Conference Coverage

Adding pembrolizumab to standard chemotherapy significantly improved progression-free survival for patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, but only if their tumors were enriched with comparatively high levels of the target programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1), results of the KEYNOTE 355 trial showed.

Among 843 patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) randomized to receive either investigator’s choice of chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab (Keytruda) or placebo, patients whose tumors had a PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) of 10 or higher had a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 9.7 months when treated with pembrolizumab and chemotherapy, compared with 5.6 months among patients treated with chemotherapy and placebo, reported Javier Cortes, MD, PhD, from the Vall d´Hebron Institute of Oncology in Madrid and Barcelona.

However, among patients with CPS between 1 and 10, there was no significant difference in PFS between the treatment arms, he said in a presentation made as a part of the 2020 American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

“The inclusion of taxanes and a known taxane/platinum–based regimen permits assessment of the clinical benefit of pembro in combination with several routinely used chemo partners. A trend toward improved efficacy with PD-L1 enrichment was observed in patients treated with pembro plus chemo. The improvement in progression-free survival with chemotherapy and pembrolizumab was observed across patient subgroups,” said Dr. Cortes.

In the KEYNOTE-522 study, adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting increased the likelihood that women with stage III or early node-positive TNBC would have a pathologic complete response and sustained clinical benefit.

KEYNOTE-355 examined whether pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy could provide additional benefit over chemotherapy alone in patients with previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic TNBC.

Patients with previously untreated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer who had at least 6 months between definite surgery or last dose of adjuvant chemotherapy (whichever came last) and first disease recurrence were stratified by study chemotherapy received, tumor PD-L1 expression at baseline, and prior treatment with the same class of chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant setting.

The patients were then randomized in a 2:1 ratio to pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy based on the investigator’s choice of nab-paclitaxel, paclitaxel, or carboplatin-gemcitabine (562 patients) or to chemotherapy alone (281).

Pembrolizumab and placebo were administered in a double-blind fashion for up to 35 doses. Chemotherapy was given at the investigator’s discretion according to local guidelines. This trial was not powered or designed to compare differential efficacy of the various chemotherapy regimens, Dr. Cortes noted.

The trial had dual primary endpoints of PFS in patients with PD-L1–positive tumors (CPS > 10 and > 1) and in the intention-to-treat population, and overall survival both in PD-L1-positive patients and the ITT population. Overall survival results will be reported at a later date.

As noted before, the primary endpoint was met in the population of patients with CPS higher than 10, with median PFS of 9.7 among those receiving pembrolizumab versus 5.6 months among those receiving placebo, and an estimated 1 year PFS of 39.1% versus 23% for controls, translating into a hazard ratio for progression on pembrolizumab of 0.65 (P = .0012).

In the patients with CPS higher than 1, however, the median PFS was 7.6 months with pembrolizumab compared with 5.6 months with placebo, translating into a hazard ratio of 0.74. However, the results did not meet the prespecified boundary for significance. Because of this, the statistical significance in the ITT population was not tested.

“In patients with PD-L1 CPS 10 or higher tumors, the benefit of pembro/chemo on progression-free survival was generally consistent across most predefined subgroups, including eight geographic regions, ECOG performance status, on-study chemo, and prior treatment with the same class of chemo,” Dr. Cortes said.

Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 96.3% of the patients on pembrolizumab and 95% of patients on placebo. Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurred in 68.1% versus 66.9%, respectively. Two patients in the pembrolizumab arm died from a treatment-related event. There were no treatment-related deaths in the placebo arm.

The most common events were those typically associated with chemotherapy, including anemia, neutropenia, nausea, alopecia, fatigue, decreased neutrophil counts, and elevated liver transaminases. Immune-mediated adverse events of any grade occurred in 25.6% of patients in the pembrolizumab arm versus 6% of controls; none of these events were fatal.

“What is clear in this study is that again we’re seeing efficacy of pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy increases with increases in CPS,” according to the invited discussant Catherine M. Kelly, MB, BCh, from University College Dublin and Mater Misericordiae University Hospital in Dublin.

“The results from today’s KEYNOTE-355 appear consistent in terms of progression-free survival. However, it is ‘watch this space’ until we get overall survival data before we can make any further comparisons,” she added.

Questions that still need to be answered include which is the best test for measuring PD-L1, whether patients with CPS of 1 or more but less than 10 benefit from the treatment, which of the available chemotherapy regimens is the best partner for pembrolizumab, how to treat patients who don’t respond to the combination, and what are the implications for PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in late-stage disease if they are approved in the neoadjuvant or adjuvant setting, Dr. Kelly said.

The study was funded by Merck. Dr. Cortes disclosed honoraria from, a consulting/advisory role for, and institutional research funding from Merck and others. Dr. Kelly disclosed honoraria from MSD Oncology and others, and travel expenses from Pfizer and Roche.

SOURCE: Cortes J et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 1000.

Adding pembrolizumab to standard chemotherapy significantly improved progression-free survival for patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, but only if their tumors were enriched with comparatively high levels of the target programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1), results of the KEYNOTE 355 trial showed.

Among 843 patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) randomized to receive either investigator’s choice of chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab (Keytruda) or placebo, patients whose tumors had a PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) of 10 or higher had a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 9.7 months when treated with pembrolizumab and chemotherapy, compared with 5.6 months among patients treated with chemotherapy and placebo, reported Javier Cortes, MD, PhD, from the Vall d´Hebron Institute of Oncology in Madrid and Barcelona.

However, among patients with CPS between 1 and 10, there was no significant difference in PFS between the treatment arms, he said in a presentation made as a part of the 2020 American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

“The inclusion of taxanes and a known taxane/platinum–based regimen permits assessment of the clinical benefit of pembro in combination with several routinely used chemo partners. A trend toward improved efficacy with PD-L1 enrichment was observed in patients treated with pembro plus chemo. The improvement in progression-free survival with chemotherapy and pembrolizumab was observed across patient subgroups,” said Dr. Cortes.

In the KEYNOTE-522 study, adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting increased the likelihood that women with stage III or early node-positive TNBC would have a pathologic complete response and sustained clinical benefit.

KEYNOTE-355 examined whether pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy could provide additional benefit over chemotherapy alone in patients with previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic TNBC.

Patients with previously untreated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer who had at least 6 months between definite surgery or last dose of adjuvant chemotherapy (whichever came last) and first disease recurrence were stratified by study chemotherapy received, tumor PD-L1 expression at baseline, and prior treatment with the same class of chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant setting.

The patients were then randomized in a 2:1 ratio to pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy based on the investigator’s choice of nab-paclitaxel, paclitaxel, or carboplatin-gemcitabine (562 patients) or to chemotherapy alone (281).

Pembrolizumab and placebo were administered in a double-blind fashion for up to 35 doses. Chemotherapy was given at the investigator’s discretion according to local guidelines. This trial was not powered or designed to compare differential efficacy of the various chemotherapy regimens, Dr. Cortes noted.

The trial had dual primary endpoints of PFS in patients with PD-L1–positive tumors (CPS > 10 and > 1) and in the intention-to-treat population, and overall survival both in PD-L1-positive patients and the ITT population. Overall survival results will be reported at a later date.

As noted before, the primary endpoint was met in the population of patients with CPS higher than 10, with median PFS of 9.7 among those receiving pembrolizumab versus 5.6 months among those receiving placebo, and an estimated 1 year PFS of 39.1% versus 23% for controls, translating into a hazard ratio for progression on pembrolizumab of 0.65 (P = .0012).

In the patients with CPS higher than 1, however, the median PFS was 7.6 months with pembrolizumab compared with 5.6 months with placebo, translating into a hazard ratio of 0.74. However, the results did not meet the prespecified boundary for significance. Because of this, the statistical significance in the ITT population was not tested.

“In patients with PD-L1 CPS 10 or higher tumors, the benefit of pembro/chemo on progression-free survival was generally consistent across most predefined subgroups, including eight geographic regions, ECOG performance status, on-study chemo, and prior treatment with the same class of chemo,” Dr. Cortes said.

Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 96.3% of the patients on pembrolizumab and 95% of patients on placebo. Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurred in 68.1% versus 66.9%, respectively. Two patients in the pembrolizumab arm died from a treatment-related event. There were no treatment-related deaths in the placebo arm.

The most common events were those typically associated with chemotherapy, including anemia, neutropenia, nausea, alopecia, fatigue, decreased neutrophil counts, and elevated liver transaminases. Immune-mediated adverse events of any grade occurred in 25.6% of patients in the pembrolizumab arm versus 6% of controls; none of these events were fatal.

“What is clear in this study is that again we’re seeing efficacy of pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy increases with increases in CPS,” according to the invited discussant Catherine M. Kelly, MB, BCh, from University College Dublin and Mater Misericordiae University Hospital in Dublin.

“The results from today’s KEYNOTE-355 appear consistent in terms of progression-free survival. However, it is ‘watch this space’ until we get overall survival data before we can make any further comparisons,” she added.

Questions that still need to be answered include which is the best test for measuring PD-L1, whether patients with CPS of 1 or more but less than 10 benefit from the treatment, which of the available chemotherapy regimens is the best partner for pembrolizumab, how to treat patients who don’t respond to the combination, and what are the implications for PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in late-stage disease if they are approved in the neoadjuvant or adjuvant setting, Dr. Kelly said.

The study was funded by Merck. Dr. Cortes disclosed honoraria from, a consulting/advisory role for, and institutional research funding from Merck and others. Dr. Kelly disclosed honoraria from MSD Oncology and others, and travel expenses from Pfizer and Roche.

SOURCE: Cortes J et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 1000.

Adding pembrolizumab to standard chemotherapy significantly improved progression-free survival for patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, but only if their tumors were enriched with comparatively high levels of the target programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1), results of the KEYNOTE 355 trial showed.

Among 843 patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) randomized to receive either investigator’s choice of chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab (Keytruda) or placebo, patients whose tumors had a PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) of 10 or higher had a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 9.7 months when treated with pembrolizumab and chemotherapy, compared with 5.6 months among patients treated with chemotherapy and placebo, reported Javier Cortes, MD, PhD, from the Vall d´Hebron Institute of Oncology in Madrid and Barcelona.

However, among patients with CPS between 1 and 10, there was no significant difference in PFS between the treatment arms, he said in a presentation made as a part of the 2020 American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

“The inclusion of taxanes and a known taxane/platinum–based regimen permits assessment of the clinical benefit of pembro in combination with several routinely used chemo partners. A trend toward improved efficacy with PD-L1 enrichment was observed in patients treated with pembro plus chemo. The improvement in progression-free survival with chemotherapy and pembrolizumab was observed across patient subgroups,” said Dr. Cortes.

In the KEYNOTE-522 study, adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting increased the likelihood that women with stage III or early node-positive TNBC would have a pathologic complete response and sustained clinical benefit.

KEYNOTE-355 examined whether pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy could provide additional benefit over chemotherapy alone in patients with previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic TNBC.

Patients with previously untreated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer who had at least 6 months between definite surgery or last dose of adjuvant chemotherapy (whichever came last) and first disease recurrence were stratified by study chemotherapy received, tumor PD-L1 expression at baseline, and prior treatment with the same class of chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant setting.

The patients were then randomized in a 2:1 ratio to pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy based on the investigator’s choice of nab-paclitaxel, paclitaxel, or carboplatin-gemcitabine (562 patients) or to chemotherapy alone (281).

Pembrolizumab and placebo were administered in a double-blind fashion for up to 35 doses. Chemotherapy was given at the investigator’s discretion according to local guidelines. This trial was not powered or designed to compare differential efficacy of the various chemotherapy regimens, Dr. Cortes noted.

The trial had dual primary endpoints of PFS in patients with PD-L1–positive tumors (CPS > 10 and > 1) and in the intention-to-treat population, and overall survival both in PD-L1-positive patients and the ITT population. Overall survival results will be reported at a later date.

As noted before, the primary endpoint was met in the population of patients with CPS higher than 10, with median PFS of 9.7 among those receiving pembrolizumab versus 5.6 months among those receiving placebo, and an estimated 1 year PFS of 39.1% versus 23% for controls, translating into a hazard ratio for progression on pembrolizumab of 0.65 (P = .0012).

In the patients with CPS higher than 1, however, the median PFS was 7.6 months with pembrolizumab compared with 5.6 months with placebo, translating into a hazard ratio of 0.74. However, the results did not meet the prespecified boundary for significance. Because of this, the statistical significance in the ITT population was not tested.

“In patients with PD-L1 CPS 10 or higher tumors, the benefit of pembro/chemo on progression-free survival was generally consistent across most predefined subgroups, including eight geographic regions, ECOG performance status, on-study chemo, and prior treatment with the same class of chemo,” Dr. Cortes said.

Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 96.3% of the patients on pembrolizumab and 95% of patients on placebo. Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurred in 68.1% versus 66.9%, respectively. Two patients in the pembrolizumab arm died from a treatment-related event. There were no treatment-related deaths in the placebo arm.

The most common events were those typically associated with chemotherapy, including anemia, neutropenia, nausea, alopecia, fatigue, decreased neutrophil counts, and elevated liver transaminases. Immune-mediated adverse events of any grade occurred in 25.6% of patients in the pembrolizumab arm versus 6% of controls; none of these events were fatal.

“What is clear in this study is that again we’re seeing efficacy of pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy increases with increases in CPS,” according to the invited discussant Catherine M. Kelly, MB, BCh, from University College Dublin and Mater Misericordiae University Hospital in Dublin.

“The results from today’s KEYNOTE-355 appear consistent in terms of progression-free survival. However, it is ‘watch this space’ until we get overall survival data before we can make any further comparisons,” she added.

Questions that still need to be answered include which is the best test for measuring PD-L1, whether patients with CPS of 1 or more but less than 10 benefit from the treatment, which of the available chemotherapy regimens is the best partner for pembrolizumab, how to treat patients who don’t respond to the combination, and what are the implications for PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in late-stage disease if they are approved in the neoadjuvant or adjuvant setting, Dr. Kelly said.

The study was funded by Merck. Dr. Cortes disclosed honoraria from, a consulting/advisory role for, and institutional research funding from Merck and others. Dr. Kelly disclosed honoraria from MSD Oncology and others, and travel expenses from Pfizer and Roche.

SOURCE: Cortes J et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 1000.

Emphasizing the potential harms of not taking a psoriasis treatment may make patients more likely to agree to start that therapy, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology, held virtually.

“We typically explain to patients the benefits of treatment,” Ari A. Kassardjian, BS, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in his presentation. “However, explaining to them the harmful effects on their skin and joint diseases, such as exacerbation of psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis, could offer some patients a new perspective that may influence their treatment preferences; and ultimately, better communication may lead to better medication adherence in patients.”

In the study he presented, explaining to patients possible outcomes without treatment was more effective in getting them to agree to treatment than was messaging that focused on the positive effects of a therapy (reducing disease severity and pain, and improved health).

He noted that the impact of framing choices in terms of gain or loss on decision-making has been measured in other areas of medicine, including in patients with multiple sclerosis where medication adherence is an issue (J Health Commun. 2017 Jun;22[6]:523-31). “Gain-framed” messages focus on the benefits of taking a medication, while “loss-framed” messages highlight the potential consequences of not agreeing or adhering to treatment.

In the study, Mr. Kassardjian and coinvestigators evaluated 90 patients with psoriasis who were randomized to receive a gain-framed or loss-framed message about a hypothetical new biologic injectable medication for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). More than half were male (64.4%), white (53.3%), and non-Hispanic or Latino (55.6%); and about one-fourth of the participants (27.8%) also had psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

The gain-framed message emphasized “the chance to reduce psoriasis severity, reduce joint pain, and improve how you feel overall,” while the loss-framed message described the downsides of not taking medication – missing out “on the chance to improve your skin, your joints, and your overall health,” with the possibility that psoriasis may get worse, “with worsening pain in your joints from psoriatic arthritis,” and feeling “worse overall.” Both messages included the side effects of the theoretical injectable, a small risk of injection-site pain and skin infections. After receiving the message, participants ranked their likelihood of taking the medication on an 11-point Likert scale, with a score of 0 indicating that they would “definitely” not use the medication and a score of 10 indicating that they would “definitely” use the medication.

Scores among those who received the loss-framed message were a mean of 8.84, compared with 7.11 among patients who received the gain-framed message (between-group difference; 1.73; P less than .0001). When comparing patients with and without PsA, the between-group difference was 1.90 for patients with PsA (P less than .0001) and 1.08 for patients who did not have PsA (P = .002). Comparing the responses of those with PsA and those without PsA, the between-group difference was 1.08 (P = .03). While PsA and non-PsA patients favored the loss-framed messages, “regardless of the framing type, PsA patients always responded with a greater preference for the therapy,” Mr. Kassardjian said.

Gender also had an effect on responsiveness to gain-framed or loss-framed messaging. Both men and women ranked the loss-framed messaging as making them more likely to use the medication, but the between-group difference for women (2.00; P = .008) was higher than in men (1.49; P = .003). However, the total men compared with total women between-group differences were not significant.

