Key clinical point: Astegolimab, despite being well-tolerated, did not lessen the severity of the disease in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: At week 16, the adjusted mean percent changes in the mean Eczema Area and Severity Index score were comparable in the astegolimab (−51.47%) and placebo (−58.24%) groups ( = .5624). A lower proportion of patients who received astegolimab vs placebo reported ≥1 adverse event of grade 1 or 2 severity (41.2% vs 58.1%).

Study details: Findings are from a phase 2 trial including 65 adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD and inadequate response to topical medications who were randomly assigned to receive 490 mg astegolimab or placebo every 4 weeks for 16 weeks and were further followed-up for 8 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Genentech, Inc. Six authors declared serving as employees of Genentech, Inc., a member of the Roche group, and owning stocks in Roche. The other authors reported ties with several sources, including Roche.

Source: Maurer M et al. Phase 2 randomized clinical trial of astegolimab in patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2022 (Aug 27). Doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2022.08.015

Key clinical point: Astegolimab, despite being well-tolerated, did not lessen the severity of the disease in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: At week 16, the adjusted mean percent changes in the mean Eczema Area and Severity Index score were comparable in the astegolimab (−51.47%) and placebo (−58.24%) groups ( = .5624). A lower proportion of patients who received astegolimab vs placebo reported ≥1 adverse event of grade 1 or 2 severity (41.2% vs 58.1%).

Study details: Findings are from a phase 2 trial including 65 adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD and inadequate response to topical medications who were randomly assigned to receive 490 mg astegolimab or placebo every 4 weeks for 16 weeks and were further followed-up for 8 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Genentech, Inc. Six authors declared serving as employees of Genentech, Inc., a member of the Roche group, and owning stocks in Roche. The other authors reported ties with several sources, including Roche.

Source: Maurer M et al. Phase 2 randomized clinical trial of astegolimab in patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2022 (Aug 27). Doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2022.08.015

Key clinical point: Astegolimab, despite being well-tolerated, did not lessen the severity of the disease in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: At week 16, the adjusted mean percent changes in the mean Eczema Area and Severity Index score were comparable in the astegolimab (−51.47%) and placebo (−58.24%) groups ( = .5624). A lower proportion of patients who received astegolimab vs placebo reported ≥1 adverse event of grade 1 or 2 severity (41.2% vs 58.1%).

Study details: Findings are from a phase 2 trial including 65 adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD and inadequate response to topical medications who were randomly assigned to receive 490 mg astegolimab or placebo every 4 weeks for 16 weeks and were further followed-up for 8 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Genentech, Inc. Six authors declared serving as employees of Genentech, Inc., a member of the Roche group, and owning stocks in Roche. The other authors reported ties with several sources, including Roche.

Source: Maurer M et al. Phase 2 randomized clinical trial of astegolimab in patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2022 (Aug 27). Doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2022.08.015

Key clinical point: A cream containing 1% ectoine and 0.1% hyaluronic acid (EHA) demonstrated superior efficacy than a vehicle cream and was well-tolerated in children aged 2-18 years with mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: At week 4, patients receiving EHA cream achieved a significantly higher clinical improvement in SCORing AD (mean difference [MD] −6.62; P < .001) and Investigator’s Global Assessment scores (MD −0.69; P < .001) than those receiving vehicle cream. Mild adverse events like skin erythema, pruritus, and burning skin were reported by 23.5% of patients receiving EHA cream and 5.7% of patients receiving vehicle cream.

