User login
Barzolvolimab Effective for CSU in Phase 2 Study
of an ongoing phase 2 study.
Moreover, in the study, barzolvolimab, an anti-KIT monoclonal antibody that inhibits the activation of and depletes mast cells, induced comparable responses in a subset of patients who had taken omalizumab, an anti–immunoglobulin E monoclonal antibody approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating CSU.
The findings were presented at the annual European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress. Barzolvolimab is being developed by Celldex Therapeutics.
“Barzolvolimab treatment resulted in rapid, profound, and durable improvement in UAS7 [weekly Urticaria Activity Score 7],” said presenter Martin Metz, MD, professor of dermatology, Institute of Allergology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany, “with a deepening of response over 52 weeks in patients with antihistamine-refractory CSU.”
“Similar robust improvement was seen in patients previously treated with omalizumab, including refractory patients,” he added.
Because barzolvolimab was well tolerated over the course of the follow-up period, Metz said, it “has the potential to be an important new treatment option,” noting that patients are now being enrolled in global phase 3 studies of barzolvolimab.
Sustained Symptom Relief
Ana M. Giménez-Arnau, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Autonomous University and Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain, told Medscape Medical News that the results are important, as they showed people who switched from placebo to the active drug also saw a long-term benefit.
What is “remarkable” about barzolvolimab, continued Giménez-Arnau, who was not involved in the study, is that it is the first drug to target the KIT receptor on mast cells and interfere with stimulating growth factors, thus making the cells that drive the development of CSU “disappear.”
The study included three different barzolvolimab regimens, with the 150-mg dose every 4 weeks and the 300-mg dose every 8 weeks achieving similar results, noted Giménez-Arnau.
For her, there are important questions to answer around the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of the two regimens that remain, but she underlined that for the patient, the choice of regimen could have an impact on their quality of life.
“If we give 300 mg every 8 weeks,” she said, it appears “you can achieve disease control” while halving the frequency of subcutaneous injections.
She said that it would be “interesting to know” if 300 mg every 8 weeks is given as two 150-mg injections every 2 months or one 300-mg injection. If it is the former, Giménez Arnau said, “This is potentially an important benefit for the patient.”
Sustained Benefits at 1 Year
The study enrolled 208 patients with antihistamine-refractory CSU at sites in 10 countries, randomizing them to one of four arms: Subcutaneous injections of barzolvolimab 75 mg or 150 mg every 4 weeks, 300 mg every 8 weeks, or placebo every 4 weeks.
The mean age in each arm was between 42 and 47 years, and around 75% were women. Across the arms, 64%-76% had severe disease, as measured on the UAS7, at a mean score of 30.0-31.3. Around 20% had previously been treated with omalizumab.
Patients were treated for 16 weeks, during which time they completed daily and weekly diaries and attended six clinic visits at weeks 0, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 16. Results from the trial published earlier this year demonstrated that both the regimens (150 mg every 4 weeks and 300 mg every 8 weeks) achieved clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in UAS7, the primary endpoint, vs placebo at 12 weeks.
Participants in the barzolvolimab 75 mg and placebo arms were then randomized to receive barzolvolimab 150 mg every 4 weeks or 300 mg every 8 weeks, and those who had been in the 150-mg and 300-mg treatment arms continued with that treatment for a further 36 weeks. (The remaining patients have been continued on a further 24-week follow-up, but the data are not yet available.)
By the 52-week follow-up, 25% of patients who started in each of the barzolvolimab arms had discontinued treatment, as well as 16% first randomized to the placebo arm.
Metz reported that the improvements in UAS7 scores, observed as early as week 1, were sustained through week 52 in patients in both the ongoing 150-mg and 300-mg arms. Patients who initially started in the placebo and the barzolvolimab 75-mg groups caught up with those who had started on the higher doses, so that by week 52, there were no significant differences in urticaria activity, hives, or itch scores between the arms.
By week 52, the proportion of patients achieving well-controlled disease, defined as a UAS7 score ≤ 6, was 73.7% in the barzolvolimab 150 mg every 4-week arm and 68.2% in the 300 mg barzolvolimab every 8-week arm.
Notably, just 12.8% of patients in the placebo arm had achieved well-controlled CSU by week 16, but after switching to barzolvolimab 150 mg every 4 weeks or 300 mg every 8 weeks, 63% reached that target at week 52.
“Maybe even more striking and very interesting to look at,” said Metz, was the complete control of symptoms, meaning “not one single wheal and no itch.” By week 52, 52% of those on 300 mg every 8 weeks and 71.1% of those on 150 mg every 4 weeks had a complete response, with no itch/hives (UAS7 of 0).
Importantly, complete responses with barzolvolimab were observed early and were sustained or improved to week 52, Metz said, with, again, placebo and former barzolvolimab 75 mg patients catching up with those who started on 150 mg every 4 weeks and 300 mg every 8 weeks once they switched at week 16.
“This is the best data for chronic spontaneous urticaria that we have so far seen,” he said, adding that the responses were seen regardless of prior experience with omalizumab.
Changes in Hair Color, Skin Pigmentation
As for safety, during the first 16 weeks, 66% of those on active treatment and 39% on placebo experienced at least one adverse event. There were no treatment-related serious adverse events, compared with two among those who received treatment for the full 52 weeks.
The most common adverse events with active treatment were hair color changes (14% in the first 16 weeks and 26% among those treated for the full 52 weeks), neutropenia/reduced neutrophil count (9% in the first 16 weeks and 17% among those treated for the full 52 weeks), and skin hypopigmentation (1% in the first 16 weeks, 13% among those treated for the full 52 weeks, and 19% among those who switched from placebo to active treatment at 36 weeks). Urticaria was reported by 10% among patients on active treatment and 10% among those on placebo in the first 16 weeks, and by 15% of those treated for the full 52 weeks.
In the post-presentation discussion, Metz explained that the hypopigmentation appears to start around the hair follicle and is diffuse, so tends to look like vitiligo.
He suggested that the melanocytes around the hair follicle “seem to be the ones that are more stressed, maybe because of the hair follicle cycling,” adding that the effect is reversible and does not appear to be dose dependent.
The study was funded by Celldex Therapeutics. Metz declared relationships with AbbVie, ALK-Abelló, Almirall, Amgen, argenx, AstraZeneca, Astria, Attovia Therapeutics, Celldex, Celltrion, Escient Pharmaceuticals, Galen, Galderma, GSK, Incyte, Jasper, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Pharvaris, Regeneron, Sanofi, Teva, Third Harmonic Bio, and Vifor.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
of an ongoing phase 2 study.
Moreover, in the study, barzolvolimab, an anti-KIT monoclonal antibody that inhibits the activation of and depletes mast cells, induced comparable responses in a subset of patients who had taken omalizumab, an anti–immunoglobulin E monoclonal antibody approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating CSU.
The findings were presented at the annual European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress. Barzolvolimab is being developed by Celldex Therapeutics.
“Barzolvolimab treatment resulted in rapid, profound, and durable improvement in UAS7 [weekly Urticaria Activity Score 7],” said presenter Martin Metz, MD, professor of dermatology, Institute of Allergology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany, “with a deepening of response over 52 weeks in patients with antihistamine-refractory CSU.”
“Similar robust improvement was seen in patients previously treated with omalizumab, including refractory patients,” he added.
Because barzolvolimab was well tolerated over the course of the follow-up period, Metz said, it “has the potential to be an important new treatment option,” noting that patients are now being enrolled in global phase 3 studies of barzolvolimab.
Sustained Symptom Relief
Ana M. Giménez-Arnau, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Autonomous University and Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain, told Medscape Medical News that the results are important, as they showed people who switched from placebo to the active drug also saw a long-term benefit.
What is “remarkable” about barzolvolimab, continued Giménez-Arnau, who was not involved in the study, is that it is the first drug to target the KIT receptor on mast cells and interfere with stimulating growth factors, thus making the cells that drive the development of CSU “disappear.”
The study included three different barzolvolimab regimens, with the 150-mg dose every 4 weeks and the 300-mg dose every 8 weeks achieving similar results, noted Giménez-Arnau.
For her, there are important questions to answer around the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of the two regimens that remain, but she underlined that for the patient, the choice of regimen could have an impact on their quality of life.
“If we give 300 mg every 8 weeks,” she said, it appears “you can achieve disease control” while halving the frequency of subcutaneous injections.
She said that it would be “interesting to know” if 300 mg every 8 weeks is given as two 150-mg injections every 2 months or one 300-mg injection. If it is the former, Giménez Arnau said, “This is potentially an important benefit for the patient.”
Sustained Benefits at 1 Year
The study enrolled 208 patients with antihistamine-refractory CSU at sites in 10 countries, randomizing them to one of four arms: Subcutaneous injections of barzolvolimab 75 mg or 150 mg every 4 weeks, 300 mg every 8 weeks, or placebo every 4 weeks.
The mean age in each arm was between 42 and 47 years, and around 75% were women. Across the arms, 64%-76% had severe disease, as measured on the UAS7, at a mean score of 30.0-31.3. Around 20% had previously been treated with omalizumab.
Patients were treated for 16 weeks, during which time they completed daily and weekly diaries and attended six clinic visits at weeks 0, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 16. Results from the trial published earlier this year demonstrated that both the regimens (150 mg every 4 weeks and 300 mg every 8 weeks) achieved clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in UAS7, the primary endpoint, vs placebo at 12 weeks.
Participants in the barzolvolimab 75 mg and placebo arms were then randomized to receive barzolvolimab 150 mg every 4 weeks or 300 mg every 8 weeks, and those who had been in the 150-mg and 300-mg treatment arms continued with that treatment for a further 36 weeks. (The remaining patients have been continued on a further 24-week follow-up, but the data are not yet available.)
By the 52-week follow-up, 25% of patients who started in each of the barzolvolimab arms had discontinued treatment, as well as 16% first randomized to the placebo arm.
Metz reported that the improvements in UAS7 scores, observed as early as week 1, were sustained through week 52 in patients in both the ongoing 150-mg and 300-mg arms. Patients who initially started in the placebo and the barzolvolimab 75-mg groups caught up with those who had started on the higher doses, so that by week 52, there were no significant differences in urticaria activity, hives, or itch scores between the arms.
By week 52, the proportion of patients achieving well-controlled disease, defined as a UAS7 score ≤ 6, was 73.7% in the barzolvolimab 150 mg every 4-week arm and 68.2% in the 300 mg barzolvolimab every 8-week arm.
Notably, just 12.8% of patients in the placebo arm had achieved well-controlled CSU by week 16, but after switching to barzolvolimab 150 mg every 4 weeks or 300 mg every 8 weeks, 63% reached that target at week 52.
“Maybe even more striking and very interesting to look at,” said Metz, was the complete control of symptoms, meaning “not one single wheal and no itch.” By week 52, 52% of those on 300 mg every 8 weeks and 71.1% of those on 150 mg every 4 weeks had a complete response, with no itch/hives (UAS7 of 0).
Importantly, complete responses with barzolvolimab were observed early and were sustained or improved to week 52, Metz said, with, again, placebo and former barzolvolimab 75 mg patients catching up with those who started on 150 mg every 4 weeks and 300 mg every 8 weeks once they switched at week 16.
“This is the best data for chronic spontaneous urticaria that we have so far seen,” he said, adding that the responses were seen regardless of prior experience with omalizumab.
Changes in Hair Color, Skin Pigmentation
As for safety, during the first 16 weeks, 66% of those on active treatment and 39% on placebo experienced at least one adverse event. There were no treatment-related serious adverse events, compared with two among those who received treatment for the full 52 weeks.
The most common adverse events with active treatment were hair color changes (14% in the first 16 weeks and 26% among those treated for the full 52 weeks), neutropenia/reduced neutrophil count (9% in the first 16 weeks and 17% among those treated for the full 52 weeks), and skin hypopigmentation (1% in the first 16 weeks, 13% among those treated for the full 52 weeks, and 19% among those who switched from placebo to active treatment at 36 weeks). Urticaria was reported by 10% among patients on active treatment and 10% among those on placebo in the first 16 weeks, and by 15% of those treated for the full 52 weeks.
In the post-presentation discussion, Metz explained that the hypopigmentation appears to start around the hair follicle and is diffuse, so tends to look like vitiligo.
He suggested that the melanocytes around the hair follicle “seem to be the ones that are more stressed, maybe because of the hair follicle cycling,” adding that the effect is reversible and does not appear to be dose dependent.
The study was funded by Celldex Therapeutics. Metz declared relationships with AbbVie, ALK-Abelló, Almirall, Amgen, argenx, AstraZeneca, Astria, Attovia Therapeutics, Celldex, Celltrion, Escient Pharmaceuticals, Galen, Galderma, GSK, Incyte, Jasper, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Pharvaris, Regeneron, Sanofi, Teva, Third Harmonic Bio, and Vifor.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
of an ongoing phase 2 study.
Moreover, in the study, barzolvolimab, an anti-KIT monoclonal antibody that inhibits the activation of and depletes mast cells, induced comparable responses in a subset of patients who had taken omalizumab, an anti–immunoglobulin E monoclonal antibody approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating CSU.
The findings were presented at the annual European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress. Barzolvolimab is being developed by Celldex Therapeutics.
“Barzolvolimab treatment resulted in rapid, profound, and durable improvement in UAS7 [weekly Urticaria Activity Score 7],” said presenter Martin Metz, MD, professor of dermatology, Institute of Allergology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany, “with a deepening of response over 52 weeks in patients with antihistamine-refractory CSU.”
“Similar robust improvement was seen in patients previously treated with omalizumab, including refractory patients,” he added.
Because barzolvolimab was well tolerated over the course of the follow-up period, Metz said, it “has the potential to be an important new treatment option,” noting that patients are now being enrolled in global phase 3 studies of barzolvolimab.
Sustained Symptom Relief
Ana M. Giménez-Arnau, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Autonomous University and Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain, told Medscape Medical News that the results are important, as they showed people who switched from placebo to the active drug also saw a long-term benefit.
What is “remarkable” about barzolvolimab, continued Giménez-Arnau, who was not involved in the study, is that it is the first drug to target the KIT receptor on mast cells and interfere with stimulating growth factors, thus making the cells that drive the development of CSU “disappear.”
The study included three different barzolvolimab regimens, with the 150-mg dose every 4 weeks and the 300-mg dose every 8 weeks achieving similar results, noted Giménez-Arnau.
For her, there are important questions to answer around the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of the two regimens that remain, but she underlined that for the patient, the choice of regimen could have an impact on their quality of life.
“If we give 300 mg every 8 weeks,” she said, it appears “you can achieve disease control” while halving the frequency of subcutaneous injections.
She said that it would be “interesting to know” if 300 mg every 8 weeks is given as two 150-mg injections every 2 months or one 300-mg injection. If it is the former, Giménez Arnau said, “This is potentially an important benefit for the patient.”
Sustained Benefits at 1 Year
The study enrolled 208 patients with antihistamine-refractory CSU at sites in 10 countries, randomizing them to one of four arms: Subcutaneous injections of barzolvolimab 75 mg or 150 mg every 4 weeks, 300 mg every 8 weeks, or placebo every 4 weeks.
The mean age in each arm was between 42 and 47 years, and around 75% were women. Across the arms, 64%-76% had severe disease, as measured on the UAS7, at a mean score of 30.0-31.3. Around 20% had previously been treated with omalizumab.
Patients were treated for 16 weeks, during which time they completed daily and weekly diaries and attended six clinic visits at weeks 0, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 16. Results from the trial published earlier this year demonstrated that both the regimens (150 mg every 4 weeks and 300 mg every 8 weeks) achieved clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in UAS7, the primary endpoint, vs placebo at 12 weeks.
Participants in the barzolvolimab 75 mg and placebo arms were then randomized to receive barzolvolimab 150 mg every 4 weeks or 300 mg every 8 weeks, and those who had been in the 150-mg and 300-mg treatment arms continued with that treatment for a further 36 weeks. (The remaining patients have been continued on a further 24-week follow-up, but the data are not yet available.)
By the 52-week follow-up, 25% of patients who started in each of the barzolvolimab arms had discontinued treatment, as well as 16% first randomized to the placebo arm.
Metz reported that the improvements in UAS7 scores, observed as early as week 1, were sustained through week 52 in patients in both the ongoing 150-mg and 300-mg arms. Patients who initially started in the placebo and the barzolvolimab 75-mg groups caught up with those who had started on the higher doses, so that by week 52, there were no significant differences in urticaria activity, hives, or itch scores between the arms.
By week 52, the proportion of patients achieving well-controlled disease, defined as a UAS7 score ≤ 6, was 73.7% in the barzolvolimab 150 mg every 4-week arm and 68.2% in the 300 mg barzolvolimab every 8-week arm.
Notably, just 12.8% of patients in the placebo arm had achieved well-controlled CSU by week 16, but after switching to barzolvolimab 150 mg every 4 weeks or 300 mg every 8 weeks, 63% reached that target at week 52.
“Maybe even more striking and very interesting to look at,” said Metz, was the complete control of symptoms, meaning “not one single wheal and no itch.” By week 52, 52% of those on 300 mg every 8 weeks and 71.1% of those on 150 mg every 4 weeks had a complete response, with no itch/hives (UAS7 of 0).
Importantly, complete responses with barzolvolimab were observed early and were sustained or improved to week 52, Metz said, with, again, placebo and former barzolvolimab 75 mg patients catching up with those who started on 150 mg every 4 weeks and 300 mg every 8 weeks once they switched at week 16.
“This is the best data for chronic spontaneous urticaria that we have so far seen,” he said, adding that the responses were seen regardless of prior experience with omalizumab.
Changes in Hair Color, Skin Pigmentation
As for safety, during the first 16 weeks, 66% of those on active treatment and 39% on placebo experienced at least one adverse event. There were no treatment-related serious adverse events, compared with two among those who received treatment for the full 52 weeks.
The most common adverse events with active treatment were hair color changes (14% in the first 16 weeks and 26% among those treated for the full 52 weeks), neutropenia/reduced neutrophil count (9% in the first 16 weeks and 17% among those treated for the full 52 weeks), and skin hypopigmentation (1% in the first 16 weeks, 13% among those treated for the full 52 weeks, and 19% among those who switched from placebo to active treatment at 36 weeks). Urticaria was reported by 10% among patients on active treatment and 10% among those on placebo in the first 16 weeks, and by 15% of those treated for the full 52 weeks.
In the post-presentation discussion, Metz explained that the hypopigmentation appears to start around the hair follicle and is diffuse, so tends to look like vitiligo.
He suggested that the melanocytes around the hair follicle “seem to be the ones that are more stressed, maybe because of the hair follicle cycling,” adding that the effect is reversible and does not appear to be dose dependent.