“In clinical practice, physicians regularly weigh the benefits and risks of treatment. In order to communicate this information to patients, it is important to understand how framing these benefits and risks impacts patient preferences for therapy,” Mr. Kassardjian said. “While most available biologics are effective and have tolerable safety profiles, many psoriasis patients may be hesitant to initiate these therapies. Thus, it is important to convey the benefits and risks of these systemic agents in ways that resonate with patients.”

Mr. Kassardjian reports receiving the Dean’s Research Scholarship at the University of Southern California, funded by the Wright Foundation at the time of the study. Senior author April Armstrong, MD, disclosed serving as an investigator and/or consultant for AbbVie, BMS, Dermavant, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Modernizing Medicine, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and UCB.

SOURCE: Kassardjian A. SID 2020, Abstract 489.

Emphasizing the potential harms of not taking a psoriasis treatment may make patients more likely to agree to start that therapy, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology, held virtually.

“We typically explain to patients the benefits of treatment,” Ari A. Kassardjian, BS, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in his presentation. “However, explaining to them the harmful effects on their skin and joint diseases, such as exacerbation of psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis, could offer some patients a new perspective that may influence their treatment preferences; and ultimately, better communication may lead to better medication adherence in patients.”

In the study he presented, explaining to patients possible outcomes without treatment was more effective in getting them to agree to treatment than was messaging that focused on the positive effects of a therapy (reducing disease severity and pain, and improved health).

He noted that the impact of framing choices in terms of gain or loss on decision-making has been measured in other areas of medicine, including in patients with multiple sclerosis where medication adherence is an issue (J Health Commun. 2017 Jun;22[6]:523-31). “Gain-framed” messages focus on the benefits of taking a medication, while “loss-framed” messages highlight the potential consequences of not agreeing or adhering to treatment.

In the study, Mr. Kassardjian and coinvestigators evaluated 90 patients with psoriasis who were randomized to receive a gain-framed or loss-framed message about a hypothetical new biologic injectable medication for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). More than half were male (64.4%), white (53.3%), and non-Hispanic or Latino (55.6%); and about one-fourth of the participants (27.8%) also had psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

The gain-framed message emphasized “the chance to reduce psoriasis severity, reduce joint pain, and improve how you feel overall,” while the loss-framed message described the downsides of not taking medication – missing out “on the chance to improve your skin, your joints, and your overall health,” with the possibility that psoriasis may get worse, “with worsening pain in your joints from psoriatic arthritis,” and feeling “worse overall.” Both messages included the side effects of the theoretical injectable, a small risk of injection-site pain and skin infections. After receiving the message, participants ranked their likelihood of taking the medication on an 11-point Likert scale, with a score of 0 indicating that they would “definitely” not use the medication and a score of 10 indicating that they would “definitely” use the medication.

Scores among those who received the loss-framed message were a mean of 8.84, compared with 7.11 among patients who received the gain-framed message (between-group difference; 1.73; P less than .0001). When comparing patients with and without PsA, the between-group difference was 1.90 for patients with PsA (P less than .0001) and 1.08 for patients who did not have PsA (P = .002). Comparing the responses of those with PsA and those without PsA, the between-group difference was 1.08 (P = .03). While PsA and non-PsA patients favored the loss-framed messages, “regardless of the framing type, PsA patients always responded with a greater preference for the therapy,” Mr. Kassardjian said.

Gender also had an effect on responsiveness to gain-framed or loss-framed messaging. Both men and women ranked the loss-framed messaging as making them more likely to use the medication, but the between-group difference for women (2.00; P = .008) was higher than in men (1.49; P = .003). However, the total men compared with total women between-group differences were not significant.

“In clinical practice, physicians regularly weigh the benefits and risks of treatment. In order to communicate this information to patients, it is important to understand how framing these benefits and risks impacts patient preferences for therapy,” Mr. Kassardjian said. “While most available biologics are effective and have tolerable safety profiles, many psoriasis patients may be hesitant to initiate these therapies. Thus, it is important to convey the benefits and risks of these systemic agents in ways that resonate with patients.”

Mr. Kassardjian reports receiving the Dean’s Research Scholarship at the University of Southern California, funded by the Wright Foundation at the time of the study. Senior author April Armstrong, MD, disclosed serving as an investigator and/or consultant for AbbVie, BMS, Dermavant, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Modernizing Medicine, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and UCB.

SOURCE: Kassardjian A. SID 2020, Abstract 489.

Emphasizing the potential harms of not taking a psoriasis treatment may make patients more likely to agree to start that therapy, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology, held virtually.

“We typically explain to patients the benefits of treatment,” Ari A. Kassardjian, BS, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in his presentation. “However, explaining to them the harmful effects on their skin and joint diseases, such as exacerbation of psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis, could offer some patients a new perspective that may influence their treatment preferences; and ultimately, better communication may lead to better medication adherence in patients.”

In the study he presented, explaining to patients possible outcomes without treatment was more effective in getting them to agree to treatment than was messaging that focused on the positive effects of a therapy (reducing disease severity and pain, and improved health).

He noted that the impact of framing choices in terms of gain or loss on decision-making has been measured in other areas of medicine, including in patients with multiple sclerosis where medication adherence is an issue (J Health Commun. 2017 Jun;22[6]:523-31). “Gain-framed” messages focus on the benefits of taking a medication, while “loss-framed” messages highlight the potential consequences of not agreeing or adhering to treatment.

In the study, Mr. Kassardjian and coinvestigators evaluated 90 patients with psoriasis who were randomized to receive a gain-framed or loss-framed message about a hypothetical new biologic injectable medication for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). More than half were male (64.4%), white (53.3%), and non-Hispanic or Latino (55.6%); and about one-fourth of the participants (27.8%) also had psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

The gain-framed message emphasized “the chance to reduce psoriasis severity, reduce joint pain, and improve how you feel overall,” while the loss-framed message described the downsides of not taking medication – missing out “on the chance to improve your skin, your joints, and your overall health,” with the possibility that psoriasis may get worse, “with worsening pain in your joints from psoriatic arthritis,” and feeling “worse overall.” Both messages included the side effects of the theoretical injectable, a small risk of injection-site pain and skin infections. After receiving the message, participants ranked their likelihood of taking the medication on an 11-point Likert scale, with a score of 0 indicating that they would “definitely” not use the medication and a score of 10 indicating that they would “definitely” use the medication.

Scores among those who received the loss-framed message were a mean of 8.84, compared with 7.11 among patients who received the gain-framed message (between-group difference; 1.73; P less than .0001). When comparing patients with and without PsA, the between-group difference was 1.90 for patients with PsA (P less than .0001) and 1.08 for patients who did not have PsA (P = .002). Comparing the responses of those with PsA and those without PsA, the between-group difference was 1.08 (P = .03). While PsA and non-PsA patients favored the loss-framed messages, “regardless of the framing type, PsA patients always responded with a greater preference for the therapy,” Mr. Kassardjian said.

Gender also had an effect on responsiveness to gain-framed or loss-framed messaging. Both men and women ranked the loss-framed messaging as making them more likely to use the medication, but the between-group difference for women (2.00; P = .008) was higher than in men (1.49; P = .003). However, the total men compared with total women between-group differences were not significant.

“In clinical practice, physicians regularly weigh the benefits and risks of treatment. In order to communicate this information to patients, it is important to understand how framing these benefits and risks impacts patient preferences for therapy,” Mr. Kassardjian said. “While most available biologics are effective and have tolerable safety profiles, many psoriasis patients may be hesitant to initiate these therapies. Thus, it is important to convey the benefits and risks of these systemic agents in ways that resonate with patients.”

Mr. Kassardjian reports receiving the Dean’s Research Scholarship at the University of Southern California, funded by the Wright Foundation at the time of the study. Senior author April Armstrong, MD, disclosed serving as an investigator and/or consultant for AbbVie, BMS, Dermavant, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Modernizing Medicine, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and UCB.

SOURCE: Kassardjian A. SID 2020, Abstract 489.

Although nilotinib is safe and tolerable in patients with moderate or advanced Parkinson’s disease, it may not affect the disease’s symptoms, according to investigators. Nevertheless, other drugs that – like nilotinib – inhibit tyrosine kinase (c-Abl) may have a neuroprotective effect, they added. The study was presented online as part of the American Academy of Neurology’s 2020 Science Highlights.

Research using preclinical models of Parkinson’s disease has indicated that nilotinib offers neuroprotection. Tanya Simuni, MD, the Arthur C. Nielsen Jr., Research Professor of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders at Northwestern University in Chicago, and colleagues conducted a prospective study to evaluate the safety and tolerability of oral nilotinib in patients with moderate or advanced Parkinson’s disease. The investigators also sought to examine nilotinib’s symptomatic effect, as measured by the Movement Disorder Society–Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) part III. In addition, Dr. Simuni and colleagues analyzed the drug’s effect on progression of disability, as measured by various other Parkinson’s disease scales. The study’s exploratory outcomes included cognitive function, quality of life, pharmacokinetic profile, and a battery of serum and spinal fluid biomarkers.

The researchers conducted their randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study at 25 sites in the United States. They randomized 76 patients with Parkinson’s disease in approximately equal groups to a daily dose of placebo, 150 mg of nilotinib, or 300 mg of nilotinib. Safety visits occurred monthly. Patient assessments occurred at 3 months and at 6 months, which was the end of the treatment period. Patients presented off study medication at 1 month and 2 months after the end of the treatment period.
 

Treatment did not change dopamine levels

Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were balanced between groups. Mean age was about 66 years in the placebo group, 61 years in the 150-mg group, and 67 years in the 300-mg group. The proportion of male participants was 64% in the placebo group, 60% in the 150-mg group, and 81% in the 300-mg group. Disease duration was 9 years in the placebo group, approximately 9 years in the 150-mg group, and approximately 12 years in the 300-mg group. Mean MDS-UPDRS total on score was 46 in the placebo group, 47 in the 150-mg group, and 52 in the 300-mg group.

Tolerability was 84% in the placebo group, 76% in the in the 150-mg group, and 77% in the 300-mg group. The sole treatment-related serious adverse event, arrhythmia, occurred in one patient in the 300-mg group. The rate of any adverse event was 88% in the placebo group, 92% in the 150-mg group, and 88% in the 300-mg group. The rate of any serious adverse event was 8% in the placebo group and 4% in each nilotinib group.

From baseline to 1 month, MDS-UPDRS part III on scores decreased by 0.49 points in the placebo group, increased by 2.08 in the 150-mg group, and increased by 4.67 in the 300-mg group. Differences in other secondary measures (e.g., change in MDS-UPDRS part III on scores from baseline to 6 months and change in MDS-UPDRS part III off score from baseline to 6 months) were not statistically significant.

At 3 months, CSF levels of nilotinib were well below the threshold for c-Abl inhibition (approximately 11 ng/mL). The arithmetic mean levels were 0.91 ng/mL in the 150-mg group and 1.69 ng/mL in the 300-mg group. Nilotinib also failed to alter CSF levels of dopamine or its metabolites at 3 months. Dr. Simuni and colleagues did not see significant differences between treatment groups in the exploratory outcomes of cognitive function and quality of life.

“Nilotinib is not an optimal molecule to assess the therapeutic potential of c-Abl inhibition for Parkinson’s disease,” the investigators concluded.
 

Nilotinib may be an inappropriate candidate

The data “suggest that the hypothesis wasn’t tested, since the CSF and serum concentration of the drug were insufficient for enzyme inhibition,” said Peter LeWitt, MD, Sastry Foundation Endowed Chair in Neurology and professor of neurology at Wayne State University, Detroit. “A higher dose or a more CNS-penetrant drug would be needed for adequate testing of the hypothesis that c-Abl inhibition could provide disease modification.”

Nilotinib might not be an appropriate drug for this investigation, he continued. “There may be better choices among c-Abl inhibitors for penetration into the CNS, such as dasatinib, or for increased potency of effect, such as imatinib.”

Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company is conducting a clinical trial of KO706, another c-Abl inhibitor, added Dr. LeWitt, who is a researcher in that trial and an editorial adviser to Neurology Reviews. “The studies published recently in JAMA Neurology by Pagan et al. claiming target engagement with nilotinib in Parkinson’s disease patients need to be contrasted with the results of the current investigation. Disease modification with c-Abl inhibition continues to be a promising therapeutic avenue, but both positive and negative study results need careful reassessment and validation.”

The Michael J. Fox Foundation, the Cure Parkinson’s Trust, and Van Andel Research Institute funded the study. Novartis provided the study drug and placebo. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Simuni T et al. AAN 2020. Abstract 43617.

Although nilotinib is safe and tolerable in patients with moderate or advanced Parkinson’s disease, it may not affect the disease’s symptoms, according to investigators. Nevertheless, other drugs that – like nilotinib – inhibit tyrosine kinase (c-Abl) may have a neuroprotective effect, they added. The study was presented online as part of the American Academy of Neurology’s 2020 Science Highlights.

Research using preclinical models of Parkinson’s disease has indicated that nilotinib offers neuroprotection. Tanya Simuni, MD, the Arthur C. Nielsen Jr., Research Professor of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders at Northwestern University in Chicago, and colleagues conducted a prospective study to evaluate the safety and tolerability of oral nilotinib in patients with moderate or advanced Parkinson’s disease. The investigators also sought to examine nilotinib’s symptomatic effect, as measured by the Movement Disorder Society–Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) part III. In addition, Dr. Simuni and colleagues analyzed the drug’s effect on progression of disability, as measured by various other Parkinson’s disease scales. The study’s exploratory outcomes included cognitive function, quality of life, pharmacokinetic profile, and a battery of serum and spinal fluid biomarkers.

The researchers conducted their randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study at 25 sites in the United States. They randomized 76 patients with Parkinson’s disease in approximately equal groups to a daily dose of placebo, 150 mg of nilotinib, or 300 mg of nilotinib. Safety visits occurred monthly. Patient assessments occurred at 3 months and at 6 months, which was the end of the treatment period. Patients presented off study medication at 1 month and 2 months after the end of the treatment period.
 

Treatment did not change dopamine levels

Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were balanced between groups. Mean age was about 66 years in the placebo group, 61 years in the 150-mg group, and 67 years in the 300-mg group. The proportion of male participants was 64% in the placebo group, 60% in the 150-mg group, and 81% in the 300-mg group. Disease duration was 9 years in the placebo group, approximately 9 years in the 150-mg group, and approximately 12 years in the 300-mg group. Mean MDS-UPDRS total on score was 46 in the placebo group, 47 in the 150-mg group, and 52 in the 300-mg group.

Tolerability was 84% in the placebo group, 76% in the in the 150-mg group, and 77% in the 300-mg group. The sole treatment-related serious adverse event, arrhythmia, occurred in one patient in the 300-mg group. The rate of any adverse event was 88% in the placebo group, 92% in the 150-mg group, and 88% in the 300-mg group. The rate of any serious adverse event was 8% in the placebo group and 4% in each nilotinib group.

From baseline to 1 month, MDS-UPDRS part III on scores decreased by 0.49 points in the placebo group, increased by 2.08 in the 150-mg group, and increased by 4.67 in the 300-mg group. Differences in other secondary measures (e.g., change in MDS-UPDRS part III on scores from baseline to 6 months and change in MDS-UPDRS part III off score from baseline to 6 months) were not statistically significant.

At 3 months, CSF levels of nilotinib were well below the threshold for c-Abl inhibition (approximately 11 ng/mL). The arithmetic mean levels were 0.91 ng/mL in the 150-mg group and 1.69 ng/mL in the 300-mg group. Nilotinib also failed to alter CSF levels of dopamine or its metabolites at 3 months. Dr. Simuni and colleagues did not see significant differences between treatment groups in the exploratory outcomes of cognitive function and quality of life.

“Nilotinib is not an optimal molecule to assess the therapeutic potential of c-Abl inhibition for Parkinson’s disease,” the investigators concluded.
 

Nilotinib may be an inappropriate candidate

The data “suggest that the hypothesis wasn’t tested, since the CSF and serum concentration of the drug were insufficient for enzyme inhibition,” said Peter LeWitt, MD, Sastry Foundation Endowed Chair in Neurology and professor of neurology at Wayne State University, Detroit. “A higher dose or a more CNS-penetrant drug would be needed for adequate testing of the hypothesis that c-Abl inhibition could provide disease modification.”

Nilotinib might not be an appropriate drug for this investigation, he continued. “There may be better choices among c-Abl inhibitors for penetration into the CNS, such as dasatinib, or for increased potency of effect, such as imatinib.”

Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company is conducting a clinical trial of KO706, another c-Abl inhibitor, added Dr. LeWitt, who is a researcher in that trial and an editorial adviser to Neurology Reviews. “The studies published recently in JAMA Neurology by Pagan et al. claiming target engagement with nilotinib in Parkinson’s disease patients need to be contrasted with the results of the current investigation. Disease modification with c-Abl inhibition continues to be a promising therapeutic avenue, but both positive and negative study results need careful reassessment and validation.”

The Michael J. Fox Foundation, the Cure Parkinson’s Trust, and Van Andel Research Institute funded the study. Novartis provided the study drug and placebo. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Simuni T et al. AAN 2020. Abstract 43617.