Study details: Findings are from an observer-blind, multicenter clinical trial including 57 children aged 2-18 years with mild-to-moderate AD who were randomly assigned to receive EHA or vehicle cream twice daily for 4 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was funded by BODERM SA. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Alexopoulos A et al. A randomized, observer-blind, vehicle-control, multi-center clinical investigation for assessing the efficacy and tolerability of a 1% ectoine and hyaluronic acid 0.1%-containing medical device in pediatric patients with mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis. Pediatr Dermatol. 2022 (Aug 29). Doi: 10.1111/pde.15117

Key clinical point: A cream containing 1% ectoine and 0.1% hyaluronic acid (EHA) demonstrated superior efficacy than a vehicle cream and was well-tolerated in children aged 2-18 years with mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: At week 4, patients receiving EHA cream achieved a significantly higher clinical improvement in SCORing AD (mean difference [MD] −6.62; P < .001) and Investigator’s Global Assessment scores (MD −0.69; P < .001) than those receiving vehicle cream. Mild adverse events like skin erythema, pruritus, and burning skin were reported by 23.5% of patients receiving EHA cream and 5.7% of patients receiving vehicle cream.

Study details: Findings are from an observer-blind, multicenter clinical trial including 57 children aged 2-18 years with mild-to-moderate AD who were randomly assigned to receive EHA or vehicle cream twice daily for 4 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was funded by BODERM SA. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Alexopoulos A et al. A randomized, observer-blind, vehicle-control, multi-center clinical investigation for assessing the efficacy and tolerability of a 1% ectoine and hyaluronic acid 0.1%-containing medical device in pediatric patients with mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis. Pediatr Dermatol. 2022 (Aug 29). Doi: 10.1111/pde.15117

Key clinical point: A cream containing 1% ectoine and 0.1% hyaluronic acid (EHA) demonstrated superior efficacy than a vehicle cream and was well-tolerated in children aged 2-18 years with mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: At week 4, patients receiving EHA cream achieved a significantly higher clinical improvement in SCORing AD (mean difference [MD] −6.62; P < .001) and Investigator’s Global Assessment scores (MD −0.69; P < .001) than those receiving vehicle cream. Mild adverse events like skin erythema, pruritus, and burning skin were reported by 23.5% of patients receiving EHA cream and 5.7% of patients receiving vehicle cream.

Study details: Findings are from an observer-blind, multicenter clinical trial including 57 children aged 2-18 years with mild-to-moderate AD who were randomly assigned to receive EHA or vehicle cream twice daily for 4 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was funded by BODERM SA. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Alexopoulos A et al. A randomized, observer-blind, vehicle-control, multi-center clinical investigation for assessing the efficacy and tolerability of a 1% ectoine and hyaluronic acid 0.1%-containing medical device in pediatric patients with mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis. Pediatr Dermatol. 2022 (Aug 29). Doi: 10.1111/pde.15117

Key clinical point: Ruxolitinib cream demonstrated rapid and sustained improvement in itch in patients with mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: A significantly higher proportion of patients receiving ruxolitinib (0.75% or 1.5%) vs vehicle cream achieved ≥2-point reduction in itch numerical rating scale (NRS2) score as rapidly as within 12 hours (16.3% and 13.1% vs 6.9%; P < .05), with further improvements at week 8 (58.3% and 65.1% vs 29.4%; P < .0001). In patients receiving ruxolitinib (0.75% or 1.5%) vs vehicle cream, time to achieve itch NRS2 score was shorter (5 and 4 vs 17 days).

Study details: Findings are from a pooled analysis of two phase 3 trials, TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2, including 1249 patients with mild-to-moderate AD who were randomly assigned to receive ruxolitinib (0.75% or 1.5%) or vehicle cream twice daily for 8 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Incyte Corporation. Three authors declared being employees and shareholders of Incyte Corporation. The other authors declared serving as scientific advisors, investigators, or consultants or receiving research grants and honoraria from several sources.

Source: Blauvelt A et al. Rapid pruritus reduction with ruxolitinib cream treatment in patients with atopic dermatitis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2022 (Sep 6). Doi: 10.1111/jdv.18571

Key clinical point: Ruxolitinib cream demonstrated rapid and sustained improvement in itch in patients with mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: A significantly higher proportion of patients receiving ruxolitinib (0.75% or 1.5%) vs vehicle cream achieved ≥2-point reduction in itch numerical rating scale (NRS2) score as rapidly as within 12 hours (16.3% and 13.1% vs 6.9%; P < .05), with further improvements at week 8 (58.3% and 65.1% vs 29.4%; P < .0001). In patients receiving ruxolitinib (0.75% or 1.5%) vs vehicle cream, time to achieve itch NRS2 score was shorter (5 and 4 vs 17 days).