The study was funded by Celldex Therapeutics. Metz declared relationships with AbbVie, ALK-Abelló, Almirall, Amgen, argenx, AstraZeneca, Astria, Attovia Therapeutics, Celldex, Celltrion, Escient Pharmaceuticals, Galen, Galderma, GSK, Incyte, Jasper, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Pharvaris, Regeneron, Sanofi, Teva, Third Harmonic Bio, and Vifor.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM EADV 2024
Children With Severe Atopic Dermatitis Catch Up on Growth With Dupilumab
AMSTERDAM — , revealed a post hoc trial analysis.
The research was presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.
The trial included a “rigorously selected … well-characterized, well-studied” population of children aged 6-11 years, said presenter Alan D. Irvine, MD, DSc, professor of dermatology, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland.
It showed that “severe atopic dermatitis does cause restriction of growth, as well as a higher weight, and therefore obviously a higher BMI [body mass index].”
He continued, however, that children at the lower percentiles of height receiving prompt treatment with dupilumab (Dupixent) “were able to rapidly move through the centiles over the 16 weeks of the study, and that may be the window for catch-up growth … when children are growing rapidly.”
Anna Yasmine Kirkorian, MD, chief of dermatology, Children’s National Hospital, Washington, DC, who was not involved in the study, said that she was “surprised” at the degree of growth achieved over the study period, as height is not something that jumps up “overnight.”
“On the other hand, it fits with my experience with children who’ve had the brakes on all of their life due to inflammation, whether it be height, going to school, sleeping — everything is sort of put on pause by this terrible inflammatory process,” she said.
“When you take the brakes off, they get to be who they are going to be,” Kirkorian added. “So I was surprised by the speed of it, but not by the fact that height was acquired.”
Her belief is that in the pre-dupilumab era, severe atopic dermatitis was often insufficiently controlled, so children were “smaller than you would predict from parental height,” and the treatment is “allowing them to reach their genetic potential.”
Post Hoc Analysis
In his presentation, Irvine emphasized that it has been clearly demonstrated that adolescents with moderate and severe atopic dermatitis have a significantly higher likelihood of being below the 25th percentile of height on growth reference charts.
Such children are also at a higher risk of having low bone mineral density and low serum alkaline phosphatase (ALP) levels . While data presented at the EADV 2023 Congress showed that dupilumab significantly increased serum levels of bone ALP compared with placebo, the underlying mechanism remains unclear.
For the current analysis, Irvine and colleagues determined that the proportion of children aged 6-11 years with severe atopic dermatitis and lower stature reach a ≥ 5 centile improvement in height following 16 weeks of dupilumab treatment.
They examined data from the LIBERTY AD PEDS trial, in which patients aged 6-11 years with severe atopic dermatitis were randomized to 300 mg dupilumab every 4 weeks or placebo along with a mild or moderately potent topical corticosteroid. The study found that, overall, dupilumab was associated with significant improvements in signs, symptoms, and quality of life compared with placebo.
Height measures at baseline revealed that “more boys and more girls were below the 50th centile than you would predict for a healthy, normal control population,” Irvine said. “If we look at weight, we see the opposite,” he continued, “with a disproportionate number of boys and girls who are above the 50th centile for weight at baseline.”
Consequently, “we’re seeing these children who are shorter and heavier than the predicted healthy weight range and, as a result, obviously have higher BMI,” Irvine noted, with 67% girls and 62% boys found to have a higher BMI than normal for their age.
After 16 weeks of treatment with dupilumab, there was a much greater gain in height than that seen among those on placebo, with the most pronounced effect seen in children who had the lowest height at baseline. Indeed, among children in the lowest 25% height percentile at baseline, 30.6% on dupilumab vs 11.9% on placebo experienced an increase in height of 5 centiles or more(P < .05).
“This reflects what we see in clinical practice,” Irvine said. “Children often grow dramatically on treatment for atopic dermatitis.”
Among patients with a baseline height below the 30th percentile, 31.9% treated with dupilumab vs 11.1% treated with placebo gained at least 5 centiles in height. The figures for children below the 40th height percentile at baseline were 31.3% vs 15.5% (P < .05 for both).
Although there remained a marked difference in the proportion of children below the 50th height percentile at baseline gaining 5 centiles or more in height, at 29.0% with dupilumab versus 15.7% with placebo, it was no longer significant.
“So the effect of catch-up growth, or growth through the centiles, is most marked in those who are in the 40th centile or below,” Irvine said, indicating that the “more growth restricted kids have much more potential to catch up.”
‘Convincing’ Data
Overall, Kirkorian said in the interview, the data are “convincing” and support her view that severe atopic dermatitis is a “terrible chronic disease that we really underappreciate.” Atopic dermatitis, she added, “should get the respect that any severe chronic illness would have, whether that be arthritis, diabetes, or cardiac disease, because it is a systemic disorder that … profoundly affects quality of life, every minute of every day.”
However, “we don’t get all the referrals we should, until the child has suffered for years and years, and the family has suffered,” as there is a bias that it can be outgrown — although not everybody does — and it “doesn’t look as conspicuous as other chronic skin disorders,” such as psoriasis.
“Now with this study,” Kirkorian said, “it gives us a really compelling point to make to parents, to the community, and to insurers that not only are we affecting the quality of life from the itch standpoint [with dupilumab] but we may have long profound effects on growth and bone health.”
The research was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Irvine declared relationships with AbbVie, Arena Pharmaceuticals, BenevolentAI, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Dermavant, Eli Lily, Genentech, LEO Pharma, Menlo Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, UCB, DS Biopharma, and Inflazome. Kirkorian declared relationships with Dermavant, Verrica Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and Incyte.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AMSTERDAM — , revealed a post hoc trial analysis.
The research was presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.
The trial included a “rigorously selected … well-characterized, well-studied” population of children aged 6-11 years, said presenter Alan D. Irvine, MD, DSc, professor of dermatology, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland.
It showed that “severe atopic dermatitis does cause restriction of growth, as well as a higher weight, and therefore obviously a higher BMI [body mass index].”
He continued, however, that children at the lower percentiles of height receiving prompt treatment with dupilumab (Dupixent) “were able to rapidly move through the centiles over the 16 weeks of the study, and that may be the window for catch-up growth … when children are growing rapidly.”
Anna Yasmine Kirkorian, MD, chief of dermatology, Children’s National Hospital, Washington, DC, who was not involved in the study, said that she was “surprised” at the degree of growth achieved over the study period, as height is not something that jumps up “overnight.”
“On the other hand, it fits with my experience with children who’ve had the brakes on all of their life due to inflammation, whether it be height, going to school, sleeping — everything is sort of put on pause by this terrible inflammatory process,” she said.
“When you take the brakes off, they get to be who they are going to be,” Kirkorian added. “So I was surprised by the speed of it, but not by the fact that height was acquired.”
Her belief is that in the pre-dupilumab era, severe atopic dermatitis was often insufficiently controlled, so children were “smaller than you would predict from parental height,” and the treatment is “allowing them to reach their genetic potential.”
Post Hoc Analysis
In his presentation, Irvine emphasized that it has been clearly demonstrated that adolescents with moderate and severe atopic dermatitis have a significantly higher likelihood of being below the 25th percentile of height on growth reference charts.
Such children are also at a higher risk of having low bone mineral density and low serum alkaline phosphatase (ALP) levels . While data presented at the EADV 2023 Congress showed that dupilumab significantly increased serum levels of bone ALP compared with placebo, the underlying mechanism remains unclear.
For the current analysis, Irvine and colleagues determined that the proportion of children aged 6-11 years with severe atopic dermatitis and lower stature reach a ≥ 5 centile improvement in height following 16 weeks of dupilumab treatment.
They examined data from the LIBERTY AD PEDS trial, in which patients aged 6-11 years with severe atopic dermatitis were randomized to 300 mg dupilumab every 4 weeks or placebo along with a mild or moderately potent topical corticosteroid. The study found that, overall, dupilumab was associated with significant improvements in signs, symptoms, and quality of life compared with placebo.
Height measures at baseline revealed that “more boys and more girls were below the 50th centile than you would predict for a healthy, normal control population,” Irvine said. “If we look at weight, we see the opposite,” he continued, “with a disproportionate number of boys and girls who are above the 50th centile for weight at baseline.”
Consequently, “we’re seeing these children who are shorter and heavier than the predicted healthy weight range and, as a result, obviously have higher BMI,” Irvine noted, with 67% girls and 62% boys found to have a higher BMI than normal for their age.
After 16 weeks of treatment with dupilumab, there was a much greater gain in height than that seen among those on placebo, with the most pronounced effect seen in children who had the lowest height at baseline. Indeed, among children in the lowest 25% height percentile at baseline, 30.6% on dupilumab vs 11.9% on placebo experienced an increase in height of 5 centiles or more(P < .05).
“This reflects what we see in clinical practice,” Irvine said. “Children often grow dramatically on treatment for atopic dermatitis.”
Among patients with a baseline height below the 30th percentile, 31.9% treated with dupilumab vs 11.1% treated with placebo gained at least 5 centiles in height. The figures for children below the 40th height percentile at baseline were 31.3% vs 15.5% (P < .05 for both).
Although there remained a marked difference in the proportion of children below the 50th height percentile at baseline gaining 5 centiles or more in height, at 29.0% with dupilumab versus 15.7% with placebo, it was no longer significant.
“So the effect of catch-up growth, or growth through the centiles, is most marked in those who are in the 40th centile or below,” Irvine said, indicating that the “more growth restricted kids have much more potential to catch up.”
‘Convincing’ Data
Overall, Kirkorian said in the interview, the data are “convincing” and support her view that severe atopic dermatitis is a “terrible chronic disease that we really underappreciate.” Atopic dermatitis, she added, “should get the respect that any severe chronic illness would have, whether that be arthritis, diabetes, or cardiac disease, because it is a systemic disorder that … profoundly affects quality of life, every minute of every day.”
However, “we don’t get all the referrals we should, until the child has suffered for years and years, and the family has suffered,” as there is a bias that it can be outgrown — although not everybody does — and it “doesn’t look as conspicuous as other chronic skin disorders,” such as psoriasis.
“Now with this study,” Kirkorian said, “it gives us a really compelling point to make to parents, to the community, and to insurers that not only are we affecting the quality of life from the itch standpoint [with dupilumab] but we may have long profound effects on growth and bone health.”
The research was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Irvine declared relationships with AbbVie, Arena Pharmaceuticals, BenevolentAI, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Dermavant, Eli Lily, Genentech, LEO Pharma, Menlo Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, UCB, DS Biopharma, and Inflazome. Kirkorian declared relationships with Dermavant, Verrica Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and Incyte.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AMSTERDAM — , revealed a post hoc trial analysis.
The research was presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.
The trial included a “rigorously selected … well-characterized, well-studied” population of children aged 6-11 years, said presenter Alan D. Irvine, MD, DSc, professor of dermatology, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland.
It showed that “severe atopic dermatitis does cause restriction of growth, as well as a higher weight, and therefore obviously a higher BMI [body mass index].”
He continued, however, that children at the lower percentiles of height receiving prompt treatment with dupilumab (Dupixent) “were able to rapidly move through the centiles over the 16 weeks of the study, and that may be the window for catch-up growth … when children are growing rapidly.”
Anna Yasmine Kirkorian, MD, chief of dermatology, Children’s National Hospital, Washington, DC, who was not involved in the study, said that she was “surprised” at the degree of growth achieved over the study period, as height is not something that jumps up “overnight.”
“On the other hand, it fits with my experience with children who’ve had the brakes on all of their life due to inflammation, whether it be height, going to school, sleeping — everything is sort of put on pause by this terrible inflammatory process,” she said.
“When you take the brakes off, they get to be who they are going to be,” Kirkorian added. “So I was surprised by the speed of it, but not by the fact that height was acquired.”
Her belief is that in the pre-dupilumab era, severe atopic dermatitis was often insufficiently controlled, so children were “smaller than you would predict from parental height,” and the treatment is “allowing them to reach their genetic potential.”
Post Hoc Analysis
In his presentation, Irvine emphasized that it has been clearly demonstrated that adolescents with moderate and severe atopic dermatitis have a significantly higher likelihood of being below the 25th percentile of height on growth reference charts.
Such children are also at a higher risk of having low bone mineral density and low serum alkaline phosphatase (ALP) levels . While data presented at the EADV 2023 Congress showed that dupilumab significantly increased serum levels of bone ALP compared with placebo, the underlying mechanism remains unclear.
For the current analysis, Irvine and colleagues determined that the proportion of children aged 6-11 years with severe atopic dermatitis and lower stature reach a ≥ 5 centile improvement in height following 16 weeks of dupilumab treatment.
They examined data from the LIBERTY AD PEDS trial, in which patients aged 6-11 years with severe atopic dermatitis were randomized to 300 mg dupilumab every 4 weeks or placebo along with a mild or moderately potent topical corticosteroid. The study found that, overall, dupilumab was associated with significant improvements in signs, symptoms, and quality of life compared with placebo.
Height measures at baseline revealed that “more boys and more girls were below the 50th centile than you would predict for a healthy, normal control population,” Irvine said. “If we look at weight, we see the opposite,” he continued, “with a disproportionate number of boys and girls who are above the 50th centile for weight at baseline.”
Consequently, “we’re seeing these children who are shorter and heavier than the predicted healthy weight range and, as a result, obviously have higher BMI,” Irvine noted, with 67% girls and 62% boys found to have a higher BMI than normal for their age.
After 16 weeks of treatment with dupilumab, there was a much greater gain in height than that seen among those on placebo, with the most pronounced effect seen in children who had the lowest height at baseline. Indeed, among children in the lowest 25% height percentile at baseline, 30.6% on dupilumab vs 11.9% on placebo experienced an increase in height of 5 centiles or more(P < .05).
“This reflects what we see in clinical practice,” Irvine said. “Children often grow dramatically on treatment for atopic dermatitis.”
Among patients with a baseline height below the 30th percentile, 31.9% treated with dupilumab vs 11.1% treated with placebo gained at least 5 centiles in height. The figures for children below the 40th height percentile at baseline were 31.3% vs 15.5% (P < .05 for both).
Although there remained a marked difference in the proportion of children below the 50th height percentile at baseline gaining 5 centiles or more in height, at 29.0% with dupilumab versus 15.7% with placebo, it was no longer significant.
“So the effect of catch-up growth, or growth through the centiles, is most marked in those who are in the 40th centile or below,” Irvine said, indicating that the “more growth restricted kids have much more potential to catch up.”
‘Convincing’ Data
Overall, Kirkorian said in the interview, the data are “convincing” and support her view that severe atopic dermatitis is a “terrible chronic disease that we really underappreciate.” Atopic dermatitis, she added, “should get the respect that any severe chronic illness would have, whether that be arthritis, diabetes, or cardiac disease, because it is a systemic disorder that … profoundly affects quality of life, every minute of every day.”
However, “we don’t get all the referrals we should, until the child has suffered for years and years, and the family has suffered,” as there is a bias that it can be outgrown — although not everybody does — and it “doesn’t look as conspicuous as other chronic skin disorders,” such as psoriasis.
“Now with this study,” Kirkorian said, “it gives us a really compelling point to make to parents, to the community, and to insurers that not only are we affecting the quality of life from the itch standpoint [with dupilumab] but we may have long profound effects on growth and bone health.”
The research was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Irvine declared relationships with AbbVie, Arena Pharmaceuticals, BenevolentAI, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Dermavant, Eli Lily, Genentech, LEO Pharma, Menlo Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, UCB, DS Biopharma, and Inflazome. Kirkorian declared relationships with Dermavant, Verrica Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and Incyte.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM EADV 2024
Nemolizumab Benefits for Atopic Dermatitis Maintained in Long-Term Follow-Up Study
(AD), revealed an interim analysis of the ARCADIA open-label extension study.
The research was presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.
The results showed nemolizumab was associated with “ongoing clinically meaningful improvements in itch, skin lesions, and sleep disturbance,” said study presenter Diamant Thaçi, MD, PhD, of the Comprehensive Center for Inflammation Medicine, University of Lü̈beck in Germany.
Moreover, “patient-reported outcomes, including quality of life ... continued to improve over 56 weeks of treatment.” In addition, Thaçi added, the “safety data support the long-term use of nemolizumab for the treatment of adolescent and adult patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.”
He explained that interleukin (IL) 31 is a key neuroimmune cytokine in AD, triggering itch, skin barrier disruption, and exacerbation of inflammation via its receptor. Nemolizumab inhibits IL-31 receptor binding and was shown in the ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2 trials to provide, along with background topical corticosteroids, clinically meaningful improvements in itch, skin lesions, and sleep for up to weeks 48 of follow-up in adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD.
The current open-label long-term extension study involved patients who were enrolled in both ARCADIA 1 and 2 trials, as well as those from four phase 2 and 2b studies, a phase 3b study, and adolescents who had not been included in a trial but who met the criteria for the extension study. All patients, whether they started on placebo plus background topical corticosteroids in a prior study, were treated with nemolizumab 30 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks along with topical corticosteroids.
The interim analysis included all efficacy and safety data up to the cutoff of September 30, 2022, on 723 patients who had completed 56 weeks of treatment among the 1751 patients initially enrolled in the extension study.
The results showed that, regardless of whether patients were nemolizumab naive at enrollment or had previously taken the drug, there were increases in the proportion of patients with an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0/1 and an Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score of at least 75 (EASI-75) over the 56 weeks of the study.
In those naive to nemolizumab, the increase in the proportion with an IGA score of 0/1 increased from 17.7% at baseline to 49.0% at 56 weeks, while the proportion with an EASI-75 increased from 24.0% to 78.7%.
The increase in the proportion of patients with an IGA score 0/1 among those who had previously received nemolizumab increased from 28.5% at baseline to 47.1% at 56 weeks. The proportion with an EASI-75 was 38.1% at baseline, rising to 73.0% at 56 weeks.
Increases in the proportion of patients with an EASI score of at least 50 and at least 90 were also seen with nemolizumab, as were increases in the proportion of patients with an improvement of at least four points on the SCORing Atopic Dermatitis Pruritus visual analogue scale and Sleep loss scores.
Similarly, the proportion of patients with a reduction in Dermatology Life Quality Index of at least four points increased over the study period.
Regarding safety, Thaçi said, there appeared to be fewer adverse events than had been previously reported with nemolizumab. “We don’t see any signs of conjunctivitis,” he continued, or significant risk of infection apart from for COVID-19, but he pointed out that the study was conducted during the pandemic, which was “a very difficult time.”
The most common treatment-related adverse events were, aside from COVID-19, nasopharyngitis in about 10%-11% of patients, upper respiratory tract infection in about 6% to almost 7%, and headache in about 5%.
Among the adverse events of special interest, newly diagnosed asthma or worsening of asthma occurred in 4.7%-4.8% of patients, while peripheral edema was seen in 0.8%-1.7%.
“Besides this, the study results are really looking very good,” he said, adding: “It means, in a long-term study, we can say today that nemolizumab has revealed the [same] safety profile that was shown in the ARCADIA 1 and 2 trials.”
Alan D. Irvine, MD, DSc, professor of dermatology, Trinity College Dublin in Ireland, who was not involved in the study, underlined that the current interim assessment does not represent the complete dataset and is based on observed cases rather than a more rigorous methodology, such as net reclassification improvement analysis.
