User login
Sickle Cell: Good Outcomes for Haploidentical Transplants
Of 42 patients aged 15-45 who were fully treated, 95% survived to 2 years post transplant (overall survival, (95% CI, 81.5%-98.7%), and 88% reached the primary endpoint of event-free survival at 2 years (95% CI, 73.5%-94.8%), according to the findings, which were released at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
At an ASH news briefing, study lead author Adetola A. Kassim, MBBS, MS, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, in Nashville, Tennessee, said the results support haploidentical stem cell transplants “as a suitable and tolerable curative therapy for adults with sickle cell disease and severe end-organ toxicity such as stroke or pulmonary hypertension, a population typically excluded from participating in gene therapy.”
Dr. Kassim added that the findings are especially promising since there are so many potential donors in stem-cell transplants: “Your siblings can be donors, your parents can be donors, your cousins can be donors. First-, second-, and third-degree relatives can be donors. So there’s really endless donors within the family.”
In an interview, Mayo Clinic SCD specialist Asmaa Ferdjallah, MD, MPH, of Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, who was not involved with the study but is familiar with its findings, said stem cell transplant is the only option to cure SCD.
“This is advantageous because SCD is otherwise a chronic disease that is marked by chronic pain, risk of stroke, frequent interruptions of school/work due to sick days, and decreased life span,” she said. “Most patients, assuming they can tolerate the conditioning chemotherapy that is given before transplant, are eligible.”
Matched sibling donors are preferable, but they can be hard to find, she said. It hasn’t been clear whether half-matched donors are feasible options in SCD, she said. “This means that, if you are a patient with sickle cell disease, and you don’t have a suitable matched donor, haploidentical transplant is not a recommendation we can make outside of enrollment in a clinical trial.”
For the study, researchers enlisted 54 patients with SCD and prior stroke, recurrent acute chest syndrome or pain, chronic transfusion regimen, or tricuspid valve regurgitant jet velocity ≥2.7 m/sec. Participants had to have an HLA-haploidentical first-degree relative donor who would donate bone marrow.
“The median age was 22.8 years at enrollment; 47/54 (87%) of enrolled participants had hemoglobin SS disease, 40/54 (74.1%) had a Lansky/Karnofsky score of 90-100 at baseline, and 41/54 (75.9%) had an HLA match score of 4/8,” the researchers reported. “Recurrent vaso-occlusive pain episodes (38.9%), acute chest syndrome (16.8%), and overt stroke (16.7%) were the most common indications for transplant.”
“We knew going into this that we were going to get very high-risk patients,” Dr. Kassim said.
Forty-two patients went through with transplants. As for adverse events, 2 patients died, all within the first year, of organ failure and acute respiratory distress syndrome; 4.8% of participants had primary graft failure, and 2.4% had secondary graft failure before day 100. “The cumulative incidence of grades II-IV acute GVHD [graft-versus-host disease] at day 100 was 26.2% (95% CI, 14.0%-40.2%), and grades III-IV acute GVHD at day 100 was 4.8% (95% CI, 0.9%-14.4%).”
The outcomes are similar to those in transplants with matched sibling donors, Dr. Kassim said.
Dr. Ferdjallah said the new study is “robust” and impressive, although it’s small.
“As a clinician, these are the kind of outcomes I have been hoping for,” Dr. Ferdjallah said. “I have been very reluctant to suggest haploidentical transplant for my sickle cell disease patients. However, reviewing the results of this study with my motivated patients and families can help us both to use shared medical decision-making and come together with what is best for that specific patient.”
As for adverse events, she said they “confirm a fear of using haploidentical transplant, which is graft failure. Fortunately, out of 42 who proceeded to transplant, only 2 had primary graft failure and 1 had secondary graft failure. This is not overtly a large number. Of course, we would hope for more durable engraftment. The other side effects including GVHD and infection are all to be expected.”
As for cost, Dr. Kassim said the transplants run from $200,000 to $400,000 vs over $2 million for gene therapy, and Dr. Ferdjallah said insurance is likely to cover the treatment.
Moving ahead, Dr. Ferdjallah said she looks forward to getting study data about pediatric patients specifically. For now, “we should consider HLA-haploidentical seriously in patients with sickle cell disease and no available HLA-matched donors.”
Grants to the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and National Cancer Institute funded the study. Dr. Kassim had no disclosures. Some other authors disclosed various and multiple relationships with industry. Dr. Ferdjallah has no disclosures.
Of 42 patients aged 15-45 who were fully treated, 95% survived to 2 years post transplant (overall survival, (95% CI, 81.5%-98.7%), and 88% reached the primary endpoint of event-free survival at 2 years (95% CI, 73.5%-94.8%), according to the findings, which were released at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
At an ASH news briefing, study lead author Adetola A. Kassim, MBBS, MS, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, in Nashville, Tennessee, said the results support haploidentical stem cell transplants “as a suitable and tolerable curative therapy for adults with sickle cell disease and severe end-organ toxicity such as stroke or pulmonary hypertension, a population typically excluded from participating in gene therapy.”
Dr. Kassim added that the findings are especially promising since there are so many potential donors in stem-cell transplants: “Your siblings can be donors, your parents can be donors, your cousins can be donors. First-, second-, and third-degree relatives can be donors. So there’s really endless donors within the family.”
In an interview, Mayo Clinic SCD specialist Asmaa Ferdjallah, MD, MPH, of Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, who was not involved with the study but is familiar with its findings, said stem cell transplant is the only option to cure SCD.
“This is advantageous because SCD is otherwise a chronic disease that is marked by chronic pain, risk of stroke, frequent interruptions of school/work due to sick days, and decreased life span,” she said. “Most patients, assuming they can tolerate the conditioning chemotherapy that is given before transplant, are eligible.”
Matched sibling donors are preferable, but they can be hard to find, she said. It hasn’t been clear whether half-matched donors are feasible options in SCD, she said. “This means that, if you are a patient with sickle cell disease, and you don’t have a suitable matched donor, haploidentical transplant is not a recommendation we can make outside of enrollment in a clinical trial.”
For the study, researchers enlisted 54 patients with SCD and prior stroke, recurrent acute chest syndrome or pain, chronic transfusion regimen, or tricuspid valve regurgitant jet velocity ≥2.7 m/sec. Participants had to have an HLA-haploidentical first-degree relative donor who would donate bone marrow.
“The median age was 22.8 years at enrollment; 47/54 (87%) of enrolled participants had hemoglobin SS disease, 40/54 (74.1%) had a Lansky/Karnofsky score of 90-100 at baseline, and 41/54 (75.9%) had an HLA match score of 4/8,” the researchers reported. “Recurrent vaso-occlusive pain episodes (38.9%), acute chest syndrome (16.8%), and overt stroke (16.7%) were the most common indications for transplant.”
“We knew going into this that we were going to get very high-risk patients,” Dr. Kassim said.
Forty-two patients went through with transplants. As for adverse events, 2 patients died, all within the first year, of organ failure and acute respiratory distress syndrome; 4.8% of participants had primary graft failure, and 2.4% had secondary graft failure before day 100. “The cumulative incidence of grades II-IV acute GVHD [graft-versus-host disease] at day 100 was 26.2% (95% CI, 14.0%-40.2%), and grades III-IV acute GVHD at day 100 was 4.8% (95% CI, 0.9%-14.4%).”
The outcomes are similar to those in transplants with matched sibling donors, Dr. Kassim said.
Dr. Ferdjallah said the new study is “robust” and impressive, although it’s small.
“As a clinician, these are the kind of outcomes I have been hoping for,” Dr. Ferdjallah said. “I have been very reluctant to suggest haploidentical transplant for my sickle cell disease patients. However, reviewing the results of this study with my motivated patients and families can help us both to use shared medical decision-making and come together with what is best for that specific patient.”
As for adverse events, she said they “confirm a fear of using haploidentical transplant, which is graft failure. Fortunately, out of 42 who proceeded to transplant, only 2 had primary graft failure and 1 had secondary graft failure. This is not overtly a large number. Of course, we would hope for more durable engraftment. The other side effects including GVHD and infection are all to be expected.”
As for cost, Dr. Kassim said the transplants run from $200,000 to $400,000 vs over $2 million for gene therapy, and Dr. Ferdjallah said insurance is likely to cover the treatment.
Moving ahead, Dr. Ferdjallah said she looks forward to getting study data about pediatric patients specifically. For now, “we should consider HLA-haploidentical seriously in patients with sickle cell disease and no available HLA-matched donors.”
Grants to the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and National Cancer Institute funded the study. Dr. Kassim had no disclosures. Some other authors disclosed various and multiple relationships with industry. Dr. Ferdjallah has no disclosures.
Of 42 patients aged 15-45 who were fully treated, 95% survived to 2 years post transplant (overall survival, (95% CI, 81.5%-98.7%), and 88% reached the primary endpoint of event-free survival at 2 years (95% CI, 73.5%-94.8%), according to the findings, which were released at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
At an ASH news briefing, study lead author Adetola A. Kassim, MBBS, MS, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, in Nashville, Tennessee, said the results support haploidentical stem cell transplants “as a suitable and tolerable curative therapy for adults with sickle cell disease and severe end-organ toxicity such as stroke or pulmonary hypertension, a population typically excluded from participating in gene therapy.”
Dr. Kassim added that the findings are especially promising since there are so many potential donors in stem-cell transplants: “Your siblings can be donors, your parents can be donors, your cousins can be donors. First-, second-, and third-degree relatives can be donors. So there’s really endless donors within the family.”
In an interview, Mayo Clinic SCD specialist Asmaa Ferdjallah, MD, MPH, of Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, who was not involved with the study but is familiar with its findings, said stem cell transplant is the only option to cure SCD.
“This is advantageous because SCD is otherwise a chronic disease that is marked by chronic pain, risk of stroke, frequent interruptions of school/work due to sick days, and decreased life span,” she said. “Most patients, assuming they can tolerate the conditioning chemotherapy that is given before transplant, are eligible.”
Matched sibling donors are preferable, but they can be hard to find, she said. It hasn’t been clear whether half-matched donors are feasible options in SCD, she said. “This means that, if you are a patient with sickle cell disease, and you don’t have a suitable matched donor, haploidentical transplant is not a recommendation we can make outside of enrollment in a clinical trial.”
For the study, researchers enlisted 54 patients with SCD and prior stroke, recurrent acute chest syndrome or pain, chronic transfusion regimen, or tricuspid valve regurgitant jet velocity ≥2.7 m/sec. Participants had to have an HLA-haploidentical first-degree relative donor who would donate bone marrow.
“The median age was 22.8 years at enrollment; 47/54 (87%) of enrolled participants had hemoglobin SS disease, 40/54 (74.1%) had a Lansky/Karnofsky score of 90-100 at baseline, and 41/54 (75.9%) had an HLA match score of 4/8,” the researchers reported. “Recurrent vaso-occlusive pain episodes (38.9%), acute chest syndrome (16.8%), and overt stroke (16.7%) were the most common indications for transplant.”
“We knew going into this that we were going to get very high-risk patients,” Dr. Kassim said.
Forty-two patients went through with transplants. As for adverse events, 2 patients died, all within the first year, of organ failure and acute respiratory distress syndrome; 4.8% of participants had primary graft failure, and 2.4% had secondary graft failure before day 100. “The cumulative incidence of grades II-IV acute GVHD [graft-versus-host disease] at day 100 was 26.2% (95% CI, 14.0%-40.2%), and grades III-IV acute GVHD at day 100 was 4.8% (95% CI, 0.9%-14.4%).”
The outcomes are similar to those in transplants with matched sibling donors, Dr. Kassim said.
Dr. Ferdjallah said the new study is “robust” and impressive, although it’s small.
“As a clinician, these are the kind of outcomes I have been hoping for,” Dr. Ferdjallah said. “I have been very reluctant to suggest haploidentical transplant for my sickle cell disease patients. However, reviewing the results of this study with my motivated patients and families can help us both to use shared medical decision-making and come together with what is best for that specific patient.”
As for adverse events, she said they “confirm a fear of using haploidentical transplant, which is graft failure. Fortunately, out of 42 who proceeded to transplant, only 2 had primary graft failure and 1 had secondary graft failure. This is not overtly a large number. Of course, we would hope for more durable engraftment. The other side effects including GVHD and infection are all to be expected.”
As for cost, Dr. Kassim said the transplants run from $200,000 to $400,000 vs over $2 million for gene therapy, and Dr. Ferdjallah said insurance is likely to cover the treatment.
Moving ahead, Dr. Ferdjallah said she looks forward to getting study data about pediatric patients specifically. For now, “we should consider HLA-haploidentical seriously in patients with sickle cell disease and no available HLA-matched donors.”
Grants to the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and National Cancer Institute funded the study. Dr. Kassim had no disclosures. Some other authors disclosed various and multiple relationships with industry. Dr. Ferdjallah has no disclosures.
FROM ASH 2023
Mantle Cell Lymphoma: Drug Combo Improves PFS
Still, “in the countries where ibrutinib is indicated, this combination should be a new standard therapy for relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma,” Michael Wang, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in a media briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
Its use would be off label, according to the authors of the industry-funded trial, because no nation has approved the combination therapy for MCL, a rare, aggressive form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
As Dr. Wang noted, ibrutinib (a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor) is approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat MCL, while venetoclax (a BCL-2 inhibitor) is approved for chronic lymphocytic leukemia and previously untreated acute myeloid leukemia. “The combination of these two agents leverages complementary modes of action and has demonstrated synergistic anti-tumor activity in preclinical models of mantle cell lymphoma,” he said. And “in patients with relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma, promising clinical activity has also been observed in early-phase studies.”
For the multinational, randomized, phase 3, double-blind SYMPATICO study, researchers assigned 267 adults with relapsed/refractory MCL after 1-5 prior therapies 1:1 to receive oral ibrutinib 560 mg daily with oral venetoclax (standard 5-wk ramp-up to a target dose of 400 mg once daily) or placebo for 2 years. Then they continued with ibrutinib alone until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity.
The study began in 2017. The median age of patients was 68, and the numbers of patients in each group were 134 (both drugs) and 133 (ibrutinib plus placebo).
At a median of 51.2 months, median PFS — the primary endpoint — was higher in the combination group vs. ibrutinib alone (31.9 vs. 22.1 months, hazard ratio [HR]=0.65, 95% CI, 0.47–0.88, P = .0052). While overall survival was higher in the combination group vs. ibrutinib alone, an interim analysis found that the difference was not statistically significant (44.9 months vs. 38.6 months, 95% CI, HR = 0.85, 0.62-1.19, P = .3465).
When questioned about this finding at the ASH news briefing, Dr. Wang said that 170 events are needed for a full overall survival analysis, and there are just 144 now. The study may reach that point in early 2025, he said.
Over a median treatment duration of 22.0 months for the combination treatment and 17.7 months for ibrutinib alone, grade ≥ 3 adverse events occurred in 84% and 76% of patients, respectively. At 60%, the level of serious adverse events was the same in both groups.