Study details: Findings are from a pooled analysis of two phase 3 trials, TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2, including 1249 patients with mild-to-moderate AD who were randomly assigned to receive ruxolitinib (0.75% or 1.5%) or vehicle cream twice daily for 8 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Incyte Corporation. Three authors declared being employees and shareholders of Incyte Corporation. The other authors declared serving as scientific advisors, investigators, or consultants or receiving research grants and honoraria from several sources.

Source: Blauvelt A et al. Rapid pruritus reduction with ruxolitinib cream treatment in patients with atopic dermatitis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2022 (Sep 6). Doi: 10.1111/jdv.18571

Key clinical point: Ruxolitinib cream demonstrated rapid and sustained improvement in itch in patients with mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: A significantly higher proportion of patients receiving ruxolitinib (0.75% or 1.5%) vs vehicle cream achieved ≥2-point reduction in itch numerical rating scale (NRS2) score as rapidly as within 12 hours (16.3% and 13.1% vs 6.9%; P < .05), with further improvements at week 8 (58.3% and 65.1% vs 29.4%; P < .0001). In patients receiving ruxolitinib (0.75% or 1.5%) vs vehicle cream, time to achieve itch NRS2 score was shorter (5 and 4 vs 17 days).

Study details: Findings are from a pooled analysis of two phase 3 trials, TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2, including 1249 patients with mild-to-moderate AD who were randomly assigned to receive ruxolitinib (0.75% or 1.5%) or vehicle cream twice daily for 8 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Incyte Corporation. Three authors declared being employees and shareholders of Incyte Corporation. The other authors declared serving as scientific advisors, investigators, or consultants or receiving research grants and honoraria from several sources.

Source: Blauvelt A et al. Rapid pruritus reduction with ruxolitinib cream treatment in patients with atopic dermatitis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2022 (Sep 6). Doi: 10.1111/jdv.18571

Key clinical point: Topical brepocitinib cream showed significant efficacy in reducing disease severity and was well-tolerated in patients with mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: The reduction in the mean Eczema Area and Severity Index at week 6 was significantly higher with 1% brepocitinib cream once daily (QD) vs vehicle QD (−70.1% vs −44.4%) and 1% brepocitinib  cream twice daily (BID) vs vehicle BID (−75.0% vs −47.6%; both P < .05). No serious adverse events or deaths were reported.

Study details: Findings are from a double-blind, dose-ranging, phase 2 study including 292 patients with mild-to-moderate AD who were randomly assigned to receive brepocitinib (0.1% QD, 0.3% QD or BID, 1.0% QD or BID, or 3.0% QD) or vehicle (QD or BID).

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Pfizer Inc. Nine authors declared being shareholders and current or former employees of Pfizer. The other authors reported ties with several sources, including Pfizer.

Source: Landis MN et al. Efficacy and safety of topical brepocitinib for the treatment of mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis: A phase IIb, randomised, double-blind, vehicle-controlled, dose-ranging, and parallel-group study. Br J Dermatol. 2022 (Aug 20). Doi: 10.1111/bjd.21826

Key clinical point: Topical brepocitinib cream showed significant efficacy in reducing disease severity and was well-tolerated in patients with mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: The reduction in the mean Eczema Area and Severity Index at week 6 was significantly higher with 1% brepocitinib cream once daily (QD) vs vehicle QD (−70.1% vs −44.4%) and 1% brepocitinib  cream twice daily (BID) vs vehicle BID (−75.0% vs −47.6%; both P < .05). No serious adverse events or deaths were reported.

Study details: Findings are from a double-blind, dose-ranging, phase 2 study including 292 patients with mild-to-moderate AD who were randomly assigned to receive brepocitinib (0.1% QD, 0.3% QD or BID, 1.0% QD or BID, or 3.0% QD) or vehicle (QD or BID).