“So it makes it a little harder to interpret when you don’t know how many people are dropping out and why they’re dropping out,” he told this news organization. “That said, those who remain on drug out to 56 weeks do experience ongoing improvement in disease control.”
Consequently, “the most reliable message you can take from this interim analysis of long-term data is that there were no new safety signals,” and nemolizumab looks “safe and well-tolerated.”
Where nemolizumab would fit into the treatment pathway for moderate to severe AD remains an open question, Irvine said, although he believes that IL-13 pathway inhibitors such as dupilumab, tralokinumab, and lebrikizumab “will remain the treatment of choice for the immediate future due to prescriber familiarity and good efficacy data.”
However, for patients who are unsuitable for IL-13 inhibitors and/or Janus kinase inhibitors such as abrocitinib and upadacitinib, nemolizumab “could be an interesting alternative.”
“That’s probably where it is going to start,” Irvine said, “and then obviously that will change over time and as the data mature and prescribers become more familiar with the drug in the real world.”
Nemolizumab (Nemluvio) is approved for treating prurigo nodularis (PN) in the United States and in Japan and is under Food and Drug Administration review for treating AD. It is also under review for PN and AD in Europe, Canada, the United Kingdom, and several other countries, according to Galderma. It is also approved for treating pruritus associated with AD in pediatric, adolescent, and adult patients in Japan.
The study was funded by Galderma. Thaçi declared relationships with AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Galderma, Janssen-Cilag, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, L’Oréal, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Target RWE, and UCB. Irvine declared relationships with AbbVie, Arena Pharmaceuticals, BenevolentAl, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Dermavant, Eli Lily, Genentech, LEO Pharma, Menlo Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, UCB, DS Biopharma, and Inflazome.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
(AD), revealed an interim analysis of the ARCADIA open-label extension study.
The research was presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.
The results showed nemolizumab was associated with “ongoing clinically meaningful improvements in itch, skin lesions, and sleep disturbance,” said study presenter Diamant Thaçi, MD, PhD, of the Comprehensive Center for Inflammation Medicine, University of Lü̈beck in Germany.
Moreover, “patient-reported outcomes, including quality of life ... continued to improve over 56 weeks of treatment.” In addition, Thaçi added, the “safety data support the long-term use of nemolizumab for the treatment of adolescent and adult patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.”
He explained that interleukin (IL) 31 is a key neuroimmune cytokine in AD, triggering itch, skin barrier disruption, and exacerbation of inflammation via its receptor. Nemolizumab inhibits IL-31 receptor binding and was shown in the ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2 trials to provide, along with background topical corticosteroids, clinically meaningful improvements in itch, skin lesions, and sleep for up to weeks 48 of follow-up in adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD.
The current open-label long-term extension study involved patients who were enrolled in both ARCADIA 1 and 2 trials, as well as those from four phase 2 and 2b studies, a phase 3b study, and adolescents who had not been included in a trial but who met the criteria for the extension study. All patients, whether they started on placebo plus background topical corticosteroids in a prior study, were treated with nemolizumab 30 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks along with topical corticosteroids.
The interim analysis included all efficacy and safety data up to the cutoff of September 30, 2022, on 723 patients who had completed 56 weeks of treatment among the 1751 patients initially enrolled in the extension study.
The results showed that, regardless of whether patients were nemolizumab naive at enrollment or had previously taken the drug, there were increases in the proportion of patients with an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0/1 and an Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score of at least 75 (EASI-75) over the 56 weeks of the study.
In those naive to nemolizumab, the increase in the proportion with an IGA score of 0/1 increased from 17.7% at baseline to 49.0% at 56 weeks, while the proportion with an EASI-75 increased from 24.0% to 78.7%.
The increase in the proportion of patients with an IGA score 0/1 among those who had previously received nemolizumab increased from 28.5% at baseline to 47.1% at 56 weeks. The proportion with an EASI-75 was 38.1% at baseline, rising to 73.0% at 56 weeks.
Increases in the proportion of patients with an EASI score of at least 50 and at least 90 were also seen with nemolizumab, as were increases in the proportion of patients with an improvement of at least four points on the SCORing Atopic Dermatitis Pruritus visual analogue scale and Sleep loss scores.
Similarly, the proportion of patients with a reduction in Dermatology Life Quality Index of at least four points increased over the study period.
Regarding safety, Thaçi said, there appeared to be fewer adverse events than had been previously reported with nemolizumab. “We don’t see any signs of conjunctivitis,” he continued, or significant risk of infection apart from for COVID-19, but he pointed out that the study was conducted during the pandemic, which was “a very difficult time.”
The most common treatment-related adverse events were, aside from COVID-19, nasopharyngitis in about 10%-11% of patients, upper respiratory tract infection in about 6% to almost 7%, and headache in about 5%.
Among the adverse events of special interest, newly diagnosed asthma or worsening of asthma occurred in 4.7%-4.8% of patients, while peripheral edema was seen in 0.8%-1.7%.
“Besides this, the study results are really looking very good,” he said, adding: “It means, in a long-term study, we can say today that nemolizumab has revealed the [same] safety profile that was shown in the ARCADIA 1 and 2 trials.”
Alan D. Irvine, MD, DSc, professor of dermatology, Trinity College Dublin in Ireland, who was not involved in the study, underlined that the current interim assessment does not represent the complete dataset and is based on observed cases rather than a more rigorous methodology, such as net reclassification improvement analysis.
“So it makes it a little harder to interpret when you don’t know how many people are dropping out and why they’re dropping out,” he told this news organization. “That said, those who remain on drug out to 56 weeks do experience ongoing improvement in disease control.”
Consequently, “the most reliable message you can take from this interim analysis of long-term data is that there were no new safety signals,” and nemolizumab looks “safe and well-tolerated.”
Where nemolizumab would fit into the treatment pathway for moderate to severe AD remains an open question, Irvine said, although he believes that IL-13 pathway inhibitors such as dupilumab, tralokinumab, and lebrikizumab “will remain the treatment of choice for the immediate future due to prescriber familiarity and good efficacy data.”
However, for patients who are unsuitable for IL-13 inhibitors and/or Janus kinase inhibitors such as abrocitinib and upadacitinib, nemolizumab “could be an interesting alternative.”
“That’s probably where it is going to start,” Irvine said, “and then obviously that will change over time and as the data mature and prescribers become more familiar with the drug in the real world.”
Nemolizumab (Nemluvio) is approved for treating prurigo nodularis (PN) in the United States and in Japan and is under Food and Drug Administration review for treating AD. It is also under review for PN and AD in Europe, Canada, the United Kingdom, and several other countries, according to Galderma. It is also approved for treating pruritus associated with AD in pediatric, adolescent, and adult patients in Japan.
The study was funded by Galderma. Thaçi declared relationships with AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Galderma, Janssen-Cilag, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, L’Oréal, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Target RWE, and UCB. Irvine declared relationships with AbbVie, Arena Pharmaceuticals, BenevolentAl, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Dermavant, Eli Lily, Genentech, LEO Pharma, Menlo Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, UCB, DS Biopharma, and Inflazome.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
(AD), revealed an interim analysis of the ARCADIA open-label extension study.
The research was presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.
The results showed nemolizumab was associated with “ongoing clinically meaningful improvements in itch, skin lesions, and sleep disturbance,” said study presenter Diamant Thaçi, MD, PhD, of the Comprehensive Center for Inflammation Medicine, University of Lü̈beck in Germany.
Moreover, “patient-reported outcomes, including quality of life ... continued to improve over 56 weeks of treatment.” In addition, Thaçi added, the “safety data support the long-term use of nemolizumab for the treatment of adolescent and adult patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.”
He explained that interleukin (IL) 31 is a key neuroimmune cytokine in AD, triggering itch, skin barrier disruption, and exacerbation of inflammation via its receptor. Nemolizumab inhibits IL-31 receptor binding and was shown in the ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2 trials to provide, along with background topical corticosteroids, clinically meaningful improvements in itch, skin lesions, and sleep for up to weeks 48 of follow-up in adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD.
The current open-label long-term extension study involved patients who were enrolled in both ARCADIA 1 and 2 trials, as well as those from four phase 2 and 2b studies, a phase 3b study, and adolescents who had not been included in a trial but who met the criteria for the extension study. All patients, whether they started on placebo plus background topical corticosteroids in a prior study, were treated with nemolizumab 30 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks along with topical corticosteroids.
The interim analysis included all efficacy and safety data up to the cutoff of September 30, 2022, on 723 patients who had completed 56 weeks of treatment among the 1751 patients initially enrolled in the extension study.
The results showed that, regardless of whether patients were nemolizumab naive at enrollment or had previously taken the drug, there were increases in the proportion of patients with an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0/1 and an Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score of at least 75 (EASI-75) over the 56 weeks of the study.
In those naive to nemolizumab, the increase in the proportion with an IGA score of 0/1 increased from 17.7% at baseline to 49.0% at 56 weeks, while the proportion with an EASI-75 increased from 24.0% to 78.7%.
The increase in the proportion of patients with an IGA score 0/1 among those who had previously received nemolizumab increased from 28.5% at baseline to 47.1% at 56 weeks. The proportion with an EASI-75 was 38.1% at baseline, rising to 73.0% at 56 weeks.
Increases in the proportion of patients with an EASI score of at least 50 and at least 90 were also seen with nemolizumab, as were increases in the proportion of patients with an improvement of at least four points on the SCORing Atopic Dermatitis Pruritus visual analogue scale and Sleep loss scores.
Similarly, the proportion of patients with a reduction in Dermatology Life Quality Index of at least four points increased over the study period.
Regarding safety, Thaçi said, there appeared to be fewer adverse events than had been previously reported with nemolizumab. “We don’t see any signs of conjunctivitis,” he continued, or significant risk of infection apart from for COVID-19, but he pointed out that the study was conducted during the pandemic, which was “a very difficult time.”
The most common treatment-related adverse events were, aside from COVID-19, nasopharyngitis in about 10%-11% of patients, upper respiratory tract infection in about 6% to almost 7%, and headache in about 5%.
Among the adverse events of special interest, newly diagnosed asthma or worsening of asthma occurred in 4.7%-4.8% of patients, while peripheral edema was seen in 0.8%-1.7%.
“Besides this, the study results are really looking very good,” he said, adding: “It means, in a long-term study, we can say today that nemolizumab has revealed the [same] safety profile that was shown in the ARCADIA 1 and 2 trials.”
Alan D. Irvine, MD, DSc, professor of dermatology, Trinity College Dublin in Ireland, who was not involved in the study, underlined that the current interim assessment does not represent the complete dataset and is based on observed cases rather than a more rigorous methodology, such as net reclassification improvement analysis.
“So it makes it a little harder to interpret when you don’t know how many people are dropping out and why they’re dropping out,” he told this news organization. “That said, those who remain on drug out to 56 weeks do experience ongoing improvement in disease control.”
Consequently, “the most reliable message you can take from this interim analysis of long-term data is that there were no new safety signals,” and nemolizumab looks “safe and well-tolerated.”
Where nemolizumab would fit into the treatment pathway for moderate to severe AD remains an open question, Irvine said, although he believes that IL-13 pathway inhibitors such as dupilumab, tralokinumab, and lebrikizumab “will remain the treatment of choice for the immediate future due to prescriber familiarity and good efficacy data.”
However, for patients who are unsuitable for IL-13 inhibitors and/or Janus kinase inhibitors such as abrocitinib and upadacitinib, nemolizumab “could be an interesting alternative.”
“That’s probably where it is going to start,” Irvine said, “and then obviously that will change over time and as the data mature and prescribers become more familiar with the drug in the real world.”
Nemolizumab (Nemluvio) is approved for treating prurigo nodularis (PN) in the United States and in Japan and is under Food and Drug Administration review for treating AD. It is also under review for PN and AD in Europe, Canada, the United Kingdom, and several other countries, according to Galderma. It is also approved for treating pruritus associated with AD in pediatric, adolescent, and adult patients in Japan.
The study was funded by Galderma. Thaçi declared relationships with AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Galderma, Janssen-Cilag, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, L’Oréal, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Target RWE, and UCB. Irvine declared relationships with AbbVie, Arena Pharmaceuticals, BenevolentAl, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Dermavant, Eli Lily, Genentech, LEO Pharma, Menlo Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, UCB, DS Biopharma, and Inflazome.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM EADV 2024
Lichen Planus Responds to Treatment with Topical Ruxolitinib in Phase 2 Study
both when given twice daily and as needed, according to data from a phase 2 trial.
The research, presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress, involved 64 patients older than 18 years. Ruxolitinib cream (Opzelura) is a topical formulation of a Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2 inhibitor, approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treating mild to moderate atopic dermatitis and for nonsegmental vitiligo in adults and children aged 12 years or older.
Ruxolitinib cream twice daily resulted in “significant improvements in cutaneous lichen planus disease severity vs vehicle” after 16 weeks of treatment, said the study presenter, Aaron R. Mangold, MD, a dermatologist at Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona.
Further improvements were seen during another 16 weeks of additional open-label, as-needed application, he added, and the topical treatment was “generally well tolerated.”
Consequently, “ruxolitinib cream represents a promising potential treatment for cutaneous lichen planus,” Mangold concluded.
Asked to comment on the results, Adam Friedman, MD, Professor and Chair of Dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, DC, who was not involved with the study, said that in keeping with the characterization of lichen planus using the four Ps — purple, polygonal, pruritic, papules — it is “Pretty common, Predictably disabling and disfiguring, and Passed over again and again in the drug development world.”
He said in an interview that this chronic inflammatory skin condition, which affects roughly 2% of the population, also “lacks consensus on work-up and management, likely in part owing to the absence of sizable clinical trial data.”
A recent survey conducted at a meeting indicated that dermatologists “heavily lean on topical therapies for the management of all severity levels,” noted Friedman, one of the survey authors. “Therefore, the phase 2 data presented at EADV is a welcome addition to the mix.”
Phase 2 Study Results
At the meeting, Mangold said that a previous proof-of-concept single-arm study in 12 patients suggested that topical ruxolitinib was highly effective in treating cutaneous lichen planus.
The current phase 2 trial enrolled 64 patients with predominantly cutaneous disease who had an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 3 or 4 and an Itch Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) score of ≥ 4. Their median age was 57 years, and 71.9% were women. Nearly 63% were White, 28.1% were Black, and 6.3% were Asian. The median duration of disease was 4.9 years, and 90.6% had received prior treatment for their lichen planus.
They were randomized to receive 1.5% ruxolitinib cream or a vehicle cream twice daily for 16 weeks, and following a primary endpoint assessment, they were transferred to an open-label extension period, during which they used ruxolitinib cream as needed for another 16 weeks. There was an additional 30-day safety follow-up period.
At week 16, significantly more patients treated with the ruxolitinib cream (50.0%) vs vehicle cream (21.9%) achieved IGA treatment success (the primary endpoint), defined as an IGA score of 0 or 1 with ≥ 2-grade improvement from baseline (odds ratio, 4.04; P = .0129).
In the open-label extension, when all patients used the active cream as needed, the proportion achieving IGA treatment success increased to 60% among the patients originally treated with ruxolitinib cream and 60.9% among those who switched from the vehicle cream.
A similar pattern was seen with Itch NRS scores. At 16 weeks, 57.7% of those treated with the ruxolitinib cream and 19.2% of those given the vehicle cream achieved an Itch NRS score of ≥ 4 (P < .01), rising to 84.2% and 73.3%, respectively, during the open-label extension.
The time to achievement of an Itch NRS of ≥ 4 was also significantly shorter with the ruxolitinib cream than with the vehicle cream (median days, 17 vs 97; hazard ratio, 2.85; P = .0008).
In both treatment groups, Skin Pain NRS scores decreased by a mean of 3.0 with ruxolitinib cream and 1.3 with the vehicle cream at week 16. By the end of the open-label extension, scores dropped by 4.3 among those who continued on active treatment and by 3.5 among those who switched from vehicle to topical ruxolitinib.
There were few treatment-emergent adverse events, with just three ruxolitinib patients affected during the randomized phase of the trial. There was one grade ≥ 3 event considered unrelated to the study drug, and no serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported.
The most common adverse events during the randomized period were nasopharyngitis, hypertension, and contusion, all experienced by fewer than 10% of patients, whereas sinusitis, increased blood cholesterol levels, and increased blood creatine phosphokinase were most common in the open-label extension, experienced by no more than 5% of patients.
In the interview, Friedman commented that “these data provide hope that one day soon, there will be an FDA-approved, effective, and well-tolerated approach for this condition, validating the patient and supporting the dermatologist with an evidence-based option.”
The study was funded by Incyte. Mangold declared relationships with Argenx, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clarivate, Incyte Corporation, Janssen, Nuvig Therapeutics, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Soligenix, Tourmaline Bio, AbbVie, Corbus, Eli Lilly, Kyowa, Merck, miRagen Therapeutics, Palvella Therapeutics, Priovant Therapeutics, and Adelphi Values. Friedman declared a relationship with Incyte, but it is not related to this topic.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
both when given twice daily and as needed, according to data from a phase 2 trial.
The research, presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress, involved 64 patients older than 18 years. Ruxolitinib cream (Opzelura) is a topical formulation of a Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2 inhibitor, approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treating mild to moderate atopic dermatitis and for nonsegmental vitiligo in adults and children aged 12 years or older.
Ruxolitinib cream twice daily resulted in “significant improvements in cutaneous lichen planus disease severity vs vehicle” after 16 weeks of treatment, said the study presenter, Aaron R. Mangold, MD, a dermatologist at Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona.
Further improvements were seen during another 16 weeks of additional open-label, as-needed application, he added, and the topical treatment was “generally well tolerated.”
Consequently, “ruxolitinib cream represents a promising potential treatment for cutaneous lichen planus,” Mangold concluded.
Asked to comment on the results, Adam Friedman, MD, Professor and Chair of Dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, DC, who was not involved with the study, said that in keeping with the characterization of lichen planus using the four Ps — purple, polygonal, pruritic, papules — it is “Pretty common, Predictably disabling and disfiguring, and Passed over again and again in the drug development world.”
He said in an interview that this chronic inflammatory skin condition, which affects roughly 2% of the population, also “lacks consensus on work-up and management, likely in part owing to the absence of sizable clinical trial data.”
A recent survey conducted at a meeting indicated that dermatologists “heavily lean on topical therapies for the management of all severity levels,” noted Friedman, one of the survey authors. “Therefore, the phase 2 data presented at EADV is a welcome addition to the mix.”
Phase 2 Study Results
At the meeting, Mangold said that a previous proof-of-concept single-arm study in 12 patients suggested that topical ruxolitinib was highly effective in treating cutaneous lichen planus.
The current phase 2 trial enrolled 64 patients with predominantly cutaneous disease who had an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 3 or 4 and an Itch Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) score of ≥ 4. Their median age was 57 years, and 71.9% were women. Nearly 63% were White, 28.1% were Black, and 6.3% were Asian. The median duration of disease was 4.9 years, and 90.6% had received prior treatment for their lichen planus.