In an interview, Brian T. Hill, MD, PhD, of Cleveland Clinic, noted that in general, MCL “has a pretty relentless pattern of relapses and disease progression without an easy cure in the vast majority of patients.”
Ibrutinib has revolutionized treatment over the past decade with generally manageable side effects, and clinicians are now turning to other Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors, he said. Still, “there is a need for improving the durability and the response rates second-line treatment or beyond,” Dr. Hill said.
The new study is important since it’s the first randomized trial “that demonstrates that additional venetoclax significantly improves not only response rates, but also progression-free survival with a trend toward overall survival,” he said. “The toxicity profile doesn’t really seem to be significantly more worse than what we might expect with each agent given individually.”
However, Dr. Hill noted that “it’s a relatively small study and relatively short follow-up.”
It may be difficult to get an ibrutinib-venetoclax combination approved today since ibrutinib is no longer the preferred Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor for clinicians, he said.
Pharmacyclics, maker of ibrutinib, is the study sponsor and Janssen is a collaborator.
Dr. Wang reports research funding Acerta Pharma, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BioInvent, Celgene, Genentech, Innocare, Janssen, Juno Therapeutics, Kite Pharma, Lilly, Loxo Oncology, Molecular Templates, Oncternal, Pharmacyclics, and VelosBio. Other authors report multiple and various relationships with industry. Dr. Hill discloses research funding and consulting relationships with Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, BeiGene, and AstraZeneca.
Still, “in the countries where ibrutinib is indicated, this combination should be a new standard therapy for relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma,” Michael Wang, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in a media briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
Its use would be off label, according to the authors of the industry-funded trial, because no nation has approved the combination therapy for MCL, a rare, aggressive form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
As Dr. Wang noted, ibrutinib (a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor) is approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat MCL, while venetoclax (a BCL-2 inhibitor) is approved for chronic lymphocytic leukemia and previously untreated acute myeloid leukemia. “The combination of these two agents leverages complementary modes of action and has demonstrated synergistic anti-tumor activity in preclinical models of mantle cell lymphoma,” he said. And “in patients with relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma, promising clinical activity has also been observed in early-phase studies.”
For the multinational, randomized, phase 3, double-blind SYMPATICO study, researchers assigned 267 adults with relapsed/refractory MCL after 1-5 prior therapies 1:1 to receive oral ibrutinib 560 mg daily with oral venetoclax (standard 5-wk ramp-up to a target dose of 400 mg once daily) or placebo for 2 years. Then they continued with ibrutinib alone until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity.
The study began in 2017. The median age of patients was 68, and the numbers of patients in each group were 134 (both drugs) and 133 (ibrutinib plus placebo).
At a median of 51.2 months, median PFS — the primary endpoint — was higher in the combination group vs. ibrutinib alone (31.9 vs. 22.1 months, hazard ratio [HR]=0.65, 95% CI, 0.47–0.88, P = .0052). While overall survival was higher in the combination group vs. ibrutinib alone, an interim analysis found that the difference was not statistically significant (44.9 months vs. 38.6 months, 95% CI, HR = 0.85, 0.62-1.19, P = .3465).
When questioned about this finding at the ASH news briefing, Dr. Wang said that 170 events are needed for a full overall survival analysis, and there are just 144 now. The study may reach that point in early 2025, he said.
Over a median treatment duration of 22.0 months for the combination treatment and 17.7 months for ibrutinib alone, grade ≥ 3 adverse events occurred in 84% and 76% of patients, respectively. At 60%, the level of serious adverse events was the same in both groups.
In an interview, Brian T. Hill, MD, PhD, of Cleveland Clinic, noted that in general, MCL “has a pretty relentless pattern of relapses and disease progression without an easy cure in the vast majority of patients.”
Ibrutinib has revolutionized treatment over the past decade with generally manageable side effects, and clinicians are now turning to other Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors, he said. Still, “there is a need for improving the durability and the response rates second-line treatment or beyond,” Dr. Hill said.
The new study is important since it’s the first randomized trial “that demonstrates that additional venetoclax significantly improves not only response rates, but also progression-free survival with a trend toward overall survival,” he said. “The toxicity profile doesn’t really seem to be significantly more worse than what we might expect with each agent given individually.”
However, Dr. Hill noted that “it’s a relatively small study and relatively short follow-up.”
It may be difficult to get an ibrutinib-venetoclax combination approved today since ibrutinib is no longer the preferred Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor for clinicians, he said.
Pharmacyclics, maker of ibrutinib, is the study sponsor and Janssen is a collaborator.
Dr. Wang reports research funding Acerta Pharma, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BioInvent, Celgene, Genentech, Innocare, Janssen, Juno Therapeutics, Kite Pharma, Lilly, Loxo Oncology, Molecular Templates, Oncternal, Pharmacyclics, and VelosBio. Other authors report multiple and various relationships with industry. Dr. Hill discloses research funding and consulting relationships with Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, BeiGene, and AstraZeneca.
Still, “in the countries where ibrutinib is indicated, this combination should be a new standard therapy for relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma,” Michael Wang, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in a media briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
Its use would be off label, according to the authors of the industry-funded trial, because no nation has approved the combination therapy for MCL, a rare, aggressive form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
As Dr. Wang noted, ibrutinib (a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor) is approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat MCL, while venetoclax (a BCL-2 inhibitor) is approved for chronic lymphocytic leukemia and previously untreated acute myeloid leukemia. “The combination of these two agents leverages complementary modes of action and has demonstrated synergistic anti-tumor activity in preclinical models of mantle cell lymphoma,” he said. And “in patients with relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma, promising clinical activity has also been observed in early-phase studies.”
For the multinational, randomized, phase 3, double-blind SYMPATICO study, researchers assigned 267 adults with relapsed/refractory MCL after 1-5 prior therapies 1:1 to receive oral ibrutinib 560 mg daily with oral venetoclax (standard 5-wk ramp-up to a target dose of 400 mg once daily) or placebo for 2 years. Then they continued with ibrutinib alone until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity.
The study began in 2017. The median age of patients was 68, and the numbers of patients in each group were 134 (both drugs) and 133 (ibrutinib plus placebo).
At a median of 51.2 months, median PFS — the primary endpoint — was higher in the combination group vs. ibrutinib alone (31.9 vs. 22.1 months, hazard ratio [HR]=0.65, 95% CI, 0.47–0.88, P = .0052). While overall survival was higher in the combination group vs. ibrutinib alone, an interim analysis found that the difference was not statistically significant (44.9 months vs. 38.6 months, 95% CI, HR = 0.85, 0.62-1.19, P = .3465).
When questioned about this finding at the ASH news briefing, Dr. Wang said that 170 events are needed for a full overall survival analysis, and there are just 144 now. The study may reach that point in early 2025, he said.
Over a median treatment duration of 22.0 months for the combination treatment and 17.7 months for ibrutinib alone, grade ≥ 3 adverse events occurred in 84% and 76% of patients, respectively. At 60%, the level of serious adverse events was the same in both groups.
In an interview, Brian T. Hill, MD, PhD, of Cleveland Clinic, noted that in general, MCL “has a pretty relentless pattern of relapses and disease progression without an easy cure in the vast majority of patients.”
Ibrutinib has revolutionized treatment over the past decade with generally manageable side effects, and clinicians are now turning to other Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors, he said. Still, “there is a need for improving the durability and the response rates second-line treatment or beyond,” Dr. Hill said.
The new study is important since it’s the first randomized trial “that demonstrates that additional venetoclax significantly improves not only response rates, but also progression-free survival with a trend toward overall survival,” he said. “The toxicity profile doesn’t really seem to be significantly more worse than what we might expect with each agent given individually.”
However, Dr. Hill noted that “it’s a relatively small study and relatively short follow-up.”
It may be difficult to get an ibrutinib-venetoclax combination approved today since ibrutinib is no longer the preferred Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor for clinicians, he said.
Pharmacyclics, maker of ibrutinib, is the study sponsor and Janssen is a collaborator.
Dr. Wang reports research funding Acerta Pharma, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BioInvent, Celgene, Genentech, Innocare, Janssen, Juno Therapeutics, Kite Pharma, Lilly, Loxo Oncology, Molecular Templates, Oncternal, Pharmacyclics, and VelosBio. Other authors report multiple and various relationships with industry. Dr. Hill discloses research funding and consulting relationships with Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, BeiGene, and AstraZeneca.
FROM ASH 2023
In real world, patients with myeloma have worse outcomes
The analysis, which included nearly 4,000 patients with multiple myeloma, revealed that patients in a real-world setting demonstrated worse progression-free and overall survival on six of seven standard treatments compared with patients evaluated in randomized controlled trials.
Lead author Alissa Visram, MD, MPH, who spoke about the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, said the findings will likely change the way she speaks to patients about their potential outcomes.
“I’ll probably present both numbers [from real-life and clinical-trial data] and give them a sense of the best-case scenario,” Dr. Visram said during an ASH media briefing. But she said she will also caution her patients that the real-world numbers reflect how people on these drugs actually fare.
The effectiveness of multiple myeloma drugs remains unclear outside the clinical trial setting, explained Dr. Visram, of the Division of Hematology at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Outcomes from randomized controlled trials form the basis of drug approvals but many patients in the real world do not meet the “stringent” trial inclusion criteria.
Dr. Visram and colleagues launched the current study to better understand the potential differences between real-world and clinical trial outcomes. In the analysis, the researchers compared real-world outcomes among patients receiving seven standard multiple myeloma regimens covered by Ontario’s public health plan with patient outcomes reported in phase 3 randomized controlled trials.
The retrospective study included 3951 patients with newly diagnosed and refractory multiple myeloma treated from 2007 to 2020 in Ontario. Regimens for newly diagnosed transplant ineligible patients included lenalidomide plus dexamethasone and triple therapy with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone. Regimens for patients with relapsed disease included pomalidomide plus dexamethasone or carfilzomib plus dexamethasone as well as triple combinations including carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone.
Overall, Dr. Visram and colleagues found that patients in the real-world setting demonstrated worse overall survival for six of the seven regimens evaluated (pooled hazard ratio [HR], 1.75; P = .010).
The real-world patients also had worse progression-free survival for six of the seven regimens (pooled HR, 1.44; P = .034).
For these regimens, progression-free survival was at least 3-18 months longer in the clinical trial cohort, while median overall survival was at least 19 months longer compared with real-world patients, Dr. Visram explained.
The only regimen with comparable outcomes in the clinical trial and real-world settings was pomalidomide and dexamethasone, she said. One reason could be that patients receiving pomalidomide plus dexamethasone in the clinical trial setting had similar or more advanced disease than those in the real-world setting.
The study also found that adverse effects were similar between the clinical and real-world groups.
The next step, Dr. Visram said, would be to explore what’s driving the differences in outcomes.
Are patients in the real-world setting older or frailer? Do they have more advanced disease? Are providers using these regimens differently?
Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, explained that the difference likely comes down to the health of the patient.
Patients in these types of clinical trials “are just these pristine specimens of human beings except for the cancer that’s being treated,” Dr. Sekeres, of the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami, Florida, said in an earlier ASH press briefing.
Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, noted that patients in clinical trials have other advantages as well.
“Patients who are able to enroll in clinical trials are more likely to be able to show up at the treatment center at the right time and for every dose, have transportation, and afford drugs to prevent side effects,” said Dr. Dunbar, chief of the Translational Stem Cell Biology Branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and secretary of ASH. These patients also “might stay on the drug for longer, or they have nurses who are always encouraging them on how to make it through a toxicity.”
Dr. Dunbar said hematologists and patients should consider randomized controlled trials to be “the best possible outcome, and perhaps adjust their thinking if an individual patient is older, sicker, or less able to follow a regimen exactly.”
No study funding was reported. Dr. Visram reported consulting and honoraria relationships with Apotex, Janssen, and Sanofi. Other study authors reported multiple relationships with industry. Disclosures for Dr. Dunbar and Dr. Sekeres were unavailable.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The analysis, which included nearly 4,000 patients with multiple myeloma, revealed that patients in a real-world setting demonstrated worse progression-free and overall survival on six of seven standard treatments compared with patients evaluated in randomized controlled trials.
Lead author Alissa Visram, MD, MPH, who spoke about the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, said the findings will likely change the way she speaks to patients about their potential outcomes.
“I’ll probably present both numbers [from real-life and clinical-trial data] and give them a sense of the best-case scenario,” Dr. Visram said during an ASH media briefing. But she said she will also caution her patients that the real-world numbers reflect how people on these drugs actually fare.
The effectiveness of multiple myeloma drugs remains unclear outside the clinical trial setting, explained Dr. Visram, of the Division of Hematology at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Outcomes from randomized controlled trials form the basis of drug approvals but many patients in the real world do not meet the “stringent” trial inclusion criteria.
Dr. Visram and colleagues launched the current study to better understand the potential differences between real-world and clinical trial outcomes. In the analysis, the researchers compared real-world outcomes among patients receiving seven standard multiple myeloma regimens covered by Ontario’s public health plan with patient outcomes reported in phase 3 randomized controlled trials.
The retrospective study included 3951 patients with newly diagnosed and refractory multiple myeloma treated from 2007 to 2020 in Ontario. Regimens for newly diagnosed transplant ineligible patients included lenalidomide plus dexamethasone and triple therapy with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone. Regimens for patients with relapsed disease included pomalidomide plus dexamethasone or carfilzomib plus dexamethasone as well as triple combinations including carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone.
Overall, Dr. Visram and colleagues found that patients in the real-world setting demonstrated worse overall survival for six of the seven regimens evaluated (pooled hazard ratio [HR], 1.75; P = .010).
The real-world patients also had worse progression-free survival for six of the seven regimens (pooled HR, 1.44; P = .034).
For these regimens, progression-free survival was at least 3-18 months longer in the clinical trial cohort, while median overall survival was at least 19 months longer compared with real-world patients, Dr. Visram explained.
The only regimen with comparable outcomes in the clinical trial and real-world settings was pomalidomide and dexamethasone, she said. One reason could be that patients receiving pomalidomide plus dexamethasone in the clinical trial setting had similar or more advanced disease than those in the real-world setting.
The study also found that adverse effects were similar between the clinical and real-world groups.
The next step, Dr. Visram said, would be to explore what’s driving the differences in outcomes.
Are patients in the real-world setting older or frailer? Do they have more advanced disease? Are providers using these regimens differently?
Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, explained that the difference likely comes down to the health of the patient.
Patients in these types of clinical trials “are just these pristine specimens of human beings except for the cancer that’s being treated,” Dr. Sekeres, of the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami, Florida, said in an earlier ASH press briefing.
Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, noted that patients in clinical trials have other advantages as well.
“Patients who are able to enroll in clinical trials are more likely to be able to show up at the treatment center at the right time and for every dose, have transportation, and afford drugs to prevent side effects,” said Dr. Dunbar, chief of the Translational Stem Cell Biology Branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and secretary of ASH. These patients also “might stay on the drug for longer, or they have nurses who are always encouraging them on how to make it through a toxicity.”