Although nilotinib is safe and tolerable in patients with moderate or advanced Parkinson’s disease, it may not affect the disease’s symptoms, according to investigators. Nevertheless, other drugs that – like nilotinib – inhibit tyrosine kinase (c-Abl) may have a neuroprotective effect, they added. The study was presented online as part of the American Academy of Neurology’s 2020 Science Highlights.

Research using preclinical models of Parkinson’s disease has indicated that nilotinib offers neuroprotection. Tanya Simuni, MD, the Arthur C. Nielsen Jr., Research Professor of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders at Northwestern University in Chicago, and colleagues conducted a prospective study to evaluate the safety and tolerability of oral nilotinib in patients with moderate or advanced Parkinson’s disease. The investigators also sought to examine nilotinib’s symptomatic effect, as measured by the Movement Disorder Society–Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) part III. In addition, Dr. Simuni and colleagues analyzed the drug’s effect on progression of disability, as measured by various other Parkinson’s disease scales. The study’s exploratory outcomes included cognitive function, quality of life, pharmacokinetic profile, and a battery of serum and spinal fluid biomarkers.

The researchers conducted their randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study at 25 sites in the United States. They randomized 76 patients with Parkinson’s disease in approximately equal groups to a daily dose of placebo, 150 mg of nilotinib, or 300 mg of nilotinib. Safety visits occurred monthly. Patient assessments occurred at 3 months and at 6 months, which was the end of the treatment period. Patients presented off study medication at 1 month and 2 months after the end of the treatment period.
 

Treatment did not change dopamine levels

Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were balanced between groups. Mean age was about 66 years in the placebo group, 61 years in the 150-mg group, and 67 years in the 300-mg group. The proportion of male participants was 64% in the placebo group, 60% in the 150-mg group, and 81% in the 300-mg group. Disease duration was 9 years in the placebo group, approximately 9 years in the 150-mg group, and approximately 12 years in the 300-mg group. Mean MDS-UPDRS total on score was 46 in the placebo group, 47 in the 150-mg group, and 52 in the 300-mg group.

Tolerability was 84% in the placebo group, 76% in the in the 150-mg group, and 77% in the 300-mg group. The sole treatment-related serious adverse event, arrhythmia, occurred in one patient in the 300-mg group. The rate of any adverse event was 88% in the placebo group, 92% in the 150-mg group, and 88% in the 300-mg group. The rate of any serious adverse event was 8% in the placebo group and 4% in each nilotinib group.

From baseline to 1 month, MDS-UPDRS part III on scores decreased by 0.49 points in the placebo group, increased by 2.08 in the 150-mg group, and increased by 4.67 in the 300-mg group. Differences in other secondary measures (e.g., change in MDS-UPDRS part III on scores from baseline to 6 months and change in MDS-UPDRS part III off score from baseline to 6 months) were not statistically significant.

At 3 months, CSF levels of nilotinib were well below the threshold for c-Abl inhibition (approximately 11 ng/mL). The arithmetic mean levels were 0.91 ng/mL in the 150-mg group and 1.69 ng/mL in the 300-mg group. Nilotinib also failed to alter CSF levels of dopamine or its metabolites at 3 months. Dr. Simuni and colleagues did not see significant differences between treatment groups in the exploratory outcomes of cognitive function and quality of life.

“Nilotinib is not an optimal molecule to assess the therapeutic potential of c-Abl inhibition for Parkinson’s disease,” the investigators concluded.
 

Nilotinib may be an inappropriate candidate

The data “suggest that the hypothesis wasn’t tested, since the CSF and serum concentration of the drug were insufficient for enzyme inhibition,” said Peter LeWitt, MD, Sastry Foundation Endowed Chair in Neurology and professor of neurology at Wayne State University, Detroit. “A higher dose or a more CNS-penetrant drug would be needed for adequate testing of the hypothesis that c-Abl inhibition could provide disease modification.”

Nilotinib might not be an appropriate drug for this investigation, he continued. “There may be better choices among c-Abl inhibitors for penetration into the CNS, such as dasatinib, or for increased potency of effect, such as imatinib.”

Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company is conducting a clinical trial of KO706, another c-Abl inhibitor, added Dr. LeWitt, who is a researcher in that trial and an editorial adviser to Neurology Reviews. “The studies published recently in JAMA Neurology by Pagan et al. claiming target engagement with nilotinib in Parkinson’s disease patients need to be contrasted with the results of the current investigation. Disease modification with c-Abl inhibition continues to be a promising therapeutic avenue, but both positive and negative study results need careful reassessment and validation.”

The Michael J. Fox Foundation, the Cure Parkinson’s Trust, and Van Andel Research Institute funded the study. Novartis provided the study drug and placebo. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Simuni T et al. AAN 2020. Abstract 43617.

With ofatumumab (Arzerra, Novartis), a fully human anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, there is a greater likelihood of there being no evidence of disease activity (NEDA-3) for patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) compared with the disease-modifying therapy (DMT) teriflunomide, a new study shows.

The drug, which is already approved for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, is currently under review for relapsing MS as a once-per-month self-injected therapy that could offer a convenient alternative to DMTs that require in-office infusion.

The new findings are from a pooled analysis from the phase 3 ASCLEPIOS I/II trials of the use of ofatumumab for patients with relapsing MS. There were 927 patients in the ASCLEPIOS I trial and 955 in the ASCLEPIOS II trial. The trials were conducted in 37 countries and involved patients aged 18-55 years.

The late-breaking research was presented at the virtual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

The studies compared patients who were treated with subcutaneous ofatumumab 20 mg with patients treated with oral teriflunomide 14 mg once daily for up to 30 months. The average duration of follow-up was 18 months.

NEDA-3, commonly used to determine treatment outcomes for patients with relapsing MS, was defined as a composite of having no worsening of disability over a 6-month period (6mCDW), no confirmed MS relapse, no new/enlarging T2 lesions, and no gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions.

The pooled results showed that the odds of achieving NEDA-3 during the first 12 months were three times greater with ofatumumab than with teriflunomide (47.0% vs. 24.5%; odds ratio [OR], 3.36; P < .001) and were more than eight times greater from months 12 to 24 (87.8% vs. 48.2%; OR, 8.09; P < .001).

In addition, compared with patients who received teriflunomide, a higher proportion of patients who received ofatumumab were free from 6mCDW over 2 years (91.9% vs. 88.9%), as well as from relapses (82.3% vs 69.2%) and lesion activity (54.1% vs. 27.5%).

There was a significantly greater reduction in annualized relapse rate with ofatumumab compared with teriflunomide at all cumulative time intervals, including months 0 to 3 (P = .011), and at all subsequent time intervals from month 0 to 27 (P < .001).

The pooled findings further showed that ofatumumab reduced the mean number of gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions per scan by 95.9% compared with teriflunomide (P < .001).

“Ofatumumab increased the probability of achieving NEDA-3 and demonstrated superior efficacy vs teriflunomide in patients with relapsing MS,” said the authors, led by Stephen L. Hauser, MD, of the department of neurology, UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco.

Ofatumumab superior in primary, secondary outcomes

As previously reported, subcutaneous ofatumumab also demonstrated superior efficacy over oral teriflunomide in the primary and secondary endpoints in the ASCLEPIOS I/II trials. The annualized relapse rate was reduced by 0.22 in the teriflunomide group, vs 0.11 in the ofatumumab group (50.5% relative reduction; P < .001) in the ASCLEPIOS I trial, and by 0.25 vs. 0.10 (58.5% relative reduction P < .001) in ASCLEPIOS II.

Ofatumumab also reduced the number of gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions and new or enlarging T2 lesions compared with teriflunomide (all P < .001). It reduced the risk for disability progression by 34.4% over 3 months and by 32.5% over 6 months.

In the studies, the rate of serious infection with ofatumumab was 2.5%, compared with 1.8% with teriflunomide. Rates of malignancies were 0.5% and 0.3%, respectively.

“Ofatumumab demonstrated superior efficacy versus teriflunomide, with an acceptable safety profile, in patients with relapsing MS,” the authors reported.

Adherence rates with self-injection encouraging

An additional analysis from the two trials presented virtually in a separate abstract at the CMSC showed greater adherence to the self-administered regimen.

The analysis shows that in the ASCLEPIOS I study, 86.0% patients who were randomly assigned to receive ofatumumab and 77.7% who received teriflunomide completed the study on the assigned study drug. The proportion of patients who received ofatumumab and who discontinued treatment was 14.0%, versus 21.2% for those in the teriflunomide group. The most common reasons for discontinuation were patient/guardian decision (ofatumumab, 4.9%; teriflunomide, 8.2%), adverse event (ofatumumab, 5.2%; teriflunomide, 5.0%), and physician decision (ofatumumab, 2.2%; teriflunomide, 6.5%).

In the ASCLEPIOS II study, the rates were similar in all measures.

“In ASCLEPIOS trials, compliance with home-administered subcutaneous ofatumumab was high, and fewer patients discontinued ofatumumab as compared to teriflunomide,” the authors concluded.

Comparator drug a weak choice?

In commenting on the research, Stephen Kamin, MD, professor, vice chair, and chief of service, department of neurology, New Jersey Medical School, in Newark, noted that a limitation of the ASCLEPIOS trials is the comparison with teriflunomide.

“The comparator drug, teriflunomide, is one of the least effective DMTs, and one that some clinicians, including myself, don’t use,” he said.

Previously, when asked in an interview about the choice of teriflunomide as the comparator, Dr. Hauser noted that considerable discussion had gone into the decision. “The rationale was that we wanted to have a comparator that would be present not only against focal disease activity but also potentially against progression, and we were also able to blind the study successfully,” he said at the time.

Dr. Kamin said that ofatumumab will nevertheless likely represent a welcome addition to the tool kit of treatment options for MS. “Any new drug is helpful in adding to our choices as a general rule,” he said. “Subcutaneous injection does have increased convenience.”

It is not likely that the drug will be a game changer, he added, although the treatment’s efficacy compared with other drugs remains to be seen. “It all depends upon the relative efficacy of ofatumumab versus ocrelizumab or siponimod,” Dr. Kamin said.

“There has been another subcutaneous monoclonal for MS, daclizumab, although this was withdrawn from the market due to severe adverse effects not related to route of administration,” he added.

Dr. Hauser has relationships with Alector, Annexon, Bionure, Molecular Stethoscope, Symbiotix, and F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Kamin has received research support from Biogen, Novartis and CMSC.

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

With ofatumumab (Arzerra, Novartis), a fully human anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, there is a greater likelihood of there being no evidence of disease activity (NEDA-3) for patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) compared with the disease-modifying therapy (DMT) teriflunomide, a new study shows.

The drug, which is already approved for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, is currently under review for relapsing MS as a once-per-month self-injected therapy that could offer a convenient alternative to DMTs that require in-office infusion.

The new findings are from a pooled analysis from the phase 3 ASCLEPIOS I/II trials of the use of ofatumumab for patients with relapsing MS. There were 927 patients in the ASCLEPIOS I trial and 955 in the ASCLEPIOS II trial. The trials were conducted in 37 countries and involved patients aged 18-55 years.

The late-breaking research was presented at the virtual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

The studies compared patients who were treated with subcutaneous ofatumumab 20 mg with patients treated with oral teriflunomide 14 mg once daily for up to 30 months. The average duration of follow-up was 18 months.

NEDA-3, commonly used to determine treatment outcomes for patients with relapsing MS, was defined as a composite of having no worsening of disability over a 6-month period (6mCDW), no confirmed MS relapse, no new/enlarging T2 lesions, and no gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions.

The pooled results showed that the odds of achieving NEDA-3 during the first 12 months were three times greater with ofatumumab than with teriflunomide (47.0% vs. 24.5%; odds ratio [OR], 3.36; P < .001) and were more than eight times greater from months 12 to 24 (87.8% vs. 48.2%; OR, 8.09; P < .001).

In addition, compared with patients who received teriflunomide, a higher proportion of patients who received ofatumumab were free from 6mCDW over 2 years (91.9% vs. 88.9%), as well as from relapses (82.3% vs 69.2%) and lesion activity (54.1% vs. 27.5%).

There was a significantly greater reduction in annualized relapse rate with ofatumumab compared with teriflunomide at all cumulative time intervals, including months 0 to 3 (P = .011), and at all subsequent time intervals from month 0 to 27 (P < .001).

The pooled findings further showed that ofatumumab reduced the mean number of gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions per scan by 95.9% compared with teriflunomide (P < .001).

“Ofatumumab increased the probability of achieving NEDA-3 and demonstrated superior efficacy vs teriflunomide in patients with relapsing MS,” said the authors, led by Stephen L. Hauser, MD, of the department of neurology, UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco.

Ofatumumab superior in primary, secondary outcomes

As previously reported, subcutaneous ofatumumab also demonstrated superior efficacy over oral teriflunomide in the primary and secondary endpoints in the ASCLEPIOS I/II trials. The annualized relapse rate was reduced by 0.22 in the teriflunomide group, vs 0.11 in the ofatumumab group (50.5% relative reduction; P < .001) in the ASCLEPIOS I trial, and by 0.25 vs. 0.10 (58.5% relative reduction P < .001) in ASCLEPIOS II.

Ofatumumab also reduced the number of gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions and new or enlarging T2 lesions compared with teriflunomide (all P < .001). It reduced the risk for disability progression by 34.4% over 3 months and by 32.5% over 6 months.

In the studies, the rate of serious infection with ofatumumab was 2.5%, compared with 1.8% with teriflunomide. Rates of malignancies were 0.5% and 0.3%, respectively.

“Ofatumumab demonstrated superior efficacy versus teriflunomide, with an acceptable safety profile, in patients with relapsing MS,” the authors reported.

Adherence rates with self-injection encouraging

An additional analysis from the two trials presented virtually in a separate abstract at the CMSC showed greater adherence to the self-administered regimen.

The analysis shows that in the ASCLEPIOS I study, 86.0% patients who were randomly assigned to receive ofatumumab and 77.7% who received teriflunomide completed the study on the assigned study drug. The proportion of patients who received ofatumumab and who discontinued treatment was 14.0%, versus 21.2% for those in the teriflunomide group. The most common reasons for discontinuation were patient/guardian decision (ofatumumab, 4.9%; teriflunomide, 8.2%), adverse event (ofatumumab, 5.2%; teriflunomide, 5.0%), and physician decision (ofatumumab, 2.2%; teriflunomide, 6.5%).

In the ASCLEPIOS II study, the rates were similar in all measures.

“In ASCLEPIOS trials, compliance with home-administered subcutaneous ofatumumab was high, and fewer patients discontinued ofatumumab as compared to teriflunomide,” the authors concluded.

Comparator drug a weak choice?

In commenting on the research, Stephen Kamin, MD, professor, vice chair, and chief of service, department of neurology, New Jersey Medical School, in Newark, noted that a limitation of the ASCLEPIOS trials is the comparison with teriflunomide.

“The comparator drug, teriflunomide, is one of the least effective DMTs, and one that some clinicians, including myself, don’t use,” he said.

Previously, when asked in an interview about the choice of teriflunomide as the comparator, Dr. Hauser noted that considerable discussion had gone into the decision. “The rationale was that we wanted to have a comparator that would be present not only against focal disease activity but also potentially against progression, and we were also able to blind the study successfully,” he said at the time.

Dr. Kamin said that ofatumumab will nevertheless likely represent a welcome addition to the tool kit of treatment options for MS. “Any new drug is helpful in adding to our choices as a general rule,” he said. “Subcutaneous injection does have increased convenience.”

It is not likely that the drug will be a game changer, he added, although the treatment’s efficacy compared with other drugs remains to be seen. “It all depends upon the relative efficacy of ofatumumab versus ocrelizumab or siponimod,” Dr. Kamin said.

“There has been another subcutaneous monoclonal for MS, daclizumab, although this was withdrawn from the market due to severe adverse effects not related to route of administration,” he added.

Dr. Hauser has relationships with Alector, Annexon, Bionure, Molecular Stethoscope, Symbiotix, and F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Kamin has received research support from Biogen, Novartis and CMSC.

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

With ofatumumab (Arzerra, Novartis), a fully human anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, there is a greater likelihood of there being no evidence of disease activity (NEDA-3) for patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) compared with the disease-modifying therapy (DMT) teriflunomide, a new study shows.

The drug, which is already approved for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, is currently under review for relapsing MS as a once-per-month self-injected therapy that could offer a convenient alternative to DMTs that require in-office infusion.

The new findings are from a pooled analysis from the phase 3 ASCLEPIOS I/II trials of the use of ofatumumab for patients with relapsing MS. There were 927 patients in the ASCLEPIOS I trial and 955 in the ASCLEPIOS II trial. The trials were conducted in 37 countries and involved patients aged 18-55 years.

The late-breaking research was presented at the virtual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

The studies compared patients who were treated with subcutaneous ofatumumab 20 mg with patients treated with oral teriflunomide 14 mg once daily for up to 30 months. The average duration of follow-up was 18 months.

NEDA-3, commonly used to determine treatment outcomes for patients with relapsing MS, was defined as a composite of having no worsening of disability over a 6-month period (6mCDW), no confirmed MS relapse, no new/enlarging T2 lesions, and no gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions.

The pooled results showed that the odds of achieving NEDA-3 during the first 12 months were three times greater with ofatumumab than with teriflunomide (47.0% vs. 24.5%; odds ratio [OR], 3.36; P < .001) and were more than eight times greater from months 12 to 24 (87.8% vs. 48.2%; OR, 8.09; P < .001).