They were randomized to receive 1.5% ruxolitinib cream or a vehicle cream twice daily for 16 weeks, and following a primary endpoint assessment, they were transferred to an open-label extension period, during which they used ruxolitinib cream as needed for another 16 weeks. There was an additional 30-day safety follow-up period.
At week 16, significantly more patients treated with the ruxolitinib cream (50.0%) vs vehicle cream (21.9%) achieved IGA treatment success (the primary endpoint), defined as an IGA score of 0 or 1 with ≥ 2-grade improvement from baseline (odds ratio, 4.04; P = .0129).
In the open-label extension, when all patients used the active cream as needed, the proportion achieving IGA treatment success increased to 60% among the patients originally treated with ruxolitinib cream and 60.9% among those who switched from the vehicle cream.
A similar pattern was seen with Itch NRS scores. At 16 weeks, 57.7% of those treated with the ruxolitinib cream and 19.2% of those given the vehicle cream achieved an Itch NRS score of ≥ 4 (P < .01), rising to 84.2% and 73.3%, respectively, during the open-label extension.
The time to achievement of an Itch NRS of ≥ 4 was also significantly shorter with the ruxolitinib cream than with the vehicle cream (median days, 17 vs 97; hazard ratio, 2.85; P = .0008).
In both treatment groups, Skin Pain NRS scores decreased by a mean of 3.0 with ruxolitinib cream and 1.3 with the vehicle cream at week 16. By the end of the open-label extension, scores dropped by 4.3 among those who continued on active treatment and by 3.5 among those who switched from vehicle to topical ruxolitinib.
There were few treatment-emergent adverse events, with just three ruxolitinib patients affected during the randomized phase of the trial. There was one grade ≥ 3 event considered unrelated to the study drug, and no serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported.
The most common adverse events during the randomized period were nasopharyngitis, hypertension, and contusion, all experienced by fewer than 10% of patients, whereas sinusitis, increased blood cholesterol levels, and increased blood creatine phosphokinase were most common in the open-label extension, experienced by no more than 5% of patients.
In the interview, Friedman commented that “these data provide hope that one day soon, there will be an FDA-approved, effective, and well-tolerated approach for this condition, validating the patient and supporting the dermatologist with an evidence-based option.”
The study was funded by Incyte. Mangold declared relationships with Argenx, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clarivate, Incyte Corporation, Janssen, Nuvig Therapeutics, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Soligenix, Tourmaline Bio, AbbVie, Corbus, Eli Lilly, Kyowa, Merck, miRagen Therapeutics, Palvella Therapeutics, Priovant Therapeutics, and Adelphi Values. Friedman declared a relationship with Incyte, but it is not related to this topic.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
both when given twice daily and as needed, according to data from a phase 2 trial.
The research, presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress, involved 64 patients older than 18 years. Ruxolitinib cream (Opzelura) is a topical formulation of a Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2 inhibitor, approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treating mild to moderate atopic dermatitis and for nonsegmental vitiligo in adults and children aged 12 years or older.
Ruxolitinib cream twice daily resulted in “significant improvements in cutaneous lichen planus disease severity vs vehicle” after 16 weeks of treatment, said the study presenter, Aaron R. Mangold, MD, a dermatologist at Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona.
Further improvements were seen during another 16 weeks of additional open-label, as-needed application, he added, and the topical treatment was “generally well tolerated.”
Consequently, “ruxolitinib cream represents a promising potential treatment for cutaneous lichen planus,” Mangold concluded.
Asked to comment on the results, Adam Friedman, MD, Professor and Chair of Dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, DC, who was not involved with the study, said that in keeping with the characterization of lichen planus using the four Ps — purple, polygonal, pruritic, papules — it is “Pretty common, Predictably disabling and disfiguring, and Passed over again and again in the drug development world.”
He said in an interview that this chronic inflammatory skin condition, which affects roughly 2% of the population, also “lacks consensus on work-up and management, likely in part owing to the absence of sizable clinical trial data.”
A recent survey conducted at a meeting indicated that dermatologists “heavily lean on topical therapies for the management of all severity levels,” noted Friedman, one of the survey authors. “Therefore, the phase 2 data presented at EADV is a welcome addition to the mix.”
Phase 2 Study Results
At the meeting, Mangold said that a previous proof-of-concept single-arm study in 12 patients suggested that topical ruxolitinib was highly effective in treating cutaneous lichen planus.
The current phase 2 trial enrolled 64 patients with predominantly cutaneous disease who had an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 3 or 4 and an Itch Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) score of ≥ 4. Their median age was 57 years, and 71.9% were women. Nearly 63% were White, 28.1% were Black, and 6.3% were Asian. The median duration of disease was 4.9 years, and 90.6% had received prior treatment for their lichen planus.
They were randomized to receive 1.5% ruxolitinib cream or a vehicle cream twice daily for 16 weeks, and following a primary endpoint assessment, they were transferred to an open-label extension period, during which they used ruxolitinib cream as needed for another 16 weeks. There was an additional 30-day safety follow-up period.
At week 16, significantly more patients treated with the ruxolitinib cream (50.0%) vs vehicle cream (21.9%) achieved IGA treatment success (the primary endpoint), defined as an IGA score of 0 or 1 with ≥ 2-grade improvement from baseline (odds ratio, 4.04; P = .0129).
In the open-label extension, when all patients used the active cream as needed, the proportion achieving IGA treatment success increased to 60% among the patients originally treated with ruxolitinib cream and 60.9% among those who switched from the vehicle cream.
A similar pattern was seen with Itch NRS scores. At 16 weeks, 57.7% of those treated with the ruxolitinib cream and 19.2% of those given the vehicle cream achieved an Itch NRS score of ≥ 4 (P < .01), rising to 84.2% and 73.3%, respectively, during the open-label extension.
The time to achievement of an Itch NRS of ≥ 4 was also significantly shorter with the ruxolitinib cream than with the vehicle cream (median days, 17 vs 97; hazard ratio, 2.85; P = .0008).
In both treatment groups, Skin Pain NRS scores decreased by a mean of 3.0 with ruxolitinib cream and 1.3 with the vehicle cream at week 16. By the end of the open-label extension, scores dropped by 4.3 among those who continued on active treatment and by 3.5 among those who switched from vehicle to topical ruxolitinib.
There were few treatment-emergent adverse events, with just three ruxolitinib patients affected during the randomized phase of the trial. There was one grade ≥ 3 event considered unrelated to the study drug, and no serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported.
The most common adverse events during the randomized period were nasopharyngitis, hypertension, and contusion, all experienced by fewer than 10% of patients, whereas sinusitis, increased blood cholesterol levels, and increased blood creatine phosphokinase were most common in the open-label extension, experienced by no more than 5% of patients.
In the interview, Friedman commented that “these data provide hope that one day soon, there will be an FDA-approved, effective, and well-tolerated approach for this condition, validating the patient and supporting the dermatologist with an evidence-based option.”
The study was funded by Incyte. Mangold declared relationships with Argenx, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clarivate, Incyte Corporation, Janssen, Nuvig Therapeutics, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Soligenix, Tourmaline Bio, AbbVie, Corbus, Eli Lilly, Kyowa, Merck, miRagen Therapeutics, Palvella Therapeutics, Priovant Therapeutics, and Adelphi Values. Friedman declared a relationship with Incyte, but it is not related to this topic.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM EADV 2024
Effects of Bimekizumab Durable for HS Through One Year
AMSTERDAM — The monoclonal antibody according to new data from an open-label extension period.
“Efficacy and health-related quality-of-life outcomes were maintained through 2 years of treatment,” study presenter Christos C. Zouboulis, MD, professor of dermatology, venereology, and allergology, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Dessau, Germany, said at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.
“No new safety signals were observed,” he added. “These data highlight the durability and consistency of bimekizumab treatment in patients with moderate to severe hidradenitis suppurativa,” Zouboulis concluded.
Efficacy Maintained
“This is the type of long-term data that clinicians hope to see in large phase 3 trials for hidradenitis suppurativa medications,” commented Jennifer L. Hsiao, MD, clinical associate professor of dermatology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who was not involved in the study.
She told this news organization that, beyond maintained improvement of patient-reported quality of life, the results are “raising the bar in terms of measuring treatment success,” with over three quarters of patients achieving a high level of response on the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR) scale at the final 96-week follow-up.
“Clinicians and patients have struggled with maintaining treatment efficacy over time with the first [Food and Drug Administration]–approved class of biologics for hidradenitis suppurativa — TNF [tumor necrosis factor]–alpha antagonists,” Hsiao said. She emphasized that sustained treatment efficacy will reduce the need for continued treatment switching and “hopefully improve treatment adherence.”
“It was also helpful to see that, consistent with studies of bimekizumab in psoriasis, rates of oral candidiasis appear to decrease with prolonged exposure over 2 years, though as with any open-label extension study, study dropout is a limitation,” she said.
“The availability of long-term efficacy and safety data, such as those shown in this study, will help guide shared decision-making discussions with our patients.” Overall, Hsiao believes there is “much to be excited about in the field of hidradenitis suppurativa, with a robust pipeline of potential treatments.”
One-Year Extension Study
HS is a “chronic and debilitating inflammatory skin disease,” Zouboulis told the audience. He noted that interleukin (IL)–17F and IL-17A are highly expressed in lesional skin and play a role in the disease immunopathogenesis.
Bimekizumab is a humanized immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody that selectively inhibits both IL-17F and IL-17A. It has previously demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements in patients with moderate to severe HS in the phase 3 BE HEARD I and BE HEARD II trials evaluating several dosing regimens.
Zouboulis said the current analysis combines data from the two phase 3 studies with the BE HEARD EXT open-label extension study, in which patients from both trials were continued on bimekizumab 320 mg every 2 weeks.
Of the 1014 patients initially enrolled in the two trials, 556 continued into the open-label extension. Their average age was 36.6 years, and 53.8% were women. The majority (80.6%) were White. Of the 556 patients enrolled in the extension, 446 completed the 1-year extension study.
The average draining tunnel count at baseline was 3.8, and 54.5% had Hurley stage II disease; the remaining 45.5% had stage III disease. The mean total Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) score at baseline was 11.0, indicating the HS was having a very large impact on the patients’ lives.
After the 16-week initial treatment period and the maintenance treatment period out to 48 weeks, 64.0% of patients achieved HiSCR75, indicating at least a 75% reduction from baseline in the total abscess and inflammatory nodule count, rising to 77.1% at the end of the open-label extension, after a total follow-up of 96 weeks.
HiSCR100 scores, indicating a 100% reduction in total abscess and inflammatory nodule counts, were achieved by 30.2% of 556 patients after 48 weeks and 44.2% of 446 at the 96-week follow-up.
These findings were mirrored by substantial reductions on the International HS Severity Score System, with a 70.3% reduction over baseline at 48 weeks and a 79.8% reduction at the final follow-up.
There were also “clinically meaningful” reductions in the total draining tunnel count at 1 year that were further reduced at 2 years, Zouboulis reported, at a 57.5% reduction over baseline, increasing to 73.7% by 96 weeks. The mean draining tunnel count at the end of follow-up was 1.1.
Over the full 96 weeks, the mean DLQI score reduced from 11.0 to 4.7, with 33.9% of patients achieving a score of 0 or 1 on the scale, which he said is basically patients saying: “I don’t have disease now.”
Finally, the safety data showed that there were “no differences compared to what we knew before,” Zouboulis said, with the most common treatment-related adverse events being hidradenitis, coronavirus infection, and oral candidiasis. There were few serious and severe treatment-related adverse events, and few that led to treatment discontinuation.
The study was funded by UCB.Zouboulis declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, EAD, European Union, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, GSK, InflaRx, MSD, Novartis, Relaxera, UCB, Almirall, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Idorsia, Incyte, L’Oréal, NAOS-BIODERMA, Pfizer, PM, Sanofi. Hsiao is on the board of directors for the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation and has declared relationships with AbbVie, Aclaris Therapeutics, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, Novartis, Sanofi-Regeneron, and UCB.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
AMSTERDAM — The monoclonal antibody according to new data from an open-label extension period.
“Efficacy and health-related quality-of-life outcomes were maintained through 2 years of treatment,” study presenter Christos C. Zouboulis, MD, professor of dermatology, venereology, and allergology, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Dessau, Germany, said at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.
“No new safety signals were observed,” he added. “These data highlight the durability and consistency of bimekizumab treatment in patients with moderate to severe hidradenitis suppurativa,” Zouboulis concluded.
Efficacy Maintained
“This is the type of long-term data that clinicians hope to see in large phase 3 trials for hidradenitis suppurativa medications,” commented Jennifer L. Hsiao, MD, clinical associate professor of dermatology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who was not involved in the study.
She told this news organization that, beyond maintained improvement of patient-reported quality of life, the results are “raising the bar in terms of measuring treatment success,” with over three quarters of patients achieving a high level of response on the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR) scale at the final 96-week follow-up.
“Clinicians and patients have struggled with maintaining treatment efficacy over time with the first [Food and Drug Administration]–approved class of biologics for hidradenitis suppurativa — TNF [tumor necrosis factor]–alpha antagonists,” Hsiao said. She emphasized that sustained treatment efficacy will reduce the need for continued treatment switching and “hopefully improve treatment adherence.”
“It was also helpful to see that, consistent with studies of bimekizumab in psoriasis, rates of oral candidiasis appear to decrease with prolonged exposure over 2 years, though as with any open-label extension study, study dropout is a limitation,” she said.
“The availability of long-term efficacy and safety data, such as those shown in this study, will help guide shared decision-making discussions with our patients.” Overall, Hsiao believes there is “much to be excited about in the field of hidradenitis suppurativa, with a robust pipeline of potential treatments.”
One-Year Extension Study
HS is a “chronic and debilitating inflammatory skin disease,” Zouboulis told the audience. He noted that interleukin (IL)–17F and IL-17A are highly expressed in lesional skin and play a role in the disease immunopathogenesis.
Bimekizumab is a humanized immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody that selectively inhibits both IL-17F and IL-17A. It has previously demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements in patients with moderate to severe HS in the phase 3 BE HEARD I and BE HEARD II trials evaluating several dosing regimens.
Zouboulis said the current analysis combines data from the two phase 3 studies with the BE HEARD EXT open-label extension study, in which patients from both trials were continued on bimekizumab 320 mg every 2 weeks.
Of the 1014 patients initially enrolled in the two trials, 556 continued into the open-label extension. Their average age was 36.6 years, and 53.8% were women. The majority (80.6%) were White. Of the 556 patients enrolled in the extension, 446 completed the 1-year extension study.
The average draining tunnel count at baseline was 3.8, and 54.5% had Hurley stage II disease; the remaining 45.5% had stage III disease. The mean total Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) score at baseline was 11.0, indicating the HS was having a very large impact on the patients’ lives.
After the 16-week initial treatment period and the maintenance treatment period out to 48 weeks, 64.0% of patients achieved HiSCR75, indicating at least a 75% reduction from baseline in the total abscess and inflammatory nodule count, rising to 77.1% at the end of the open-label extension, after a total follow-up of 96 weeks.
HiSCR100 scores, indicating a 100% reduction in total abscess and inflammatory nodule counts, were achieved by 30.2% of 556 patients after 48 weeks and 44.2% of 446 at the 96-week follow-up.
These findings were mirrored by substantial reductions on the International HS Severity Score System, with a 70.3% reduction over baseline at 48 weeks and a 79.8% reduction at the final follow-up.
There were also “clinically meaningful” reductions in the total draining tunnel count at 1 year that were further reduced at 2 years, Zouboulis reported, at a 57.5% reduction over baseline, increasing to 73.7% by 96 weeks. The mean draining tunnel count at the end of follow-up was 1.1.
Over the full 96 weeks, the mean DLQI score reduced from 11.0 to 4.7, with 33.9% of patients achieving a score of 0 or 1 on the scale, which he said is basically patients saying: “I don’t have disease now.”
Finally, the safety data showed that there were “no differences compared to what we knew before,” Zouboulis said, with the most common treatment-related adverse events being hidradenitis, coronavirus infection, and oral candidiasis. There were few serious and severe treatment-related adverse events, and few that led to treatment discontinuation.
The study was funded by UCB.Zouboulis declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, EAD, European Union, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, GSK, InflaRx, MSD, Novartis, Relaxera, UCB, Almirall, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Idorsia, Incyte, L’Oréal, NAOS-BIODERMA, Pfizer, PM, Sanofi. Hsiao is on the board of directors for the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation and has declared relationships with AbbVie, Aclaris Therapeutics, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, Novartis, Sanofi-Regeneron, and UCB.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
AMSTERDAM — The monoclonal antibody according to new data from an open-label extension period.
“Efficacy and health-related quality-of-life outcomes were maintained through 2 years of treatment,” study presenter Christos C. Zouboulis, MD, professor of dermatology, venereology, and allergology, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Dessau, Germany, said at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.
“No new safety signals were observed,” he added. “These data highlight the durability and consistency of bimekizumab treatment in patients with moderate to severe hidradenitis suppurativa,” Zouboulis concluded.
Efficacy Maintained
“This is the type of long-term data that clinicians hope to see in large phase 3 trials for hidradenitis suppurativa medications,” commented Jennifer L. Hsiao, MD, clinical associate professor of dermatology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who was not involved in the study.
She told this news organization that, beyond maintained improvement of patient-reported quality of life, the results are “raising the bar in terms of measuring treatment success,” with over three quarters of patients achieving a high level of response on the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR) scale at the final 96-week follow-up.
“Clinicians and patients have struggled with maintaining treatment efficacy over time with the first [Food and Drug Administration]–approved class of biologics for hidradenitis suppurativa — TNF [tumor necrosis factor]–alpha antagonists,” Hsiao said. She emphasized that sustained treatment efficacy will reduce the need for continued treatment switching and “hopefully improve treatment adherence.”
“It was also helpful to see that, consistent with studies of bimekizumab in psoriasis, rates of oral candidiasis appear to decrease with prolonged exposure over 2 years, though as with any open-label extension study, study dropout is a limitation,” she said.
“The availability of long-term efficacy and safety data, such as those shown in this study, will help guide shared decision-making discussions with our patients.” Overall, Hsiao believes there is “much to be excited about in the field of hidradenitis suppurativa, with a robust pipeline of potential treatments.”
One-Year Extension Study
HS is a “chronic and debilitating inflammatory skin disease,” Zouboulis told the audience. He noted that interleukin (IL)–17F and IL-17A are highly expressed in lesional skin and play a role in the disease immunopathogenesis.
Bimekizumab is a humanized immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody that selectively inhibits both IL-17F and IL-17A. It has previously demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements in patients with moderate to severe HS in the phase 3 BE HEARD I and BE HEARD II trials evaluating several dosing regimens.