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Pfizer Inc. Nine authors declared being shareholders and current or former employees of Pfizer. The other authors reported ties with several sources, including Pfizer.

Source: Landis MN et al. Efficacy and safety of topical brepocitinib for the treatment of mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis: A phase IIb, randomised, double-blind, vehicle-controlled, dose-ranging, and parallel-group study. Br J Dermatol. 2022 (Aug 20). Doi: 10.1111/bjd.21826

Key clinical point: Topical brepocitinib cream showed significant efficacy in reducing disease severity and was well-tolerated in patients with mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: The reduction in the mean Eczema Area and Severity Index at week 6 was significantly higher with 1% brepocitinib cream once daily (QD) vs vehicle QD (−70.1% vs −44.4%) and 1% brepocitinib  cream twice daily (BID) vs vehicle BID (−75.0% vs −47.6%; both P < .05). No serious adverse events or deaths were reported.

Study details: Findings are from a double-blind, dose-ranging, phase 2 study including 292 patients with mild-to-moderate AD who were randomly assigned to receive brepocitinib (0.1% QD, 0.3% QD or BID, 1.0% QD or BID, or 3.0% QD) or vehicle (QD or BID).

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Pfizer Inc. Nine authors declared being shareholders and current or former employees of Pfizer. The other authors reported ties with several sources, including Pfizer.

Source: Landis MN et al. Efficacy and safety of topical brepocitinib for the treatment of mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis: A phase IIb, randomised, double-blind, vehicle-controlled, dose-ranging, and parallel-group study. Br J Dermatol. 2022 (Aug 20). Doi: 10.1111/bjd.21826

Key clinical point: The results of this meta-analysis do not demonstrate an elevated risk for incident venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), particularly among those receiving treatment with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors.

Major finding: The risk for incident VTE was similar among participants with vs without AD (pooled hazard ratio 0.95; 95% CI 0.62-1.45). Among patients with AD who received JAK inhibitors vs placebo /dupilumab, 0.05% vs 0.03% reported VTE (Mantel-Haenszel risk difference 0; 95% CI 0-0).

Study details: Findings are from a meta-analysis of two cohort studies including 458,206 participants with (n = 229,103) and without AD (n = 229,103) and 15 randomized controlled trials including 8787 patients with AD who received an interventional treatment with JAK inhibitors or a control treatment with dupilumab or placebo.

Disclosures: This study did not report any source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Chen TL et al. Association of risk of incident venous thromboembolism with atopic dermatitis and treatment with Janus kinase inhibitors: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Dermatol. 2022;e223516 (Aug 24). Doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.3516

Key clinical point: The results of this meta-analysis do not demonstrate an elevated risk for incident venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), particularly among those receiving treatment with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors.

Major finding: The risk for incident VTE was similar among participants with vs without AD (pooled hazard ratio 0.95; 95% CI 0.62-1.45). Among patients with AD who received JAK inhibitors vs placebo /dupilumab, 0.05% vs 0.03% reported VTE (Mantel-Haenszel risk difference 0; 95% CI 0-0).

Study details: Findings are from a meta-analysis of two cohort studies including 458,206 participants with (n = 229,103) and without AD (n = 229,103) and 15 randomized controlled trials including 8787 patients with AD who received an interventional treatment with JAK inhibitors or a control treatment with dupilumab or placebo.

Disclosures: This study did not report any source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Chen TL et al. Association of risk of incident venous thromboembolism with atopic dermatitis and treatment with Janus kinase inhibitors: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Dermatol. 2022;e223516 (Aug 24). Doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.3516

Key clinical point: The results of this meta-analysis do not demonstrate an elevated risk for incident venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), particularly among those receiving treatment with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors.

Major finding: The risk for incident VTE was similar among participants with vs without AD (pooled hazard ratio 0.95; 95% CI 0.62-1.45). Among patients with AD who received JAK inhibitors vs placebo /dupilumab, 0.05% vs 0.03% reported VTE (Mantel-Haenszel risk difference 0; 95% CI 0-0).