In addition, compared with patients who received teriflunomide, a higher proportion of patients who received ofatumumab were free from 6mCDW over 2 years (91.9% vs. 88.9%), as well as from relapses (82.3% vs 69.2%) and lesion activity (54.1% vs. 27.5%).

There was a significantly greater reduction in annualized relapse rate with ofatumumab compared with teriflunomide at all cumulative time intervals, including months 0 to 3 (P = .011), and at all subsequent time intervals from month 0 to 27 (P < .001).

The pooled findings further showed that ofatumumab reduced the mean number of gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions per scan by 95.9% compared with teriflunomide (P < .001).

“Ofatumumab increased the probability of achieving NEDA-3 and demonstrated superior efficacy vs teriflunomide in patients with relapsing MS,” said the authors, led by Stephen L. Hauser, MD, of the department of neurology, UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco.

Ofatumumab superior in primary, secondary outcomes

As previously reported, subcutaneous ofatumumab also demonstrated superior efficacy over oral teriflunomide in the primary and secondary endpoints in the ASCLEPIOS I/II trials. The annualized relapse rate was reduced by 0.22 in the teriflunomide group, vs 0.11 in the ofatumumab group (50.5% relative reduction; P < .001) in the ASCLEPIOS I trial, and by 0.25 vs. 0.10 (58.5% relative reduction P < .001) in ASCLEPIOS II.

Ofatumumab also reduced the number of gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions and new or enlarging T2 lesions compared with teriflunomide (all P < .001). It reduced the risk for disability progression by 34.4% over 3 months and by 32.5% over 6 months.

In the studies, the rate of serious infection with ofatumumab was 2.5%, compared with 1.8% with teriflunomide. Rates of malignancies were 0.5% and 0.3%, respectively.

“Ofatumumab demonstrated superior efficacy versus teriflunomide, with an acceptable safety profile, in patients with relapsing MS,” the authors reported.

Adherence rates with self-injection encouraging

An additional analysis from the two trials presented virtually in a separate abstract at the CMSC showed greater adherence to the self-administered regimen.

The analysis shows that in the ASCLEPIOS I study, 86.0% patients who were randomly assigned to receive ofatumumab and 77.7% who received teriflunomide completed the study on the assigned study drug. The proportion of patients who received ofatumumab and who discontinued treatment was 14.0%, versus 21.2% for those in the teriflunomide group. The most common reasons for discontinuation were patient/guardian decision (ofatumumab, 4.9%; teriflunomide, 8.2%), adverse event (ofatumumab, 5.2%; teriflunomide, 5.0%), and physician decision (ofatumumab, 2.2%; teriflunomide, 6.5%).

In the ASCLEPIOS II study, the rates were similar in all measures.

“In ASCLEPIOS trials, compliance with home-administered subcutaneous ofatumumab was high, and fewer patients discontinued ofatumumab as compared to teriflunomide,” the authors concluded.

Comparator drug a weak choice?

In commenting on the research, Stephen Kamin, MD, professor, vice chair, and chief of service, department of neurology, New Jersey Medical School, in Newark, noted that a limitation of the ASCLEPIOS trials is the comparison with teriflunomide.

“The comparator drug, teriflunomide, is one of the least effective DMTs, and one that some clinicians, including myself, don’t use,” he said.

Previously, when asked in an interview about the choice of teriflunomide as the comparator, Dr. Hauser noted that considerable discussion had gone into the decision. “The rationale was that we wanted to have a comparator that would be present not only against focal disease activity but also potentially against progression, and we were also able to blind the study successfully,” he said at the time.

Dr. Kamin said that ofatumumab will nevertheless likely represent a welcome addition to the tool kit of treatment options for MS. “Any new drug is helpful in adding to our choices as a general rule,” he said. “Subcutaneous injection does have increased convenience.”

It is not likely that the drug will be a game changer, he added, although the treatment’s efficacy compared with other drugs remains to be seen. “It all depends upon the relative efficacy of ofatumumab versus ocrelizumab or siponimod,” Dr. Kamin said.

“There has been another subcutaneous monoclonal for MS, daclizumab, although this was withdrawn from the market due to severe adverse effects not related to route of administration,” he added.

Dr. Hauser has relationships with Alector, Annexon, Bionure, Molecular Stethoscope, Symbiotix, and F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Kamin has received research support from Biogen, Novartis and CMSC.

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

Is maintenance therapy with an immune checkpoint inhibitor a good idea for patients with advanced bladder cancer who do not progress after initial chemotherapy?

Yes, and furthermore this approach offers “a new first-line standard of care for advanced urothelial cancer,” said Thomas Powles, MD, professor of genitourinary oncology and director of the Barts Cancer Centre in London.

Dr. Powles was discussing “first-line maintenance therapy” with avelumab (Bavencio, EMD Serono and Pfizer) from the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial.

Results from this trial will be presented at the plenary session of the 2020 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, held virtually because the coronavirus pandemic. ASCO chief medical officer Richard Schilsky, MD, PhD, highlighted this abstract as one of three from the plenary session that were “practice changing.”

Dr. Powles provided a glimpse of the results at a premeeting press briefing.

The trial involved 700 patients who had not progressed after at least four cycles of first-line, platinum-based chemotherapy. Maintenance therapy with avelumab improved overall survival by 7.1 months when compared with best supportive care (BSC) alone.

The median OS was 21.4 months for avelumab plus BSC versus 14.3 months for BSC alone (hazard ratio, 0.69; P = .0005).

An expert not involved with the study was impressed with the outcome.

“The data are encouraging and we look forward to FDA review, and hopefully approval [in this setting],” said Padmanee Sharma, MD, PhD, a genitourinary medical oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Avelumab is already approved for use in advanced urothelial cancer, but in a second-line setting, like a number of other immune checkpoint inhibitors.
 

“Instead of waiting for cancer to return”

Dr. Powles commented that about 65%-75% of patients with advanced urothelial cancer have disease control with first-line chemotherapy, but that progression-free survival (PFS) and OS are “short” because of chemoresistance.

Many patients do not receive second-line treatment with immunotherapy and only a “minority” achieve durable clinical benefit, he added.

“Instead of waiting for the cancer to return,” which it will do “quickly,” Dr. Powles suggested that maintenance with immunotherapy should become the standard of care.

“Our findings should give hope to many patients with advanced urothelial cancer who face a very challenging and difficult condition,” coauthor Petros Grivas, MD, PhD, clinical director of the Genitourinary Cancers Program at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, said in a statement. He was the global coprincipal investigator of the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial.

“People with advanced urothelial cancer generally have a poor prognosis, and most experience cancer progression (growth) within 8 months after initiation of first-line chemotherapy,” he said.

“We are very excited with these results, which indicate that immunotherapy with avelumab first-line maintenance could offer a new treatment option that helps patients live longer. Even if this is likely not a complete cure and may cause potential side effects in some patients, the significant prolongation of overall survival is clearly a remarkable improvement, while many treated patients may not experience significant side effects from this approach,” he added.

The safety profile was “manageable” and consistent with other studies of avelumab, Dr. Powles reported.

All-causality adverse events (AEs) were reported at any grade in 98% versus 77.7% in the avelumab plus BSC versus BSC-alone groups; AEs of grade 3 or higher were 47.4% vs 25.2%. The most frequent grade ≥3 AEs were urinary tract infection (4.4% vs. 2.6%), anemia (3.8% vs. 2.9%), hematuria (1.7% vs. 1.4%), fatigue (1.7% vs. 0.6%), and back pain (1.2% vs. 2.3%).

The results from JAVELIN with avelumab show the “largest survival benefit” seen so far in advanced urothelial cancer in the maintenance setting, according to ASCO press materials.

Has there ever been a survival benefit found with maintenance therapy?

No, according to a 2019 review in Future Oncology. Three prospective, randomized, controlled trials (of vinflunine, sunitinib, and lapatinib, respectively) did not reveal any significant oncologic benefit vs placebo.

But in a phase 2, randomized, controlled trial involving 107 patients, maintenance pembrolizumab provided longer PFS, compared with placebo (5.4 vs 3.2 months, HR, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.98).

This pembrolizumab trial showed a “similar PFS hazard ratio” to that seen with avelumab in JAVELIN, Dr. Powles commented, noting however that the pembrolizumab trial was not designed to look at survival.
 

Even better response among PD-L1-positive patients

JAVELIN patients had unresectable locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma and were treated with gemcitabine with either cisplatin or carboplatin.

Just over half (51%) of these patients had tumors that were PD-L1 positive.

The maintenance therapy strategy was even more effective in these patients. Avelumab plus BSC significantly prolonged OS versus BSC alone in patients with PD-L1-positive tumors (HR, 0.56; 1-sided P = .0003). Median OS was not reached versus 17.1 months, respectively.

An OS benefit was also observed across all prespecified subgroups, including those patients with visceral metastases.

Commenting on the study, Dr. Sharma said she would like to see more detailed outcome data related to the number of chemotherapy cycles administered (the range was 4 to 6) and information on the amount of time between the end of chemo to the start of avelumab. Dr. Powles commented that his international team has not looked at number of cycles and outcome, nor the time from completion of chemotherapy and randomization. “They are both valid questions for the future,” he said.

The study was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Powles and many of the coauthors have financial relationships with Pfizer and other pharmaceuticals. Dr. Sharma has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Is maintenance therapy with an immune checkpoint inhibitor a good idea for patients with advanced bladder cancer who do not progress after initial chemotherapy?

Yes, and furthermore this approach offers “a new first-line standard of care for advanced urothelial cancer,” said Thomas Powles, MD, professor of genitourinary oncology and director of the Barts Cancer Centre in London.

Dr. Powles was discussing “first-line maintenance therapy” with avelumab (Bavencio, EMD Serono and Pfizer) from the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial.

Results from this trial will be presented at the plenary session of the 2020 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, held virtually because the coronavirus pandemic. ASCO chief medical officer Richard Schilsky, MD, PhD, highlighted this abstract as one of three from the plenary session that were “practice changing.”

Dr. Powles provided a glimpse of the results at a premeeting press briefing.

The trial involved 700 patients who had not progressed after at least four cycles of first-line, platinum-based chemotherapy. Maintenance therapy with avelumab improved overall survival by 7.1 months when compared with best supportive care (BSC) alone.

The median OS was 21.4 months for avelumab plus BSC versus 14.3 months for BSC alone (hazard ratio, 0.69; P = .0005).

An expert not involved with the study was impressed with the outcome.

“The data are encouraging and we look forward to FDA review, and hopefully approval [in this setting],” said Padmanee Sharma, MD, PhD, a genitourinary medical oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Avelumab is already approved for use in advanced urothelial cancer, but in a second-line setting, like a number of other immune checkpoint inhibitors.
 

“Instead of waiting for cancer to return”

Dr. Powles commented that about 65%-75% of patients with advanced urothelial cancer have disease control with first-line chemotherapy, but that progression-free survival (PFS) and OS are “short” because of chemoresistance.

Many patients do not receive second-line treatment with immunotherapy and only a “minority” achieve durable clinical benefit, he added.

“Instead of waiting for the cancer to return,” which it will do “quickly,” Dr. Powles suggested that maintenance with immunotherapy should become the standard of care.

“Our findings should give hope to many patients with advanced urothelial cancer who face a very challenging and difficult condition,” coauthor Petros Grivas, MD, PhD, clinical director of the Genitourinary Cancers Program at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, said in a statement. He was the global coprincipal investigator of the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial.

“People with advanced urothelial cancer generally have a poor prognosis, and most experience cancer progression (growth) within 8 months after initiation of first-line chemotherapy,” he said.

“We are very excited with these results, which indicate that immunotherapy with avelumab first-line maintenance could offer a new treatment option that helps patients live longer. Even if this is likely not a complete cure and may cause potential side effects in some patients, the significant prolongation of overall survival is clearly a remarkable improvement, while many treated patients may not experience significant side effects from this approach,” he added.

The safety profile was “manageable” and consistent with other studies of avelumab, Dr. Powles reported.

All-causality adverse events (AEs) were reported at any grade in 98% versus 77.7% in the avelumab plus BSC versus BSC-alone groups; AEs of grade 3 or higher were 47.4% vs 25.2%. The most frequent grade ≥3 AEs were urinary tract infection (4.4% vs. 2.6%), anemia (3.8% vs. 2.9%), hematuria (1.7% vs. 1.4%), fatigue (1.7% vs. 0.6%), and back pain (1.2% vs. 2.3%).

The results from JAVELIN with avelumab show the “largest survival benefit” seen so far in advanced urothelial cancer in the maintenance setting, according to ASCO press materials.

Has there ever been a survival benefit found with maintenance therapy?

No, according to a 2019 review in Future Oncology. Three prospective, randomized, controlled trials (of vinflunine, sunitinib, and lapatinib, respectively) did not reveal any significant oncologic benefit vs placebo.

But in a phase 2, randomized, controlled trial involving 107 patients, maintenance pembrolizumab provided longer PFS, compared with placebo (5.4 vs 3.2 months, HR, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.98).

This pembrolizumab trial showed a “similar PFS hazard ratio” to that seen with avelumab in JAVELIN, Dr. Powles commented, noting however that the pembrolizumab trial was not designed to look at survival.
 

Even better response among PD-L1-positive patients

JAVELIN patients had unresectable locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma and were treated with gemcitabine with either cisplatin or carboplatin.

Just over half (51%) of these patients had tumors that were PD-L1 positive.

The maintenance therapy strategy was even more effective in these patients. Avelumab plus BSC significantly prolonged OS versus BSC alone in patients with PD-L1-positive tumors (HR, 0.56; 1-sided P = .0003). Median OS was not reached versus 17.1 months, respectively.

An OS benefit was also observed across all prespecified subgroups, including those patients with visceral metastases.

Commenting on the study, Dr. Sharma said she would like to see more detailed outcome data related to the number of chemotherapy cycles administered (the range was 4 to 6) and information on the amount of time between the end of chemo to the start of avelumab. Dr. Powles commented that his international team has not looked at number of cycles and outcome, nor the time from completion of chemotherapy and randomization. “They are both valid questions for the future,” he said.

The study was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Powles and many of the coauthors have financial relationships with Pfizer and other pharmaceuticals. Dr. Sharma has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Is maintenance therapy with an immune checkpoint inhibitor a good idea for patients with advanced bladder cancer who do not progress after initial chemotherapy?

Yes, and furthermore this approach offers “a new first-line standard of care for advanced urothelial cancer,” said Thomas Powles, MD, professor of genitourinary oncology and director of the Barts Cancer Centre in London.

Dr. Powles was discussing “first-line maintenance therapy” with avelumab (Bavencio, EMD Serono and Pfizer) from the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial.

Results from this trial will be presented at the plenary session of the 2020 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, held virtually because the coronavirus pandemic. ASCO chief medical officer Richard Schilsky, MD, PhD, highlighted this abstract as one of three from the plenary session that were “practice changing.”

Dr. Powles provided a glimpse of the results at a premeeting press briefing.

The trial involved 700 patients who had not progressed after at least four cycles of first-line, platinum-based chemotherapy. Maintenance therapy with avelumab improved overall survival by 7.1 months when compared with best supportive care (BSC) alone.

The median OS was 21.4 months for avelumab plus BSC versus 14.3 months for BSC alone (hazard ratio, 0.69; P = .0005).

An expert not involved with the study was impressed with the outcome.

“The data are encouraging and we look forward to FDA review, and hopefully approval [in this setting],” said Padmanee Sharma, MD, PhD, a genitourinary medical oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Avelumab is already approved for use in advanced urothelial cancer, but in a second-line setting, like a number of other immune checkpoint inhibitors.
 

“Instead of waiting for cancer to return”

Dr. Powles commented that about 65%-75% of patients with advanced urothelial cancer have disease control with first-line chemotherapy, but that progression-free survival (PFS) and OS are “short” because of chemoresistance.

Many patients do not receive second-line treatment with immunotherapy and only a “minority” achieve durable clinical benefit, he added.

“Instead of waiting for the cancer to return,” which it will do “quickly,” Dr. Powles suggested that maintenance with immunotherapy should become the standard of care.

“Our findings should give hope to many patients with advanced urothelial cancer who face a very challenging and difficult condition,” coauthor Petros Grivas, MD, PhD, clinical director of the Genitourinary Cancers Program at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, said in a statement. He was the global coprincipal investigator of the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial.

“People with advanced urothelial cancer generally have a poor prognosis, and most experience cancer progression (growth) within 8 months after initiation of first-line chemotherapy,” he said.

“We are very excited with these results, which indicate that immunotherapy with avelumab first-line maintenance could offer a new treatment option that helps patients live longer. Even if this is likely not a complete cure and may cause potential side effects in some patients, the significant prolongation of overall survival is clearly a remarkable improvement, while many treated patients may not experience significant side effects from this approach,” he added.

The safety profile was “manageable” and consistent with other studies of avelumab, Dr. Powles reported.