Zouboulis said the current analysis combines data from the two phase 3 studies with the BE HEARD EXT open-label extension study, in which patients from both trials were continued on bimekizumab 320 mg every 2 weeks.
Of the 1014 patients initially enrolled in the two trials, 556 continued into the open-label extension. Their average age was 36.6 years, and 53.8% were women. The majority (80.6%) were White. Of the 556 patients enrolled in the extension, 446 completed the 1-year extension study.
The average draining tunnel count at baseline was 3.8, and 54.5% had Hurley stage II disease; the remaining 45.5% had stage III disease. The mean total Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) score at baseline was 11.0, indicating the HS was having a very large impact on the patients’ lives.
After the 16-week initial treatment period and the maintenance treatment period out to 48 weeks, 64.0% of patients achieved HiSCR75, indicating at least a 75% reduction from baseline in the total abscess and inflammatory nodule count, rising to 77.1% at the end of the open-label extension, after a total follow-up of 96 weeks.
HiSCR100 scores, indicating a 100% reduction in total abscess and inflammatory nodule counts, were achieved by 30.2% of 556 patients after 48 weeks and 44.2% of 446 at the 96-week follow-up.
These findings were mirrored by substantial reductions on the International HS Severity Score System, with a 70.3% reduction over baseline at 48 weeks and a 79.8% reduction at the final follow-up.
There were also “clinically meaningful” reductions in the total draining tunnel count at 1 year that were further reduced at 2 years, Zouboulis reported, at a 57.5% reduction over baseline, increasing to 73.7% by 96 weeks. The mean draining tunnel count at the end of follow-up was 1.1.
Over the full 96 weeks, the mean DLQI score reduced from 11.0 to 4.7, with 33.9% of patients achieving a score of 0 or 1 on the scale, which he said is basically patients saying: “I don’t have disease now.”
Finally, the safety data showed that there were “no differences compared to what we knew before,” Zouboulis said, with the most common treatment-related adverse events being hidradenitis, coronavirus infection, and oral candidiasis. There were few serious and severe treatment-related adverse events, and few that led to treatment discontinuation.
The study was funded by UCB.Zouboulis declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, EAD, European Union, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, GSK, InflaRx, MSD, Novartis, Relaxera, UCB, Almirall, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Idorsia, Incyte, L’Oréal, NAOS-BIODERMA, Pfizer, PM, Sanofi. Hsiao is on the board of directors for the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation and has declared relationships with AbbVie, Aclaris Therapeutics, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, Novartis, Sanofi-Regeneron, and UCB.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM EADV 2024
Many Hurdles Exist to Treating Lung Cancer With CAR T Cells
These hurdles include finding the right targets, minimizing the risks of the treatment, and reducing the enormous burdens getting these therapies places on patients.
“Precision immunotherapy,” or unleashing the immune system in a highly specific manner, “is obviously, in a way, a holy grail” in lung cancer, said Martin Forster, MD, PhD, who cochaired a session on the topic at the World Conference on Lung Cancer (WCLC) 2024.
He underlined, however, that “immunology is very complex, as is cancer biology,” and consequently, there are different avenues being explored, including CAR T-cell therapies, T-cell receptor therapies, and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, among others.
Antibody technology is also being harnessed to target chemotherapy, via antibody-drug conjugates, noted Forster, who is clinical lead of the early phase clinical trials programme at University College London in England.
Moreover, investigators are looking at combining various therapies, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors with T cell–engaging approaches.
He highlighted, however, that the ideal target for these approaches is something that is recognized by the immune system as being foreign, but is found within the cancer, “and you also want it ideally to be in all of the cancer cells.”
A good example is a clonal change, meaning an early evolutionary genetic alteration in the tumor that is present in all the cells, Forster said.
Identifying the Right Target
“One of the big challenges in all forms of targeted immunotherapy is around selecting the target and developing the right product for the right target,” Forster emphasized.
“This concept works really well in hematological malignancies” but is “proving to be more challenging to deliver within solid malignancies,” he added.
“The reason why so many lung tumors are resistant to immunotherapy is because they ‘re immunologically cold,” Roy Herbst, MD, PhD, Department of Medical Oncology, Yale Comprehensive Cancer Center, New Haven, Connecticut, said in an interview.
“There are no T cells in the tumor,” he explained, so it “doesn’t really matter how much you block checkpoint inhibitors, you still have to have a T cell in there in order to have effect.”
To overcome this problem CAR T-cell therapies are engineered to target a tumor, Herbst continued, but that “is a little hard in lung cancer because you need to have a unique antigen that’s on a lung tumor that’s not present on normal cells.”
Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, Leslye M. Heisler Associate Professor for Lung Cancer Excellence, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, agreed, saying that there is “a lot of excitement with CAR T-cell therapies, and the promise of cure,” but “the biology is not as simple as we think.”
“For example, it’s not as simple as CD20 or CD19 targeting,” she said in an interview. “Most of the antigens that are being targeted in the solid tumor world, unfortunately, are also expressed on normal tissue. So there is always this potential for toxicity.”
A Question of Time
Another aspect of CAR T-cell therapy that is proving difficult is its delivery.
Forster outlined that the process involves first leukapheresis, in which T cells are obtained from a blood draw. These are then genetically modified to express chimeric antigen receptors before being multiplied in the laboratory and introduced to the patient.
This process can take several weeks, during which patients may require bridging treatment, such as chemotherapy or radiotherapy, to keep their cancer under control. “Sometimes, patients with solid tumors who are in later lines of therapy may not have the luxury of time to be able to wait for all of these steps,” Aggarwal said.
There is also the question of whether a bespoke treatment can be scaled up so that it can be delivered to more patients in a more timely manner.
“There are certainly lessons to be learned from use of off-the-shelf CAR T-cell products” in hematologic malignancies, she noted, “but we’re just not there yet in lung cancer.”
Life-Threatening Toxicities
To improve the chances of engraftment when the CAR T cells are introduced, patients will require prior lymphodepletion with chemotherapy.
This, Forster said, is a “relatively intensive part of treatment.” However, “if you just give immune cells to somebody, when the host body is already full of immune cells,” the CAR T cells are unlikely to engraft, and “so you need to create space for those cells to develop.”
“What you want is not an immediate effect” but rather an immune “memory” that will give an ongoing benefit, he underscored.
Many patients will need to stay in the hospital one or more nights “because when you bring T cells to a tumor, you get cytokine release syndrome [CRS],” Herbst said. This can cause hypotension, fever, and chills, similar to a viral response.
“So patients can get sick,” which in turn requires treatment and follow-up. That puts a “big burden on the health system” and is a major issue, Herbst said.
Patients are also at a risk for “significant neurotoxicity,” said session cochair Amy Moore, PhD, vice president of Global Engagement and Patient Partnerships, LUNGevity Foundation, Chicago. This, alongside CRS, “can be life threatening for our patients.”
Lengthy hospital stays also have a psychosocial impact on the patient and their quality of life, she emphasized, especially when they are treated in a center far away from family and loved ones.
“We’ve also heard anecdotally some reports recently of secondary malignancies” with CAR T cell and other therapies, and that’s something that needs to be monitored as more patients go on these treatments, she said.
‘At What Cost’ to Patients?
The difficulties faced by patients in receiving CAR T-cell therapy go far beyond the practicalities of generating the cells or the risks associated with lymphodepletion, however.
“These therapies are extraordinarily expensive,” although that has to be weighed against the cost of years of ongoing treatment with immunotherapy, Moore said.
Moreover, as CAR T-cell therapies are a “last resort” option, patients have to “exhaust all other treatments” before being eligible, she continued. There’s significant prior authorization challenges, which means patients “have to go through many hurdles before they can qualify for treatment with these therapies.”
This typically involves having numerous laboratory tests, which can add up to out-of-pocket expenses for patients often reaching tens of thousands of dollars, Moore said.
Another issue is that they must be administered in certified treatment centers, and there are a limited number of those in the United States, she added.
This increases the risk of heightening disparities, as patients are “forced to travel, seek lodging, and have meal expenses,” and the costs “are not trivial,” Moore underlined. “It can rack up quickly and mount to $10,000 or more.”
For physicians, there are difficulties in terms of the logistics of following up with those patients who need to be treated at centers on the other side of the country, uncertainties around reimbursement, and restrictions in terms of staff time and resources, among others.
“I’m as excited as you are at the science,” but it is the implementation that is at issue, Moore said. In other words, there is the offer of a cure with CAR T-cell therapy, but “at what cost?”
“For patients, these considerations are real and they’re significant” and “we have to ensure that what we’re doing is in service of people with cancer,” she emphasized.
No funding was declared. Aggarwal declared relationships with Genentech, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Turning Point, Janssen, Pfizer, Lilly, Merck, Regeneron/Sanofi, Eisai, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Blueprint Genetics, and Shionogi. Forster declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, MSD, Achilles, Amgen, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, EQRx, GSK, Immutep, Janssen, Merck, Oxford Vacmedix, PharmaMar, Roche, Takeda, Syncorp, Transgene, and Ultrahuman. Moore declared no relevant financial relationships.
These hurdles include finding the right targets, minimizing the risks of the treatment, and reducing the enormous burdens getting these therapies places on patients.
“Precision immunotherapy,” or unleashing the immune system in a highly specific manner, “is obviously, in a way, a holy grail” in lung cancer, said Martin Forster, MD, PhD, who cochaired a session on the topic at the World Conference on Lung Cancer (WCLC) 2024.
He underlined, however, that “immunology is very complex, as is cancer biology,” and consequently, there are different avenues being explored, including CAR T-cell therapies, T-cell receptor therapies, and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, among others.
Antibody technology is also being harnessed to target chemotherapy, via antibody-drug conjugates, noted Forster, who is clinical lead of the early phase clinical trials programme at University College London in England.
Moreover, investigators are looking at combining various therapies, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors with T cell–engaging approaches.
He highlighted, however, that the ideal target for these approaches is something that is recognized by the immune system as being foreign, but is found within the cancer, “and you also want it ideally to be in all of the cancer cells.”
A good example is a clonal change, meaning an early evolutionary genetic alteration in the tumor that is present in all the cells, Forster said.
Identifying the Right Target
“One of the big challenges in all forms of targeted immunotherapy is around selecting the target and developing the right product for the right target,” Forster emphasized.
“This concept works really well in hematological malignancies” but is “proving to be more challenging to deliver within solid malignancies,” he added.
“The reason why so many lung tumors are resistant to immunotherapy is because they ‘re immunologically cold,” Roy Herbst, MD, PhD, Department of Medical Oncology, Yale Comprehensive Cancer Center, New Haven, Connecticut, said in an interview.
“There are no T cells in the tumor,” he explained, so it “doesn’t really matter how much you block checkpoint inhibitors, you still have to have a T cell in there in order to have effect.”
To overcome this problem CAR T-cell therapies are engineered to target a tumor, Herbst continued, but that “is a little hard in lung cancer because you need to have a unique antigen that’s on a lung tumor that’s not present on normal cells.”
Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, Leslye M. Heisler Associate Professor for Lung Cancer Excellence, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, agreed, saying that there is “a lot of excitement with CAR T-cell therapies, and the promise of cure,” but “the biology is not as simple as we think.”
“For example, it’s not as simple as CD20 or CD19 targeting,” she said in an interview. “Most of the antigens that are being targeted in the solid tumor world, unfortunately, are also expressed on normal tissue. So there is always this potential for toxicity.”
A Question of Time
Another aspect of CAR T-cell therapy that is proving difficult is its delivery.
Forster outlined that the process involves first leukapheresis, in which T cells are obtained from a blood draw. These are then genetically modified to express chimeric antigen receptors before being multiplied in the laboratory and introduced to the patient.
This process can take several weeks, during which patients may require bridging treatment, such as chemotherapy or radiotherapy, to keep their cancer under control. “Sometimes, patients with solid tumors who are in later lines of therapy may not have the luxury of time to be able to wait for all of these steps,” Aggarwal said.
There is also the question of whether a bespoke treatment can be scaled up so that it can be delivered to more patients in a more timely manner.
“There are certainly lessons to be learned from use of off-the-shelf CAR T-cell products” in hematologic malignancies, she noted, “but we’re just not there yet in lung cancer.”
Life-Threatening Toxicities
To improve the chances of engraftment when the CAR T cells are introduced, patients will require prior lymphodepletion with chemotherapy.
This, Forster said, is a “relatively intensive part of treatment.” However, “if you just give immune cells to somebody, when the host body is already full of immune cells,” the CAR T cells are unlikely to engraft, and “so you need to create space for those cells to develop.”
“What you want is not an immediate effect” but rather an immune “memory” that will give an ongoing benefit, he underscored.
Many patients will need to stay in the hospital one or more nights “because when you bring T cells to a tumor, you get cytokine release syndrome [CRS],” Herbst said. This can cause hypotension, fever, and chills, similar to a viral response.
“So patients can get sick,” which in turn requires treatment and follow-up. That puts a “big burden on the health system” and is a major issue, Herbst said.
Patients are also at a risk for “significant neurotoxicity,” said session cochair Amy Moore, PhD, vice president of Global Engagement and Patient Partnerships, LUNGevity Foundation, Chicago. This, alongside CRS, “can be life threatening for our patients.”
Lengthy hospital stays also have a psychosocial impact on the patient and their quality of life, she emphasized, especially when they are treated in a center far away from family and loved ones.
“We’ve also heard anecdotally some reports recently of secondary malignancies” with CAR T cell and other therapies, and that’s something that needs to be monitored as more patients go on these treatments, she said.
‘At What Cost’ to Patients?
The difficulties faced by patients in receiving CAR T-cell therapy go far beyond the practicalities of generating the cells or the risks associated with lymphodepletion, however.
“These therapies are extraordinarily expensive,” although that has to be weighed against the cost of years of ongoing treatment with immunotherapy, Moore said.
Moreover, as CAR T-cell therapies are a “last resort” option, patients have to “exhaust all other treatments” before being eligible, she continued. There’s significant prior authorization challenges, which means patients “have to go through many hurdles before they can qualify for treatment with these therapies.”
This typically involves having numerous laboratory tests, which can add up to out-of-pocket expenses for patients often reaching tens of thousands of dollars, Moore said.
Another issue is that they must be administered in certified treatment centers, and there are a limited number of those in the United States, she added.
This increases the risk of heightening disparities, as patients are “forced to travel, seek lodging, and have meal expenses,” and the costs “are not trivial,” Moore underlined. “It can rack up quickly and mount to $10,000 or more.”
For physicians, there are difficulties in terms of the logistics of following up with those patients who need to be treated at centers on the other side of the country, uncertainties around reimbursement, and restrictions in terms of staff time and resources, among others.
“I’m as excited as you are at the science,” but it is the implementation that is at issue, Moore said. In other words, there is the offer of a cure with CAR T-cell therapy, but “at what cost?”
“For patients, these considerations are real and they’re significant” and “we have to ensure that what we’re doing is in service of people with cancer,” she emphasized.
No funding was declared. Aggarwal declared relationships with Genentech, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Turning Point, Janssen, Pfizer, Lilly, Merck, Regeneron/Sanofi, Eisai, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Blueprint Genetics, and Shionogi. Forster declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, MSD, Achilles, Amgen, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, EQRx, GSK, Immutep, Janssen, Merck, Oxford Vacmedix, PharmaMar, Roche, Takeda, Syncorp, Transgene, and Ultrahuman. Moore declared no relevant financial relationships.
These hurdles include finding the right targets, minimizing the risks of the treatment, and reducing the enormous burdens getting these therapies places on patients.
“Precision immunotherapy,” or unleashing the immune system in a highly specific manner, “is obviously, in a way, a holy grail” in lung cancer, said Martin Forster, MD, PhD, who cochaired a session on the topic at the World Conference on Lung Cancer (WCLC) 2024.
He underlined, however, that “immunology is very complex, as is cancer biology,” and consequently, there are different avenues being explored, including CAR T-cell therapies, T-cell receptor therapies, and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, among others.
Antibody technology is also being harnessed to target chemotherapy, via antibody-drug conjugates, noted Forster, who is clinical lead of the early phase clinical trials programme at University College London in England.
Moreover, investigators are looking at combining various therapies, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors with T cell–engaging approaches.
He highlighted, however, that the ideal target for these approaches is something that is recognized by the immune system as being foreign, but is found within the cancer, “and you also want it ideally to be in all of the cancer cells.”
A good example is a clonal change, meaning an early evolutionary genetic alteration in the tumor that is present in all the cells, Forster said.
Identifying the Right Target
“One of the big challenges in all forms of targeted immunotherapy is around selecting the target and developing the right product for the right target,” Forster emphasized.
“This concept works really well in hematological malignancies” but is “proving to be more challenging to deliver within solid malignancies,” he added.
“The reason why so many lung tumors are resistant to immunotherapy is because they ‘re immunologically cold,” Roy Herbst, MD, PhD, Department of Medical Oncology, Yale Comprehensive Cancer Center, New Haven, Connecticut, said in an interview.
“There are no T cells in the tumor,” he explained, so it “doesn’t really matter how much you block checkpoint inhibitors, you still have to have a T cell in there in order to have effect.”
To overcome this problem CAR T-cell therapies are engineered to target a tumor, Herbst continued, but that “is a little hard in lung cancer because you need to have a unique antigen that’s on a lung tumor that’s not present on normal cells.”
Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, Leslye M. Heisler Associate Professor for Lung Cancer Excellence, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, agreed, saying that there is “a lot of excitement with CAR T-cell therapies, and the promise of cure,” but “the biology is not as simple as we think.”
“For example, it’s not as simple as CD20 or CD19 targeting,” she said in an interview. “Most of the antigens that are being targeted in the solid tumor world, unfortunately, are also expressed on normal tissue. So there is always this potential for toxicity.”
A Question of Time
Another aspect of CAR T-cell therapy that is proving difficult is its delivery.
Forster outlined that the process involves first leukapheresis, in which T cells are obtained from a blood draw. These are then genetically modified to express chimeric antigen receptors before being multiplied in the laboratory and introduced to the patient.
This process can take several weeks, during which patients may require bridging treatment, such as chemotherapy or radiotherapy, to keep their cancer under control. “Sometimes, patients with solid tumors who are in later lines of therapy may not have the luxury of time to be able to wait for all of these steps,” Aggarwal said.
There is also the question of whether a bespoke treatment can be scaled up so that it can be delivered to more patients in a more timely manner.
“There are certainly lessons to be learned from use of off-the-shelf CAR T-cell products” in hematologic malignancies, she noted, “but we’re just not there yet in lung cancer.”
Life-Threatening Toxicities
To improve the chances of engraftment when the CAR T cells are introduced, patients will require prior lymphodepletion with chemotherapy.
This, Forster said, is a “relatively intensive part of treatment.” However, “if you just give immune cells to somebody, when the host body is already full of immune cells,” the CAR T cells are unlikely to engraft, and “so you need to create space for those cells to develop.”
“What you want is not an immediate effect” but rather an immune “memory” that will give an ongoing benefit, he underscored.