Study details: Findings are from a meta-analysis of two cohort studies including 458,206 participants with (n = 229,103) and without AD (n = 229,103) and 15 randomized controlled trials including 8787 patients with AD who received an interventional treatment with JAK inhibitors or a control treatment with dupilumab or placebo.

Disclosures: This study did not report any source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Chen TL et al. Association of risk of incident venous thromboembolism with atopic dermatitis and treatment with Janus kinase inhibitors: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Dermatol. 2022;e223516 (Aug 24). Doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.3516

Key clinical point: Dupilumab demonstrated good overall drug survival for up to 3 years in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: Dupilumab showed good overall drug survival rates at 1-year (90.3%), 2-year (85.9%), and 3-year (78.6%). The use of immunosuppressant drugs at baseline was associated with shorter drug survival owing to ineffectiveness (hazard ratio [HR] 2.64; 95% CI 1.10-6.37) and adverse events (HR 2.69; 95% CI 1.32-5.48).

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of the BioDay registry data of 715 adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD who received dupilumab and were followed-up for ≥4 weeks.

Disclosures: The BioDay registry was sponsored by Sanofi Genzyme. The authors declared receiving grants, personal fees, speaking fees, financial support or nonfinancial support from several sources.

Source: Spekhorst LS et al. Dupilumab drug survival and associated predictors in patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis: Long-term results from the daily practice BioDay registry. JAMA Dermatol. 2022;e223014 (Aug 10). Doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.3014

Key clinical point: Dupilumab demonstrated good overall drug survival for up to 3 years in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: Dupilumab showed good overall drug survival rates at 1-year (90.3%), 2-year (85.9%), and 3-year (78.6%). The use of immunosuppressant drugs at baseline was associated with shorter drug survival owing to ineffectiveness (hazard ratio [HR] 2.64; 95% CI 1.10-6.37) and adverse events (HR 2.69; 95% CI 1.32-5.48).

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of the BioDay registry data of 715 adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD who received dupilumab and were followed-up for ≥4 weeks.

Disclosures: The BioDay registry was sponsored by Sanofi Genzyme. The authors declared receiving grants, personal fees, speaking fees, financial support or nonfinancial support from several sources.

Source: Spekhorst LS et al. Dupilumab drug survival and associated predictors in patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis: Long-term results from the daily practice BioDay registry. JAMA Dermatol. 2022;e223014 (Aug 10). Doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.3014

Key clinical point: Dupilumab demonstrated good overall drug survival for up to 3 years in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: Dupilumab showed good overall drug survival rates at 1-year (90.3%), 2-year (85.9%), and 3-year (78.6%). The use of immunosuppressant drugs at baseline was associated with shorter drug survival owing to ineffectiveness (hazard ratio [HR] 2.64; 95% CI 1.10-6.37) and adverse events (HR 2.69; 95% CI 1.32-5.48).

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of the BioDay registry data of 715 adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD who received dupilumab and were followed-up for ≥4 weeks.

Disclosures: The BioDay registry was sponsored by Sanofi Genzyme. The authors declared receiving grants, personal fees, speaking fees, financial support or nonfinancial support from several sources.

Source: Spekhorst LS et al. Dupilumab drug survival and associated predictors in patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis: Long-term results from the daily practice BioDay registry. JAMA Dermatol. 2022;e223014 (Aug 10). Doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.3014

Add unprovoked venous thromboembolic events to the list of potential consequences of severe obstructive sleep apnea.

That conclusion comes from a study showing that patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) who had the longest nocturnal hypoxemia episodes had a twofold risk for venous thromboembolic events.

The association between nocturnal hypoxemia and VTE was strongest among patients who did not use continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) systems, reported Wojciech Trzepizur, MD, of Angers University Hospital, France.