All-causality adverse events (AEs) were reported at any grade in 98% versus 77.7% in the avelumab plus BSC versus BSC-alone groups; AEs of grade 3 or higher were 47.4% vs 25.2%. The most frequent grade ≥3 AEs were urinary tract infection (4.4% vs. 2.6%), anemia (3.8% vs. 2.9%), hematuria (1.7% vs. 1.4%), fatigue (1.7% vs. 0.6%), and back pain (1.2% vs. 2.3%).

The results from JAVELIN with avelumab show the “largest survival benefit” seen so far in advanced urothelial cancer in the maintenance setting, according to ASCO press materials.

Has there ever been a survival benefit found with maintenance therapy?

No, according to a 2019 review in Future Oncology. Three prospective, randomized, controlled trials (of vinflunine, sunitinib, and lapatinib, respectively) did not reveal any significant oncologic benefit vs placebo.

But in a phase 2, randomized, controlled trial involving 107 patients, maintenance pembrolizumab provided longer PFS, compared with placebo (5.4 vs 3.2 months, HR, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.98).

This pembrolizumab trial showed a “similar PFS hazard ratio” to that seen with avelumab in JAVELIN, Dr. Powles commented, noting however that the pembrolizumab trial was not designed to look at survival.
 

Even better response among PD-L1-positive patients

JAVELIN patients had unresectable locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma and were treated with gemcitabine with either cisplatin or carboplatin.

Just over half (51%) of these patients had tumors that were PD-L1 positive.

The maintenance therapy strategy was even more effective in these patients. Avelumab plus BSC significantly prolonged OS versus BSC alone in patients with PD-L1-positive tumors (HR, 0.56; 1-sided P = .0003). Median OS was not reached versus 17.1 months, respectively.

An OS benefit was also observed across all prespecified subgroups, including those patients with visceral metastases.

Commenting on the study, Dr. Sharma said she would like to see more detailed outcome data related to the number of chemotherapy cycles administered (the range was 4 to 6) and information on the amount of time between the end of chemo to the start of avelumab. Dr. Powles commented that his international team has not looked at number of cycles and outcome, nor the time from completion of chemotherapy and randomization. “They are both valid questions for the future,” he said.

The study was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Powles and many of the coauthors have financial relationships with Pfizer and other pharmaceuticals. Dr. Sharma has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients who received a protocol-driven recommendation to initiate statin therapy for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease based upon their CT angiography coronary artery calcium score were twice as likely to actually start on the drug than those whose recommendation was guided by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Pooled Cohort Equations Risk Calculator, according to the results of the randomized CorCal Vanguard study.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

These results suggest that patients – and their primary care physicians – find the conventional method of screening for cardiovascular risk using the Pooled Cohort Equations to estimate the 10-year risk of MI or stroke, as recommended in ACC/AHA guidelines, to be less persuasive than screening for the presence or absence of actual disease as captured by CT angiography images and the associated coronary artery calcium (CAC) score, Joseph B. Muhlestein, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the ACC and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The CorCal Vanguard study included 601 patients with an average baseline LDL cholesterol of 120 mg/dL, an average age of 60 years, and no history of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or prior statin therapy. They were randomized to decision-making regarding statin therapy based on either the ACC/AHA guideline–endorsed Pooled Cohort Equations, which use an estimated 10-year risk of 7.5% or more as the threshold for statin initiation, or their CAC score.

If a patient’s CAC score was 0, the recommendation was against starting a statin. Everyone with a CAC greater than 100 received a recommendation for high-intensity statin therapy. And for those with a CAC of 1-100, the decision defaulted to the results of the Pooled Cohort Equations. The screening results were provided to a patient’s primary physician so they could engage in joint decision-making regarding initiation of statin therapy. Adherence to a screening-based recommendation to start on a statin was assessed at 3 and 12 months of follow-up, explained Dr. Muhlestein, a cardiologist at the Intermountain Medical Center Heart Institute in Salt Lake City.

He noted that CorCal Vanguard was merely a feasibility study. Based on the study results he presented at ACC 2020, the full 9,000-patient CorCal primary prevention trial is now enrolling participants. CorCal is the first randomized trial to pit the Pooled Cohort Equations against the CAC score in a large study looking for differences in downstream clinical outcomes.

The rationale for this line of clinical research lies in the known limitations of the ACC/AHA risk calculator. “It may overestimate risk in some populations, patients aren’t always adherent to Pooled Cohort Equations Risk Calculator recommendations, and it doesn’t include novel risk markers such as C-reactive protein that some consider important for risk assessment. And the big question: Should we continue risk screening to determine potential benefit from drug therapy, or should we switch to disease screening?” the cardiologist commented.
 

The CorCal Vanguard results

A recommendation to start statin therapy was made in 48% of patients in the Pooled Cohort Equations group, versus 36% of the group randomized to CAC. However, only 17% of patients in the Pooled Cohort Equations group actually initiated a statin, a significantly lower rate than the 26% figure in the CAC arm. Fully 70% of patients who received a recommendation to start taking a statin on the basis of their CAC score actually did so, compared to just 36% of those whose recommendation was based upon their Pooled Cohort Equations Risk Calculator.

At 3 months of follow-up, 61% of patients who received an initial recommendation to start statin therapy based upon their CAC screening were actually taking a statin, compared with 41% of those whose recommendation was based upon the Pooled Cohort Equations. At 12 months, the figures were 64% and 49%.

In both groups, at 12 months of follow-up, the No. 1 reason patients weren’t taking a statin as recommended was that their personal physician had advised against it or never prescribed it. That accounted for roughly half of the nonadherence. Another quarter was because of a preference to try lifestyle change first. Fear of drug side effects was a less common reason.

Putting the CorCal Vanguard study results in perspective, Dr. Muhlestein observed that, prior to the screening study, none of the participants had ever been on a statin, yet 37% of them were found by one screening method or the other to be at high cardiovascular risk. Of those high-risk patients, 51% actually initiated statin therapy and the majority of them were still taking their medication 12 months later.

“That has to be a good thing. It emphasizes what can be done when proactive primary prevention is practiced,” the cardiologist said.

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding the CorCal study, which was funded by a grant from the Dell Loy Hansen Cardiovascular Research Fund.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Muhlestein JB et al. ACC 2020, Abstract 909-12.

Patients who received a protocol-driven recommendation to initiate statin therapy for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease based upon their CT angiography coronary artery calcium score were twice as likely to actually start on the drug than those whose recommendation was guided by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Pooled Cohort Equations Risk Calculator, according to the results of the randomized CorCal Vanguard study.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

These results suggest that patients – and their primary care physicians – find the conventional method of screening for cardiovascular risk using the Pooled Cohort Equations to estimate the 10-year risk of MI or stroke, as recommended in ACC/AHA guidelines, to be less persuasive than screening for the presence or absence of actual disease as captured by CT angiography images and the associated coronary artery calcium (CAC) score, Joseph B. Muhlestein, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the ACC and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The CorCal Vanguard study included 601 patients with an average baseline LDL cholesterol of 120 mg/dL, an average age of 60 years, and no history of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or prior statin therapy. They were randomized to decision-making regarding statin therapy based on either the ACC/AHA guideline–endorsed Pooled Cohort Equations, which use an estimated 10-year risk of 7.5% or more as the threshold for statin initiation, or their CAC score.

If a patient’s CAC score was 0, the recommendation was against starting a statin. Everyone with a CAC greater than 100 received a recommendation for high-intensity statin therapy. And for those with a CAC of 1-100, the decision defaulted to the results of the Pooled Cohort Equations. The screening results were provided to a patient’s primary physician so they could engage in joint decision-making regarding initiation of statin therapy. Adherence to a screening-based recommendation to start on a statin was assessed at 3 and 12 months of follow-up, explained Dr. Muhlestein, a cardiologist at the Intermountain Medical Center Heart Institute in Salt Lake City.

He noted that CorCal Vanguard was merely a feasibility study. Based on the study results he presented at ACC 2020, the full 9,000-patient CorCal primary prevention trial is now enrolling participants. CorCal is the first randomized trial to pit the Pooled Cohort Equations against the CAC score in a large study looking for differences in downstream clinical outcomes.

The rationale for this line of clinical research lies in the known limitations of the ACC/AHA risk calculator. “It may overestimate risk in some populations, patients aren’t always adherent to Pooled Cohort Equations Risk Calculator recommendations, and it doesn’t include novel risk markers such as C-reactive protein that some consider important for risk assessment. And the big question: Should we continue risk screening to determine potential benefit from drug therapy, or should we switch to disease screening?” the cardiologist commented.
 

The CorCal Vanguard results

A recommendation to start statin therapy was made in 48% of patients in the Pooled Cohort Equations group, versus 36% of the group randomized to CAC. However, only 17% of patients in the Pooled Cohort Equations group actually initiated a statin, a significantly lower rate than the 26% figure in the CAC arm. Fully 70% of patients who received a recommendation to start taking a statin on the basis of their CAC score actually did so, compared to just 36% of those whose recommendation was based upon their Pooled Cohort Equations Risk Calculator.

At 3 months of follow-up, 61% of patients who received an initial recommendation to start statin therapy based upon their CAC screening were actually taking a statin, compared with 41% of those whose recommendation was based upon the Pooled Cohort Equations. At 12 months, the figures were 64% and 49%.

In both groups, at 12 months of follow-up, the No. 1 reason patients weren’t taking a statin as recommended was that their personal physician had advised against it or never prescribed it. That accounted for roughly half of the nonadherence. Another quarter was because of a preference to try lifestyle change first. Fear of drug side effects was a less common reason.

Putting the CorCal Vanguard study results in perspective, Dr. Muhlestein observed that, prior to the screening study, none of the participants had ever been on a statin, yet 37% of them were found by one screening method or the other to be at high cardiovascular risk. Of those high-risk patients, 51% actually initiated statin therapy and the majority of them were still taking their medication 12 months later.

“That has to be a good thing. It emphasizes what can be done when proactive primary prevention is practiced,” the cardiologist said.

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding the CorCal study, which was funded by a grant from the Dell Loy Hansen Cardiovascular Research Fund.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Muhlestein JB et al. ACC 2020, Abstract 909-12.

Patients who received a protocol-driven recommendation to initiate statin therapy for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease based upon their CT angiography coronary artery calcium score were twice as likely to actually start on the drug than those whose recommendation was guided by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Pooled Cohort Equations Risk Calculator, according to the results of the randomized CorCal Vanguard study.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

These results suggest that patients – and their primary care physicians – find the conventional method of screening for cardiovascular risk using the Pooled Cohort Equations to estimate the 10-year risk of MI or stroke, as recommended in ACC/AHA guidelines, to be less persuasive than screening for the presence or absence of actual disease as captured by CT angiography images and the associated coronary artery calcium (CAC) score, Joseph B. Muhlestein, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the ACC and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The CorCal Vanguard study included 601 patients with an average baseline LDL cholesterol of 120 mg/dL, an average age of 60 years, and no history of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or prior statin therapy. They were randomized to decision-making regarding statin therapy based on either the ACC/AHA guideline–endorsed Pooled Cohort Equations, which use an estimated 10-year risk of 7.5% or more as the threshold for statin initiation, or their CAC score.

If a patient’s CAC score was 0, the recommendation was against starting a statin. Everyone with a CAC greater than 100 received a recommendation for high-intensity statin therapy. And for those with a CAC of 1-100, the decision defaulted to the results of the Pooled Cohort Equations. The screening results were provided to a patient’s primary physician so they could engage in joint decision-making regarding initiation of statin therapy. Adherence to a screening-based recommendation to start on a statin was assessed at 3 and 12 months of follow-up, explained Dr. Muhlestein, a cardiologist at the Intermountain Medical Center Heart Institute in Salt Lake City.

He noted that CorCal Vanguard was merely a feasibility study. Based on the study results he presented at ACC 2020, the full 9,000-patient CorCal primary prevention trial is now enrolling participants. CorCal is the first randomized trial to pit the Pooled Cohort Equations against the CAC score in a large study looking for differences in downstream clinical outcomes.

The rationale for this line of clinical research lies in the known limitations of the ACC/AHA risk calculator. “It may overestimate risk in some populations, patients aren’t always adherent to Pooled Cohort Equations Risk Calculator recommendations, and it doesn’t include novel risk markers such as C-reactive protein that some consider important for risk assessment. And the big question: Should we continue risk screening to determine potential benefit from drug therapy, or should we switch to disease screening?” the cardiologist commented.
 

The CorCal Vanguard results

A recommendation to start statin therapy was made in 48% of patients in the Pooled Cohort Equations group, versus 36% of the group randomized to CAC. However, only 17% of patients in the Pooled Cohort Equations group actually initiated a statin, a significantly lower rate than the 26% figure in the CAC arm. Fully 70% of patients who received a recommendation to start taking a statin on the basis of their CAC score actually did so, compared to just 36% of those whose recommendation was based upon their Pooled Cohort Equations Risk Calculator.

At 3 months of follow-up, 61% of patients who received an initial recommendation to start statin therapy based upon their CAC screening were actually taking a statin, compared with 41% of those whose recommendation was based upon the Pooled Cohort Equations. At 12 months, the figures were 64% and 49%.

In both groups, at 12 months of follow-up, the No. 1 reason patients weren’t taking a statin as recommended was that their personal physician had advised against it or never prescribed it. That accounted for roughly half of the nonadherence. Another quarter was because of a preference to try lifestyle change first. Fear of drug side effects was a less common reason.

Putting the CorCal Vanguard study results in perspective, Dr. Muhlestein observed that, prior to the screening study, none of the participants had ever been on a statin, yet 37% of them were found by one screening method or the other to be at high cardiovascular risk. Of those high-risk patients, 51% actually initiated statin therapy and the majority of them were still taking their medication 12 months later.

“That has to be a good thing. It emphasizes what can be done when proactive primary prevention is practiced,” the cardiologist said.

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding the CorCal study, which was funded by a grant from the Dell Loy Hansen Cardiovascular Research Fund.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Muhlestein JB et al. ACC 2020, Abstract 909-12.

Patients with COVID-19 and progressing cancer had a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality, compared with COVID-19–positive cancer patients who were in remission or had no evidence of cancer, according to data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry.

Mongkolchon Akesin/Shutterstock

Other independent risk factors for death in patients with COVID-19 and cancer were older age, male sex, former smoking, number of comorbidities, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2 or greater, and treatment with hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin.

In fact, patients who received hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin had a nearly threefold higher risk of death than did patients who had not received the combination. However, this finding was of “uncertain validity due to a high risk of residual confounding; for example, patients receiving this combination were more likely to have severe disease or more likely to be hospitalized,” said Jeremy L. Warner, MD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee.

Dr. Warner presented these findings in an online press briefing. Additional findings from the CCC19 registry are set to be presented as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) virtual scientific program. The findings were also published in The Lancet.

‘Severe impact’ in cancer patients

“For people with cancer, the impact of COVID-19 is especially severe, whether they have been exposed to the virus or not. Patients with cancer are typically older adults, often with other underlying conditions, and their immune systems may be suppressed by the cancer, or due to chemotherapy, radiation, or other treatment,” commented ASCO President Howard A. Burris III, MD, who moderated the press briefing but was not involved in the study of CCC19 registry data.

“ASCO members tell us that they have had to delay or modify treatment plans to reduce patients’ risk of infection, and we’re unclear what the impact of these changes will be. Delays in cancer screening and diagnosis are also a major concern,” Dr. Burris continued.

“This does confirm reports that have come out from other centers, including other parts of the world, where they have found that people who have cancer and COVID-19 have a worse outcome,” said Andrew T. Chan, MD, MPH, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who was not involved in the research.

Dr. Chan’s group has developed a COVID-19 symptom study app with the aim of defining whether people living with cancer are at increased risk for infections, in addition to whether cancer is an independent risk factor for COVID-19 severity or mortality.

“Using data from our app, we were able to show that people who reported living with cancer did have a higher risk of developing COVID and were more likely to be hospitalized related to COVID,” Dr. Chan said in an interview.
 

Study details

The CCC19 registry collects information from 104 participating institutions in the United States and Canada, as well as anonymous data from individuals in the United States, Argentina, Canada, the European Union, and the United Kingdom.

The sample of 928 patients Dr. Warner presented was evenly balanced by sex. The median age was 66 years, and 30% of patients were aged 75 years or older.

In all, 39% of patients were on active anticancer therapy, and 43% had measurable disease. Breast cancer was the most common diagnosis, followed by prostate cancer, gastrointestinal cancers, lymphomas, and thoracic cancers.

Two-thirds of the patients (68%) had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1, 8% had a performance status of 2, and 5% a status of 3 or 4. The remaining patients had unknown performance status.

Slightly more than half of patients (52%) were never smokers, 37% were former smokers, and 5% were current smokers. The remaining 6% of patients had unknown smoking status.

At a median follow-up of 21 days, 121 patients (13%) had died. All deaths occurred within 30 days of COVID-19 diagnosis. Among patients who died, 78 were male, 64 were former smokers, 70 were aged 75 years or older, 41 had active stable or responding cancer, 25 had progressing cancer, and 42 had an ECOG performance status of 2 or higher.

In all, 466 patients were hospitalized, and 106 in this group (23%) died. Among the 132 patients admitted to an ICU, 50 (38%) died, including 27 patients aged 75 years or older, and 15 with an ECOG performance status of 2 or greater. Of the 116 patients who required intubation, 50 (43%) died, including 26 who were 75 years or older, and 11 who had a performance status of 2 or greater.