Many patients will need to stay in the hospital one or more nights “because when you bring T cells to a tumor, you get cytokine release syndrome [CRS],” Herbst said. This can cause hypotension, fever, and chills, similar to a viral response.
“So patients can get sick,” which in turn requires treatment and follow-up. That puts a “big burden on the health system” and is a major issue, Herbst said.
Patients are also at a risk for “significant neurotoxicity,” said session cochair Amy Moore, PhD, vice president of Global Engagement and Patient Partnerships, LUNGevity Foundation, Chicago. This, alongside CRS, “can be life threatening for our patients.”
Lengthy hospital stays also have a psychosocial impact on the patient and their quality of life, she emphasized, especially when they are treated in a center far away from family and loved ones.
“We’ve also heard anecdotally some reports recently of secondary malignancies” with CAR T cell and other therapies, and that’s something that needs to be monitored as more patients go on these treatments, she said.
‘At What Cost’ to Patients?
The difficulties faced by patients in receiving CAR T-cell therapy go far beyond the practicalities of generating the cells or the risks associated with lymphodepletion, however.
“These therapies are extraordinarily expensive,” although that has to be weighed against the cost of years of ongoing treatment with immunotherapy, Moore said.
Moreover, as CAR T-cell therapies are a “last resort” option, patients have to “exhaust all other treatments” before being eligible, she continued. There’s significant prior authorization challenges, which means patients “have to go through many hurdles before they can qualify for treatment with these therapies.”
This typically involves having numerous laboratory tests, which can add up to out-of-pocket expenses for patients often reaching tens of thousands of dollars, Moore said.
Another issue is that they must be administered in certified treatment centers, and there are a limited number of those in the United States, she added.
This increases the risk of heightening disparities, as patients are “forced to travel, seek lodging, and have meal expenses,” and the costs “are not trivial,” Moore underlined. “It can rack up quickly and mount to $10,000 or more.”
For physicians, there are difficulties in terms of the logistics of following up with those patients who need to be treated at centers on the other side of the country, uncertainties around reimbursement, and restrictions in terms of staff time and resources, among others.
“I’m as excited as you are at the science,” but it is the implementation that is at issue, Moore said. In other words, there is the offer of a cure with CAR T-cell therapy, but “at what cost?”
“For patients, these considerations are real and they’re significant” and “we have to ensure that what we’re doing is in service of people with cancer,” she emphasized.
No funding was declared. Aggarwal declared relationships with Genentech, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Turning Point, Janssen, Pfizer, Lilly, Merck, Regeneron/Sanofi, Eisai, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Blueprint Genetics, and Shionogi. Forster declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, MSD, Achilles, Amgen, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, EQRx, GSK, Immutep, Janssen, Merck, Oxford Vacmedix, PharmaMar, Roche, Takeda, Syncorp, Transgene, and Ultrahuman. Moore declared no relevant financial relationships.
FROM WCLC 2024
NCCRT Confirmed as Best Approach in Locally Advanced, Resectable ESCC
confirmed the first randomized trial to directly compare the two approaches.
Yaoyao Zhu, MD, Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, Shanghai, China, presented the new research at the annual World Conference on Lung Cancer on September 10.
Based on the findings, neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (NCCRT) followed by surgical resection “should be regarded as the standard of care for patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in the Chinese population,” Dr. Zhu said.
Different Approaches in ESCC
Dr. Zhu began her presentation by underscoring that in Western countries, NCCRT followed by surgery has been the standard treatment for locally advanced, resectable esophageal cancer since the publication of the CROSS trial in 2012, which compared neoadjuvant therapy plus surgery with surgery alone.
This demonstrated that preoperative chemoradiotherapy improved survival by 34% in patients with potentially curable esophageal or esophagogastric junction cancer, while adverse event rates were deemed “acceptable.”
In contrast, in most centers in China, clinicians opt for performing surgery followed by ASCRT.
Dr. Zhu pointed out that as previous randomized controlled trials have used surgery alone as the comparator arm, it has not been shown definitively that NCCRT plus surgery is superior to surgery followed by ASCRT.
The researchers, therefore, conducted the NEOTERIC trial, which enrolled patients with clinically resectable, locally advanced ESCC, defined as clinical stage T1-2N1M0 or T3-4N0-1M0.
They were randomized to one of two arms. The NCCRT arm involved 6 weeks of carboplatin plus paclitaxel chemotherapy alongside radiotherapy delivered as 50.4 Gy over 28 fractions. After an interval of 4-6 weeks, the patients underwent surgery, followed by an optional two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel 4-6 weeks later.
In the ASCRT arm, patients underwent surgery straightaway, waited for 4-6 weeks, then had two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel 3 weeks apart, followed by the same radiotherapy regimen as in the first arm. About 2-4 weeks later, patients could then undergo another two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel.
More Than Doubling of Survival Outcomes
One hundred patients were assigned to NCCRT and 104 to ASCRT. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of their baseline characteristics.
The vast majority of patients were men, just over two thirds were smokers, and the median age was around 60 years. The median tumor length was approximately 5 cm, and around half of tumors were located in the middle third of the esophagus.
Median disease-free survival was markedly longer with NCCRT, at 51.0 months vs 14.0 months in the ASCRT arm (P = .01). Similarly, median overall survival was far longer with neoadjuvant therapy, at 79.0 months, vs 38.0 months when waiting until after surgery to provide chemoradiotherapy (P = .025).
There were no significant differences in postsurgical complications between the two arms, and no significant differences in rates of grade 3-4 hematologic and nonhematologic toxicities. There were also no chemoradiotherapy-related deaths.
The most common toxicities across the two study arms were esophagitis, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and leukopenia.
Overall, the rates of recurrence were significantly lower with NCCRT than with ASCRT (58.0% vs 66.3%; P = .020). This included significant reductions in both locoregional (P = .012) and distant recurrence (P = .009).
Jaffer A. Ajani, MD, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, underlined that the experimental arm of the trial, with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, “has been the standard of care in the United States for a long time, particularly for squamous carcinoma.”
However, he said in an interview that it is not a standard of care in China and clinicians continue with adjuvant therapy. This is despite a recent study conducted in Hong Kong that concluded that patients should not be given any treatment after surgery “because they do worse” than those given neoadjuvant therapy, he continued.
While Dr. Ajani noted that the current analysis is underpowered to provide a definitive conclusion, it remains “an important study for Chinese patients.
“Hopefully, it will be well advertised in China, and all the providers switch [to NCCRT]. This could push them to abandon what in the West was considered harmful.”
Dr. Ajani explained the reason neoadjuvant therapy performs better than adjuvant chemoradiotherapy is it “may be mopping up some of the micro metastatic disease, which is difficult to do after surgery,” especially as many patients cannot tolerate postoperative treatment.
“It may be that the majority of patients don’t even get [adjuvant therapy], and those who get it don’t seem to benefit.”
Vishwanath Sathyanarayanan, MD, PhD, Senior Consultant, Professor and Academic Advisor, Department of Medical Oncology, Apollo Cancer Centers, Bangalore, India, agreed that the study reinforces that “NCCRT continues to remain the standard of care in locally advanced resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.”
Consequently, there are “no implications for clinical practice” for providers in the West from these study results, “particularly as NCCRT significantly improves outcomes vs ASCRT with a similar toxicity profile,” he said in an interview.
No funding was declared. Dr. Zhu declared no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
confirmed the first randomized trial to directly compare the two approaches.
Yaoyao Zhu, MD, Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, Shanghai, China, presented the new research at the annual World Conference on Lung Cancer on September 10.
Based on the findings, neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (NCCRT) followed by surgical resection “should be regarded as the standard of care for patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in the Chinese population,” Dr. Zhu said.
Different Approaches in ESCC
Dr. Zhu began her presentation by underscoring that in Western countries, NCCRT followed by surgery has been the standard treatment for locally advanced, resectable esophageal cancer since the publication of the CROSS trial in 2012, which compared neoadjuvant therapy plus surgery with surgery alone.
This demonstrated that preoperative chemoradiotherapy improved survival by 34% in patients with potentially curable esophageal or esophagogastric junction cancer, while adverse event rates were deemed “acceptable.”
In contrast, in most centers in China, clinicians opt for performing surgery followed by ASCRT.
Dr. Zhu pointed out that as previous randomized controlled trials have used surgery alone as the comparator arm, it has not been shown definitively that NCCRT plus surgery is superior to surgery followed by ASCRT.
The researchers, therefore, conducted the NEOTERIC trial, which enrolled patients with clinically resectable, locally advanced ESCC, defined as clinical stage T1-2N1M0 or T3-4N0-1M0.
They were randomized to one of two arms. The NCCRT arm involved 6 weeks of carboplatin plus paclitaxel chemotherapy alongside radiotherapy delivered as 50.4 Gy over 28 fractions. After an interval of 4-6 weeks, the patients underwent surgery, followed by an optional two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel 4-6 weeks later.
In the ASCRT arm, patients underwent surgery straightaway, waited for 4-6 weeks, then had two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel 3 weeks apart, followed by the same radiotherapy regimen as in the first arm. About 2-4 weeks later, patients could then undergo another two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel.
More Than Doubling of Survival Outcomes
One hundred patients were assigned to NCCRT and 104 to ASCRT. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of their baseline characteristics.
The vast majority of patients were men, just over two thirds were smokers, and the median age was around 60 years. The median tumor length was approximately 5 cm, and around half of tumors were located in the middle third of the esophagus.
Median disease-free survival was markedly longer with NCCRT, at 51.0 months vs 14.0 months in the ASCRT arm (P = .01). Similarly, median overall survival was far longer with neoadjuvant therapy, at 79.0 months, vs 38.0 months when waiting until after surgery to provide chemoradiotherapy (P = .025).
There were no significant differences in postsurgical complications between the two arms, and no significant differences in rates of grade 3-4 hematologic and nonhematologic toxicities. There were also no chemoradiotherapy-related deaths.
The most common toxicities across the two study arms were esophagitis, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and leukopenia.
Overall, the rates of recurrence were significantly lower with NCCRT than with ASCRT (58.0% vs 66.3%; P = .020). This included significant reductions in both locoregional (P = .012) and distant recurrence (P = .009).
Jaffer A. Ajani, MD, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, underlined that the experimental arm of the trial, with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, “has been the standard of care in the United States for a long time, particularly for squamous carcinoma.”
However, he said in an interview that it is not a standard of care in China and clinicians continue with adjuvant therapy. This is despite a recent study conducted in Hong Kong that concluded that patients should not be given any treatment after surgery “because they do worse” than those given neoadjuvant therapy, he continued.
While Dr. Ajani noted that the current analysis is underpowered to provide a definitive conclusion, it remains “an important study for Chinese patients.
“Hopefully, it will be well advertised in China, and all the providers switch [to NCCRT]. This could push them to abandon what in the West was considered harmful.”
Dr. Ajani explained the reason neoadjuvant therapy performs better than adjuvant chemoradiotherapy is it “may be mopping up some of the micro metastatic disease, which is difficult to do after surgery,” especially as many patients cannot tolerate postoperative treatment.
“It may be that the majority of patients don’t even get [adjuvant therapy], and those who get it don’t seem to benefit.”
Vishwanath Sathyanarayanan, MD, PhD, Senior Consultant, Professor and Academic Advisor, Department of Medical Oncology, Apollo Cancer Centers, Bangalore, India, agreed that the study reinforces that “NCCRT continues to remain the standard of care in locally advanced resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.”
Consequently, there are “no implications for clinical practice” for providers in the West from these study results, “particularly as NCCRT significantly improves outcomes vs ASCRT with a similar toxicity profile,” he said in an interview.
No funding was declared. Dr. Zhu declared no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
confirmed the first randomized trial to directly compare the two approaches.
Yaoyao Zhu, MD, Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, Shanghai, China, presented the new research at the annual World Conference on Lung Cancer on September 10.
Based on the findings, neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (NCCRT) followed by surgical resection “should be regarded as the standard of care for patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in the Chinese population,” Dr. Zhu said.
Different Approaches in ESCC
Dr. Zhu began her presentation by underscoring that in Western countries, NCCRT followed by surgery has been the standard treatment for locally advanced, resectable esophageal cancer since the publication of the CROSS trial in 2012, which compared neoadjuvant therapy plus surgery with surgery alone.
This demonstrated that preoperative chemoradiotherapy improved survival by 34% in patients with potentially curable esophageal or esophagogastric junction cancer, while adverse event rates were deemed “acceptable.”
In contrast, in most centers in China, clinicians opt for performing surgery followed by ASCRT.
Dr. Zhu pointed out that as previous randomized controlled trials have used surgery alone as the comparator arm, it has not been shown definitively that NCCRT plus surgery is superior to surgery followed by ASCRT.
The researchers, therefore, conducted the NEOTERIC trial, which enrolled patients with clinically resectable, locally advanced ESCC, defined as clinical stage T1-2N1M0 or T3-4N0-1M0.
They were randomized to one of two arms. The NCCRT arm involved 6 weeks of carboplatin plus paclitaxel chemotherapy alongside radiotherapy delivered as 50.4 Gy over 28 fractions. After an interval of 4-6 weeks, the patients underwent surgery, followed by an optional two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel 4-6 weeks later.
In the ASCRT arm, patients underwent surgery straightaway, waited for 4-6 weeks, then had two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel 3 weeks apart, followed by the same radiotherapy regimen as in the first arm. About 2-4 weeks later, patients could then undergo another two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel.
More Than Doubling of Survival Outcomes
One hundred patients were assigned to NCCRT and 104 to ASCRT. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of their baseline characteristics.
The vast majority of patients were men, just over two thirds were smokers, and the median age was around 60 years. The median tumor length was approximately 5 cm, and around half of tumors were located in the middle third of the esophagus.
Median disease-free survival was markedly longer with NCCRT, at 51.0 months vs 14.0 months in the ASCRT arm (P = .01). Similarly, median overall survival was far longer with neoadjuvant therapy, at 79.0 months, vs 38.0 months when waiting until after surgery to provide chemoradiotherapy (P = .025).
There were no significant differences in postsurgical complications between the two arms, and no significant differences in rates of grade 3-4 hematologic and nonhematologic toxicities. There were also no chemoradiotherapy-related deaths.
The most common toxicities across the two study arms were esophagitis, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and leukopenia.
Overall, the rates of recurrence were significantly lower with NCCRT than with ASCRT (58.0% vs 66.3%; P = .020). This included significant reductions in both locoregional (P = .012) and distant recurrence (P = .009).
Jaffer A. Ajani, MD, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, underlined that the experimental arm of the trial, with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, “has been the standard of care in the United States for a long time, particularly for squamous carcinoma.”
However, he said in an interview that it is not a standard of care in China and clinicians continue with adjuvant therapy. This is despite a recent study conducted in Hong Kong that concluded that patients should not be given any treatment after surgery “because they do worse” than those given neoadjuvant therapy, he continued.
While Dr. Ajani noted that the current analysis is underpowered to provide a definitive conclusion, it remains “an important study for Chinese patients.
“Hopefully, it will be well advertised in China, and all the providers switch [to NCCRT]. This could push them to abandon what in the West was considered harmful.”
Dr. Ajani explained the reason neoadjuvant therapy performs better than adjuvant chemoradiotherapy is it “may be mopping up some of the micro metastatic disease, which is difficult to do after surgery,” especially as many patients cannot tolerate postoperative treatment.
“It may be that the majority of patients don’t even get [adjuvant therapy], and those who get it don’t seem to benefit.”
Vishwanath Sathyanarayanan, MD, PhD, Senior Consultant, Professor and Academic Advisor, Department of Medical Oncology, Apollo Cancer Centers, Bangalore, India, agreed that the study reinforces that “NCCRT continues to remain the standard of care in locally advanced resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.”
Consequently, there are “no implications for clinical practice” for providers in the West from these study results, “particularly as NCCRT significantly improves outcomes vs ASCRT with a similar toxicity profile,” he said in an interview.
No funding was declared. Dr. Zhu declared no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM WCLC 2024
Melanoma: Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy Provides Optimal Survival Results
BARCELONA, SPAIN — with immunotherapy or a targeted agent or targeted therapy plus immunotherapy, according to a large-scale pooled analysis from the International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium.
Importantly, the analysis — presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology — showed that achieving a major pathological response to neoadjuvant therapy is a key indicator of survival outcomes.
After 3 years of follow-up, the results showed that neoadjuvant therapy is not delaying melanoma recurrence, “it’s actually preventing it,” coinvestigator Hussein A. Tawbi, MD, PhD, Department of Melanoma Medical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in an interview. That’s “a big deal.”
Since 2010, the introduction of novel adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapies for high-risk stage III resectable melanoma has led to incremental gains for patients, said Georgina V. Long, MD, PhD, BSc, chair of Melanoma Medical Oncology and Translational Research at the University of Sydney in Australia, who presented the results.
The first pooled analysis of neoadjuvant therapy in 189 patients, published in 2021, indicated that those who achieved a major pathological response — defined as either a pathological complete response (with no remaining vital tumor) or a near-complete pathological response (with vital tumor ≤ 10%) — had the best recurrence-free survival rates.
In the current study, the researchers expanded their cohort to include 818 patients from 18 centers. Patients received at least one dose of neoadjuvant therapy — either combination immunotherapy, combination of targeted and immunotherapy agents, or monotherapy with either an immune checkpoint inhibitor or a targeted agent.
The median age was 59 years, and 38% of patients were women. The median follow-up so far is 38.8 months.
Overall, the 3-year event-free survival was 74% in patients who received any immunotherapy, 72% in those who received immunotherapy plus a targeted BRAF/MEK therapy, and just 37% in those who received targeted therapy alone. Similarly, 3-year recurrence-free survival rates were highest in patients who received immunotherapy at 77% vs 73% in those who received immunotherapy plus a targeted BRAF/MEK therapy and just 37% in those who received targeted therapy alone.
Looking specifically at progressive death 1 (PD-1)–based immunotherapy regimens, combination therapy led to a 3-year event-free survival rate between 77% and 95%, depending on the specific combinations, vs 64% with PD-1 monotherapy and 37% with combination targeted therapy.
Overall, patients who had a major pathological response were more likely to be recurrence free at 3 years. The 3-year recurrence-free survival was 88% in patients with a complete response, 68% in those with a partial pathological response, and 40% in those without a response.
Patients who received immunotherapy were more likely to have major pathological response. The 3-year recurrence-free survival was about 94% in patients who received combination or monotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibition, and about 87% in those who received immunotherapy plus targeted therapy. The recurrence-free survival rate was much lower in patients given only BRAF/MEK inhibitors.
The current overall survival data, which are still immature, suggested a few differences when stratifying the patients by treatment. Almost all patients with a major pathological response were alive at 3 years, compared with 86% of those with a partial pathological response and 70% of those without a pathological response.
Overall, the results showed that immunotherapy — as either combination or monotherapy — is “quite a bit” better than targeted therapy with BRAF/MEK agents, which offers no substantial benefit, said Dr. Twabi.