Dr. Dunbar said hematologists and patients should consider randomized controlled trials to be “the best possible outcome, and perhaps adjust their thinking if an individual patient is older, sicker, or less able to follow a regimen exactly.”
No study funding was reported. Dr. Visram reported consulting and honoraria relationships with Apotex, Janssen, and Sanofi. Other study authors reported multiple relationships with industry. Disclosures for Dr. Dunbar and Dr. Sekeres were unavailable.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The analysis, which included nearly 4,000 patients with multiple myeloma, revealed that patients in a real-world setting demonstrated worse progression-free and overall survival on six of seven standard treatments compared with patients evaluated in randomized controlled trials.
Lead author Alissa Visram, MD, MPH, who spoke about the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, said the findings will likely change the way she speaks to patients about their potential outcomes.
“I’ll probably present both numbers [from real-life and clinical-trial data] and give them a sense of the best-case scenario,” Dr. Visram said during an ASH media briefing. But she said she will also caution her patients that the real-world numbers reflect how people on these drugs actually fare.
The effectiveness of multiple myeloma drugs remains unclear outside the clinical trial setting, explained Dr. Visram, of the Division of Hematology at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Outcomes from randomized controlled trials form the basis of drug approvals but many patients in the real world do not meet the “stringent” trial inclusion criteria.
Dr. Visram and colleagues launched the current study to better understand the potential differences between real-world and clinical trial outcomes. In the analysis, the researchers compared real-world outcomes among patients receiving seven standard multiple myeloma regimens covered by Ontario’s public health plan with patient outcomes reported in phase 3 randomized controlled trials.
The retrospective study included 3951 patients with newly diagnosed and refractory multiple myeloma treated from 2007 to 2020 in Ontario. Regimens for newly diagnosed transplant ineligible patients included lenalidomide plus dexamethasone and triple therapy with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone. Regimens for patients with relapsed disease included pomalidomide plus dexamethasone or carfilzomib plus dexamethasone as well as triple combinations including carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone.
Overall, Dr. Visram and colleagues found that patients in the real-world setting demonstrated worse overall survival for six of the seven regimens evaluated (pooled hazard ratio [HR], 1.75; P = .010).
The real-world patients also had worse progression-free survival for six of the seven regimens (pooled HR, 1.44; P = .034).
For these regimens, progression-free survival was at least 3-18 months longer in the clinical trial cohort, while median overall survival was at least 19 months longer compared with real-world patients, Dr. Visram explained.
The only regimen with comparable outcomes in the clinical trial and real-world settings was pomalidomide and dexamethasone, she said. One reason could be that patients receiving pomalidomide plus dexamethasone in the clinical trial setting had similar or more advanced disease than those in the real-world setting.
The study also found that adverse effects were similar between the clinical and real-world groups.
The next step, Dr. Visram said, would be to explore what’s driving the differences in outcomes.
Are patients in the real-world setting older or frailer? Do they have more advanced disease? Are providers using these regimens differently?
Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, explained that the difference likely comes down to the health of the patient.
Patients in these types of clinical trials “are just these pristine specimens of human beings except for the cancer that’s being treated,” Dr. Sekeres, of the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami, Florida, said in an earlier ASH press briefing.
Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, noted that patients in clinical trials have other advantages as well.
“Patients who are able to enroll in clinical trials are more likely to be able to show up at the treatment center at the right time and for every dose, have transportation, and afford drugs to prevent side effects,” said Dr. Dunbar, chief of the Translational Stem Cell Biology Branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and secretary of ASH. These patients also “might stay on the drug for longer, or they have nurses who are always encouraging them on how to make it through a toxicity.”
Dr. Dunbar said hematologists and patients should consider randomized controlled trials to be “the best possible outcome, and perhaps adjust their thinking if an individual patient is older, sicker, or less able to follow a regimen exactly.”
No study funding was reported. Dr. Visram reported consulting and honoraria relationships with Apotex, Janssen, and Sanofi. Other study authors reported multiple relationships with industry. Disclosures for Dr. Dunbar and Dr. Sekeres were unavailable.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ASH 2023
This test may guide AML therapy for Black pediatric patients
.
The score, dubbed ACS10 and initially highlighted in a 2022 report, predicts how well patients will respond to cytarabine based on their genetic make-up, and has the potential to personalize treatment for Black pediatric patients, a group that often has worse outcomes than White patients.
In the current study, presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) , Black patients with low ACS10 scores had significantly worse outcomes compared with those with high scores when initially treated with low-dose cytarabine, daunorubicin, and etoposide.
The difference in outcomes disappeared, however, for patients who received high-dose cytarabine, daunorubicin, and etoposide or clofarabine and cytarabine.
The genetic traits revealed by the test likely help explain why Black patients with AML typically fare worse on certain regimens, Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, chief of the Translational Stem Cell Biology Branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, commented in an ASH press preview briefing.
This study also suggests that clinicians should perform testing for genetic variants and biomarkers that impact outcomes “instead of assuming that a certain dose should be given simply based on perceived or reported race or ethnicity,” said Dr. Dunbar, also secretary of ASH.
The ACS10 test, derived from a combination of 10 single nucleotide polymorphisms, is not yet available, but one could be developed to help guide treatment decisions for clinicians, especially those in developing countries where AML treatment can be very expensive, said study lead author Jatinder Lamba, PhD, MSc, of the University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville, at an ASH press briefing on Thursday.
Prior research shows that Black pediatric patients with AML often have worse outcomes than White patients. A recent study , for instance, found Black patients with AML, especially those aged 18 to 29 years, had a higher early death rate compared with White patients (16% vs 3%) and significantly lower 5-year overall survival rates (22% vs 51%). The authors of this study suggested that genetic differences between young Black and White patients could help explain the disparity.
In the new analysis, Dr. Lamba and colleagues explored how outcomes by race and cytarabine pharmacogenomics varied in pediatric patients with AML.
The study included 86 Black patients and 359 White patients with newly diagnosed AML treated on two multi-institutional clinical trials. The patients received one of three initial treatments that included cytarabine: high-dose or low-dose cytarabine, daunorubicin, and etoposide, or clofarabine and cytarabine.
Most Black patients in the analysis (73%) had low ACS10 scores compared with 30% of White patients.
Unlike other recent reports, this study found that Black and White patients had similar complete remission rates following two courses of induction therapy (92.6% vs 95%) as well as similar rates of minimal residual disease negativity after one course (55.8% vs 55.4%).
Event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival rates were also similar, with 5-year EFS estimates at 58.3% for Black patients and 58.2% for White patients and overall survival rates at 63.8% vs 69.4%, respectively (P = .24).
However, when separating outcomes by ACS10 scores, Black patients with low scores had significantly worse EFS following low-dose cytarabine, daunorubicin, and etoposide compared with those with high ACS10 scores. And when these patients received high-dose cytarabine, daunorubicin, and etoposide or clofarabine and cytarabine induction therapy instead, the differences went away.
Overall, Black patients demonstrated significantly better EFS following treatment with clofarabine and cytarabine compared with the low-dose cytarabine triple therapy (hazard ratio, 0.17; P = .01). After adjusting for cofounders, clofarabine and cytarabine induction was the best treatment for Black patients with low ACS10 scores (HR for EFS, 0.2).
“Our results suggest that pharmacogenomics differences between Black and White patients should be considered when tailoring induction regimens to improve outcomes of Black patients and bridge the racial disparity gap in AML treatment,” the researchers concluded.
In developing countries, especially in Africa, starting patients on high-dose cytarabine, daunorubicin, and etoposide can lead to better results “without increasing much of the economic burden” since this treatment is the cheapest, Dr. Lamba said. “At the same time, if the patients have high ACS10 score, you can reduce their economic burden by giving them standard dose” cytarabine, daunorubicin, and etoposide and achieve similar results.
No study funding was reported. Dr. Lamba reported no relevant financial relationships, and three other authors reported various disclosures. Disclosures for Dr. Dunbar were unavailable..
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
.
The score, dubbed ACS10 and initially highlighted in a 2022 report, predicts how well patients will respond to cytarabine based on their genetic make-up, and has the potential to personalize treatment for Black pediatric patients, a group that often has worse outcomes than White patients.
In the current study, presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) , Black patients with low ACS10 scores had significantly worse outcomes compared with those with high scores when initially treated with low-dose cytarabine, daunorubicin, and etoposide.
The difference in outcomes disappeared, however, for patients who received high-dose cytarabine, daunorubicin, and etoposide or clofarabine and cytarabine.
The genetic traits revealed by the test likely help explain why Black patients with AML typically fare worse on certain regimens, Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, chief of the Translational Stem Cell Biology Branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, commented in an ASH press preview briefing.
This study also suggests that clinicians should perform testing for genetic variants and biomarkers that impact outcomes “instead of assuming that a certain dose should be given simply based on perceived or reported race or ethnicity,” said Dr. Dunbar, also secretary of ASH.
The ACS10 test, derived from a combination of 10 single nucleotide polymorphisms, is not yet available, but one could be developed to help guide treatment decisions for clinicians, especially those in developing countries where AML treatment can be very expensive, said study lead author Jatinder Lamba, PhD, MSc, of the University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville, at an ASH press briefing on Thursday.
Prior research shows that Black pediatric patients with AML often have worse outcomes than White patients. A recent study , for instance, found Black patients with AML, especially those aged 18 to 29 years, had a higher early death rate compared with White patients (16% vs 3%) and significantly lower 5-year overall survival rates (22% vs 51%). The authors of this study suggested that genetic differences between young Black and White patients could help explain the disparity.
In the new analysis, Dr. Lamba and colleagues explored how outcomes by race and cytarabine pharmacogenomics varied in pediatric patients with AML.
The study included 86 Black patients and 359 White patients with newly diagnosed AML treated on two multi-institutional clinical trials. The patients received one of three initial treatments that included cytarabine: high-dose or low-dose cytarabine, daunorubicin, and etoposide, or clofarabine and cytarabine.
Most Black patients in the analysis (73%) had low ACS10 scores compared with 30% of White patients.
Unlike other recent reports, this study found that Black and White patients had similar complete remission rates following two courses of induction therapy (92.6% vs 95%) as well as similar rates of minimal residual disease negativity after one course (55.8% vs 55.4%).
Event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival rates were also similar, with 5-year EFS estimates at 58.3% for Black patients and 58.2% for White patients and overall survival rates at 63.8% vs 69.4%, respectively (P = .24).
However, when separating outcomes by ACS10 scores, Black patients with low scores had significantly worse EFS following low-dose cytarabine, daunorubicin, and etoposide compared with those with high ACS10 scores. And when these patients received high-dose cytarabine, daunorubicin, and etoposide or clofarabine and cytarabine induction therapy instead, the differences went away.
Overall, Black patients demonstrated significantly better EFS following treatment with clofarabine and cytarabine compared with the low-dose cytarabine triple therapy (hazard ratio, 0.17; P = .01). After adjusting for cofounders, clofarabine and cytarabine induction was the best treatment for Black patients with low ACS10 scores (HR for EFS, 0.2).
“Our results suggest that pharmacogenomics differences between Black and White patients should be considered when tailoring induction regimens to improve outcomes of Black patients and bridge the racial disparity gap in AML treatment,” the researchers concluded.
In developing countries, especially in Africa, starting patients on high-dose cytarabine, daunorubicin, and etoposide can lead to better results “without increasing much of the economic burden” since this treatment is the cheapest, Dr. Lamba said. “At the same time, if the patients have high ACS10 score, you can reduce their economic burden by giving them standard dose” cytarabine, daunorubicin, and etoposide and achieve similar results.
No study funding was reported. Dr. Lamba reported no relevant financial relationships, and three other authors reported various disclosures. Disclosures for Dr. Dunbar were unavailable..
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
.
The score, dubbed ACS10 and initially highlighted in a 2022 report, predicts how well patients will respond to cytarabine based on their genetic make-up, and has the potential to personalize treatment for Black pediatric patients, a group that often has worse outcomes than White patients.
In the current study, presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) , Black patients with low ACS10 scores had significantly worse outcomes compared with those with high scores when initially treated with low-dose cytarabine, daunorubicin, and etoposide.
The difference in outcomes disappeared, however, for patients who received high-dose cytarabine, daunorubicin, and etoposide or clofarabine and cytarabine.
The genetic traits revealed by the test likely help explain why Black patients with AML typically fare worse on certain regimens, Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, chief of the Translational Stem Cell Biology Branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, commented in an ASH press preview briefing.
This study also suggests that clinicians should perform testing for genetic variants and biomarkers that impact outcomes “instead of assuming that a certain dose should be given simply based on perceived or reported race or ethnicity,” said Dr. Dunbar, also secretary of ASH.
The ACS10 test, derived from a combination of 10 single nucleotide polymorphisms, is not yet available, but one could be developed to help guide treatment decisions for clinicians, especially those in developing countries where AML treatment can be very expensive, said study lead author Jatinder Lamba, PhD, MSc, of the University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville, at an ASH press briefing on Thursday.
Prior research shows that Black pediatric patients with AML often have worse outcomes than White patients. A recent study , for instance, found Black patients with AML, especially those aged 18 to 29 years, had a higher early death rate compared with White patients (16% vs 3%) and significantly lower 5-year overall survival rates (22% vs 51%). The authors of this study suggested that genetic differences between young Black and White patients could help explain the disparity.
In the new analysis, Dr. Lamba and colleagues explored how outcomes by race and cytarabine pharmacogenomics varied in pediatric patients with AML.
The study included 86 Black patients and 359 White patients with newly diagnosed AML treated on two multi-institutional clinical trials. The patients received one of three initial treatments that included cytarabine: high-dose or low-dose cytarabine, daunorubicin, and etoposide, or clofarabine and cytarabine.
Most Black patients in the analysis (73%) had low ACS10 scores compared with 30% of White patients.
Unlike other recent reports, this study found that Black and White patients had similar complete remission rates following two courses of induction therapy (92.6% vs 95%) as well as similar rates of minimal residual disease negativity after one course (55.8% vs 55.4%).
Event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival rates were also similar, with 5-year EFS estimates at 58.3% for Black patients and 58.2% for White patients and overall survival rates at 63.8% vs 69.4%, respectively (P = .24).
However, when separating outcomes by ACS10 scores, Black patients with low scores had significantly worse EFS following low-dose cytarabine, daunorubicin, and etoposide compared with those with high ACS10 scores. And when these patients received high-dose cytarabine, daunorubicin, and etoposide or clofarabine and cytarabine induction therapy instead, the differences went away.
Overall, Black patients demonstrated significantly better EFS following treatment with clofarabine and cytarabine compared with the low-dose cytarabine triple therapy (hazard ratio, 0.17; P = .01). After adjusting for cofounders, clofarabine and cytarabine induction was the best treatment for Black patients with low ACS10 scores (HR for EFS, 0.2).