It’s early days yet, and a larger sample size with longer follow-up will be needed to get a more complete picture of how COVID-19 affects specific patient subsets over time, Dr. Warner said.

ASCO has established its own COVID-19 registry to collect both near-term and longitudinal data during the pandemic.

“We’ll be able to learn about both how the pandemic has impacted delivery of cancer care, as well as the longer-term effects of COVID-19 on cancer patients and understand what care approaches are working best,” said Richard L. Schilsky, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO, during the briefing.

The study of CCC19 registry data was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health and the American Cancer Society. Dr. Warner disclosed stock/ownership in HemOnc.org, consulting for IBM and Westat, and travel expenses from IBM. Dr. Burris, Dr. Schilsky, and Dr. Chan reported no disclosures relevant to the study.
 

SOURCE: Warner J L et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract LBA110.

Patients with COVID-19 and progressing cancer had a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality, compared with COVID-19–positive cancer patients who were in remission or had no evidence of cancer, according to data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry.

Mongkolchon Akesin/Shutterstock

Other independent risk factors for death in patients with COVID-19 and cancer were older age, male sex, former smoking, number of comorbidities, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2 or greater, and treatment with hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin.

In fact, patients who received hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin had a nearly threefold higher risk of death than did patients who had not received the combination. However, this finding was of “uncertain validity due to a high risk of residual confounding; for example, patients receiving this combination were more likely to have severe disease or more likely to be hospitalized,” said Jeremy L. Warner, MD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee.

Dr. Warner presented these findings in an online press briefing. Additional findings from the CCC19 registry are set to be presented as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) virtual scientific program. The findings were also published in The Lancet.

‘Severe impact’ in cancer patients

“For people with cancer, the impact of COVID-19 is especially severe, whether they have been exposed to the virus or not. Patients with cancer are typically older adults, often with other underlying conditions, and their immune systems may be suppressed by the cancer, or due to chemotherapy, radiation, or other treatment,” commented ASCO President Howard A. Burris III, MD, who moderated the press briefing but was not involved in the study of CCC19 registry data.

“ASCO members tell us that they have had to delay or modify treatment plans to reduce patients’ risk of infection, and we’re unclear what the impact of these changes will be. Delays in cancer screening and diagnosis are also a major concern,” Dr. Burris continued.

“This does confirm reports that have come out from other centers, including other parts of the world, where they have found that people who have cancer and COVID-19 have a worse outcome,” said Andrew T. Chan, MD, MPH, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who was not involved in the research.

Dr. Chan’s group has developed a COVID-19 symptom study app with the aim of defining whether people living with cancer are at increased risk for infections, in addition to whether cancer is an independent risk factor for COVID-19 severity or mortality.

“Using data from our app, we were able to show that people who reported living with cancer did have a higher risk of developing COVID and were more likely to be hospitalized related to COVID,” Dr. Chan said in an interview.
 

Study details

The CCC19 registry collects information from 104 participating institutions in the United States and Canada, as well as anonymous data from individuals in the United States, Argentina, Canada, the European Union, and the United Kingdom.

The sample of 928 patients Dr. Warner presented was evenly balanced by sex. The median age was 66 years, and 30% of patients were aged 75 years or older.

In all, 39% of patients were on active anticancer therapy, and 43% had measurable disease. Breast cancer was the most common diagnosis, followed by prostate cancer, gastrointestinal cancers, lymphomas, and thoracic cancers.

Two-thirds of the patients (68%) had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1, 8% had a performance status of 2, and 5% a status of 3 or 4. The remaining patients had unknown performance status.

Slightly more than half of patients (52%) were never smokers, 37% were former smokers, and 5% were current smokers. The remaining 6% of patients had unknown smoking status.

At a median follow-up of 21 days, 121 patients (13%) had died. All deaths occurred within 30 days of COVID-19 diagnosis. Among patients who died, 78 were male, 64 were former smokers, 70 were aged 75 years or older, 41 had active stable or responding cancer, 25 had progressing cancer, and 42 had an ECOG performance status of 2 or higher.

In all, 466 patients were hospitalized, and 106 in this group (23%) died. Among the 132 patients admitted to an ICU, 50 (38%) died, including 27 patients aged 75 years or older, and 15 with an ECOG performance status of 2 or greater. Of the 116 patients who required intubation, 50 (43%) died, including 26 who were 75 years or older, and 11 who had a performance status of 2 or greater.

It’s early days yet, and a larger sample size with longer follow-up will be needed to get a more complete picture of how COVID-19 affects specific patient subsets over time, Dr. Warner said.

ASCO has established its own COVID-19 registry to collect both near-term and longitudinal data during the pandemic.

“We’ll be able to learn about both how the pandemic has impacted delivery of cancer care, as well as the longer-term effects of COVID-19 on cancer patients and understand what care approaches are working best,” said Richard L. Schilsky, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO, during the briefing.

The study of CCC19 registry data was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health and the American Cancer Society. Dr. Warner disclosed stock/ownership in HemOnc.org, consulting for IBM and Westat, and travel expenses from IBM. Dr. Burris, Dr. Schilsky, and Dr. Chan reported no disclosures relevant to the study.
 

SOURCE: Warner J L et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract LBA110.

Patients with COVID-19 and progressing cancer had a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality, compared with COVID-19–positive cancer patients who were in remission or had no evidence of cancer, according to data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry.

Mongkolchon Akesin/Shutterstock

Other independent risk factors for death in patients with COVID-19 and cancer were older age, male sex, former smoking, number of comorbidities, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2 or greater, and treatment with hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin.

In fact, patients who received hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin had a nearly threefold higher risk of death than did patients who had not received the combination. However, this finding was of “uncertain validity due to a high risk of residual confounding; for example, patients receiving this combination were more likely to have severe disease or more likely to be hospitalized,” said Jeremy L. Warner, MD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee.

Dr. Warner presented these findings in an online press briefing. Additional findings from the CCC19 registry are set to be presented as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) virtual scientific program. The findings were also published in The Lancet.

‘Severe impact’ in cancer patients

“For people with cancer, the impact of COVID-19 is especially severe, whether they have been exposed to the virus or not. Patients with cancer are typically older adults, often with other underlying conditions, and their immune systems may be suppressed by the cancer, or due to chemotherapy, radiation, or other treatment,” commented ASCO President Howard A. Burris III, MD, who moderated the press briefing but was not involved in the study of CCC19 registry data.

“ASCO members tell us that they have had to delay or modify treatment plans to reduce patients’ risk of infection, and we’re unclear what the impact of these changes will be. Delays in cancer screening and diagnosis are also a major concern,” Dr. Burris continued.

“This does confirm reports that have come out from other centers, including other parts of the world, where they have found that people who have cancer and COVID-19 have a worse outcome,” said Andrew T. Chan, MD, MPH, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who was not involved in the research.

Dr. Chan’s group has developed a COVID-19 symptom study app with the aim of defining whether people living with cancer are at increased risk for infections, in addition to whether cancer is an independent risk factor for COVID-19 severity or mortality.

“Using data from our app, we were able to show that people who reported living with cancer did have a higher risk of developing COVID and were more likely to be hospitalized related to COVID,” Dr. Chan said in an interview.
 

Study details

The CCC19 registry collects information from 104 participating institutions in the United States and Canada, as well as anonymous data from individuals in the United States, Argentina, Canada, the European Union, and the United Kingdom.

The sample of 928 patients Dr. Warner presented was evenly balanced by sex. The median age was 66 years, and 30% of patients were aged 75 years or older.

In all, 39% of patients were on active anticancer therapy, and 43% had measurable disease. Breast cancer was the most common diagnosis, followed by prostate cancer, gastrointestinal cancers, lymphomas, and thoracic cancers.

Two-thirds of the patients (68%) had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1, 8% had a performance status of 2, and 5% a status of 3 or 4. The remaining patients had unknown performance status.

Slightly more than half of patients (52%) were never smokers, 37% were former smokers, and 5% were current smokers. The remaining 6% of patients had unknown smoking status.

At a median follow-up of 21 days, 121 patients (13%) had died. All deaths occurred within 30 days of COVID-19 diagnosis. Among patients who died, 78 were male, 64 were former smokers, 70 were aged 75 years or older, 41 had active stable or responding cancer, 25 had progressing cancer, and 42 had an ECOG performance status of 2 or higher.

In all, 466 patients were hospitalized, and 106 in this group (23%) died. Among the 132 patients admitted to an ICU, 50 (38%) died, including 27 patients aged 75 years or older, and 15 with an ECOG performance status of 2 or greater. Of the 116 patients who required intubation, 50 (43%) died, including 26 who were 75 years or older, and 11 who had a performance status of 2 or greater.

It’s early days yet, and a larger sample size with longer follow-up will be needed to get a more complete picture of how COVID-19 affects specific patient subsets over time, Dr. Warner said.

ASCO has established its own COVID-19 registry to collect both near-term and longitudinal data during the pandemic.

“We’ll be able to learn about both how the pandemic has impacted delivery of cancer care, as well as the longer-term effects of COVID-19 on cancer patients and understand what care approaches are working best,” said Richard L. Schilsky, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO, during the briefing.

The study of CCC19 registry data was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health and the American Cancer Society. Dr. Warner disclosed stock/ownership in HemOnc.org, consulting for IBM and Westat, and travel expenses from IBM. Dr. Burris, Dr. Schilsky, and Dr. Chan reported no disclosures relevant to the study.
 

SOURCE: Warner J L et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract LBA110.

Adjuvant therapy with osimertinib was associated with a nearly 80% reduction in the risk of disease recurrence or death in patients with stage IB-IIIA non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) bearing EGFR mutations, results of the ADAURA trial showed.

The randomized, phase 3 trial was a comparison of osimertinib treatment with placebo following complete resection of localized or locally advanced NSCLC with negative margins. The trial was unblinded early and halted on the recommendation of the independent data-monitoring committee, due to the efficacy of osimertinib.

“If I were on the committee, I would have done the same thing. These are extraordinary results,” said study investigator Roy S. Herbst, MD, PhD, chief of medical oncology at the Yale Cancer Center and Smilow Cancer Center at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Herbst is scheduled to present results from ADAURA as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

In an online briefing prior to the meeting, Dr. Herbst said the impressive results reminded him of a lesson imparted by his mentor, the late Isaiah Fidler, DVM, PhD.

“He taught me, he taught all of us, that metastasis is a spread of tumor that kills patients,” Dr. Herbst said. “Drugs such as this, based on biology, given to patients at the earliest possible time, prevent those metastases and allow patients to live longer and with a better quality of life.”

Results from the ADAURA trial provide compelling evidence of the benefit of adjuvant osimertinib for a select group of patients, according to Tina Cascone, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the department of thoracic head and neck medical oncology at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. She was not involved in the study.

“These are unprecedented results for a potentially curable, resected population of patients,” Dr. Cascone said in an interview. “This definitely has the potential to shift the paradigm in the treatments that we have available for patients with resected disease. It’s very important to emphasize how much we’ve learned from the metastatic setting and how we’re bringing what we’ve learned into early stage disease.”

 

High recurrence rates

An estimated 30% of patients with NSCLC present with resectable disease at diagnosis, but 5-year recurrence rates following surgery and cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy remain high, ranging from 45% among patients with stage IB disease to 62% for patients with stage II NSCLC and 76% for patients with stage III disease, Dr. Herbst noted.

Osimertinib is a third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) targeted to EGFR. It has been shown to offer improvements in both progression-free survival and overall survival compared with the EGFR-TKIs erlotinib and gefitinib for patients with advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC, as well as in patients with central nervous system metastases.

Osimertinib’s efficacy and safety profile against advanced disease suggests it may also be effective against early stage disease, a hypothesis the ADAURA trial was designed to test.
 

Study details

The phase 3, randomized, double-blind trial was conducted at centers in the United States, Europe, Asia, and Australia. A total of 682 patients with completely resected stage IB, II, or IIIA NSCLC, with or without planned adjuvant chemotherapy, were enrolled.

After stratification by stage, EGFR mutation, and race (Asian vs. non-Asian), patients were randomized on a 1:1 basis to receive either osimertinib at 80 mg once daily or placebo. The planned treatment duration was a maximum of 3 years.

Members of the independent data-monitoring committee held a meeting in April 2020. Although they had not planned an efficacy analysis at that time, they decided the results were clearly in favor of osimertinib. So they recommended unblinding and halting of the trial.

At the time of unblinding, the study had completed enrollment, and all patients had been followed for at least 1 year.
 

Efficacy and safety

For the primary endpoint of disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with stage II to IIIA disease, the median DFS was not reached for patients assigned to osimertinib, but it was 20.4 months for patients assigned to placebo (hazard ratio, 0.17; P < .0001).

The numbers were similar for the secondary endpoint of DFS in the overall population, including patients with stage IB disease. The median DFS was not reached for patients on osimertinib but was 28.1 months for patients on placebo (HR, 0.21; P < .0001).

DFS was significantly superior with osimertinib across all subgroups in the overall population, including sex, age, smoking status, race, stage, EGFR mutation, and adjuvant chemotherapy (yes or no).

Dr. Herbst said patients tolerated osimertinib well, and the drug’s safety profile was consistent with that already known. There were no adverse events leading to death in the osimertinib arm, and the incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events of any kind was low.

In all, 10 patients (3%) in the osimertinib arm were reported to have interstitial lung disease. Prolongation of the QT interval was reported in 22 patients (7%) on osimertinib and 4 patients (1%) in the placebo arm.

The results show that “adjuvant osimertinib provides a highly effective, practice-changing treatment for patients with stage IB, II, IIIA, EGFR mutation-positive non–small cell lung cancer after complete tumor resection,” Dr. Herbst said.

Dr. Herbst disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, which funded the study, as well as Jun Shi Pharmaceuticals and other companies. Dr. Cascone is the international principal investigator of the NeoCOAST trial evaluating durvalumab, an AstraZeneca product.

SOURCE: Herbst RS et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract LBA5.

Adjuvant therapy with osimertinib was associated with a nearly 80% reduction in the risk of disease recurrence or death in patients with stage IB-IIIA non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) bearing EGFR mutations, results of the ADAURA trial showed.

The randomized, phase 3 trial was a comparison of osimertinib treatment with placebo following complete resection of localized or locally advanced NSCLC with negative margins. The trial was unblinded early and halted on the recommendation of the independent data-monitoring committee, due to the efficacy of osimertinib.

“If I were on the committee, I would have done the same thing. These are extraordinary results,” said study investigator Roy S. Herbst, MD, PhD, chief of medical oncology at the Yale Cancer Center and Smilow Cancer Center at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Herbst is scheduled to present results from ADAURA as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

In an online briefing prior to the meeting, Dr. Herbst said the impressive results reminded him of a lesson imparted by his mentor, the late Isaiah Fidler, DVM, PhD.

“He taught me, he taught all of us, that metastasis is a spread of tumor that kills patients,” Dr. Herbst said. “Drugs such as this, based on biology, given to patients at the earliest possible time, prevent those metastases and allow patients to live longer and with a better quality of life.”

Results from the ADAURA trial provide compelling evidence of the benefit of adjuvant osimertinib for a select group of patients, according to Tina Cascone, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the department of thoracic head and neck medical oncology at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. She was not involved in the study.

“These are unprecedented results for a potentially curable, resected population of patients,” Dr. Cascone said in an interview. “This definitely has the potential to shift the paradigm in the treatments that we have available for patients with resected disease. It’s very important to emphasize how much we’ve learned from the metastatic setting and how we’re bringing what we’ve learned into early stage disease.”

 

High recurrence rates

An estimated 30% of patients with NSCLC present with resectable disease at diagnosis, but 5-year recurrence rates following surgery and cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy remain high, ranging from 45% among patients with stage IB disease to 62% for patients with stage II NSCLC and 76% for patients with stage III disease, Dr. Herbst noted.

Osimertinib is a third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) targeted to EGFR. It has been shown to offer improvements in both progression-free survival and overall survival compared with the EGFR-TKIs erlotinib and gefitinib for patients with advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC, as well as in patients with central nervous system metastases.

Osimertinib’s efficacy and safety profile against advanced disease suggests it may also be effective against early stage disease, a hypothesis the ADAURA trial was designed to test.
 

Study details

The phase 3, randomized, double-blind trial was conducted at centers in the United States, Europe, Asia, and Australia. A total of 682 patients with completely resected stage IB, II, or IIIA NSCLC, with or without planned adjuvant chemotherapy, were enrolled.

After stratification by stage, EGFR mutation, and race (Asian vs. non-Asian), patients were randomized on a 1:1 basis to receive either osimertinib at 80 mg once daily or placebo. The planned treatment duration was a maximum of 3 years.

Members of the independent data-monitoring committee held a meeting in April 2020. Although they had not planned an efficacy analysis at that time, they decided the results were clearly in favor of osimertinib. So they recommended unblinding and halting of the trial.

At the time of unblinding, the study had completed enrollment, and all patients had been followed for at least 1 year.
 