“When you see the same pattern happening in study after study, in a very clear, robust way, it actually becomes very powerful,” he explained.
Rebecca A. Dent, MD, MSc, chair of the ESMO Scientific Committee who was not involved in the study, told a press conference that the introduction of immunotherapy and combination immunotherapy has dramatically changed outcomes in melanoma.
Commenting on the current study results, Dr. Dent said that “combination immunotherapy is clearly showing exceptional stability in terms of long-term benefits.”
The question now is what are the toxicities and costs that come with combination immunotherapy, said Dr. Dent, from National Cancer Centre Singapore and Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore.
No funding source was declared. Dr. Long declared relationships with a variety of companies, including AstraZeneca UK Limited, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Regeneron. Dr. Twabi declared relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Merck, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Eisai, and others. Dr. Dent declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Roche, Eisai, Gilead Sciences, Eli Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
BARCELONA, SPAIN — with immunotherapy or a targeted agent or targeted therapy plus immunotherapy, according to a large-scale pooled analysis from the International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium.
Importantly, the analysis — presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology — showed that achieving a major pathological response to neoadjuvant therapy is a key indicator of survival outcomes.
After 3 years of follow-up, the results showed that neoadjuvant therapy is not delaying melanoma recurrence, “it’s actually preventing it,” coinvestigator Hussein A. Tawbi, MD, PhD, Department of Melanoma Medical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in an interview. That’s “a big deal.”
Since 2010, the introduction of novel adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapies for high-risk stage III resectable melanoma has led to incremental gains for patients, said Georgina V. Long, MD, PhD, BSc, chair of Melanoma Medical Oncology and Translational Research at the University of Sydney in Australia, who presented the results.
The first pooled analysis of neoadjuvant therapy in 189 patients, published in 2021, indicated that those who achieved a major pathological response — defined as either a pathological complete response (with no remaining vital tumor) or a near-complete pathological response (with vital tumor ≤ 10%) — had the best recurrence-free survival rates.
In the current study, the researchers expanded their cohort to include 818 patients from 18 centers. Patients received at least one dose of neoadjuvant therapy — either combination immunotherapy, combination of targeted and immunotherapy agents, or monotherapy with either an immune checkpoint inhibitor or a targeted agent.
The median age was 59 years, and 38% of patients were women. The median follow-up so far is 38.8 months.
Overall, the 3-year event-free survival was 74% in patients who received any immunotherapy, 72% in those who received immunotherapy plus a targeted BRAF/MEK therapy, and just 37% in those who received targeted therapy alone. Similarly, 3-year recurrence-free survival rates were highest in patients who received immunotherapy at 77% vs 73% in those who received immunotherapy plus a targeted BRAF/MEK therapy and just 37% in those who received targeted therapy alone.
Looking specifically at progressive death 1 (PD-1)–based immunotherapy regimens, combination therapy led to a 3-year event-free survival rate between 77% and 95%, depending on the specific combinations, vs 64% with PD-1 monotherapy and 37% with combination targeted therapy.
Overall, patients who had a major pathological response were more likely to be recurrence free at 3 years. The 3-year recurrence-free survival was 88% in patients with a complete response, 68% in those with a partial pathological response, and 40% in those without a response.
Patients who received immunotherapy were more likely to have major pathological response. The 3-year recurrence-free survival was about 94% in patients who received combination or monotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibition, and about 87% in those who received immunotherapy plus targeted therapy. The recurrence-free survival rate was much lower in patients given only BRAF/MEK inhibitors.
The current overall survival data, which are still immature, suggested a few differences when stratifying the patients by treatment. Almost all patients with a major pathological response were alive at 3 years, compared with 86% of those with a partial pathological response and 70% of those without a pathological response.
Overall, the results showed that immunotherapy — as either combination or monotherapy — is “quite a bit” better than targeted therapy with BRAF/MEK agents, which offers no substantial benefit, said Dr. Twabi.
“When you see the same pattern happening in study after study, in a very clear, robust way, it actually becomes very powerful,” he explained.
Rebecca A. Dent, MD, MSc, chair of the ESMO Scientific Committee who was not involved in the study, told a press conference that the introduction of immunotherapy and combination immunotherapy has dramatically changed outcomes in melanoma.
Commenting on the current study results, Dr. Dent said that “combination immunotherapy is clearly showing exceptional stability in terms of long-term benefits.”
The question now is what are the toxicities and costs that come with combination immunotherapy, said Dr. Dent, from National Cancer Centre Singapore and Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore.
No funding source was declared. Dr. Long declared relationships with a variety of companies, including AstraZeneca UK Limited, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Regeneron. Dr. Twabi declared relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Merck, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Eisai, and others. Dr. Dent declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Roche, Eisai, Gilead Sciences, Eli Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
BARCELONA, SPAIN — with immunotherapy or a targeted agent or targeted therapy plus immunotherapy, according to a large-scale pooled analysis from the International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium.
Importantly, the analysis — presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology — showed that achieving a major pathological response to neoadjuvant therapy is a key indicator of survival outcomes.
After 3 years of follow-up, the results showed that neoadjuvant therapy is not delaying melanoma recurrence, “it’s actually preventing it,” coinvestigator Hussein A. Tawbi, MD, PhD, Department of Melanoma Medical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in an interview. That’s “a big deal.”
Since 2010, the introduction of novel adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapies for high-risk stage III resectable melanoma has led to incremental gains for patients, said Georgina V. Long, MD, PhD, BSc, chair of Melanoma Medical Oncology and Translational Research at the University of Sydney in Australia, who presented the results.
The first pooled analysis of neoadjuvant therapy in 189 patients, published in 2021, indicated that those who achieved a major pathological response — defined as either a pathological complete response (with no remaining vital tumor) or a near-complete pathological response (with vital tumor ≤ 10%) — had the best recurrence-free survival rates.
In the current study, the researchers expanded their cohort to include 818 patients from 18 centers. Patients received at least one dose of neoadjuvant therapy — either combination immunotherapy, combination of targeted and immunotherapy agents, or monotherapy with either an immune checkpoint inhibitor or a targeted agent.
The median age was 59 years, and 38% of patients were women. The median follow-up so far is 38.8 months.
Overall, the 3-year event-free survival was 74% in patients who received any immunotherapy, 72% in those who received immunotherapy plus a targeted BRAF/MEK therapy, and just 37% in those who received targeted therapy alone. Similarly, 3-year recurrence-free survival rates were highest in patients who received immunotherapy at 77% vs 73% in those who received immunotherapy plus a targeted BRAF/MEK therapy and just 37% in those who received targeted therapy alone.
Looking specifically at progressive death 1 (PD-1)–based immunotherapy regimens, combination therapy led to a 3-year event-free survival rate between 77% and 95%, depending on the specific combinations, vs 64% with PD-1 monotherapy and 37% with combination targeted therapy.
Overall, patients who had a major pathological response were more likely to be recurrence free at 3 years. The 3-year recurrence-free survival was 88% in patients with a complete response, 68% in those with a partial pathological response, and 40% in those without a response.
Patients who received immunotherapy were more likely to have major pathological response. The 3-year recurrence-free survival was about 94% in patients who received combination or monotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibition, and about 87% in those who received immunotherapy plus targeted therapy. The recurrence-free survival rate was much lower in patients given only BRAF/MEK inhibitors.
The current overall survival data, which are still immature, suggested a few differences when stratifying the patients by treatment. Almost all patients with a major pathological response were alive at 3 years, compared with 86% of those with a partial pathological response and 70% of those without a pathological response.
Overall, the results showed that immunotherapy — as either combination or monotherapy — is “quite a bit” better than targeted therapy with BRAF/MEK agents, which offers no substantial benefit, said Dr. Twabi.
“When you see the same pattern happening in study after study, in a very clear, robust way, it actually becomes very powerful,” he explained.
Rebecca A. Dent, MD, MSc, chair of the ESMO Scientific Committee who was not involved in the study, told a press conference that the introduction of immunotherapy and combination immunotherapy has dramatically changed outcomes in melanoma.
Commenting on the current study results, Dr. Dent said that “combination immunotherapy is clearly showing exceptional stability in terms of long-term benefits.”
The question now is what are the toxicities and costs that come with combination immunotherapy, said Dr. Dent, from National Cancer Centre Singapore and Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore.
No funding source was declared. Dr. Long declared relationships with a variety of companies, including AstraZeneca UK Limited, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Regeneron. Dr. Twabi declared relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Merck, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Eisai, and others. Dr. Dent declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Roche, Eisai, Gilead Sciences, Eli Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ESMO 2024
Which Patients With Early TNBC Can Avoid Chemotherapy?
TOPLINE:
which suggest that stromal TILs could be a useful biomarker to optimize treatment decisions in this patient population.
METHODOLOGY:
- The absolute benefit of chemotherapy remains unclear among patients with stage I TNBC. High levels of stromal TILs, a promising biomarker, have been linked to better survival in patients with TNBC, but data focused on stage I disease are lacking.
- In the current analysis, researchers identified a cohort of 1041 women (mean age at diagnosis, 64.4 years) from the Netherlands Cancer Registry with stage I TNBC who had an available TIL score and had undergone a lumpectomy or a mastectomy but had not received neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy.
- Patients’ clinical data were matched to their corresponding pathologic data provided by the Dutch Pathology Registry, and a pathologist blinded to outcomes scored stromal TIL levels according to the International Immuno-Oncology Biomarker Working Group guidelines.
- The primary endpoint was breast cancer–specific survival at prespecified stromal TIL cutoffs of 30%, 50%, and 75%. Secondary outcomes included specific survival by pathologic tumor stage and overall survival.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 8.6% of women had a pT1a tumor, 38.7% had a pT1b tumor, and 52.6% had a pT1c tumor. In the cohort, 25.6% of patients had stromal TIL levels of 30% or higher, 19.5% had levels of 50% or higher, and 13.5% had levels of 75% or higher.
- Over a median follow-up of 11.4 years, 335 patients died, 107 (32%) of whom died from breast cancer. Patients with smaller tumors (pT1abNO) had better survival outcomes than those with larger tumors (pT1cNO) — a 10-year breast cancer–specific survival of 92% vs 86%, respectively.
- In the overall cohort, stromal TIL levels of 30% or higher were associated with better breast cancer–specific survival than those with stromal TIL levels below 30% (96% vs 87%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.45). Stromal TIL levels of 50% or greater were also associated with better 10-year breast cancer–specific survival than those with levels below 50% (92% vs 88%; HR, 0.59). A similar pattern was observed for stromal TIL levels and overall survival.
- In patients with pT1c tumors, the 10-year breast cancer–specific survival among those with stromal TIL levels of 30% or higher was 95% vs 83% for levels below the 30% cutoff (HR, 0.24). Similarly, the 10-year breast cancer–specific survival for those in the 50% or higher group was 95% vs 84% for levels below that cutoff (HR, 0.27). The 10-year breast cancer–specific survival improved to 98% among patients with stromal TIL levels of 75% or higher (HR, 0.09).
IN PRACTICE:
The results supported the establishment of “treatment-optimization clinical trials in patients with stage I TNBC, using [stromal] TIL level as an integral biomarker to prospectively confirm the observed excellent survival when neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy is not administered,” the authors wrote. Assessing stromal TILs is also “inexpensive,” the authors added.
SOURCE:
The research, conducted by Marleen Kok, MD, PhD, Department of Medical Oncology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, and colleagues, was published online in JAMA Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
The authors noted that the study was limited by its observational nature. The patients were drawn from a larger cohort, about half of whom received adjuvant chemotherapy, and the patients who did not receive chemotherapy may have had favorable tumor characteristics. There were also no data on BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline mutation status and recurrences and/or distant metastases. The database did not include data on patient ethnicity because most Dutch patients were White.
DISCLOSURES:
Research at the Netherlands Cancer Institute was supported by institutional grants from the Dutch Cancer Society and the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. Dr. Kok declared financial relationships with several organizations including Gilead and Domain Therapeutics, as well as institutional grants from AstraZeneca, BMS, and Roche. Other authors also declared numerous financial relationships for themselves and their institutions with pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
which suggest that stromal TILs could be a useful biomarker to optimize treatment decisions in this patient population.
METHODOLOGY:
- The absolute benefit of chemotherapy remains unclear among patients with stage I TNBC. High levels of stromal TILs, a promising biomarker, have been linked to better survival in patients with TNBC, but data focused on stage I disease are lacking.
- In the current analysis, researchers identified a cohort of 1041 women (mean age at diagnosis, 64.4 years) from the Netherlands Cancer Registry with stage I TNBC who had an available TIL score and had undergone a lumpectomy or a mastectomy but had not received neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy.
- Patients’ clinical data were matched to their corresponding pathologic data provided by the Dutch Pathology Registry, and a pathologist blinded to outcomes scored stromal TIL levels according to the International Immuno-Oncology Biomarker Working Group guidelines.
- The primary endpoint was breast cancer–specific survival at prespecified stromal TIL cutoffs of 30%, 50%, and 75%. Secondary outcomes included specific survival by pathologic tumor stage and overall survival.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 8.6% of women had a pT1a tumor, 38.7% had a pT1b tumor, and 52.6% had a pT1c tumor. In the cohort, 25.6% of patients had stromal TIL levels of 30% or higher, 19.5% had levels of 50% or higher, and 13.5% had levels of 75% or higher.
- Over a median follow-up of 11.4 years, 335 patients died, 107 (32%) of whom died from breast cancer. Patients with smaller tumors (pT1abNO) had better survival outcomes than those with larger tumors (pT1cNO) — a 10-year breast cancer–specific survival of 92% vs 86%, respectively.
- In the overall cohort, stromal TIL levels of 30% or higher were associated with better breast cancer–specific survival than those with stromal TIL levels below 30% (96% vs 87%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.45). Stromal TIL levels of 50% or greater were also associated with better 10-year breast cancer–specific survival than those with levels below 50% (92% vs 88%; HR, 0.59). A similar pattern was observed for stromal TIL levels and overall survival.
- In patients with pT1c tumors, the 10-year breast cancer–specific survival among those with stromal TIL levels of 30% or higher was 95% vs 83% for levels below the 30% cutoff (HR, 0.24). Similarly, the 10-year breast cancer–specific survival for those in the 50% or higher group was 95% vs 84% for levels below that cutoff (HR, 0.27). The 10-year breast cancer–specific survival improved to 98% among patients with stromal TIL levels of 75% or higher (HR, 0.09).
IN PRACTICE:
The results supported the establishment of “treatment-optimization clinical trials in patients with stage I TNBC, using [stromal] TIL level as an integral biomarker to prospectively confirm the observed excellent survival when neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy is not administered,” the authors wrote. Assessing stromal TILs is also “inexpensive,” the authors added.
SOURCE:
The research, conducted by Marleen Kok, MD, PhD, Department of Medical Oncology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, and colleagues, was published online in JAMA Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
The authors noted that the study was limited by its observational nature. The patients were drawn from a larger cohort, about half of whom received adjuvant chemotherapy, and the patients who did not receive chemotherapy may have had favorable tumor characteristics. There were also no data on BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline mutation status and recurrences and/or distant metastases. The database did not include data on patient ethnicity because most Dutch patients were White.
DISCLOSURES:
Research at the Netherlands Cancer Institute was supported by institutional grants from the Dutch Cancer Society and the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. Dr. Kok declared financial relationships with several organizations including Gilead and Domain Therapeutics, as well as institutional grants from AstraZeneca, BMS, and Roche. Other authors also declared numerous financial relationships for themselves and their institutions with pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
which suggest that stromal TILs could be a useful biomarker to optimize treatment decisions in this patient population.
METHODOLOGY:
- The absolute benefit of chemotherapy remains unclear among patients with stage I TNBC. High levels of stromal TILs, a promising biomarker, have been linked to better survival in patients with TNBC, but data focused on stage I disease are lacking.
- In the current analysis, researchers identified a cohort of 1041 women (mean age at diagnosis, 64.4 years) from the Netherlands Cancer Registry with stage I TNBC who had an available TIL score and had undergone a lumpectomy or a mastectomy but had not received neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy.
- Patients’ clinical data were matched to their corresponding pathologic data provided by the Dutch Pathology Registry, and a pathologist blinded to outcomes scored stromal TIL levels according to the International Immuno-Oncology Biomarker Working Group guidelines.
- The primary endpoint was breast cancer–specific survival at prespecified stromal TIL cutoffs of 30%, 50%, and 75%. Secondary outcomes included specific survival by pathologic tumor stage and overall survival.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 8.6% of women had a pT1a tumor, 38.7% had a pT1b tumor, and 52.6% had a pT1c tumor. In the cohort, 25.6% of patients had stromal TIL levels of 30% or higher, 19.5% had levels of 50% or higher, and 13.5% had levels of 75% or higher.
- Over a median follow-up of 11.4 years, 335 patients died, 107 (32%) of whom died from breast cancer. Patients with smaller tumors (pT1abNO) had better survival outcomes than those with larger tumors (pT1cNO) — a 10-year breast cancer–specific survival of 92% vs 86%, respectively.
- In the overall cohort, stromal TIL levels of 30% or higher were associated with better breast cancer–specific survival than those with stromal TIL levels below 30% (96% vs 87%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.45). Stromal TIL levels of 50% or greater were also associated with better 10-year breast cancer–specific survival than those with levels below 50% (92% vs 88%; HR, 0.59). A similar pattern was observed for stromal TIL levels and overall survival.
- In patients with pT1c tumors, the 10-year breast cancer–specific survival among those with stromal TIL levels of 30% or higher was 95% vs 83% for levels below the 30% cutoff (HR, 0.24). Similarly, the 10-year breast cancer–specific survival for those in the 50% or higher group was 95% vs 84% for levels below that cutoff (HR, 0.27). The 10-year breast cancer–specific survival improved to 98% among patients with stromal TIL levels of 75% or higher (HR, 0.09).
IN PRACTICE:
The results supported the establishment of “treatment-optimization clinical trials in patients with stage I TNBC, using [stromal] TIL level as an integral biomarker to prospectively confirm the observed excellent survival when neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy is not administered,” the authors wrote. Assessing stromal TILs is also “inexpensive,” the authors added.
SOURCE:
The research, conducted by Marleen Kok, MD, PhD, Department of Medical Oncology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, and colleagues, was published online in JAMA Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
The authors noted that the study was limited by its observational nature. The patients were drawn from a larger cohort, about half of whom received adjuvant chemotherapy, and the patients who did not receive chemotherapy may have had favorable tumor characteristics. There were also no data on BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline mutation status and recurrences and/or distant metastases. The database did not include data on patient ethnicity because most Dutch patients were White.
DISCLOSURES:
Research at the Netherlands Cancer Institute was supported by institutional grants from the Dutch Cancer Society and the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. Dr. Kok declared financial relationships with several organizations including Gilead and Domain Therapeutics, as well as institutional grants from AstraZeneca, BMS, and Roche. Other authors also declared numerous financial relationships for themselves and their institutions with pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Does An Elevated Lp(a) Call for Low-dose Aspirin?