Previous studies have suggested links between OSA and both cancer and cognitive decline, but this is the first study to investigate the association between OSA and the incidence of unprovoked VTE, he reported in an oral abstract session at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

“We found that those who spent more than 6% of their nighttime with levels of oxygen in their blood below 90% of normal had an almost twofold risk of developing VTEs compared to patients without oxygen deprivation,” he said.

Dr. Trzepizur and colleagues conducted a retrospective study linking cohort data to an administrative health database. They identified unprovoked VTE in patients with a suspicion for OSA and no previous VTE.

They created Cox proportional hazard models to assess the association of unprovoked VTE with apnea hypopnea index (AHI) measures and nocturnal hypoxemia markers, including the time patients spent below 90% oxygen saturation (T90), oxygen desaturation index (ODI), and hypoxic burden, defined as the total area under the respiratory event-related desaturation curve.

They found that after a median follow-up of 6.3 years, 104 out of 7,355 patients had an unprovoked VTE. In an unadjusted hazard model, there were significant associations between VTE and T90, as well as with hypoxic burden, but not with either AHI or ODI.

However, in an analysis adjusted for age, gender, body mass index, alcohol intake, hypertension, depression, history of cardiovascular disease, statin use, type of sleep study, study site, and CPAP adherence, the investigators found that only T90 remained a significant independent predictor of VTE, with a hazard ratio of 1.06, P = .02.

The association between T90 and VTE strengthened as the time spent below 90% saturation increased. Patients in the highest tercile, who spent more than 6% of the time undersaturated, had an HR for VTE of 1.95 (P = .02), compared with patients with a T90 less than 1%.

There were no significant differences in VTE risk between patients who used CPAP for more than 4 hours per night and those who either used the devices for less than 4 hours or refused CPAP.

“We see that T90 seems to be a strong parameter,” said session comoderator Raphael Heinzer, MD, MPH, of Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland.

Dr. Heinzer’s comoderator, Silke Ryan, MD, of University College Dublin, pointed out that although T90 was the main predictor of responses, Dr. Trzepizur and colleagues did not control for other pulmonary diseases.

“Obviously, there could be an influence of other hypoxic-related diseases,” she said, and recommended controlling for this in future studies.

Winfried Randerath, MD, of the Bethanien Hospital at the University of Cologne, Germany, head of the ERS specialist group on sleep disordered breathing, said that this study and others presented at the meeting “show worrying associations between obstructive sleep apnea and important diseases that affect survival and quality of life.

“While they cannot prove that OSA causes any of these health problems, people should be made aware of these links and should try to make lifestyle changes in order to reduce their risk of OSA, for instance, by maintaining a healthy weight. However, if OSA is suspected, definite diagnosis and treatment should be initiated. We look forward to further research that may help to clarify whether OSA may be causing some of the health problems seen in these studies,” said Dr. Randerath, who was not involved with the study.

The study was supported by a grant from Institut de Recherche en Santé Respiratoire des Pays de la Loire (IRSR), Beaucouzé, France. Dr. Trzepizur, Dr. Heinzer, Dr. Ryan and Dr. Randerath reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Add unprovoked venous thromboembolic events to the list of potential consequences of severe obstructive sleep apnea.

That conclusion comes from a study showing that patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) who had the longest nocturnal hypoxemia episodes had a twofold risk for venous thromboembolic events.

The association between nocturnal hypoxemia and VTE was strongest among patients who did not use continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) systems, reported Wojciech Trzepizur, MD, of Angers University Hospital, France.

Previous studies have suggested links between OSA and both cancer and cognitive decline, but this is the first study to investigate the association between OSA and the incidence of unprovoked VTE, he reported in an oral abstract session at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

“We found that those who spent more than 6% of their nighttime with levels of oxygen in their blood below 90% of normal had an almost twofold risk of developing VTEs compared to patients without oxygen deprivation,” he said.

Dr. Trzepizur and colleagues conducted a retrospective study linking cohort data to an administrative health database. They identified unprovoked VTE in patients with a suspicion for OSA and no previous VTE.