Efficacy and safety

For the primary endpoint of disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with stage II to IIIA disease, the median DFS was not reached for patients assigned to osimertinib, but it was 20.4 months for patients assigned to placebo (hazard ratio, 0.17; P < .0001).

The numbers were similar for the secondary endpoint of DFS in the overall population, including patients with stage IB disease. The median DFS was not reached for patients on osimertinib but was 28.1 months for patients on placebo (HR, 0.21; P < .0001).

DFS was significantly superior with osimertinib across all subgroups in the overall population, including sex, age, smoking status, race, stage, EGFR mutation, and adjuvant chemotherapy (yes or no).

Dr. Herbst said patients tolerated osimertinib well, and the drug’s safety profile was consistent with that already known. There were no adverse events leading to death in the osimertinib arm, and the incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events of any kind was low.

In all, 10 patients (3%) in the osimertinib arm were reported to have interstitial lung disease. Prolongation of the QT interval was reported in 22 patients (7%) on osimertinib and 4 patients (1%) in the placebo arm.

The results show that “adjuvant osimertinib provides a highly effective, practice-changing treatment for patients with stage IB, II, IIIA, EGFR mutation-positive non–small cell lung cancer after complete tumor resection,” Dr. Herbst said.

Dr. Herbst disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, which funded the study, as well as Jun Shi Pharmaceuticals and other companies. Dr. Cascone is the international principal investigator of the NeoCOAST trial evaluating durvalumab, an AstraZeneca product.

SOURCE: Herbst RS et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract LBA5.

Adjuvant therapy with osimertinib was associated with a nearly 80% reduction in the risk of disease recurrence or death in patients with stage IB-IIIA non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) bearing EGFR mutations, results of the ADAURA trial showed.

The randomized, phase 3 trial was a comparison of osimertinib treatment with placebo following complete resection of localized or locally advanced NSCLC with negative margins. The trial was unblinded early and halted on the recommendation of the independent data-monitoring committee, due to the efficacy of osimertinib.

“If I were on the committee, I would have done the same thing. These are extraordinary results,” said study investigator Roy S. Herbst, MD, PhD, chief of medical oncology at the Yale Cancer Center and Smilow Cancer Center at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Herbst is scheduled to present results from ADAURA as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

In an online briefing prior to the meeting, Dr. Herbst said the impressive results reminded him of a lesson imparted by his mentor, the late Isaiah Fidler, DVM, PhD.

“He taught me, he taught all of us, that metastasis is a spread of tumor that kills patients,” Dr. Herbst said. “Drugs such as this, based on biology, given to patients at the earliest possible time, prevent those metastases and allow patients to live longer and with a better quality of life.”

Results from the ADAURA trial provide compelling evidence of the benefit of adjuvant osimertinib for a select group of patients, according to Tina Cascone, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the department of thoracic head and neck medical oncology at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. She was not involved in the study.

“These are unprecedented results for a potentially curable, resected population of patients,” Dr. Cascone said in an interview. “This definitely has the potential to shift the paradigm in the treatments that we have available for patients with resected disease. It’s very important to emphasize how much we’ve learned from the metastatic setting and how we’re bringing what we’ve learned into early stage disease.”

 

High recurrence rates

An estimated 30% of patients with NSCLC present with resectable disease at diagnosis, but 5-year recurrence rates following surgery and cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy remain high, ranging from 45% among patients with stage IB disease to 62% for patients with stage II NSCLC and 76% for patients with stage III disease, Dr. Herbst noted.

Osimertinib is a third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) targeted to EGFR. It has been shown to offer improvements in both progression-free survival and overall survival compared with the EGFR-TKIs erlotinib and gefitinib for patients with advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC, as well as in patients with central nervous system metastases.

Osimertinib’s efficacy and safety profile against advanced disease suggests it may also be effective against early stage disease, a hypothesis the ADAURA trial was designed to test.
 

Study details

The phase 3, randomized, double-blind trial was conducted at centers in the United States, Europe, Asia, and Australia. A total of 682 patients with completely resected stage IB, II, or IIIA NSCLC, with or without planned adjuvant chemotherapy, were enrolled.

After stratification by stage, EGFR mutation, and race (Asian vs. non-Asian), patients were randomized on a 1:1 basis to receive either osimertinib at 80 mg once daily or placebo. The planned treatment duration was a maximum of 3 years.

Members of the independent data-monitoring committee held a meeting in April 2020. Although they had not planned an efficacy analysis at that time, they decided the results were clearly in favor of osimertinib. So they recommended unblinding and halting of the trial.

At the time of unblinding, the study had completed enrollment, and all patients had been followed for at least 1 year.
 

Efficacy and safety

For the primary endpoint of disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with stage II to IIIA disease, the median DFS was not reached for patients assigned to osimertinib, but it was 20.4 months for patients assigned to placebo (hazard ratio, 0.17; P < .0001).

The numbers were similar for the secondary endpoint of DFS in the overall population, including patients with stage IB disease. The median DFS was not reached for patients on osimertinib but was 28.1 months for patients on placebo (HR, 0.21; P < .0001).

DFS was significantly superior with osimertinib across all subgroups in the overall population, including sex, age, smoking status, race, stage, EGFR mutation, and adjuvant chemotherapy (yes or no).

Dr. Herbst said patients tolerated osimertinib well, and the drug’s safety profile was consistent with that already known. There were no adverse events leading to death in the osimertinib arm, and the incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events of any kind was low.

In all, 10 patients (3%) in the osimertinib arm were reported to have interstitial lung disease. Prolongation of the QT interval was reported in 22 patients (7%) on osimertinib and 4 patients (1%) in the placebo arm.

The results show that “adjuvant osimertinib provides a highly effective, practice-changing treatment for patients with stage IB, II, IIIA, EGFR mutation-positive non–small cell lung cancer after complete tumor resection,” Dr. Herbst said.

Dr. Herbst disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, which funded the study, as well as Jun Shi Pharmaceuticals and other companies. Dr. Cascone is the international principal investigator of the NeoCOAST trial evaluating durvalumab, an AstraZeneca product.

SOURCE: Herbst RS et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract LBA5.

Patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) who switch from treatment with the highly effective disease-modifying therapy natalizumab to a moderate-efficacy DMT show an increased risk of disability accumulation and disease activity over 2 years compared with switching to another highly effective DMT, new research shows.

“Owing to the vast number of available DMTs, not only understanding DMT performance but answering the question of what can come next if a patient needs to discontinue treatment due to safety or breakthrough disease is important,” said lead author Carrie M. Hersh, DO, of the Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health, Cleveland Clinic, Las Vegas.

The study shows that, “patients transitioning from natalizumab to another high-efficacy therapy have better inflammatory and disability outcomes compared with those who de-escalate their therapy to a moderate-efficacy DMT,” she said.

Natalizumab (Tysabri) offers significant benefits in the treatment of relapsing forms of MS, however, its long-term use is associated with safety concerns, notably an increased risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML). Although the risk can be reduced with a switch to a different DMT, the transition can have risks of its own, including a rebound of disease activity that could prove to be worse than the pre-natalizumab treatment period, and there is a lack of consensus on the safest avenues for switching to another DMT following discontinuation of natalizumab.

In research presented at the virtual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, Dr. Hersh and colleagues explored the issue in a real-world population of 556 patients discontinuing natalizumab at two MS centers. Of these, 270 switched to a moderate DMT (dimethyl fumarate, n = 130; or fingolimod, n = 140) and 130 switched to a highly effective DMT (ocrelizumab, n = 106; rituximab, n = 17; or alemtuzumab, n = 7).

Reasons for switching included a PML risk for 54.9%, breakthrough disease for 15.3%, and adverse effects for 17.3%.

At 24-month follow-up after the switch and after adjustment for propensity score matching, no differences were seen between the moderate and highly effective DMT groups in terms of the annualized relapse rate (ARR; P = 0.33) or the time to first relapse (P = 0.09).

However, significantly higher proportions of patients switching to moderate DMTs showed new T2 lesions (odds ratio, 2.15; P = .01), as well as new gadolinium-enhancing lesions (OR, 1.99; P = .02), and a 20% worsening of the timed 25-foot walk test (T25FW; OR, 1.83; P = .04) and 9-hole peg test (9-HPT; OR, 1.81; P = .04)

Those switching to moderate DMTs also had significantly lower rates of absence of disease activity over the 24 months (OR, 0.41, P = .004), and they had a higher risk of earlier time-to-first gadolinium-enhancing lesion (hazard ratio, 6.67, P = .002), compared with those switching to a high-efficacy DMT.

Other factors that have previously been shown to be associated with rebounds that are worse than pre-natalizumab treatment include washout periods that are longer than 3 months.

The authors noted that there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of mean washout duration, which were relatively short (moderate DMT, 1.4 months; highly effective treatment, 1.8 months; P = .34), In addition, there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of the average duration of natalizumab treatment.

Dr. Hersh speculated that the lack of ARR differences may reflect that the measure is not as objective as the more specific determinants of performance. “One could consider the comparable ARR as a little surprising, but relapse evaluation in a retrospective manner is limited,” she explained.

“Historically, radiographic markers of new inflammation via brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and neuroperformance measures (T25FW and 9-HPT) are more objective compared to assessing clinical relapses, especially in a retrospective cohort where relapses cannot be validated by a central agency or the principal investigator. Therefore, one can surmise that patients transitioning from natalizumab to another high-efficacy DMT fare better than de-escalating treatment to a moderate-efficacy DMT.”

Dr. Hersh and team plan a larger, multicenter study to investigate the short- and long-term effects of post-natalizumab DMT sequencing to help validate the current findings.

Commenting on the research, Stephen Kamin, MD, professor, vice chair and chief of service, department of neurology, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, said the results are consistent with natalizumab’s general profile.

“In general, natalizumab has been used in patients with highly active disease, so I would expect fewer patients with no evidence of disease activity when switched to a moderately active drug rather than a highly active one,” he said in an interview.

Caveats of the findings include the trial’s observational nature, meaning potential confounding factors of baseline characteristics among patients who switched regimens are not known, noted Dr. Kamin, who was not involved with the study.

“Also, the patients were switched to a variety of drugs and even within a class there may be differences in outcome,” he explained.

Dr. Hersh reported consulting or research relationships with Biogen, Genentech, EMD Serono, Genzyme, Novartis, and PCORI. Dr. Kamin has received research support from Biogen, Novartis, and the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) who switch from treatment with the highly effective disease-modifying therapy natalizumab to a moderate-efficacy DMT show an increased risk of disability accumulation and disease activity over 2 years compared with switching to another highly effective DMT, new research shows.

“Owing to the vast number of available DMTs, not only understanding DMT performance but answering the question of what can come next if a patient needs to discontinue treatment due to safety or breakthrough disease is important,” said lead author Carrie M. Hersh, DO, of the Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health, Cleveland Clinic, Las Vegas.

The study shows that, “patients transitioning from natalizumab to another high-efficacy therapy have better inflammatory and disability outcomes compared with those who de-escalate their therapy to a moderate-efficacy DMT,” she said.

Natalizumab (Tysabri) offers significant benefits in the treatment of relapsing forms of MS, however, its long-term use is associated with safety concerns, notably an increased risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML). Although the risk can be reduced with a switch to a different DMT, the transition can have risks of its own, including a rebound of disease activity that could prove to be worse than the pre-natalizumab treatment period, and there is a lack of consensus on the safest avenues for switching to another DMT following discontinuation of natalizumab.

In research presented at the virtual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, Dr. Hersh and colleagues explored the issue in a real-world population of 556 patients discontinuing natalizumab at two MS centers. Of these, 270 switched to a moderate DMT (dimethyl fumarate, n = 130; or fingolimod, n = 140) and 130 switched to a highly effective DMT (ocrelizumab, n = 106; rituximab, n = 17; or alemtuzumab, n = 7).

Reasons for switching included a PML risk for 54.9%, breakthrough disease for 15.3%, and adverse effects for 17.3%.

At 24-month follow-up after the switch and after adjustment for propensity score matching, no differences were seen between the moderate and highly effective DMT groups in terms of the annualized relapse rate (ARR; P = 0.33) or the time to first relapse (P = 0.09).

However, significantly higher proportions of patients switching to moderate DMTs showed new T2 lesions (odds ratio, 2.15; P = .01), as well as new gadolinium-enhancing lesions (OR, 1.99; P = .02), and a 20% worsening of the timed 25-foot walk test (T25FW; OR, 1.83; P = .04) and 9-hole peg test (9-HPT; OR, 1.81; P = .04)

Those switching to moderate DMTs also had significantly lower rates of absence of disease activity over the 24 months (OR, 0.41, P = .004), and they had a higher risk of earlier time-to-first gadolinium-enhancing lesion (hazard ratio, 6.67, P = .002), compared with those switching to a high-efficacy DMT.

Other factors that have previously been shown to be associated with rebounds that are worse than pre-natalizumab treatment include washout periods that are longer than 3 months.

The authors noted that there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of mean washout duration, which were relatively short (moderate DMT, 1.4 months; highly effective treatment, 1.8 months; P = .34), In addition, there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of the average duration of natalizumab treatment.

Dr. Hersh speculated that the lack of ARR differences may reflect that the measure is not as objective as the more specific determinants of performance. “One could consider the comparable ARR as a little surprising, but relapse evaluation in a retrospective manner is limited,” she explained.

“Historically, radiographic markers of new inflammation via brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and neuroperformance measures (T25FW and 9-HPT) are more objective compared to assessing clinical relapses, especially in a retrospective cohort where relapses cannot be validated by a central agency or the principal investigator. Therefore, one can surmise that patients transitioning from natalizumab to another high-efficacy DMT fare better than de-escalating treatment to a moderate-efficacy DMT.”

Dr. Hersh and team plan a larger, multicenter study to investigate the short- and long-term effects of post-natalizumab DMT sequencing to help validate the current findings.

Commenting on the research, Stephen Kamin, MD, professor, vice chair and chief of service, department of neurology, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, said the results are consistent with natalizumab’s general profile.

“In general, natalizumab has been used in patients with highly active disease, so I would expect fewer patients with no evidence of disease activity when switched to a moderately active drug rather than a highly active one,” he said in an interview.

Caveats of the findings include the trial’s observational nature, meaning potential confounding factors of baseline characteristics among patients who switched regimens are not known, noted Dr. Kamin, who was not involved with the study.

“Also, the patients were switched to a variety of drugs and even within a class there may be differences in outcome,” he explained.

Dr. Hersh reported consulting or research relationships with Biogen, Genentech, EMD Serono, Genzyme, Novartis, and PCORI. Dr. Kamin has received research support from Biogen, Novartis, and the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) who switch from treatment with the highly effective disease-modifying therapy natalizumab to a moderate-efficacy DMT show an increased risk of disability accumulation and disease activity over 2 years compared with switching to another highly effective DMT, new research shows.

“Owing to the vast number of available DMTs, not only understanding DMT performance but answering the question of what can come next if a patient needs to discontinue treatment due to safety or breakthrough disease is important,” said lead author Carrie M. Hersh, DO, of the Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health, Cleveland Clinic, Las Vegas.

The study shows that, “patients transitioning from natalizumab to another high-efficacy therapy have better inflammatory and disability outcomes compared with those who de-escalate their therapy to a moderate-efficacy DMT,” she said.

Natalizumab (Tysabri) offers significant benefits in the treatment of relapsing forms of MS, however, its long-term use is associated with safety concerns, notably an increased risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML). Although the risk can be reduced with a switch to a different DMT, the transition can have risks of its own, including a rebound of disease activity that could prove to be worse than the pre-natalizumab treatment period, and there is a lack of consensus on the safest avenues for switching to another DMT following discontinuation of natalizumab.

In research presented at the virtual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, Dr. Hersh and colleagues explored the issue in a real-world population of 556 patients discontinuing natalizumab at two MS centers. Of these, 270 switched to a moderate DMT (dimethyl fumarate, n = 130; or fingolimod, n = 140) and 130 switched to a highly effective DMT (ocrelizumab, n = 106; rituximab, n = 17; or alemtuzumab, n = 7).

Reasons for switching included a PML risk for 54.9%, breakthrough disease for 15.3%, and adverse effects for 17.3%.

At 24-month follow-up after the switch and after adjustment for propensity score matching, no differences were seen between the moderate and highly effective DMT groups in terms of the annualized relapse rate (ARR; P = 0.33) or the time to first relapse (P = 0.09).

However, significantly higher proportions of patients switching to moderate DMTs showed new T2 lesions (odds ratio, 2.15; P = .01), as well as new gadolinium-enhancing lesions (OR, 1.99; P = .02), and a 20% worsening of the timed 25-foot walk test (T25FW; OR, 1.83; P = .04) and 9-hole peg test (9-HPT; OR, 1.81; P = .04)

Those switching to moderate DMTs also had significantly lower rates of absence of disease activity over the 24 months (OR, 0.41, P = .004), and they had a higher risk of earlier time-to-first gadolinium-enhancing lesion (hazard ratio, 6.67, P = .002), compared with those switching to a high-efficacy DMT.

Other factors that have previously been shown to be associated with rebounds that are worse than pre-natalizumab treatment include washout periods that are longer than 3 months.

The authors noted that there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of mean washout duration, which were relatively short (moderate DMT, 1.4 months; highly effective treatment, 1.8 months; P = .34), In addition, there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of the average duration of natalizumab treatment.