“Our results suggest that pharmacogenomics differences between Black and White patients should be considered when tailoring induction regimens to improve outcomes of Black patients and bridge the racial disparity gap in AML treatment,” the researchers concluded.
In developing countries, especially in Africa, starting patients on high-dose cytarabine, daunorubicin, and etoposide can lead to better results “without increasing much of the economic burden” since this treatment is the cheapest, Dr. Lamba said. “At the same time, if the patients have high ACS10 score, you can reduce their economic burden by giving them standard dose” cytarabine, daunorubicin, and etoposide and achieve similar results.
No study funding was reported. Dr. Lamba reported no relevant financial relationships, and three other authors reported various disclosures. Disclosures for Dr. Dunbar were unavailable..
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ASH 2023
Hematology is in the Brodsky family’s blood
In interviews, Robert and Max Brodsky spoke about the appeal of hematology and the threads that unite them with family members who came before. The elder Brodsky also talked about the work that’s made him the proudest during his year-long presidency at ASH.
Robert A. Brodsky is professor of medicine and director of hematology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. He is stepping down as ASH president at its annual meeting in San Diego, December 9-12. Here are excerpts from our conversation:
Q: What drew your dad into medicine?
Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: He was going through his medical training at the University of Pennsylvania, then the Vietnam War came, and he served at the National Institutes of Health in what they referred to as the Yellow Berets. He got very interested in retroviruses and viruses that lead to cancer, which was a foreign idea at the time. This led him into hematology, stem cells, and myeloproliferative disorders.
He had a very successful career in hematology and just loved it. He performed the first bone marrow transplant in the tristate area of Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey.
Q: What did he like about hematology specifically?
Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: It’s a fascinating field, probably the most scientific area of medicine. It’s so easy to access blood and bone marrow. You can grow it, you can look at it, you can see it. It’s hard to do that with a lung, heart, kidney, or brain. Even back then, they could translate some of the science. What really drew him to hematology — and me, for that matter — was looking at a blood smear or bone marrow and being able to make a diagnosis. The other thing is the personal aspect. Hematologists tend to like the long-term relationships that they develop with their patients over the years.
Q: What were the biggest transformations in hematology during his career?
Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: Bone marrow transplant had the biggest impact, and it’s an area he really pioneered. He was very much involved in some of the early bone marrow transplants and was very close with Dr. George W. Santos, who was at Johns Hopkins and one of the big pioneers in that area as well. To be able to take marrow from related donors, get it to grow without the patient rejecting it, and cure a disease, was really huge. When he started doing this, patients had no other option. To see patients be cured was incredibly satisfying to him.
Q: How did you end up following your father into hematology?
Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: My brother Jeff, who’s a surgeon and older than me, knew he was going into medicine — probably about 3 hours after he was born. I came to it late. I was a political science major as an undergrad and really trying to figure out what I wanted to do. In my sophomore year, I decided I wanted to give this a shot. My dad worked very hard, long hours, but you could tell he loved what he did. And he was never absent, always involved in our lives and still made time for everyone. At some level, that must have had an influence on me.
Q: What has changed in hematology over your 30-plus years in medicine?
A: When I look back at when I was a fellow, it’s just mind-boggling how many lethal or life-threatening diseases are now pretty easy to treat. I studied disorders like aplastic anemia, which was very fatal. Without treatment, patients would die within a year. Now, over 95% are cured. Another classic examples is chronic myeloid leukemia disorder. Back when I was a fellow, the median survival for CML was maybe 4 to 6 years. Now, Kareem Abdul Jabbar has had this[for about 15 years]. Also a lot of hematologic malignancies are being cured with immunotherapy approaches. We’ve figured out the pathophysiology of a lot of diseases, and there are incredible genetic diagnostic assays.
Q: What was your father’s relationship with ASH?
Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: The first ASH meeting was 1958 in Atlantic City, New Jersey. There were 300 hematologists there, and my dad was one of them. We’re going to have over 30,000 people in San Diego, which is a record, and another 5,000 or 6,000 virtually.
Q: As ASH president, what are your biggest accomplishments when it comes to addressing the shortage of hematologists and other issues?
Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: ASH is investing $19 million to develop fellowships with a focus on hematology.* This is going to put lots of new hematologists into the workforce over the next 5 to 10 years. We’ve also been working on the Maintenance of Certification [MOC] process to make it less onerous on physicians. It’s really a bad process, and it’s not just ASH [that’s complaining], it’s all of medicine. We’re hearing this from GI, endocrine, renal and the general internists.
[In a September 2023 letter to the American Board of Internal Medicine’s president and chief officer, Dr. Brodsky wrote that “ASH continues to support the importance of lifelong learning for hematologists via a program that is evidence-based, relevant to one’s practice, and transparent; however, these three basic requirements are not met by the current ABIM MOC program.” ASH is calling for a new and reformed MOC program.]
Q: What convinced ASH to expand its journals by adding Blood Neoplasia and Blood Vessels, Thrombosis & Hemostasis?
Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: ASH has two flagship journals right now, Blood and Blood Advances, and they’re both very competitive, high-impact journals. It turns out there’s not enough room to publish all the new science, and they end up rejecting the majority of the submissions that come to them. We decided to keep these journals in the ASH family because there’s some fantastic clinical trials and science that would be going elsewhere.
Dr. Brodsky’s sons both have medical degrees: Brett Brodsky, DO, is a resident at Virginia Commonwealth University who plans to become a sports medicine specialist, and Max Brodsky, MD, is a second-year fellow in hematology at Johns Hopkins University.
In an interview, Max Brodsky, MD, talked about the roots of his family’s dedication to caring for others.
Q: What drew you to hematology?
Dr. Max Brodsky: I’ve watched both my dad and my grandfather be leaders in the field as both physicians and scientists, and that was very inspirational for me to see. And I went to a medical school [Drexel University College of Medicine] that my dad went to and where my grandfather was on faculty. That was like walking in their footsteps in a major way.
Q: What do you hope to focus on as a hematologist?
Dr. Max Brodsky: I’m still working through that, but I am really interested in thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura. Patients used to not be able to survive their initial episodes, but now we have good treatments and are able to follow them as outpatients. With this whole cohort of patients that are surviving, we’re seeing that they have more health problems — more heart disease, more strokes and kidney disease. There’s a whole growing field exploring how to treat these patients for their lifespan.
Q: How do you deal with the reality that more of your patients will die than in some other medical fields?
Dr. Max Brodsky: It is challenging, but I also see those moments as opportunities to support patients and families. I’m good at connecting to patients and families who are in scary situations. I’ve always had that skill of putting people at ease, making people feel calm, knowing that they can trust me, and I have their best interests in mind.
Q: Why do you think your family is so committed to medicine?
Dr. Max Brodsky: We’re Jewish, and looking to help the world is one of the main core values of Judaism. The Torah expects us to make this world better. Actually, my great-grandfather Max, whom I’m named after, used to dig tunnels to help people escape Ukraine and get to freedom. He was always looking to help others as well. My great-grandmother was shot crossing the border escaping from Ukraine, and he carried her the whole way to the boat. They lived in very poor West Philadelphia and poured everything into my grandfather. He became a great doctor, and his sons and his grandchildren are in medicine today.
*Correction, 12/11: A previous version of this story misstated the amount of ASH’s $19 million investment in developing fellowships with a focus on hematology.
In interviews, Robert and Max Brodsky spoke about the appeal of hematology and the threads that unite them with family members who came before. The elder Brodsky also talked about the work that’s made him the proudest during his year-long presidency at ASH.
Robert A. Brodsky is professor of medicine and director of hematology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. He is stepping down as ASH president at its annual meeting in San Diego, December 9-12. Here are excerpts from our conversation:
Q: What drew your dad into medicine?
Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: He was going through his medical training at the University of Pennsylvania, then the Vietnam War came, and he served at the National Institutes of Health in what they referred to as the Yellow Berets. He got very interested in retroviruses and viruses that lead to cancer, which was a foreign idea at the time. This led him into hematology, stem cells, and myeloproliferative disorders.
He had a very successful career in hematology and just loved it. He performed the first bone marrow transplant in the tristate area of Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey.
Q: What did he like about hematology specifically?
Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: It’s a fascinating field, probably the most scientific area of medicine. It’s so easy to access blood and bone marrow. You can grow it, you can look at it, you can see it. It’s hard to do that with a lung, heart, kidney, or brain. Even back then, they could translate some of the science. What really drew him to hematology — and me, for that matter — was looking at a blood smear or bone marrow and being able to make a diagnosis. The other thing is the personal aspect. Hematologists tend to like the long-term relationships that they develop with their patients over the years.
Q: What were the biggest transformations in hematology during his career?
Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: Bone marrow transplant had the biggest impact, and it’s an area he really pioneered. He was very much involved in some of the early bone marrow transplants and was very close with Dr. George W. Santos, who was at Johns Hopkins and one of the big pioneers in that area as well. To be able to take marrow from related donors, get it to grow without the patient rejecting it, and cure a disease, was really huge. When he started doing this, patients had no other option. To see patients be cured was incredibly satisfying to him.
Q: How did you end up following your father into hematology?
Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: My brother Jeff, who’s a surgeon and older than me, knew he was going into medicine — probably about 3 hours after he was born. I came to it late. I was a political science major as an undergrad and really trying to figure out what I wanted to do. In my sophomore year, I decided I wanted to give this a shot. My dad worked very hard, long hours, but you could tell he loved what he did. And he was never absent, always involved in our lives and still made time for everyone. At some level, that must have had an influence on me.
Q: What has changed in hematology over your 30-plus years in medicine?
A: When I look back at when I was a fellow, it’s just mind-boggling how many lethal or life-threatening diseases are now pretty easy to treat. I studied disorders like aplastic anemia, which was very fatal. Without treatment, patients would die within a year. Now, over 95% are cured. Another classic examples is chronic myeloid leukemia disorder. Back when I was a fellow, the median survival for CML was maybe 4 to 6 years. Now, Kareem Abdul Jabbar has had this[for about 15 years]. Also a lot of hematologic malignancies are being cured with immunotherapy approaches. We’ve figured out the pathophysiology of a lot of diseases, and there are incredible genetic diagnostic assays.
Q: What was your father’s relationship with ASH?
Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: The first ASH meeting was 1958 in Atlantic City, New Jersey. There were 300 hematologists there, and my dad was one of them. We’re going to have over 30,000 people in San Diego, which is a record, and another 5,000 or 6,000 virtually.
Q: As ASH president, what are your biggest accomplishments when it comes to addressing the shortage of hematologists and other issues?
Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: ASH is investing $19 million to develop fellowships with a focus on hematology.* This is going to put lots of new hematologists into the workforce over the next 5 to 10 years. We’ve also been working on the Maintenance of Certification [MOC] process to make it less onerous on physicians. It’s really a bad process, and it’s not just ASH [that’s complaining], it’s all of medicine. We’re hearing this from GI, endocrine, renal and the general internists.
[In a September 2023 letter to the American Board of Internal Medicine’s president and chief officer, Dr. Brodsky wrote that “ASH continues to support the importance of lifelong learning for hematologists via a program that is evidence-based, relevant to one’s practice, and transparent; however, these three basic requirements are not met by the current ABIM MOC program.” ASH is calling for a new and reformed MOC program.]
Q: What convinced ASH to expand its journals by adding Blood Neoplasia and Blood Vessels, Thrombosis & Hemostasis?
Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: ASH has two flagship journals right now, Blood and Blood Advances, and they’re both very competitive, high-impact journals. It turns out there’s not enough room to publish all the new science, and they end up rejecting the majority of the submissions that come to them. We decided to keep these journals in the ASH family because there’s some fantastic clinical trials and science that would be going elsewhere.
Dr. Brodsky’s sons both have medical degrees: Brett Brodsky, DO, is a resident at Virginia Commonwealth University who plans to become a sports medicine specialist, and Max Brodsky, MD, is a second-year fellow in hematology at Johns Hopkins University.
In an interview, Max Brodsky, MD, talked about the roots of his family’s dedication to caring for others.
Q: What drew you to hematology?
Dr. Max Brodsky: I’ve watched both my dad and my grandfather be leaders in the field as both physicians and scientists, and that was very inspirational for me to see. And I went to a medical school [Drexel University College of Medicine] that my dad went to and where my grandfather was on faculty. That was like walking in their footsteps in a major way.
Q: What do you hope to focus on as a hematologist?
Dr. Max Brodsky: I’m still working through that, but I am really interested in thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura. Patients used to not be able to survive their initial episodes, but now we have good treatments and are able to follow them as outpatients. With this whole cohort of patients that are surviving, we’re seeing that they have more health problems — more heart disease, more strokes and kidney disease. There’s a whole growing field exploring how to treat these patients for their lifespan.
Q: How do you deal with the reality that more of your patients will die than in some other medical fields?
Dr. Max Brodsky: It is challenging, but I also see those moments as opportunities to support patients and families. I’m good at connecting to patients and families who are in scary situations. I’ve always had that skill of putting people at ease, making people feel calm, knowing that they can trust me, and I have their best interests in mind.
Q: Why do you think your family is so committed to medicine?
Dr. Max Brodsky: We’re Jewish, and looking to help the world is one of the main core values of Judaism. The Torah expects us to make this world better. Actually, my great-grandfather Max, whom I’m named after, used to dig tunnels to help people escape Ukraine and get to freedom. He was always looking to help others as well. My great-grandmother was shot crossing the border escaping from Ukraine, and he carried her the whole way to the boat. They lived in very poor West Philadelphia and poured everything into my grandfather. He became a great doctor, and his sons and his grandchildren are in medicine today.
*Correction, 12/11: A previous version of this story misstated the amount of ASH’s $19 million investment in developing fellowships with a focus on hematology.
In interviews, Robert and Max Brodsky spoke about the appeal of hematology and the threads that unite them with family members who came before. The elder Brodsky also talked about the work that’s made him the proudest during his year-long presidency at ASH.
Robert A. Brodsky is professor of medicine and director of hematology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. He is stepping down as ASH president at its annual meeting in San Diego, December 9-12. Here are excerpts from our conversation:
Q: What drew your dad into medicine?
Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: He was going through his medical training at the University of Pennsylvania, then the Vietnam War came, and he served at the National Institutes of Health in what they referred to as the Yellow Berets. He got very interested in retroviruses and viruses that lead to cancer, which was a foreign idea at the time. This led him into hematology, stem cells, and myeloproliferative disorders.
He had a very successful career in hematology and just loved it. He performed the first bone marrow transplant in the tristate area of Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey.
Q: What did he like about hematology specifically?
Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: It’s a fascinating field, probably the most scientific area of medicine. It’s so easy to access blood and bone marrow. You can grow it, you can look at it, you can see it. It’s hard to do that with a lung, heart, kidney, or brain. Even back then, they could translate some of the science. What really drew him to hematology — and me, for that matter — was looking at a blood smear or bone marrow and being able to make a diagnosis. The other thing is the personal aspect. Hematologists tend to like the long-term relationships that they develop with their patients over the years.