They created Cox proportional hazard models to assess the association of unprovoked VTE with apnea hypopnea index (AHI) measures and nocturnal hypoxemia markers, including the time patients spent below 90% oxygen saturation (T90), oxygen desaturation index (ODI), and hypoxic burden, defined as the total area under the respiratory event-related desaturation curve.

They found that after a median follow-up of 6.3 years, 104 out of 7,355 patients had an unprovoked VTE. In an unadjusted hazard model, there were significant associations between VTE and T90, as well as with hypoxic burden, but not with either AHI or ODI.

However, in an analysis adjusted for age, gender, body mass index, alcohol intake, hypertension, depression, history of cardiovascular disease, statin use, type of sleep study, study site, and CPAP adherence, the investigators found that only T90 remained a significant independent predictor of VTE, with a hazard ratio of 1.06, P = .02.

The association between T90 and VTE strengthened as the time spent below 90% saturation increased. Patients in the highest tercile, who spent more than 6% of the time undersaturated, had an HR for VTE of 1.95 (P = .02), compared with patients with a T90 less than 1%.

There were no significant differences in VTE risk between patients who used CPAP for more than 4 hours per night and those who either used the devices for less than 4 hours or refused CPAP.

“We see that T90 seems to be a strong parameter,” said session comoderator Raphael Heinzer, MD, MPH, of Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland.

Dr. Heinzer’s comoderator, Silke Ryan, MD, of University College Dublin, pointed out that although T90 was the main predictor of responses, Dr. Trzepizur and colleagues did not control for other pulmonary diseases.

“Obviously, there could be an influence of other hypoxic-related diseases,” she said, and recommended controlling for this in future studies.

Winfried Randerath, MD, of the Bethanien Hospital at the University of Cologne, Germany, head of the ERS specialist group on sleep disordered breathing, said that this study and others presented at the meeting “show worrying associations between obstructive sleep apnea and important diseases that affect survival and quality of life.

“While they cannot prove that OSA causes any of these health problems, people should be made aware of these links and should try to make lifestyle changes in order to reduce their risk of OSA, for instance, by maintaining a healthy weight. However, if OSA is suspected, definite diagnosis and treatment should be initiated. We look forward to further research that may help to clarify whether OSA may be causing some of the health problems seen in these studies,” said Dr. Randerath, who was not involved with the study.

The study was supported by a grant from Institut de Recherche en Santé Respiratoire des Pays de la Loire (IRSR), Beaucouzé, France. Dr. Trzepizur, Dr. Heinzer, Dr. Ryan and Dr. Randerath reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Add unprovoked venous thromboembolic events to the list of potential consequences of severe obstructive sleep apnea.

That conclusion comes from a study showing that patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) who had the longest nocturnal hypoxemia episodes had a twofold risk for venous thromboembolic events.

The association between nocturnal hypoxemia and VTE was strongest among patients who did not use continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) systems, reported Wojciech Trzepizur, MD, of Angers University Hospital, France.

Previous studies have suggested links between OSA and both cancer and cognitive decline, but this is the first study to investigate the association between OSA and the incidence of unprovoked VTE, he reported in an oral abstract session at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

“We found that those who spent more than 6% of their nighttime with levels of oxygen in their blood below 90% of normal had an almost twofold risk of developing VTEs compared to patients without oxygen deprivation,” he said.

Dr. Trzepizur and colleagues conducted a retrospective study linking cohort data to an administrative health database. They identified unprovoked VTE in patients with a suspicion for OSA and no previous VTE.

They created Cox proportional hazard models to assess the association of unprovoked VTE with apnea hypopnea index (AHI) measures and nocturnal hypoxemia markers, including the time patients spent below 90% oxygen saturation (T90), oxygen desaturation index (ODI), and hypoxic burden, defined as the total area under the respiratory event-related desaturation curve.

They found that after a median follow-up of 6.3 years, 104 out of 7,355 patients had an unprovoked VTE. In an unadjusted hazard model, there were significant associations between VTE and T90, as well as with hypoxic burden, but not with either AHI or ODI.