Dr. Hersh speculated that the lack of ARR differences may reflect that the measure is not as objective as the more specific determinants of performance. “One could consider the comparable ARR as a little surprising, but relapse evaluation in a retrospective manner is limited,” she explained.

“Historically, radiographic markers of new inflammation via brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and neuroperformance measures (T25FW and 9-HPT) are more objective compared to assessing clinical relapses, especially in a retrospective cohort where relapses cannot be validated by a central agency or the principal investigator. Therefore, one can surmise that patients transitioning from natalizumab to another high-efficacy DMT fare better than de-escalating treatment to a moderate-efficacy DMT.”

Dr. Hersh and team plan a larger, multicenter study to investigate the short- and long-term effects of post-natalizumab DMT sequencing to help validate the current findings.

Commenting on the research, Stephen Kamin, MD, professor, vice chair and chief of service, department of neurology, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, said the results are consistent with natalizumab’s general profile.

“In general, natalizumab has been used in patients with highly active disease, so I would expect fewer patients with no evidence of disease activity when switched to a moderately active drug rather than a highly active one,” he said in an interview.

Caveats of the findings include the trial’s observational nature, meaning potential confounding factors of baseline characteristics among patients who switched regimens are not known, noted Dr. Kamin, who was not involved with the study.

“Also, the patients were switched to a variety of drugs and even within a class there may be differences in outcome,” he explained.

Dr. Hersh reported consulting or research relationships with Biogen, Genentech, EMD Serono, Genzyme, Novartis, and PCORI. Dr. Kamin has received research support from Biogen, Novartis, and the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Air pollution may be another environmental risk factor for developing multiple sclerosis (MS), new research suggests. A large cohort study of almost 550,000 individuals living in Italy showed that participants living in areas with high levels of pollutants had a significantly greater risk of developing MS than those who lived in areas with low levels of pollutants.

The findings further confirm a relationship between exposure to air pollutants and risk for MS that has been shown in previous research, said Roberto Bergamaschi, MD, PhD, director of the Multiple Sclerosis Center, IRCCS Mondino Foundation, Pavia, Italy.

“Countermeasures that cut air pollution can be important for public health, not only to reduce deaths related to cardiac and pulmonary diseases but also the risk of chronic autoimmune diseases such as MS,” Dr. Bergamaschi said.

The findings were presented at the Congress of the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) 2020, which transitioned to a virtual/online meeting because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Toxic pollutants

Several environmental factors may trigger an abnormal immune response that manifests in MS. The most studied of these are low vitamin D level, cigarette smoking, and an unhealthy diet, Dr. Bergamaschi said. However, “other environmental factors deserve to be studied—pollution included,” he added.

Among the most toxic air pollutants are particulate matter (PM), which is a mixture of fine solid and liquid particles suspended in the earth’s atmosphere. PM may range from 2.5 microns (PM_2.5) to 10 microns (PM₁₀) in diameter.

The main sources of such pollutants are household and commercial heating (53%) and industrial activities (17%), followed by road vehicle and non–road vehicle use, agriculture, and electricity production.

The World Health Organization estimates that more than 3.2 million individuals worldwide die prematurely every year because of lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, and other diseases related to air pollutants, said Dr. Bergamaschi.

Epidemiologic research has uncovered a relationship between air pollution and MS. A large American study published in 2008 in Science of the Total Environment showed a significant association between MS prevalence and PM₁₀ levels (P < 0.001). Other studies have shown an increase in the number of clinical relapses of MS that were linked to air pollution.

The current investigators assessed the association between PM_2.5 levels and MS prevalence in the northern province of Pavia, which has a population of 547,251 individuals in 188 municipalities.
 

Peculiar features

Pavia is situated in a flat territory that encompasses the highly industrialized regions of Piedmont, Lombardy, Emilia-Romagna, and Veneto. It has a high level of anthropogenic emissions, or environmental pollutants, originating from human activity, Dr. Bergamaschi reported. The region also has “peculiar” geographical features that “favor the accumulation of pollutants,” such as the natural barrier of the Alps in the north and low wind speed, he said.

The researchers identified 927 individuals with MS (315 male and 612 female) in the province. The overall MS prevalence rate was 169.4 per 100,000 population (95% confidence interval [CI], 158.8 – 180.6), which is 10-fold higher than 50 years ago, Dr. Bergamaschi said. In addition, this MS prevalence is higher than that in the United States, which is about 150 per 100,000 population.

Using sophisticated Bayesian disease mapping, the investigators looked for clusters of MS. They also gathered emission data for PM_2.5 from 2010 to 2017 from the European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme database. They then divided the region on the basis of average winter concentrations of PM_2.5.

Three distinct lateral areas of air pollution were identified. The more northern region, which includes the large urban center of Milan, had the highest level of air pollution. Concentrations decreased the further south the investigators looked.

After adjusting for age, urbanization (population density), and deprivation index, results showed that living in areas with high levels of pollutants was associated with increased MS risk. When controlling for PM_2.5 pollution, participants in urban areas had an increased risk for MS compared with rural dwellers (relative risk [RR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04 – 1.30; P = 0.003)

Dr. Bergamaschi said it is unclear whether this risk is higher for certain types of MS. “To my knowledge, no study has analyzed possible relationships between MS phenotypes and air pollution,” he noted.
 

Vitamin D’s role?

Several mechanisms might help explain the relationship between air pollution and MS risk, he added. These include oxidative stress, which results in cell damage, inflammation, and proinflammatory cytokine release. Vitamin D also likely plays some role, Dr. Bergamaschi said. Upon penetrating the lower strata of the earth’s atmosphere, ultraviolet B radiation is absorbed and scattered by suspended pollutants.

Several studies have highlighted the correlation between living in a polluted area and vitamin D hypovitaminosis; “so air pollution can contribute to increasing the risk of MS by reducing vitamin D synthesis,” he said.

Recent research has also shown that air pollution is associated with a higher risk for other autoimmune disorders, including systemic lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis, and type 1 diabetes mellitus.

However, pollution alone is only part of the picture. MS prevalence in highly populated and polluted countries such as China and India is low, with no more than 30 to 40 cases per 100,000 population, Dr. Bergamaschi noted. “This discrepancy is explained by different genetic backgrounds. While Caucasians are particularly susceptible to MS, Asians are not,” he said.

Study limitations cited included a possible bias because the analysis did not include other possible contributing risk factors, particularly other pollutants, Dr. Bergamaschi said.

Commenting on the research, Lily Jung Henson, MD, chief of neurology at Piedmont Healthcare in Stockbridge, Georgia, said the findings provide “a fascinating glimpse” into possible causative factors for MS and warrant further investigation.

“This research also suggests other opportunities to look at, such as progression of the degree of air pollution and the incidence of MS over time,” said Dr. Henson, who was not involved with the study.

Drs. Bergamaschi and Dr. Henson have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Air pollution may be another environmental risk factor for developing multiple sclerosis (MS), new research suggests. A large cohort study of almost 550,000 individuals living in Italy showed that participants living in areas with high levels of pollutants had a significantly greater risk of developing MS than those who lived in areas with low levels of pollutants.

The findings further confirm a relationship between exposure to air pollutants and risk for MS that has been shown in previous research, said Roberto Bergamaschi, MD, PhD, director of the Multiple Sclerosis Center, IRCCS Mondino Foundation, Pavia, Italy.

“Countermeasures that cut air pollution can be important for public health, not only to reduce deaths related to cardiac and pulmonary diseases but also the risk of chronic autoimmune diseases such as MS,” Dr. Bergamaschi said.

The findings were presented at the Congress of the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) 2020, which transitioned to a virtual/online meeting because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Toxic pollutants

Several environmental factors may trigger an abnormal immune response that manifests in MS. The most studied of these are low vitamin D level, cigarette smoking, and an unhealthy diet, Dr. Bergamaschi said. However, “other environmental factors deserve to be studied—pollution included,” he added.

Among the most toxic air pollutants are particulate matter (PM), which is a mixture of fine solid and liquid particles suspended in the earth’s atmosphere. PM may range from 2.5 microns (PM_2.5) to 10 microns (PM₁₀) in diameter.

The main sources of such pollutants are household and commercial heating (53%) and industrial activities (17%), followed by road vehicle and non–road vehicle use, agriculture, and electricity production.

The World Health Organization estimates that more than 3.2 million individuals worldwide die prematurely every year because of lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, and other diseases related to air pollutants, said Dr. Bergamaschi.

Epidemiologic research has uncovered a relationship between air pollution and MS. A large American study published in 2008 in Science of the Total Environment showed a significant association between MS prevalence and PM₁₀ levels (P < 0.001). Other studies have shown an increase in the number of clinical relapses of MS that were linked to air pollution.

The current investigators assessed the association between PM_2.5 levels and MS prevalence in the northern province of Pavia, which has a population of 547,251 individuals in 188 municipalities.
 

Peculiar features

Pavia is situated in a flat territory that encompasses the highly industrialized regions of Piedmont, Lombardy, Emilia-Romagna, and Veneto. It has a high level of anthropogenic emissions, or environmental pollutants, originating from human activity, Dr. Bergamaschi reported. The region also has “peculiar” geographical features that “favor the accumulation of pollutants,” such as the natural barrier of the Alps in the north and low wind speed, he said.

The researchers identified 927 individuals with MS (315 male and 612 female) in the province. The overall MS prevalence rate was 169.4 per 100,000 population (95% confidence interval [CI], 158.8 – 180.6), which is 10-fold higher than 50 years ago, Dr. Bergamaschi said. In addition, this MS prevalence is higher than that in the United States, which is about 150 per 100,000 population.

Using sophisticated Bayesian disease mapping, the investigators looked for clusters of MS. They also gathered emission data for PM_2.5 from 2010 to 2017 from the European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme database. They then divided the region on the basis of average winter concentrations of PM_2.5.

Three distinct lateral areas of air pollution were identified. The more northern region, which includes the large urban center of Milan, had the highest level of air pollution. Concentrations decreased the further south the investigators looked.

After adjusting for age, urbanization (population density), and deprivation index, results showed that living in areas with high levels of pollutants was associated with increased MS risk. When controlling for PM_2.5 pollution, participants in urban areas had an increased risk for MS compared with rural dwellers (relative risk [RR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04 – 1.30; P = 0.003)

Dr. Bergamaschi said it is unclear whether this risk is higher for certain types of MS. “To my knowledge, no study has analyzed possible relationships between MS phenotypes and air pollution,” he noted.
 

Vitamin D’s role?

Several mechanisms might help explain the relationship between air pollution and MS risk, he added. These include oxidative stress, which results in cell damage, inflammation, and proinflammatory cytokine release. Vitamin D also likely plays some role, Dr. Bergamaschi said. Upon penetrating the lower strata of the earth’s atmosphere, ultraviolet B radiation is absorbed and scattered by suspended pollutants.

Several studies have highlighted the correlation between living in a polluted area and vitamin D hypovitaminosis; “so air pollution can contribute to increasing the risk of MS by reducing vitamin D synthesis,” he said.

Recent research has also shown that air pollution is associated with a higher risk for other autoimmune disorders, including systemic lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis, and type 1 diabetes mellitus.

However, pollution alone is only part of the picture. MS prevalence in highly populated and polluted countries such as China and India is low, with no more than 30 to 40 cases per 100,000 population, Dr. Bergamaschi noted. “This discrepancy is explained by different genetic backgrounds. While Caucasians are particularly susceptible to MS, Asians are not,” he said.

Study limitations cited included a possible bias because the analysis did not include other possible contributing risk factors, particularly other pollutants, Dr. Bergamaschi said.

Commenting on the research, Lily Jung Henson, MD, chief of neurology at Piedmont Healthcare in Stockbridge, Georgia, said the findings provide “a fascinating glimpse” into possible causative factors for MS and warrant further investigation.

“This research also suggests other opportunities to look at, such as progression of the degree of air pollution and the incidence of MS over time,” said Dr. Henson, who was not involved with the study.

Drs. Bergamaschi and Dr. Henson have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Air pollution may be another environmental risk factor for developing multiple sclerosis (MS), new research suggests. A large cohort study of almost 550,000 individuals living in Italy showed that participants living in areas with high levels of pollutants had a significantly greater risk of developing MS than those who lived in areas with low levels of pollutants.

The findings further confirm a relationship between exposure to air pollutants and risk for MS that has been shown in previous research, said Roberto Bergamaschi, MD, PhD, director of the Multiple Sclerosis Center, IRCCS Mondino Foundation, Pavia, Italy.

“Countermeasures that cut air pollution can be important for public health, not only to reduce deaths related to cardiac and pulmonary diseases but also the risk of chronic autoimmune diseases such as MS,” Dr. Bergamaschi said.

The findings were presented at the Congress of the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) 2020, which transitioned to a virtual/online meeting because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Toxic pollutants

Several environmental factors may trigger an abnormal immune response that manifests in MS. The most studied of these are low vitamin D level, cigarette smoking, and an unhealthy diet, Dr. Bergamaschi said. However, “other environmental factors deserve to be studied—pollution included,” he added.

Among the most toxic air pollutants are particulate matter (PM), which is a mixture of fine solid and liquid particles suspended in the earth’s atmosphere. PM may range from 2.5 microns (PM_2.5) to 10 microns (PM₁₀) in diameter.

The main sources of such pollutants are household and commercial heating (53%) and industrial activities (17%), followed by road vehicle and non–road vehicle use, agriculture, and electricity production.

The World Health Organization estimates that more than 3.2 million individuals worldwide die prematurely every year because of lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, and other diseases related to air pollutants, said Dr. Bergamaschi.

Epidemiologic research has uncovered a relationship between air pollution and MS. A large American study published in 2008 in Science of the Total Environment showed a significant association between MS prevalence and PM₁₀ levels (P < 0.001). Other studies have shown an increase in the number of clinical relapses of MS that were linked to air pollution.

The current investigators assessed the association between PM_2.5 levels and MS prevalence in the northern province of Pavia, which has a population of 547,251 individuals in 188 municipalities.
 

Peculiar features

Pavia is situated in a flat territory that encompasses the highly industrialized regions of Piedmont, Lombardy, Emilia-Romagna, and Veneto. It has a high level of anthropogenic emissions, or environmental pollutants, originating from human activity, Dr. Bergamaschi reported. The region also has “peculiar” geographical features that “favor the accumulation of pollutants,” such as the natural barrier of the Alps in the north and low wind speed, he said.

The researchers identified 927 individuals with MS (315 male and 612 female) in the province. The overall MS prevalence rate was 169.4 per 100,000 population (95% confidence interval [CI], 158.8 – 180.6), which is 10-fold higher than 50 years ago, Dr. Bergamaschi said. In addition, this MS prevalence is higher than that in the United States, which is about 150 per 100,000 population.

Using sophisticated Bayesian disease mapping, the investigators looked for clusters of MS. They also gathered emission data for PM_2.5 from 2010 to 2017 from the European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme database. They then divided the region on the basis of average winter concentrations of PM_2.5.

Three distinct lateral areas of air pollution were identified. The more northern region, which includes the large urban center of Milan, had the highest level of air pollution. Concentrations decreased the further south the investigators looked.

After adjusting for age, urbanization (population density), and deprivation index, results showed that living in areas with high levels of pollutants was associated with increased MS risk. When controlling for PM_2.5 pollution, participants in urban areas had an increased risk for MS compared with rural dwellers (relative risk [RR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04 – 1.30; P = 0.003)

Dr. Bergamaschi said it is unclear whether this risk is higher for certain types of MS. “To my knowledge, no study has analyzed possible relationships between MS phenotypes and air pollution,” he noted.
 

Vitamin D’s role?

Several mechanisms might help explain the relationship between air pollution and MS risk, he added. These include oxidative stress, which results in cell damage, inflammation, and proinflammatory cytokine release. Vitamin D also likely plays some role, Dr. Bergamaschi said. Upon penetrating the lower strata of the earth’s atmosphere, ultraviolet B radiation is absorbed and scattered by suspended pollutants.

Several studies have highlighted the correlation between living in a polluted area and vitamin D hypovitaminosis; “so air pollution can contribute to increasing the risk of MS by reducing vitamin D synthesis,” he said.

Recent research has also shown that air pollution is associated with a higher risk for other autoimmune disorders, including systemic lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis, and type 1 diabetes mellitus.

However, pollution alone is only part of the picture. MS prevalence in highly populated and polluted countries such as China and India is low, with no more than 30 to 40 cases per 100,000 population, Dr. Bergamaschi noted. “This discrepancy is explained by different genetic backgrounds. While Caucasians are particularly susceptible to MS, Asians are not,” he said.

Study limitations cited included a possible bias because the analysis did not include other possible contributing risk factors, particularly other pollutants, Dr. Bergamaschi said.

Commenting on the research, Lily Jung Henson, MD, chief of neurology at Piedmont Healthcare in Stockbridge, Georgia, said the findings provide “a fascinating glimpse” into possible causative factors for MS and warrant further investigation.

“This research also suggests other opportunities to look at, such as progression of the degree of air pollution and the incidence of MS over time,” said Dr. Henson, who was not involved with the study.

Drs. Bergamaschi and Dr. Henson have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.