Q: What were the biggest transformations in hematology during his career?
Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: Bone marrow transplant had the biggest impact, and it’s an area he really pioneered. He was very much involved in some of the early bone marrow transplants and was very close with Dr. George W. Santos, who was at Johns Hopkins and one of the big pioneers in that area as well. To be able to take marrow from related donors, get it to grow without the patient rejecting it, and cure a disease, was really huge. When he started doing this, patients had no other option. To see patients be cured was incredibly satisfying to him.
Q: How did you end up following your father into hematology?
Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: My brother Jeff, who’s a surgeon and older than me, knew he was going into medicine — probably about 3 hours after he was born. I came to it late. I was a political science major as an undergrad and really trying to figure out what I wanted to do. In my sophomore year, I decided I wanted to give this a shot. My dad worked very hard, long hours, but you could tell he loved what he did. And he was never absent, always involved in our lives and still made time for everyone. At some level, that must have had an influence on me.
Q: What has changed in hematology over your 30-plus years in medicine?
A: When I look back at when I was a fellow, it’s just mind-boggling how many lethal or life-threatening diseases are now pretty easy to treat. I studied disorders like aplastic anemia, which was very fatal. Without treatment, patients would die within a year. Now, over 95% are cured. Another classic examples is chronic myeloid leukemia disorder. Back when I was a fellow, the median survival for CML was maybe 4 to 6 years. Now, Kareem Abdul Jabbar has had this[for about 15 years]. Also a lot of hematologic malignancies are being cured with immunotherapy approaches. We’ve figured out the pathophysiology of a lot of diseases, and there are incredible genetic diagnostic assays.
Q: What was your father’s relationship with ASH?
Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: The first ASH meeting was 1958 in Atlantic City, New Jersey. There were 300 hematologists there, and my dad was one of them. We’re going to have over 30,000 people in San Diego, which is a record, and another 5,000 or 6,000 virtually.
Q: As ASH president, what are your biggest accomplishments when it comes to addressing the shortage of hematologists and other issues?
Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: ASH is investing $19 million to develop fellowships with a focus on hematology.* This is going to put lots of new hematologists into the workforce over the next 5 to 10 years. We’ve also been working on the Maintenance of Certification [MOC] process to make it less onerous on physicians. It’s really a bad process, and it’s not just ASH [that’s complaining], it’s all of medicine. We’re hearing this from GI, endocrine, renal and the general internists.
[In a September 2023 letter to the American Board of Internal Medicine’s president and chief officer, Dr. Brodsky wrote that “ASH continues to support the importance of lifelong learning for hematologists via a program that is evidence-based, relevant to one’s practice, and transparent; however, these three basic requirements are not met by the current ABIM MOC program.” ASH is calling for a new and reformed MOC program.]
Q: What convinced ASH to expand its journals by adding Blood Neoplasia and Blood Vessels, Thrombosis & Hemostasis?
Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: ASH has two flagship journals right now, Blood and Blood Advances, and they’re both very competitive, high-impact journals. It turns out there’s not enough room to publish all the new science, and they end up rejecting the majority of the submissions that come to them. We decided to keep these journals in the ASH family because there’s some fantastic clinical trials and science that would be going elsewhere.
Dr. Brodsky’s sons both have medical degrees: Brett Brodsky, DO, is a resident at Virginia Commonwealth University who plans to become a sports medicine specialist, and Max Brodsky, MD, is a second-year fellow in hematology at Johns Hopkins University.
In an interview, Max Brodsky, MD, talked about the roots of his family’s dedication to caring for others.
Q: What drew you to hematology?
Dr. Max Brodsky: I’ve watched both my dad and my grandfather be leaders in the field as both physicians and scientists, and that was very inspirational for me to see. And I went to a medical school [Drexel University College of Medicine] that my dad went to and where my grandfather was on faculty. That was like walking in their footsteps in a major way.
Q: What do you hope to focus on as a hematologist?
Dr. Max Brodsky: I’m still working through that, but I am really interested in thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura. Patients used to not be able to survive their initial episodes, but now we have good treatments and are able to follow them as outpatients. With this whole cohort of patients that are surviving, we’re seeing that they have more health problems — more heart disease, more strokes and kidney disease. There’s a whole growing field exploring how to treat these patients for their lifespan.
Q: How do you deal with the reality that more of your patients will die than in some other medical fields?
Dr. Max Brodsky: It is challenging, but I also see those moments as opportunities to support patients and families. I’m good at connecting to patients and families who are in scary situations. I’ve always had that skill of putting people at ease, making people feel calm, knowing that they can trust me, and I have their best interests in mind.
Q: Why do you think your family is so committed to medicine?
Dr. Max Brodsky: We’re Jewish, and looking to help the world is one of the main core values of Judaism. The Torah expects us to make this world better. Actually, my great-grandfather Max, whom I’m named after, used to dig tunnels to help people escape Ukraine and get to freedom. He was always looking to help others as well. My great-grandmother was shot crossing the border escaping from Ukraine, and he carried her the whole way to the boat. They lived in very poor West Philadelphia and poured everything into my grandfather. He became a great doctor, and his sons and his grandchildren are in medicine today.
*Correction, 12/11: A previous version of this story misstated the amount of ASH’s $19 million investment in developing fellowships with a focus on hematology.
FROM ASH 2023
ASH 2023: Equity, Sickle Cell, and Real-Life Outcomes
Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, chief of the Translational Stem Cell Biology Branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and secretary of ASH, added that insight into actual patient experiences also will be a major theme at ASH 2023.
“There is a huge growth in research on outcomes and focusing on using real-world data and how important that is,” Dr. Dunbar said. “Academic research and hematology is really focusing on patient-reported outcomes and how care is delivered in a real-world setting – actually looking at what matters to patients. Are they alive in a certain number of years? And how are they feeling?”
As an example, Dr. Dunbar pointed to an abstract that examined clinical databases in Canada and found that real-world outcomes in multiple myeloma treatments were much worse than those in the original clinical trials for the therapies. Patients reached relapse 44% faster and their overall survival was 75% worse.
In the media briefing, ASH chair of communications Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, of the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami, noted that patients in these types of clinical trials “are just these pristine specimens of human beings except for the cancer that’s being treated.”
Dr. Dunbar agreed, noting that “patients who are able to enroll in clinical trials are more likely to be able to show up at the treatment center at the right time and for every dose, have transportation, and afford drugs to prevent side effects. They might stay on the drug for longer, or they have nurses who are always encouraging them of how to make it through a toxicity.”
Hematologists and patients should consider randomized controlled trials to be “the best possible outcome, and perhaps adjust their thinking if an individual patient is older, sicker, or less able to follow a regimen exactly,” she said.
Another highlighted study linked worse outcomes in African-Americans with pediatric acute myeloid leukemia to genetic traits that are more common in that population. The traits “likely explain at least in part the worst outcomes in Black patients in prior studies and on some regimens,” Dr. Dunbar said.
She added that the findings emphasize how testing for genetic variants and biomarkers that impact outcomes should be performed “instead of assuming that a certain dose should be given simply based on perceived or reported race or ethnicity.”
ASH President Robert A. Brodsky, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, highlighted an abstract that reported on the use of AI as a clinical decision support tool to differentiate two easily confused conditions — prefibrotic primary myelofibrosis and essential thrombocythemia.
AI “is a tool that’s going to help pathologists make more accurate and faster diagnoses,” he said. He also spotlighted an abstract about the use of “social media listening” to understand the experiences of patients with SCD and their caregivers. “There can be a lot of misuse and waste of time with social media, but they used this in a way to try and gain insight as to what’s really important to the patients and the caregiver.”
Also, in regard to SCD, Dr. Dunbar pointed to a study that reports on outcomes in patients who received lovotibeglogene autotemcel (lovo-cel) gene therapy for up to 60 months. Both this treatment and a CRISPR-based therapy called exa-cel “appear to result in comparable very impressive efficacy in terms of pain crises and organ dysfunction,” she said. “The hurdle is going to be figuring out how to deliver what will be very expensive and complicated therapies — but likely curative — therapies to patients.”
Another study to be presented at ASH — coauthored by Dr. Brodsky — shows promising results from reduced-intensity haploidentical bone marrow transplantation in adults with severe SCD. Results were similar to those seen with bone marrow from matched siblings, Dr. Sekeres said.
He added that more clarity is needed about new treatment options for SCD, perhaps through a “randomized trial where patients upfront get a haploidentical bone marrow transplant or fully matched bone marrow transplant. Then other patients are randomized to some of these other, newer technology therapies, and we follow them over time. We’re looking not only for overall survival but complications of the therapy itself and how many patients relapse from the treatment.”
Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, chief of the Translational Stem Cell Biology Branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and secretary of ASH, added that insight into actual patient experiences also will be a major theme at ASH 2023.
“There is a huge growth in research on outcomes and focusing on using real-world data and how important that is,” Dr. Dunbar said. “Academic research and hematology is really focusing on patient-reported outcomes and how care is delivered in a real-world setting – actually looking at what matters to patients. Are they alive in a certain number of years? And how are they feeling?”
As an example, Dr. Dunbar pointed to an abstract that examined clinical databases in Canada and found that real-world outcomes in multiple myeloma treatments were much worse than those in the original clinical trials for the therapies. Patients reached relapse 44% faster and their overall survival was 75% worse.
In the media briefing, ASH chair of communications Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, of the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami, noted that patients in these types of clinical trials “are just these pristine specimens of human beings except for the cancer that’s being treated.”
Dr. Dunbar agreed, noting that “patients who are able to enroll in clinical trials are more likely to be able to show up at the treatment center at the right time and for every dose, have transportation, and afford drugs to prevent side effects. They might stay on the drug for longer, or they have nurses who are always encouraging them of how to make it through a toxicity.”
Hematologists and patients should consider randomized controlled trials to be “the best possible outcome, and perhaps adjust their thinking if an individual patient is older, sicker, or less able to follow a regimen exactly,” she said.
Another highlighted study linked worse outcomes in African-Americans with pediatric acute myeloid leukemia to genetic traits that are more common in that population. The traits “likely explain at least in part the worst outcomes in Black patients in prior studies and on some regimens,” Dr. Dunbar said.
She added that the findings emphasize how testing for genetic variants and biomarkers that impact outcomes should be performed “instead of assuming that a certain dose should be given simply based on perceived or reported race or ethnicity.”
ASH President Robert A. Brodsky, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, highlighted an abstract that reported on the use of AI as a clinical decision support tool to differentiate two easily confused conditions — prefibrotic primary myelofibrosis and essential thrombocythemia.
AI “is a tool that’s going to help pathologists make more accurate and faster diagnoses,” he said. He also spotlighted an abstract about the use of “social media listening” to understand the experiences of patients with SCD and their caregivers. “There can be a lot of misuse and waste of time with social media, but they used this in a way to try and gain insight as to what’s really important to the patients and the caregiver.”
Also, in regard to SCD, Dr. Dunbar pointed to a study that reports on outcomes in patients who received lovotibeglogene autotemcel (lovo-cel) gene therapy for up to 60 months. Both this treatment and a CRISPR-based therapy called exa-cel “appear to result in comparable very impressive efficacy in terms of pain crises and organ dysfunction,” she said. “The hurdle is going to be figuring out how to deliver what will be very expensive and complicated therapies — but likely curative — therapies to patients.”
Another study to be presented at ASH — coauthored by Dr. Brodsky — shows promising results from reduced-intensity haploidentical bone marrow transplantation in adults with severe SCD. Results were similar to those seen with bone marrow from matched siblings, Dr. Sekeres said.
He added that more clarity is needed about new treatment options for SCD, perhaps through a “randomized trial where patients upfront get a haploidentical bone marrow transplant or fully matched bone marrow transplant. Then other patients are randomized to some of these other, newer technology therapies, and we follow them over time. We’re looking not only for overall survival but complications of the therapy itself and how many patients relapse from the treatment.”
Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, chief of the Translational Stem Cell Biology Branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and secretary of ASH, added that insight into actual patient experiences also will be a major theme at ASH 2023.
“There is a huge growth in research on outcomes and focusing on using real-world data and how important that is,” Dr. Dunbar said. “Academic research and hematology is really focusing on patient-reported outcomes and how care is delivered in a real-world setting – actually looking at what matters to patients. Are they alive in a certain number of years? And how are they feeling?”
As an example, Dr. Dunbar pointed to an abstract that examined clinical databases in Canada and found that real-world outcomes in multiple myeloma treatments were much worse than those in the original clinical trials for the therapies. Patients reached relapse 44% faster and their overall survival was 75% worse.
In the media briefing, ASH chair of communications Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, of the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami, noted that patients in these types of clinical trials “are just these pristine specimens of human beings except for the cancer that’s being treated.”
Dr. Dunbar agreed, noting that “patients who are able to enroll in clinical trials are more likely to be able to show up at the treatment center at the right time and for every dose, have transportation, and afford drugs to prevent side effects. They might stay on the drug for longer, or they have nurses who are always encouraging them of how to make it through a toxicity.”
Hematologists and patients should consider randomized controlled trials to be “the best possible outcome, and perhaps adjust their thinking if an individual patient is older, sicker, or less able to follow a regimen exactly,” she said.
Another highlighted study linked worse outcomes in African-Americans with pediatric acute myeloid leukemia to genetic traits that are more common in that population. The traits “likely explain at least in part the worst outcomes in Black patients in prior studies and on some regimens,” Dr. Dunbar said.
She added that the findings emphasize how testing for genetic variants and biomarkers that impact outcomes should be performed “instead of assuming that a certain dose should be given simply based on perceived or reported race or ethnicity.”
ASH President Robert A. Brodsky, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, highlighted an abstract that reported on the use of AI as a clinical decision support tool to differentiate two easily confused conditions — prefibrotic primary myelofibrosis and essential thrombocythemia.
AI “is a tool that’s going to help pathologists make more accurate and faster diagnoses,” he said. He also spotlighted an abstract about the use of “social media listening” to understand the experiences of patients with SCD and their caregivers. “There can be a lot of misuse and waste of time with social media, but they used this in a way to try and gain insight as to what’s really important to the patients and the caregiver.”
Also, in regard to SCD, Dr. Dunbar pointed to a study that reports on outcomes in patients who received lovotibeglogene autotemcel (lovo-cel) gene therapy for up to 60 months. Both this treatment and a CRISPR-based therapy called exa-cel “appear to result in comparable very impressive efficacy in terms of pain crises and organ dysfunction,” she said. “The hurdle is going to be figuring out how to deliver what will be very expensive and complicated therapies — but likely curative — therapies to patients.”
Another study to be presented at ASH — coauthored by Dr. Brodsky — shows promising results from reduced-intensity haploidentical bone marrow transplantation in adults with severe SCD. Results were similar to those seen with bone marrow from matched siblings, Dr. Sekeres said.
