,” she said in a late-breaking abstract presentation at the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

Patients with newly diagnosed AML who are aged 75 years and older or have significant comorbidities are often not able to withstand the rigors of standard induction therapy for AML and have instead been treated with low-dose hypomethylating agents or cytarabine, but these therapies typically are associated with inferior outcomes, Dr. DiNardo said.

Venetoclax has shown good single-agent activity against relapsed/refractory AML. Early efficacy results of a phase 1b study, reported at the 2017 EHA Congress, showed that, among 100 patients age 65 years and older with previously untreated AML, the combination of venetoclax with either decitabine or azacitidine was associated with a 69% overall response rate, and that older patients were able to tolerate the regimen.
 

No surprise

The results of the VIALE-A study merely confirm what hematologists/oncologists have known for several years, said Joshua F. Zeidner, MD, from the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center in Chapel Hill.

“Most leukemia clinicians have been using this regimen as a standard of care prior to these results,” he said in an interview. Dr. Zeidner was not involved in the study.

In November 2018, the Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval to venetoclax in combination with either azacitidine or decitabine or low-dose cytarabine in adults with newly diagnosed AML who because of age or comorbidities were ineligible for standard intensive induction regimens. Dr. Zeidner noted, however, that there are still questions about the combination in this population that need further exploration.

Despite being labeled as a “low-intensity” therapy, “I think low intensity is sort of a misnomer here,” he said. “It’s very challenging to give this regimen in the community because of all of the cytopenias, a high degree of transfusion dependence that these patients have, at least in the first few cycles, and all the rigorous laboratory monitoring and drug interactions that are common with venetoclax really lead to a lot of challenges in the community.”

Also still unanswered are questions about how to dose patients with early responses who have potential dose-limiting toxicities such as neutropenia and thrombocytopenia, he said.

It’s also unclear whether patients will require hospitalization during the ramp-up phase of venetoclax, as was done in some clinical trials, because of risk of tumor lysis syndrome. In the VIALE-A study, however, there were only three minor biochemical cases of tumor lysis syndrome in the experimental arm, and none of these cases required dose modification or treatment discontinuation.

“This begets the question whether patients need to be hospitalized at for the initiation of this treatment,” Dr. Zeidner said. Additional studies will also be needed to see whether certain subgroups of patients would be likely to derive particular benefit from venetoclax plus azacitidine, such as patients with IDH1 or IDH2 somatic mutations.
 

Randomized confirmatory trial

The VIALE-A study was a randomized, placebo-controlled trial designed to put the early promise of the combination to the test.

Investigators enrolled 433 adults with newly diagnosed AML who were ineligible for induction therapy either because they were 75 or older or were younger than 75 but had one or more of the following comorbidities: heart failure requiring treatment or a left ventricular ejection fraction of 50% or less, chronic stable angina, diffusion lung capacity for carbon monoxide of 65% or less or forced expiratory volume in 1 second of 65% or less, or Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 2-3.

After stratification by age, cytogenetic risk, and geographic region, the patients were randomized in a 2:1 fashion to receive azacitidine 75 mg/m² either subcutaneously or intravenously on days 1-7 of each 28-day cycle, plus either oral venetoclax 400 mg daily following a 3-day ramp up in the first cycle (286 patients) or placebo (145 patients).

The median age in each arm was 76 years. Approximately 75% of patients in each arm had de novo AML.

Approximately half of all patients in each arm has bone marrow blast counts of 50% or greater. Two-thirds of patients had intermediate cytogenetic risk and one-third had poor risk disease. Somatic mutation rates, including mutations in IDH1/2, FLT3, NPM1 and TP53, were roughly comparable between the arms.

As noted before, median overall survival, the primary endpoint, was significantly longer with venetoclax, at 14.7 versus 9.6 months, translating into a hazard ratio for death with venetoclax of 0.66 (P < .001).

Although the numbers were relatively small, an analysis of overall survival by subgroups showed either a significant advantage or trend favoring venetoclax in all subgroups, notably among patients with difficult-to-treat disease, including patients 75 years and older and those with secondary AML, Dr. DiNardo said.

The combined complete response and CR with incomplete recovery (CRi) response rate was 66.4% with venetoclax, compared with 28.3% with azacitidine alone. The median time to a CR/CRi was shorter with the combination at 1.3 versus 2.8 months for azacitidine plus placebo, and the median duration of a CR/CRi response was longer, at 17.5 versus 13.4 months, respectively.

Response rates were also notably higher with venetoclax in all cytogenetic risk, AML subtype, molecular mutation, age, ECOG score, and bone marrow blast subgroups.

Additionally, significantly more patients treated with venetoclax/azacitidine were transfusion independent for a minimum of 8 weeks for platelets or combined red cells and platelets, Dr. DiNardo noted.

Median event-free survival – time from randomization to relapse, death, or treatment failure – was 9.8 months in the venetoclax arm versus 7 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.63; P < .001).

All patients experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event. Grade 3 or greater hematologic adverse events were seen 82% of patients in the venetoclax arm and 68% in the placebo arm. The respective rates of grade 3 or greater neutropenia were 42% versus 29%, and febrile neutropenia were 42% versus 19%. Thrombocytopenia, anemia, and leukopenia rates were also higher among patients who received venetoclax.

Grade 1-2 gastrointestinal events were the most frequent nonhematologic adverse events. There was no increase in early deaths seen with the study combination.

The study was supported by AbbVie and Genentech. Dr. DiNardo disclosed research funding from and advisory board activities for those companies and from others. Dr. Zeidner disclosed serving on an independent review committee for AbbVie and advisory board activity for Genentech and others.

SOURCE: DiNardo C et al. EHA25, Abstract LB2601.