Should a patient with high lipoprotein (a), or Lp(a), be started on low-dose aspirin?
This is the conundrum facing many physicians and patients, but even getting to that point will require more availability and coverage of tests and a greater appreciation of the risk associated with Lp(a), said cardiologists.
Lp(a): The Silent Risk
On Lp(a) Awareness Day, C. Michael Gibson, MD, MA, CEO of the Baim Institute for Clinical Research, Boston, Massachusetts, and PERFUSE took the opportunity to talk about his experiences with testing on X.
The professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston, said he was surprised to find that he had a very high calcium score, despite a low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level of just 70 mg/dL. Eventually, he found out that he had a “very, very high Lp(a),” which was particularly concerning because his grandfather died of a heart attack at 45 years of age.
But how much risk does that represent?
A 2022 consensus statement from the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) highlighted that epidemiologic and genetic studies “strongly support a causal and continuous association between Lp(a) concentration and cardiovascular outcomes,” even at very low LDL cholesterol levels.
This is because Lp(a) has proinflammatory and proatherosclerotic properties, and high levels are associated with both micro- and macrocalcification of the aortic valve. Findings from a US registry study also suggest the threshold related to increased cardiovascular risk may differ for primary and secondary prevention populations (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2024 Mar 5;83[9]:873-886).
Lp(a) is, however, genetically determined, and there are no drugs available that directly lower levels, although some are on the horizon. In the meantime, the experts behind the consensus statement recommend that all adults be tested at least once in their lifetime.
Testing Cost and Availability
This recommendation has been translated into guidelines in “many, many” countries, said lead author Florian Kronenberg, MD, MAE, Institute of Genetic Epidemiology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria, but “we are far away from reaching that goal.”
“We’ve got a real problem,” added Stephen Nicholls, MD, PhD, director of the Victorian Heart Institute and a professor of cardiology at Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, as there is “not a country in the world where there’s good access to Lp(a) testing.”
Dr. Kronenberg said that the consensus statement “created a kind of momentum” toward universal testing.
Ulrich Laufs, MD, PhD, professor and chair, Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany, agreed, saying that, overall, Lp(a) testing has “increased dramatically,” albeit from “extremely low levels.”
Dr. Kronenberg believes that “we have to be really patient.” He cited a lack of knowledge among physicians as one of the biggest barriers to greater uptake of testing.
“There is still no appreciation of the role of Lp(a),” agreed Alberico L. Catapano, MD, PhD, director of Cardiovascular Research and of the Lipoproteins and Atherosclerosis Laboratory of IRCCS Multimedica, Milan, Italy, and past president of the EAS.
“That’s why it’s not mentioned” to patients, he said. “What is really needed is to inform physician colleagues that Lp(a) is not only a risk factor but is the cause” of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).
Dr. Kronenberg said that the pressure for testing can often come from the patient themselves.
Physicians then question why the patient wants to be tested when there are no medications to treat it, he added. “We really tried very hard when we did the consensus paper to say that we should perform the test and give people advice on what to do.”
Dr. Catapano believes that another major obstacle is the cost of the test, which remains high “because very few people do it,” and there is some debate over which test to use.
Taken together, these issues have meant that “payers are really struggling with the idea of funding Lp(a),” said Dr. Nicholls, adding that “there seems to be this fixation on: ‘Well, if you can’t lower Lp(a), why measure it?’ ”
Rather than blame the payers, he says there is a need to educate about the science behind testing and underline that Lp(a) is an “important risk enhancer” for cardiovascular disease.
“Because if we’re going to make people pay out of pocket, then you’re creating a massive equity issue in that only those who can afford the test have it.”
High Lp(a) Now What?
But once the test has been performed, there then comes the question as to what to do about the result.
“Before we get anywhere near an agent that effectively lowers Lp(a) and get it into the clinic, there are lots of things that we can do today,” said Dr. Nicholls.
If someone has an intermediate or high background cardiovascular risk and they have got a high Lp(a) level, they “should be treated more intensively, as we know that high Lp(a) patients do better if their LDL cholesterol and their blood pressure is lower.”
For Dr. Catapano, this means having the “same mindset as you do with [a patient with] high blood pressure, high LDL cholesterol, and so on, because it’s exactly the same thing: It’s interacting with your other risk factors to increase your overall risk.”
Dr. Gibson agreed. Through a range of measures, including weight loss and statin therapy, he was able to reduce his overall cardiovascular risk, and his LDL cholesterol level dropped to just 20 mg/dL.
A Role for Aspirin?
It gained added momentum when Pablo Corral, MD, a lipidologist and a professor in the School of Medicine, Pharmacology Department, FASTA University, Mar del Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina, highlighted the issue on X.
He pointed to a recent study, which showed that regular aspirin use was associated with a significantly lower rate of ASCVD mortality in adults without clinical ASCVD but who had elevated Lp(a).
Dr. Nicholls said that, when you “peel away the layers” of the current evidence, there is some suggestion that Lp(a)may be prothrombotic. “So in theory, perhaps aspirin might be maybe more intuitively useful there.”
He noted that the ASPREE primary prevention study found that low-dose aspirin in older adults resulted in a significantly higher risk for major hemorrhage over placebo and did not significantly reduce the risk for cardiovascular disease.
But an analysis he and his colleagues did suggest that aspirin may indeed benefit older individuals if they have elevated Lp(a) genotypes.
An Individual Decision
For Dr. Kronenberg and Dr. Laufs, there is currently a lack of appropriate data to make a recommendation either way, particularly for primary prevention.
They warned that the risk for thrombosis in patients with mildly elevated Lp(a) cannot be discounted, and in most cases either “the existing risk of bleeding exceeds the beneficial effects [of aspirin], or it’s not indicated,” said Dr. Laufs.
“When we make a recommendation, we should have evidence-based data,” Dr. Kronenberg said, but, at the moment, people “somehow put their finger in the air and see” which way the wind is blowing.
Dr. Catapano urged patients to talk to their physician, as even low-dose aspirin is “very potent” at inhibiting platelets.
Dr. Gibson agreed, saying that he is in two minds, as the potential benefit has to be weighed against the bleeding risk.
He personally takes low-dose aspirin because “I know I have a low bleeding risk,” but it is a decision “that has to be taken individually between a patient and their physician.”
Dr. Gibson, Dr. Kronenberg, Dr. Nicholls, and Dr. Catapano all reported conflicts of interest with numerous pharmaceutical companies and organizations.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Should a patient with high lipoprotein (a), or Lp(a), be started on low-dose aspirin?
This is the conundrum facing many physicians and patients, but even getting to that point will require more availability and coverage of tests and a greater appreciation of the risk associated with Lp(a), said cardiologists.
Lp(a): The Silent Risk
On Lp(a) Awareness Day, C. Michael Gibson, MD, MA, CEO of the Baim Institute for Clinical Research, Boston, Massachusetts, and PERFUSE took the opportunity to talk about his experiences with testing on X.
The professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston, said he was surprised to find that he had a very high calcium score, despite a low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level of just 70 mg/dL. Eventually, he found out that he had a “very, very high Lp(a),” which was particularly concerning because his grandfather died of a heart attack at 45 years of age.
But how much risk does that represent?
A 2022 consensus statement from the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) highlighted that epidemiologic and genetic studies “strongly support a causal and continuous association between Lp(a) concentration and cardiovascular outcomes,” even at very low LDL cholesterol levels.
This is because Lp(a) has proinflammatory and proatherosclerotic properties, and high levels are associated with both micro- and macrocalcification of the aortic valve. Findings from a US registry study also suggest the threshold related to increased cardiovascular risk may differ for primary and secondary prevention populations (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2024 Mar 5;83[9]:873-886).
Lp(a) is, however, genetically determined, and there are no drugs available that directly lower levels, although some are on the horizon. In the meantime, the experts behind the consensus statement recommend that all adults be tested at least once in their lifetime.
Testing Cost and Availability
This recommendation has been translated into guidelines in “many, many” countries, said lead author Florian Kronenberg, MD, MAE, Institute of Genetic Epidemiology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria, but “we are far away from reaching that goal.”
“We’ve got a real problem,” added Stephen Nicholls, MD, PhD, director of the Victorian Heart Institute and a professor of cardiology at Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, as there is “not a country in the world where there’s good access to Lp(a) testing.”
Dr. Kronenberg said that the consensus statement “created a kind of momentum” toward universal testing.
Ulrich Laufs, MD, PhD, professor and chair, Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany, agreed, saying that, overall, Lp(a) testing has “increased dramatically,” albeit from “extremely low levels.”
Dr. Kronenberg believes that “we have to be really patient.” He cited a lack of knowledge among physicians as one of the biggest barriers to greater uptake of testing.
“There is still no appreciation of the role of Lp(a),” agreed Alberico L. Catapano, MD, PhD, director of Cardiovascular Research and of the Lipoproteins and Atherosclerosis Laboratory of IRCCS Multimedica, Milan, Italy, and past president of the EAS.
“That’s why it’s not mentioned” to patients, he said. “What is really needed is to inform physician colleagues that Lp(a) is not only a risk factor but is the cause” of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).
Dr. Kronenberg said that the pressure for testing can often come from the patient themselves.
Physicians then question why the patient wants to be tested when there are no medications to treat it, he added. “We really tried very hard when we did the consensus paper to say that we should perform the test and give people advice on what to do.”
Dr. Catapano believes that another major obstacle is the cost of the test, which remains high “because very few people do it,” and there is some debate over which test to use.
Taken together, these issues have meant that “payers are really struggling with the idea of funding Lp(a),” said Dr. Nicholls, adding that “there seems to be this fixation on: ‘Well, if you can’t lower Lp(a), why measure it?’ ”
Rather than blame the payers, he says there is a need to educate about the science behind testing and underline that Lp(a) is an “important risk enhancer” for cardiovascular disease.
“Because if we’re going to make people pay out of pocket, then you’re creating a massive equity issue in that only those who can afford the test have it.”
High Lp(a) Now What?
But once the test has been performed, there then comes the question as to what to do about the result.
“Before we get anywhere near an agent that effectively lowers Lp(a) and get it into the clinic, there are lots of things that we can do today,” said Dr. Nicholls.
If someone has an intermediate or high background cardiovascular risk and they have got a high Lp(a) level, they “should be treated more intensively, as we know that high Lp(a) patients do better if their LDL cholesterol and their blood pressure is lower.”
For Dr. Catapano, this means having the “same mindset as you do with [a patient with] high blood pressure, high LDL cholesterol, and so on, because it’s exactly the same thing: It’s interacting with your other risk factors to increase your overall risk.”
Dr. Gibson agreed. Through a range of measures, including weight loss and statin therapy, he was able to reduce his overall cardiovascular risk, and his LDL cholesterol level dropped to just 20 mg/dL.
A Role for Aspirin?
It gained added momentum when Pablo Corral, MD, a lipidologist and a professor in the School of Medicine, Pharmacology Department, FASTA University, Mar del Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina, highlighted the issue on X.
He pointed to a recent study, which showed that regular aspirin use was associated with a significantly lower rate of ASCVD mortality in adults without clinical ASCVD but who had elevated Lp(a).
Dr. Nicholls said that, when you “peel away the layers” of the current evidence, there is some suggestion that Lp(a)may be prothrombotic. “So in theory, perhaps aspirin might be maybe more intuitively useful there.”
He noted that the ASPREE primary prevention study found that low-dose aspirin in older adults resulted in a significantly higher risk for major hemorrhage over placebo and did not significantly reduce the risk for cardiovascular disease.
But an analysis he and his colleagues did suggest that aspirin may indeed benefit older individuals if they have elevated Lp(a) genotypes.
An Individual Decision
For Dr. Kronenberg and Dr. Laufs, there is currently a lack of appropriate data to make a recommendation either way, particularly for primary prevention.
They warned that the risk for thrombosis in patients with mildly elevated Lp(a) cannot be discounted, and in most cases either “the existing risk of bleeding exceeds the beneficial effects [of aspirin], or it’s not indicated,” said Dr. Laufs.
“When we make a recommendation, we should have evidence-based data,” Dr. Kronenberg said, but, at the moment, people “somehow put their finger in the air and see” which way the wind is blowing.
Dr. Catapano urged patients to talk to their physician, as even low-dose aspirin is “very potent” at inhibiting platelets.
Dr. Gibson agreed, saying that he is in two minds, as the potential benefit has to be weighed against the bleeding risk.
He personally takes low-dose aspirin because “I know I have a low bleeding risk,” but it is a decision “that has to be taken individually between a patient and their physician.”
Dr. Gibson, Dr. Kronenberg, Dr. Nicholls, and Dr. Catapano all reported conflicts of interest with numerous pharmaceutical companies and organizations.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Should a patient with high lipoprotein (a), or Lp(a), be started on low-dose aspirin?
This is the conundrum facing many physicians and patients, but even getting to that point will require more availability and coverage of tests and a greater appreciation of the risk associated with Lp(a), said cardiologists.
Lp(a): The Silent Risk
On Lp(a) Awareness Day, C. Michael Gibson, MD, MA, CEO of the Baim Institute for Clinical Research, Boston, Massachusetts, and PERFUSE took the opportunity to talk about his experiences with testing on X.
The professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston, said he was surprised to find that he had a very high calcium score, despite a low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level of just 70 mg/dL. Eventually, he found out that he had a “very, very high Lp(a),” which was particularly concerning because his grandfather died of a heart attack at 45 years of age.
But how much risk does that represent?
A 2022 consensus statement from the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) highlighted that epidemiologic and genetic studies “strongly support a causal and continuous association between Lp(a) concentration and cardiovascular outcomes,” even at very low LDL cholesterol levels.
This is because Lp(a) has proinflammatory and proatherosclerotic properties, and high levels are associated with both micro- and macrocalcification of the aortic valve. Findings from a US registry study also suggest the threshold related to increased cardiovascular risk may differ for primary and secondary prevention populations (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2024 Mar 5;83[9]:873-886).
Lp(a) is, however, genetically determined, and there are no drugs available that directly lower levels, although some are on the horizon. In the meantime, the experts behind the consensus statement recommend that all adults be tested at least once in their lifetime.
Testing Cost and Availability
This recommendation has been translated into guidelines in “many, many” countries, said lead author Florian Kronenberg, MD, MAE, Institute of Genetic Epidemiology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria, but “we are far away from reaching that goal.”
“We’ve got a real problem,” added Stephen Nicholls, MD, PhD, director of the Victorian Heart Institute and a professor of cardiology at Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, as there is “not a country in the world where there’s good access to Lp(a) testing.”
Dr. Kronenberg said that the consensus statement “created a kind of momentum” toward universal testing.
Ulrich Laufs, MD, PhD, professor and chair, Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany, agreed, saying that, overall, Lp(a) testing has “increased dramatically,” albeit from “extremely low levels.”
Dr. Kronenberg believes that “we have to be really patient.” He cited a lack of knowledge among physicians as one of the biggest barriers to greater uptake of testing.
“There is still no appreciation of the role of Lp(a),” agreed Alberico L. Catapano, MD, PhD, director of Cardiovascular Research and of the Lipoproteins and Atherosclerosis Laboratory of IRCCS Multimedica, Milan, Italy, and past president of the EAS.
“That’s why it’s not mentioned” to patients, he said. “What is really needed is to inform physician colleagues that Lp(a) is not only a risk factor but is the cause” of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).
Dr. Kronenberg said that the pressure for testing can often come from the patient themselves.
Physicians then question why the patient wants to be tested when there are no medications to treat it, he added. “We really tried very hard when we did the consensus paper to say that we should perform the test and give people advice on what to do.”
Dr. Catapano believes that another major obstacle is the cost of the test, which remains high “because very few people do it,” and there is some debate over which test to use.
Taken together, these issues have meant that “payers are really struggling with the idea of funding Lp(a),” said Dr. Nicholls, adding that “there seems to be this fixation on: ‘Well, if you can’t lower Lp(a), why measure it?’ ”
Rather than blame the payers, he says there is a need to educate about the science behind testing and underline that Lp(a) is an “important risk enhancer” for cardiovascular disease.
“Because if we’re going to make people pay out of pocket, then you’re creating a massive equity issue in that only those who can afford the test have it.”
High Lp(a) Now What?
But once the test has been performed, there then comes the question as to what to do about the result.
“Before we get anywhere near an agent that effectively lowers Lp(a) and get it into the clinic, there are lots of things that we can do today,” said Dr. Nicholls.
If someone has an intermediate or high background cardiovascular risk and they have got a high Lp(a) level, they “should be treated more intensively, as we know that high Lp(a) patients do better if their LDL cholesterol and their blood pressure is lower.”
For Dr. Catapano, this means having the “same mindset as you do with [a patient with] high blood pressure, high LDL cholesterol, and so on, because it’s exactly the same thing: It’s interacting with your other risk factors to increase your overall risk.”
Dr. Gibson agreed. Through a range of measures, including weight loss and statin therapy, he was able to reduce his overall cardiovascular risk, and his LDL cholesterol level dropped to just 20 mg/dL.
A Role for Aspirin?
It gained added momentum when Pablo Corral, MD, a lipidologist and a professor in the School of Medicine, Pharmacology Department, FASTA University, Mar del Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina, highlighted the issue on X.
He pointed to a recent study, which showed that regular aspirin use was associated with a significantly lower rate of ASCVD mortality in adults without clinical ASCVD but who had elevated Lp(a).
Dr. Nicholls said that, when you “peel away the layers” of the current evidence, there is some suggestion that Lp(a)may be prothrombotic. “So in theory, perhaps aspirin might be maybe more intuitively useful there.”
He noted that the ASPREE primary prevention study found that low-dose aspirin in older adults resulted in a significantly higher risk for major hemorrhage over placebo and did not significantly reduce the risk for cardiovascular disease.
But an analysis he and his colleagues did suggest that aspirin may indeed benefit older individuals if they have elevated Lp(a) genotypes.
An Individual Decision
For Dr. Kronenberg and Dr. Laufs, there is currently a lack of appropriate data to make a recommendation either way, particularly for primary prevention.
They warned that the risk for thrombosis in patients with mildly elevated Lp(a) cannot be discounted, and in most cases either “the existing risk of bleeding exceeds the beneficial effects [of aspirin], or it’s not indicated,” said Dr. Laufs.
“When we make a recommendation, we should have evidence-based data,” Dr. Kronenberg said, but, at the moment, people “somehow put their finger in the air and see” which way the wind is blowing.
Dr. Catapano urged patients to talk to their physician, as even low-dose aspirin is “very potent” at inhibiting platelets.
Dr. Gibson agreed, saying that he is in two minds, as the potential benefit has to be weighed against the bleeding risk.
He personally takes low-dose aspirin because “I know I have a low bleeding risk,” but it is a decision “that has to be taken individually between a patient and their physician.”
Dr. Gibson, Dr. Kronenberg, Dr. Nicholls, and Dr. Catapano all reported conflicts of interest with numerous pharmaceutical companies and organizations.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.