He added that more clarity is needed about new treatment options for SCD, perhaps through a “randomized trial where patients upfront get a haploidentical bone marrow transplant or fully matched bone marrow transplant. Then other patients are randomized to some of these other, newer technology therapies, and we follow them over time. We’re looking not only for overall survival but complications of the therapy itself and how many patients relapse from the treatment.”
AT ASH 2023
One VA Cancer Pathway to Rule Them All?
CHICAGO – The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has developed clinical pathways to guide its clinicians through cancer care, but they should not be considered mandatory strategies, a top VA cancer director told colleagues at the 2023 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology.
“They’re not a cookbook for how to practice oncology,” said Michael Kelley, MD, the VA National Program Director for Oncology, Professor of Medicine at Duke University, and Chief of Hematology and Oncology at the Durham VA Medical Center. “You cannot look at the pathway and think that you know how to practice. It is a preferred-decision flow map—not a requirement to do that. We expect that all providers will be off the pathways some of the time and most of the time, they will be on there.”
The VA has an extensive series of clinical pathways in oncology that are designed to help clinicians navigate through the treatment of 20 types of cancer, including common types—breast, lung, and colon—and rarer types, such as salivary gland and biliary tract cancer. Many of the pathways have been updated within just the past few months, and more are in the works.
The pathways are developed through subject-matter expert groups made up of experts from National Cancer Institute–designated cancer centers, Kelley said. “The pathway is published as a PDF document on internally and externally facing websites, then it's built into the medical record system.” Clinicians who diverge from the pathways have to note this in the health record system, enter reasons why, and provide the alternative care strategy, Kelley explained.
Moving forward, the VA is “committed to doing a formal review of all the pathways at least quarterly, and we will do ad hoc reviews and alterations as information merits.” He said, “There are hundreds of oncology providers in the VA, and we want everyone to have an opportunity to have input. That's your opportunity: We do read every comment, and we'll actually generate a response to every comment.”
CHICAGO – The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has developed clinical pathways to guide its clinicians through cancer care, but they should not be considered mandatory strategies, a top VA cancer director told colleagues at the 2023 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology.
“They’re not a cookbook for how to practice oncology,” said Michael Kelley, MD, the VA National Program Director for Oncology, Professor of Medicine at Duke University, and Chief of Hematology and Oncology at the Durham VA Medical Center. “You cannot look at the pathway and think that you know how to practice. It is a preferred-decision flow map—not a requirement to do that. We expect that all providers will be off the pathways some of the time and most of the time, they will be on there.”
The VA has an extensive series of clinical pathways in oncology that are designed to help clinicians navigate through the treatment of 20 types of cancer, including common types—breast, lung, and colon—and rarer types, such as salivary gland and biliary tract cancer. Many of the pathways have been updated within just the past few months, and more are in the works.
The pathways are developed through subject-matter expert groups made up of experts from National Cancer Institute–designated cancer centers, Kelley said. “The pathway is published as a PDF document on internally and externally facing websites, then it's built into the medical record system.” Clinicians who diverge from the pathways have to note this in the health record system, enter reasons why, and provide the alternative care strategy, Kelley explained.
Moving forward, the VA is “committed to doing a formal review of all the pathways at least quarterly, and we will do ad hoc reviews and alterations as information merits.” He said, “There are hundreds of oncology providers in the VA, and we want everyone to have an opportunity to have input. That's your opportunity: We do read every comment, and we'll actually generate a response to every comment.”
CHICAGO – The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has developed clinical pathways to guide its clinicians through cancer care, but they should not be considered mandatory strategies, a top VA cancer director told colleagues at the 2023 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology.
“They’re not a cookbook for how to practice oncology,” said Michael Kelley, MD, the VA National Program Director for Oncology, Professor of Medicine at Duke University, and Chief of Hematology and Oncology at the Durham VA Medical Center. “You cannot look at the pathway and think that you know how to practice. It is a preferred-decision flow map—not a requirement to do that. We expect that all providers will be off the pathways some of the time and most of the time, they will be on there.”
The VA has an extensive series of clinical pathways in oncology that are designed to help clinicians navigate through the treatment of 20 types of cancer, including common types—breast, lung, and colon—and rarer types, such as salivary gland and biliary tract cancer. Many of the pathways have been updated within just the past few months, and more are in the works.
The pathways are developed through subject-matter expert groups made up of experts from National Cancer Institute–designated cancer centers, Kelley said. “The pathway is published as a PDF document on internally and externally facing websites, then it's built into the medical record system.” Clinicians who diverge from the pathways have to note this in the health record system, enter reasons why, and provide the alternative care strategy, Kelley explained.
Moving forward, the VA is “committed to doing a formal review of all the pathways at least quarterly, and we will do ad hoc reviews and alterations as information merits.” He said, “There are hundreds of oncology providers in the VA, and we want everyone to have an opportunity to have input. That's your opportunity: We do read every comment, and we'll actually generate a response to every comment.”
Telitacicept shows efficacy, safety in methotrexate-resistant RA
SAN DIEGO – A new randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study of the first-in-class drug telitacicept showed efficacy and safety in patients aged 18-65 with rheumatoid arthritis who were resistant to methotrexate, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
Telitacicept is a recombinant fusion protein that aims to target and neutralize B lymphocyte stimulator (also known as B-cell activating factor) and a proliferation-inducing ligand (APRIL), both of which are linked to autoimmunity. Per the industry-funded trial, patients who took 160 mg weekly of the drug versus placebo for 24 weeks met the primary endpoint of achieving at least a 20% improvement in ACR response criteria (60.0% vs. 26.9%, respectively, P < .001), researcher Qing Zuraw, MD, MPH, MBA, of drug developer RemeGen, said in her presentation.
Rheumatologist Jeffrey A. Sparks MD, MMSc, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, who did not take part in the study but is familiar with the findings, said in an interview that the results are promising. “The magnitude of effect is impressive, and it seems it was well tolerated with relatively few serious adverse events. I would want to see this replicated in other patient populations. Also, more data are needed to truly establish safety.”
He added that, “once more data emerges, there would be a debate on where to place this in the treatment lines.”
According to Dr. Sparks, nearly half of patients with RA either cannot tolerate methotrexate or have partial or no response. “There are currently several available treatment options. These patients typically use either [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitors, another targeted medication, or combination therapy.”
Telitacicept is approved in China to treat systemic lupus erythematosus, Dr. Zuraw noted.
The researchers randomly assigned patients with moderate to severe RA at a 3:1 ratio to the drug (n = 360) or placebo (n = 119). The participants were aged 18-65 with a mean age of 49-50 depending on group, and 81.1%-87.4% females depending on group. Ethnicity/race was not reported.
At week 24, patients in the telitacicept group were more likely to achieve an ACR 50 response versus placebo (21.4% vs. 5.9%, respectively; P < .001).
“Significantly more patients in the telitacicept 160 mg group showed no radiographic progression (change in modified Total Sharp Score [mTSS] ≤ 0) at week 24, compared with placebo (90.2% vs. 66.4%; P < .001),” the researchers reported. “Additionally, patients in the telitacicept 160-mg group showed significantly less progression of joint damage (as measured by mTSS, joint space narrowing score, erosion score) from baseline to week 24.”
Treatment-emergent adverse effect levels were similar between the two groups (79.7% in the drug group and 77.3% in the placebo group), as were serious adverse events (6.4% and 6.7%, respectively) and infections/infestations (41.1% and 42.0%, respectively).
Dr. Zuraw noted limitations: The trial lacked a comparator treatment, and the study took place in a Chinese population with limited racial diversity.
In a Q&A session following Dr. Zuraw’s presentation, an audience member offered some perspective instead of a question by noting that most biologic drugs reach an ACR 20 response rate of about 60%, and most fail to move patients to low disease activity. “That’s the case for your product,” he told Dr. Zuraw. “That’s true for basically everything.”
He added that failing to discuss clinical importance is “a flaw of many talks.”
Dr. Zuraw responded that the many drugs do indeed have a response rate in the range of 60%, and she said the company will consider providing information about clinical impact in future talks.
No information is available about the potential cost of the drug. “This targets two proteins, so it is possible that it could have additional costs than typical biologics,” Dr. Sparks said.
RemeGen funded the study. Dr. Zuraw and some other authors disclosed financial relationships with RemeGen. Dr. Sparks reported receiving support from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the R. Bruce and Joan M. Mickey Research Scholar Fund, and the Gordon and Llura Gund Foundation; research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb; and consulting for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova, Janssen, Optum, Pfizer, Recor, Sobi, and UCB.
SAN DIEGO – A new randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study of the first-in-class drug telitacicept showed efficacy and safety in patients aged 18-65 with rheumatoid arthritis who were resistant to methotrexate, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
Telitacicept is a recombinant fusion protein that aims to target and neutralize B lymphocyte stimulator (also known as B-cell activating factor) and a proliferation-inducing ligand (APRIL), both of which are linked to autoimmunity. Per the industry-funded trial, patients who took 160 mg weekly of the drug versus placebo for 24 weeks met the primary endpoint of achieving at least a 20% improvement in ACR response criteria (60.0% vs. 26.9%, respectively, P < .001), researcher Qing Zuraw, MD, MPH, MBA, of drug developer RemeGen, said in her presentation.
Rheumatologist Jeffrey A. Sparks MD, MMSc, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, who did not take part in the study but is familiar with the findings, said in an interview that the results are promising. “The magnitude of effect is impressive, and it seems it was well tolerated with relatively few serious adverse events. I would want to see this replicated in other patient populations. Also, more data are needed to truly establish safety.”
He added that, “once more data emerges, there would be a debate on where to place this in the treatment lines.”
According to Dr. Sparks, nearly half of patients with RA either cannot tolerate methotrexate or have partial or no response. “There are currently several available treatment options. These patients typically use either [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitors, another targeted medication, or combination therapy.”
Telitacicept is approved in China to treat systemic lupus erythematosus, Dr. Zuraw noted.
The researchers randomly assigned patients with moderate to severe RA at a 3:1 ratio to the drug (n = 360) or placebo (n = 119). The participants were aged 18-65 with a mean age of 49-50 depending on group, and 81.1%-87.4% females depending on group. Ethnicity/race was not reported.
At week 24, patients in the telitacicept group were more likely to achieve an ACR 50 response versus placebo (21.4% vs. 5.9%, respectively; P < .001).
“Significantly more patients in the telitacicept 160 mg group showed no radiographic progression (change in modified Total Sharp Score [mTSS] ≤ 0) at week 24, compared with placebo (90.2% vs. 66.4%; P < .001),” the researchers reported. “Additionally, patients in the telitacicept 160-mg group showed significantly less progression of joint damage (as measured by mTSS, joint space narrowing score, erosion score) from baseline to week 24.”
Treatment-emergent adverse effect levels were similar between the two groups (79.7% in the drug group and 77.3% in the placebo group), as were serious adverse events (6.4% and 6.7%, respectively) and infections/infestations (41.1% and 42.0%, respectively).
Dr. Zuraw noted limitations: The trial lacked a comparator treatment, and the study took place in a Chinese population with limited racial diversity.
In a Q&A session following Dr. Zuraw’s presentation, an audience member offered some perspective instead of a question by noting that most biologic drugs reach an ACR 20 response rate of about 60%, and most fail to move patients to low disease activity. “That’s the case for your product,” he told Dr. Zuraw. “That’s true for basically everything.”
He added that failing to discuss clinical importance is “a flaw of many talks.”
Dr. Zuraw responded that the many drugs do indeed have a response rate in the range of 60%, and she said the company will consider providing information about clinical impact in future talks.
No information is available about the potential cost of the drug. “This targets two proteins, so it is possible that it could have additional costs than typical biologics,” Dr. Sparks said.
RemeGen funded the study. Dr. Zuraw and some other authors disclosed financial relationships with RemeGen. Dr. Sparks reported receiving support from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the R. Bruce and Joan M. Mickey Research Scholar Fund, and the Gordon and Llura Gund Foundation; research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb; and consulting for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova, Janssen, Optum, Pfizer, Recor, Sobi, and UCB.
SAN DIEGO – A new randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study of the first-in-class drug telitacicept showed efficacy and safety in patients aged 18-65 with rheumatoid arthritis who were resistant to methotrexate, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
Telitacicept is a recombinant fusion protein that aims to target and neutralize B lymphocyte stimulator (also known as B-cell activating factor) and a proliferation-inducing ligand (APRIL), both of which are linked to autoimmunity. Per the industry-funded trial, patients who took 160 mg weekly of the drug versus placebo for 24 weeks met the primary endpoint of achieving at least a 20% improvement in ACR response criteria (60.0% vs. 26.9%, respectively, P < .001), researcher Qing Zuraw, MD, MPH, MBA, of drug developer RemeGen, said in her presentation.
Rheumatologist Jeffrey A. Sparks MD, MMSc, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, who did not take part in the study but is familiar with the findings, said in an interview that the results are promising. “The magnitude of effect is impressive, and it seems it was well tolerated with relatively few serious adverse events. I would want to see this replicated in other patient populations. Also, more data are needed to truly establish safety.”
He added that, “once more data emerges, there would be a debate on where to place this in the treatment lines.”
According to Dr. Sparks, nearly half of patients with RA either cannot tolerate methotrexate or have partial or no response. “There are currently several available treatment options. These patients typically use either [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitors, another targeted medication, or combination therapy.”
Telitacicept is approved in China to treat systemic lupus erythematosus, Dr. Zuraw noted.
The researchers randomly assigned patients with moderate to severe RA at a 3:1 ratio to the drug (n = 360) or placebo (n = 119). The participants were aged 18-65 with a mean age of 49-50 depending on group, and 81.1%-87.4% females depending on group. Ethnicity/race was not reported.
At week 24, patients in the telitacicept group were more likely to achieve an ACR 50 response versus placebo (21.4% vs. 5.9%, respectively; P < .001).
“Significantly more patients in the telitacicept 160 mg group showed no radiographic progression (change in modified Total Sharp Score [mTSS] ≤ 0) at week 24, compared with placebo (90.2% vs. 66.4%; P < .001),” the researchers reported. “Additionally, patients in the telitacicept 160-mg group showed significantly less progression of joint damage (as measured by mTSS, joint space narrowing score, erosion score) from baseline to week 24.”
Treatment-emergent adverse effect levels were similar between the two groups (79.7% in the drug group and 77.3% in the placebo group), as were serious adverse events (6.4% and 6.7%, respectively) and infections/infestations (41.1% and 42.0%, respectively).
Dr. Zuraw noted limitations: The trial lacked a comparator treatment, and the study took place in a Chinese population with limited racial diversity.
In a Q&A session following Dr. Zuraw’s presentation, an audience member offered some perspective instead of a question by noting that most biologic drugs reach an ACR 20 response rate of about 60%, and most fail to move patients to low disease activity. “That’s the case for your product,” he told Dr. Zuraw. “That’s true for basically everything.”
He added that failing to discuss clinical importance is “a flaw of many talks.”
Dr. Zuraw responded that the many drugs do indeed have a response rate in the range of 60%, and she said the company will consider providing information about clinical impact in future talks.
No information is available about the potential cost of the drug. “This targets two proteins, so it is possible that it could have additional costs than typical biologics,” Dr. Sparks said.
RemeGen funded the study. Dr. Zuraw and some other authors disclosed financial relationships with RemeGen. Dr. Sparks reported receiving support from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the R. Bruce and Joan M. Mickey Research Scholar Fund, and the Gordon and Llura Gund Foundation; research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb; and consulting for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova, Janssen, Optum, Pfizer, Recor, Sobi, and UCB.
AT ACR 2023
Novel blood test can detect RA
SAN DIEGO – Researchers say they’ve developed a novel blood-based assay that can differentiate patients with seropositive or seronegative rheumatoid arthritis from healthy people and those with other inflammatory diseases or osteoarthritis.
While cautioning that the results need to be confirmed, University of Oxford (England) rheumatologist Peter Taylor, PhD, MA, told an audience at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology that the test has an overall mean sensitivity of 90.8% (standard deviation, 0.94%; 95% confidence interval, 83.2%-95.4%) and mean specificity of 96.1% (SD, 0.64%; 95% CI, 92.7%-97.9%). The mean area under the curve (AUC) is 0.991 (SD, 0.001; 95% CI, 97.2%-99.6%).
“That is to say that it can correctly identify 96% of people without rheumatoid arthritis, and it can correctly identify over 90% of those who do have rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Taylor said. In the big picture, he said, “we’ve developed a blood-based assay that detects both organ-specific and systemic biological processes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.”
Rheumatologist Kevin W. Byram, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who did not take part in the study but is familiar with its findings, noted in an interview that “there is a constant search for biomarkers to help aide in more accurate and faster diagnosis of all rheumatic conditions, including RA.”
He added that “a common clinical scenario for the rheumatologist is a patient presenting with painful and/or swollen joints and other features that might suggest a few different diagnoses. A diagnostic assay like this might help distinguish patients with RA from other inflammatory conditions or non-inflammatory conditions that might mimic RA.”
In his presentation, Dr. Taylor noted that “we haven’t yet integrated precision medicine into routine clinical practice in rheumatology.” While blood-based assays are prevalent in other types of clinical diagnostics, rheumatology relies on synovial biopsies that are “rarely used in routine clinical practice,” he said.
The new test is a “non-invasive DNA capture assay that can identify specific gene expression from synovium-specific signatures in blood plasma of patients with rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Taylor said. Specifically, it focuses on the “unique patterns and sizes of cell-free DNA,” he said. “Analysis of [long] fragments has the potential to give us a great deal of information about disease progression, potentially about customizing treatments and even evaluating the effectiveness of therapies.”
For the new study, researchers examined 229 samples from 191 patients, of whom 63.3% were White and 67.9% were female, with a median age of 56. A total of 89 patients with RA provided 89 samples and 102 without RA provided 140 samples, including 29 healthy controls (66 samples) and others with conditions such as psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and osteoarthritis.
The machine learning model “identified 3,425 epigenetic features with statistically significant discrimination between the patients with and without rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Taylor said. These features were mapped to 929 genes which had some overlap with known blood pathway genes.
“Over and above that, there’s a whole set of these epigenetic features which represent novel pathways and potentially rich hunting ground for therapeutic targets and other translational investigation,” he said.
For seronegative cases, mean AUC was 0.971 (SD, 0.001; 95% CI, 93.8%-99.2%), sensitivity was 83.7% (SD, 2.03; 95% CI, 63.3%-91.8%) and specificity was 95.4% (SD, 0.69; 95% CI, 90.8%-97.5%).
Specificity for RA versus healthy controls was 100 (SD, 0; 95% CI, 94.4-100.0).
Dr. Byram described the study as small but intriguing. He cautioned that “there is always some likelihood that the actual components of the test are just recognizing some combination of things we are already testing in the clinic,” he said. Details about the patients in the study can offer insight into “whether the assay is actually just recognizing something about patients with RA that is truly different, or rather is it recognizing how a common factor among patients with RA is transcribed by the cell.”
Moving forward, “it is important to get a grasp of how these biomarkers might perform in various settings,” he said.
Dr. Taylor did not discuss the potential cost of the assay in his presentation. “Tests like these have to strike a real balance in being useful and cost-effective and, since they are still made by commercial companies with commercial interests, also make a margin for their owner,” Dr. Byram said. “Turnaround time is also an important factor to think about.”
Aqtual funded the study. Dr. Taylor reports consulting for AbbVie, Aqtual, Biogen, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB and receiving grant support from Galapagos. The other study authors all have relationships with Aqtual, and some report various other disclosures. Dr. Byram has no disclosures.
SAN DIEGO – Researchers say they’ve developed a novel blood-based assay that can differentiate patients with seropositive or seronegative rheumatoid arthritis from healthy people and those with other inflammatory diseases or osteoarthritis.
While cautioning that the results need to be confirmed, University of Oxford (England) rheumatologist Peter Taylor, PhD, MA, told an audience at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology that the test has an overall mean sensitivity of 90.8% (standard deviation, 0.94%; 95% confidence interval, 83.2%-95.4%) and mean specificity of 96.1% (SD, 0.64%; 95% CI, 92.7%-97.9%). The mean area under the curve (AUC) is 0.991 (SD, 0.001; 95% CI, 97.2%-99.6%).
“That is to say that it can correctly identify 96% of people without rheumatoid arthritis, and it can correctly identify over 90% of those who do have rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Taylor said. In the big picture, he said, “we’ve developed a blood-based assay that detects both organ-specific and systemic biological processes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.”
Rheumatologist Kevin W. Byram, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who did not take part in the study but is familiar with its findings, noted in an interview that “there is a constant search for biomarkers to help aide in more accurate and faster diagnosis of all rheumatic conditions, including RA.”
He added that “a common clinical scenario for the rheumatologist is a patient presenting with painful and/or swollen joints and other features that might suggest a few different diagnoses. A diagnostic assay like this might help distinguish patients with RA from other inflammatory conditions or non-inflammatory conditions that might mimic RA.”
In his presentation, Dr. Taylor noted that “we haven’t yet integrated precision medicine into routine clinical practice in rheumatology.” While blood-based assays are prevalent in other types of clinical diagnostics, rheumatology relies on synovial biopsies that are “rarely used in routine clinical practice,” he said.
The new test is a “non-invasive DNA capture assay that can identify specific gene expression from synovium-specific signatures in blood plasma of patients with rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Taylor said. Specifically, it focuses on the “unique patterns and sizes of cell-free DNA,” he said. “Analysis of [long] fragments has the potential to give us a great deal of information about disease progression, potentially about customizing treatments and even evaluating the effectiveness of therapies.”
For the new study, researchers examined 229 samples from 191 patients, of whom 63.3% were White and 67.9% were female, with a median age of 56. A total of 89 patients with RA provided 89 samples and 102 without RA provided 140 samples, including 29 healthy controls (66 samples) and others with conditions such as psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and osteoarthritis.
The machine learning model “identified 3,425 epigenetic features with statistically significant discrimination between the patients with and without rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Taylor said. These features were mapped to 929 genes which had some overlap with known blood pathway genes.
“Over and above that, there’s a whole set of these epigenetic features which represent novel pathways and potentially rich hunting ground for therapeutic targets and other translational investigation,” he said.
For seronegative cases, mean AUC was 0.971 (SD, 0.001; 95% CI, 93.8%-99.2%), sensitivity was 83.7% (SD, 2.03; 95% CI, 63.3%-91.8%) and specificity was 95.4% (SD, 0.69; 95% CI, 90.8%-97.5%).
Specificity for RA versus healthy controls was 100 (SD, 0; 95% CI, 94.4-100.0).
Dr. Byram described the study as small but intriguing. He cautioned that “there is always some likelihood that the actual components of the test are just recognizing some combination of things we are already testing in the clinic,” he said. Details about the patients in the study can offer insight into “whether the assay is actually just recognizing something about patients with RA that is truly different, or rather is it recognizing how a common factor among patients with RA is transcribed by the cell.”
Moving forward, “it is important to get a grasp of how these biomarkers might perform in various settings,” he said.
Dr. Taylor did not discuss the potential cost of the assay in his presentation. “Tests like these have to strike a real balance in being useful and cost-effective and, since they are still made by commercial companies with commercial interests, also make a margin for their owner,” Dr. Byram said. “Turnaround time is also an important factor to think about.”
Aqtual funded the study. Dr. Taylor reports consulting for AbbVie, Aqtual, Biogen, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB and receiving grant support from Galapagos. The other study authors all have relationships with Aqtual, and some report various other disclosures. Dr. Byram has no disclosures.
SAN DIEGO – Researchers say they’ve developed a novel blood-based assay that can differentiate patients with seropositive or seronegative rheumatoid arthritis from healthy people and those with other inflammatory diseases or osteoarthritis.
While cautioning that the results need to be confirmed, University of Oxford (England) rheumatologist Peter Taylor, PhD, MA, told an audience at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology that the test has an overall mean sensitivity of 90.8% (standard deviation, 0.94%; 95% confidence interval, 83.2%-95.4%) and mean specificity of 96.1% (SD, 0.64%; 95% CI, 92.7%-97.9%). The mean area under the curve (AUC) is 0.991 (SD, 0.001; 95% CI, 97.2%-99.6%).
“That is to say that it can correctly identify 96% of people without rheumatoid arthritis, and it can correctly identify over 90% of those who do have rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Taylor said. In the big picture, he said, “we’ve developed a blood-based assay that detects both organ-specific and systemic biological processes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.”
Rheumatologist Kevin W. Byram, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who did not take part in the study but is familiar with its findings, noted in an interview that “there is a constant search for biomarkers to help aide in more accurate and faster diagnosis of all rheumatic conditions, including RA.”
He added that “a common clinical scenario for the rheumatologist is a patient presenting with painful and/or swollen joints and other features that might suggest a few different diagnoses. A diagnostic assay like this might help distinguish patients with RA from other inflammatory conditions or non-inflammatory conditions that might mimic RA.”
In his presentation, Dr. Taylor noted that “we haven’t yet integrated precision medicine into routine clinical practice in rheumatology.” While blood-based assays are prevalent in other types of clinical diagnostics, rheumatology relies on synovial biopsies that are “rarely used in routine clinical practice,” he said.
The new test is a “non-invasive DNA capture assay that can identify specific gene expression from synovium-specific signatures in blood plasma of patients with rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Taylor said. Specifically, it focuses on the “unique patterns and sizes of cell-free DNA,” he said. “Analysis of [long] fragments has the potential to give us a great deal of information about disease progression, potentially about customizing treatments and even evaluating the effectiveness of therapies.”
For the new study, researchers examined 229 samples from 191 patients, of whom 63.3% were White and 67.9% were female, with a median age of 56. A total of 89 patients with RA provided 89 samples and 102 without RA provided 140 samples, including 29 healthy controls (66 samples) and others with conditions such as psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and osteoarthritis.
The machine learning model “identified 3,425 epigenetic features with statistically significant discrimination between the patients with and without rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Taylor said. These features were mapped to 929 genes which had some overlap with known blood pathway genes.
“Over and above that, there’s a whole set of these epigenetic features which represent novel pathways and potentially rich hunting ground for therapeutic targets and other translational investigation,” he said.
For seronegative cases, mean AUC was 0.971 (SD, 0.001; 95% CI, 93.8%-99.2%), sensitivity was 83.7% (SD, 2.03; 95% CI, 63.3%-91.8%) and specificity was 95.4% (SD, 0.69; 95% CI, 90.8%-97.5%).
Specificity for RA versus healthy controls was 100 (SD, 0; 95% CI, 94.4-100.0).
Dr. Byram described the study as small but intriguing. He cautioned that “there is always some likelihood that the actual components of the test are just recognizing some combination of things we are already testing in the clinic,” he said. Details about the patients in the study can offer insight into “whether the assay is actually just recognizing something about patients with RA that is truly different, or rather is it recognizing how a common factor among patients with RA is transcribed by the cell.”
Moving forward, “it is important to get a grasp of how these biomarkers might perform in various settings,” he said.
Dr. Taylor did not discuss the potential cost of the assay in his presentation. “Tests like these have to strike a real balance in being useful and cost-effective and, since they are still made by commercial companies with commercial interests, also make a margin for their owner,” Dr. Byram said. “Turnaround time is also an important factor to think about.”
Aqtual funded the study. Dr. Taylor reports consulting for AbbVie, Aqtual, Biogen, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB and receiving grant support from Galapagos. The other study authors all have relationships with Aqtual, and some report various other disclosures. Dr. Byram has no disclosures.
AT ACR 2023
IV secukinumab, alternative to self-injections, reaches primary endpoints in PsA, axSpA
SAN DIEGO – Monthly use of intravenously administered secukinumab (Cosentyx) proved its efficacy over placebo in treating psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) in two industry-sponsored, randomized, double-blinded, phase 3 trials of the drug’s second and newly approved route of administration.
The studies of the human monoclonal antibody secukinumab, an interleukin-17 inhibitor, were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. A subcutaneously injectable formulation of the drug is available, and the Food and Drug Administration approved the IV form for the conditions in October, although at a recommended lower monthly dose than the new trials examined.
In the PsA trial, 191 patients took IV secukinumab, and 190 took placebo. For the primary endpoint, the percentages who reached at least a 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR 50) at 16 weeks were 31.4% and 6.3%, respectively (P < .0001).
In the axSpA trial, 264 patients took IV secukinumab, and 262 took placebo. The primary endpoint, at least a 40% improvement in Assessment of the Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 40), was met at 16 weeks by 40.9% and 22.9%, respectively (P < .0001).
“Both studies appear to present clear efficacy of IV route administration of secukinumab with no clear increase in safety signals,” consultant rheumatologist Nicola Goodson, MBChB, PhD, of Aintree University Hospital in Liverpool, England, said in an interview.
“Offering IV administration as an option to patients is helpful,” added Dr. Goodson, who was not involved with the study but is familiar with its findings.
As Dr. Goodson explained, secukinumab “was the first IL [interleukin]-17 inhibitor used to treat spondyloarthropathies, and we have been using subcutaneous secukinumab to treat psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and axial spondyloarthritis/ankylosing spondylitis since 2016 in the U.K. Our experience with this medication has been good with similar efficacy to anti-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] therapy in axial spondyloarthritis. The medication is generally well-tolerated, and the subcutaneous pen injection device is easy for patients to use.”
However, IV treatment may speed up onset of action, she said, and it may be useful in situations when compliance is a challenge.
PsA trial details
In the PsA trial, known as INVIGORATE-2, researchers recruited patients who met the CASPAR criteria for active PsA with symptoms for ≥ 6 months, and had ≥ 3 tender joints out of 78 joints and ≥ 3 swollen joints out of 76.
Participants with a mean age of 48, including 55% females, were randomized 1:1 to receive placebo or secukinumab (6 mg/kg at baseline followed by 3 mg/kg every 4 weeks). Those in the placebo group were switched to the same monthly doses of secukinumab at 16 weeks.
“Patients who switched from the placebo had a similar increase of efficacy as the original treated group,” rheumatologist Alan J. Kivitz, MD, of the Altoona Center for Clinical Research, in Duncansville, Penn., said in his presentation at the meeting. Specifically, at 52 weeks, the groups had similar ACR 50 response rates: 58% with secukinumab and 64% with placebo-to-secukinumab.
The fact that patients in the original placebo group who received 3 mg IV doses without 6-mg loading doses achieved ACR response rates similar to those who took secukinumab during the whole trial “could suggest that the IV loading dose may not be required. This would need to be explored in a randomized head-to-head study, but it’s an interesting observation that may reduce costs and exposure to higher doses of medication at the start of treatment,” Dr. Goodson said.
Among the patients who received secukinumab at any point in the study, 63% had a treatment-emergent adverse event, including 5.9% with serious events. One death was reported in the placebo group before week 16. No other deaths were reported.
AxSpA trial details
In the axSpA trial, called INVIGORATE-1, researchers recruited people aged ≥18 years with a diagnosis of active radiographic axSpA according to modified New York criteria or nonradiographic axSpA according to ASAS criteria, and all had inflammatory back pain for ≥6 months with an onset before age 45. They were randomized at a 1:1 ratio to receive IV secukinumab (6 mg/kg loading dose, followed by 3 mg/kg every 4 weeks) or placebo for 16 weeks. At that point, the placebo group switched to the same monthly doses of IV secukinumab.
Participants had a mean age of about 39, and about one-third were female.
Following the statistical superiority in ASAS 40 response rates seen with IV secukinumab at week 16, patients who from there switched from placebo to IV secukinumab achieved comparable ASAS 40 response rates to those of patients originally randomized to secukinumab by week 24, reaching 66.8% for those on secukinumab the whole time and 74.9% for those who switched.
Secondary outcome measures were similar in both groups at week 52.
Among all patients who took secukinumab – the percentage with any adverse event was 63.2%, and 6% had a nonfatal adverse event deemed serious. There was one death during secukinumab treatment not suspected to be related to treatment.
In a presentation about the axSpA study findings, Atul Deodhar, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, noted that “having an IV biologic available in the U.S. has some advantages. There are certain insurance providers such as Medicare where it is more economical for the patient to have an IV drug available.”
Dr. Deodhar also noted that in October the FDA approved a recommended lower dose for the IV treatment than in the study: 1.75 mg/kg instead of 3 mg/kg following the loading dose. That’s because the 3 mg/kg dose caused blood levels to be higher than those in the subcutaneous form, he said.
The FDA made the same dose recommendation for PsA.
Study limitations
Dr. Goodson, the U.K. consultant rheumatologist, noted a limitation of the trials: “It would have been interesting to compare IV to subcutaneous route secukinumab.” Still, the findings suggest that “the safety and efficacy of IV administration appears comparable,” she said.
“IV administration will have associated costs of attending hospital or infusion clinics,” she added, “and the cost of additional staff and administration need to be considered.”
Novartis, the maker of secukinumab, funded both studies. The PsA study authors report multiple relationships with industry, and some, such as Dr. Kivitz, have connections to Novartis. The axSpA study authors also report multiple relationships with industry, and some, such as Dr. Deodhar, have connections to Novartis. Some authors of both studies are Novartis employees. Dr. Goodson disclosed financial relationships with UCB and AbbVie.
SAN DIEGO – Monthly use of intravenously administered secukinumab (Cosentyx) proved its efficacy over placebo in treating psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) in two industry-sponsored, randomized, double-blinded, phase 3 trials of the drug’s second and newly approved route of administration.
The studies of the human monoclonal antibody secukinumab, an interleukin-17 inhibitor, were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. A subcutaneously injectable formulation of the drug is available, and the Food and Drug Administration approved the IV form for the conditions in October, although at a recommended lower monthly dose than the new trials examined.
In the PsA trial, 191 patients took IV secukinumab, and 190 took placebo. For the primary endpoint, the percentages who reached at least a 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR 50) at 16 weeks were 31.4% and 6.3%, respectively (P < .0001).
In the axSpA trial, 264 patients took IV secukinumab, and 262 took placebo. The primary endpoint, at least a 40% improvement in Assessment of the Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 40), was met at 16 weeks by 40.9% and 22.9%, respectively (P < .0001).
“Both studies appear to present clear efficacy of IV route administration of secukinumab with no clear increase in safety signals,” consultant rheumatologist Nicola Goodson, MBChB, PhD, of Aintree University Hospital in Liverpool, England, said in an interview.
“Offering IV administration as an option to patients is helpful,” added Dr. Goodson, who was not involved with the study but is familiar with its findings.
As Dr. Goodson explained, secukinumab “was the first IL [interleukin]-17 inhibitor used to treat spondyloarthropathies, and we have been using subcutaneous secukinumab to treat psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and axial spondyloarthritis/ankylosing spondylitis since 2016 in the U.K. Our experience with this medication has been good with similar efficacy to anti-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] therapy in axial spondyloarthritis. The medication is generally well-tolerated, and the subcutaneous pen injection device is easy for patients to use.”
However, IV treatment may speed up onset of action, she said, and it may be useful in situations when compliance is a challenge.
PsA trial details
In the PsA trial, known as INVIGORATE-2, researchers recruited patients who met the CASPAR criteria for active PsA with symptoms for ≥ 6 months, and had ≥ 3 tender joints out of 78 joints and ≥ 3 swollen joints out of 76.
Participants with a mean age of 48, including 55% females, were randomized 1:1 to receive placebo or secukinumab (6 mg/kg at baseline followed by 3 mg/kg every 4 weeks). Those in the placebo group were switched to the same monthly doses of secukinumab at 16 weeks.
“Patients who switched from the placebo had a similar increase of efficacy as the original treated group,” rheumatologist Alan J. Kivitz, MD, of the Altoona Center for Clinical Research, in Duncansville, Penn., said in his presentation at the meeting. Specifically, at 52 weeks, the groups had similar ACR 50 response rates: 58% with secukinumab and 64% with placebo-to-secukinumab.
The fact that patients in the original placebo group who received 3 mg IV doses without 6-mg loading doses achieved ACR response rates similar to those who took secukinumab during the whole trial “could suggest that the IV loading dose may not be required. This would need to be explored in a randomized head-to-head study, but it’s an interesting observation that may reduce costs and exposure to higher doses of medication at the start of treatment,” Dr. Goodson said.
Among the patients who received secukinumab at any point in the study, 63% had a treatment-emergent adverse event, including 5.9% with serious events. One death was reported in the placebo group before week 16. No other deaths were reported.
AxSpA trial details
In the axSpA trial, called INVIGORATE-1, researchers recruited people aged ≥18 years with a diagnosis of active radiographic axSpA according to modified New York criteria or nonradiographic axSpA according to ASAS criteria, and all had inflammatory back pain for ≥6 months with an onset before age 45. They were randomized at a 1:1 ratio to receive IV secukinumab (6 mg/kg loading dose, followed by 3 mg/kg every 4 weeks) or placebo for 16 weeks. At that point, the placebo group switched to the same monthly doses of IV secukinumab.
Participants had a mean age of about 39, and about one-third were female.
Following the statistical superiority in ASAS 40 response rates seen with IV secukinumab at week 16, patients who from there switched from placebo to IV secukinumab achieved comparable ASAS 40 response rates to those of patients originally randomized to secukinumab by week 24, reaching 66.8% for those on secukinumab the whole time and 74.9% for those who switched.
Secondary outcome measures were similar in both groups at week 52.
Among all patients who took secukinumab – the percentage with any adverse event was 63.2%, and 6% had a nonfatal adverse event deemed serious. There was one death during secukinumab treatment not suspected to be related to treatment.
In a presentation about the axSpA study findings, Atul Deodhar, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, noted that “having an IV biologic available in the U.S. has some advantages. There are certain insurance providers such as Medicare where it is more economical for the patient to have an IV drug available.”
Dr. Deodhar also noted that in October the FDA approved a recommended lower dose for the IV treatment than in the study: 1.75 mg/kg instead of 3 mg/kg following the loading dose. That’s because the 3 mg/kg dose caused blood levels to be higher than those in the subcutaneous form, he said.
The FDA made the same dose recommendation for PsA.
Study limitations
Dr. Goodson, the U.K. consultant rheumatologist, noted a limitation of the trials: “It would have been interesting to compare IV to subcutaneous route secukinumab.” Still, the findings suggest that “the safety and efficacy of IV administration appears comparable,” she said.
“IV administration will have associated costs of attending hospital or infusion clinics,” she added, “and the cost of additional staff and administration need to be considered.”
Novartis, the maker of secukinumab, funded both studies. The PsA study authors report multiple relationships with industry, and some, such as Dr. Kivitz, have connections to Novartis. The axSpA study authors also report multiple relationships with industry, and some, such as Dr. Deodhar, have connections to Novartis. Some authors of both studies are Novartis employees. Dr. Goodson disclosed financial relationships with UCB and AbbVie.
SAN DIEGO – Monthly use of intravenously administered secukinumab (Cosentyx) proved its efficacy over placebo in treating psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) in two industry-sponsored, randomized, double-blinded, phase 3 trials of the drug’s second and newly approved route of administration.
The studies of the human monoclonal antibody secukinumab, an interleukin-17 inhibitor, were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. A subcutaneously injectable formulation of the drug is available, and the Food and Drug Administration approved the IV form for the conditions in October, although at a recommended lower monthly dose than the new trials examined.
In the PsA trial, 191 patients took IV secukinumab, and 190 took placebo. For the primary endpoint, the percentages who reached at least a 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR 50) at 16 weeks were 31.4% and 6.3%, respectively (P < .0001).
In the axSpA trial, 264 patients took IV secukinumab, and 262 took placebo. The primary endpoint, at least a 40% improvement in Assessment of the Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 40), was met at 16 weeks by 40.9% and 22.9%, respectively (P < .0001).
“Both studies appear to present clear efficacy of IV route administration of secukinumab with no clear increase in safety signals,” consultant rheumatologist Nicola Goodson, MBChB, PhD, of Aintree University Hospital in Liverpool, England, said in an interview.
“Offering IV administration as an option to patients is helpful,” added Dr. Goodson, who was not involved with the study but is familiar with its findings.
As Dr. Goodson explained, secukinumab “was the first IL [interleukin]-17 inhibitor used to treat spondyloarthropathies, and we have been using subcutaneous secukinumab to treat psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and axial spondyloarthritis/ankylosing spondylitis since 2016 in the U.K. Our experience with this medication has been good with similar efficacy to anti-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] therapy in axial spondyloarthritis. The medication is generally well-tolerated, and the subcutaneous pen injection device is easy for patients to use.”
However, IV treatment may speed up onset of action, she said, and it may be useful in situations when compliance is a challenge.
PsA trial details
In the PsA trial, known as INVIGORATE-2, researchers recruited patients who met the CASPAR criteria for active PsA with symptoms for ≥ 6 months, and had ≥ 3 tender joints out of 78 joints and ≥ 3 swollen joints out of 76.
Participants with a mean age of 48, including 55% females, were randomized 1:1 to receive placebo or secukinumab (6 mg/kg at baseline followed by 3 mg/kg every 4 weeks). Those in the placebo group were switched to the same monthly doses of secukinumab at 16 weeks.
“Patients who switched from the placebo had a similar increase of efficacy as the original treated group,” rheumatologist Alan J. Kivitz, MD, of the Altoona Center for Clinical Research, in Duncansville, Penn., said in his presentation at the meeting. Specifically, at 52 weeks, the groups had similar ACR 50 response rates: 58% with secukinumab and 64% with placebo-to-secukinumab.
The fact that patients in the original placebo group who received 3 mg IV doses without 6-mg loading doses achieved ACR response rates similar to those who took secukinumab during the whole trial “could suggest that the IV loading dose may not be required. This would need to be explored in a randomized head-to-head study, but it’s an interesting observation that may reduce costs and exposure to higher doses of medication at the start of treatment,” Dr. Goodson said.
Among the patients who received secukinumab at any point in the study, 63% had a treatment-emergent adverse event, including 5.9% with serious events. One death was reported in the placebo group before week 16. No other deaths were reported.
AxSpA trial details
In the axSpA trial, called INVIGORATE-1, researchers recruited people aged ≥18 years with a diagnosis of active radiographic axSpA according to modified New York criteria or nonradiographic axSpA according to ASAS criteria, and all had inflammatory back pain for ≥6 months with an onset before age 45. They were randomized at a 1:1 ratio to receive IV secukinumab (6 mg/kg loading dose, followed by 3 mg/kg every 4 weeks) or placebo for 16 weeks. At that point, the placebo group switched to the same monthly doses of IV secukinumab.
Participants had a mean age of about 39, and about one-third were female.
Following the statistical superiority in ASAS 40 response rates seen with IV secukinumab at week 16, patients who from there switched from placebo to IV secukinumab achieved comparable ASAS 40 response rates to those of patients originally randomized to secukinumab by week 24, reaching 66.8% for those on secukinumab the whole time and 74.9% for those who switched.
Secondary outcome measures were similar in both groups at week 52.
Among all patients who took secukinumab – the percentage with any adverse event was 63.2%, and 6% had a nonfatal adverse event deemed serious. There was one death during secukinumab treatment not suspected to be related to treatment.
In a presentation about the axSpA study findings, Atul Deodhar, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, noted that “having an IV biologic available in the U.S. has some advantages. There are certain insurance providers such as Medicare where it is more economical for the patient to have an IV drug available.”
Dr. Deodhar also noted that in October the FDA approved a recommended lower dose for the IV treatment than in the study: 1.75 mg/kg instead of 3 mg/kg following the loading dose. That’s because the 3 mg/kg dose caused blood levels to be higher than those in the subcutaneous form, he said.
The FDA made the same dose recommendation for PsA.
Study limitations
Dr. Goodson, the U.K. consultant rheumatologist, noted a limitation of the trials: “It would have been interesting to compare IV to subcutaneous route secukinumab.” Still, the findings suggest that “the safety and efficacy of IV administration appears comparable,” she said.
“IV administration will have associated costs of attending hospital or infusion clinics,” she added, “and the cost of additional staff and administration need to be considered.”
Novartis, the maker of secukinumab, funded both studies. The PsA study authors report multiple relationships with industry, and some, such as Dr. Kivitz, have connections to Novartis. The axSpA study authors also report multiple relationships with industry, and some, such as Dr. Deodhar, have connections to Novartis. Some authors of both studies are Novartis employees. Dr. Goodson disclosed financial relationships with UCB and AbbVie.
AT ACR 2023