However, in an analysis adjusted for age, gender, body mass index, alcohol intake, hypertension, depression, history of cardiovascular disease, statin use, type of sleep study, study site, and CPAP adherence, the investigators found that only T90 remained a significant independent predictor of VTE, with a hazard ratio of 1.06, P = .02.

The association between T90 and VTE strengthened as the time spent below 90% saturation increased. Patients in the highest tercile, who spent more than 6% of the time undersaturated, had an HR for VTE of 1.95 (P = .02), compared with patients with a T90 less than 1%.

There were no significant differences in VTE risk between patients who used CPAP for more than 4 hours per night and those who either used the devices for less than 4 hours or refused CPAP.

“We see that T90 seems to be a strong parameter,” said session comoderator Raphael Heinzer, MD, MPH, of Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland.

Dr. Heinzer’s comoderator, Silke Ryan, MD, of University College Dublin, pointed out that although T90 was the main predictor of responses, Dr. Trzepizur and colleagues did not control for other pulmonary diseases.

“Obviously, there could be an influence of other hypoxic-related diseases,” she said, and recommended controlling for this in future studies.

Winfried Randerath, MD, of the Bethanien Hospital at the University of Cologne, Germany, head of the ERS specialist group on sleep disordered breathing, said that this study and others presented at the meeting “show worrying associations between obstructive sleep apnea and important diseases that affect survival and quality of life.

“While they cannot prove that OSA causes any of these health problems, people should be made aware of these links and should try to make lifestyle changes in order to reduce their risk of OSA, for instance, by maintaining a healthy weight. However, if OSA is suspected, definite diagnosis and treatment should be initiated. We look forward to further research that may help to clarify whether OSA may be causing some of the health problems seen in these studies,” said Dr. Randerath, who was not involved with the study.

The study was supported by a grant from Institut de Recherche en Santé Respiratoire des Pays de la Loire (IRSR), Beaucouzé, France. Dr. Trzepizur, Dr. Heinzer, Dr. Ryan and Dr. Randerath reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adderall, the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder medication, is in short supply in some parts of the nation, pharmacy chains and Adderall users say.

Half a dozen people told Bloomberg that pharmacies told them in August and September that the drug was out of stock. The patients were told the drug might not be available for weeks, though it’s supposed to be taken daily. BuzzFeed News said 20 people across the nation said that their pharmacies didn’t have Adderall in stock.

“It’s so frustrating that getting my meds requires me to be organized, focused, and motivated – all the things I’m on these meds to help with,” Irene Kelly, who has been using Adderall for 14 years, told BuzzFeed News.

Two pharmacy chains told Bloomberg that Adderall has not always been available to sell. Walgreens spokesperson Rebekah Pajak said there were “supply chain challenges” affecting instant-release and extended-release versions of the drug. CVS pharmacies can fill Adderall prescriptions “in most cases,” CVS spokesperson Matthew Blanchette said.

Several drugmakers have had brand-name and generic versions of Adderall on back order for months, Bloomberg reported. The problem started with a labor shortage at Teva Pharmaceutical, the top seller of Adderall in the United States, that created a limited supply of brand-name and generic instant-release Adderall, according to the outlet.

That said, the Food and Drug Administration is not reporting an Adderall shortage on its drug shortages database. The federal agency says it lists a drug as being in short supply when “overall market demand is not being met by the manufacturers of the product,” Bloomberg said.

“Manufacturers continue to release product,” FDA spokesperson Cherie Duvall-Jones said, according to Bloomberg.

Demand for Adderall is growing, possibly because of rising ADHD diagnoses that occurred during telehealth medical appointments amid the COVID-19 pandemic, Bloomberg reported, noting that some of those telehealth companies have come under scrutiny by the Drug Enforcement Administration and other government agencies.

NBC News, citing IQVIA, an analytics provider for the life sciences industry, reported that 41.4 million Adderall prescriptions were issued last year, up 10.4% from 2020.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Adderall, the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder medication, is in short supply in some parts of the nation, pharmacy chains and Adderall users say.

Half a dozen people told Bloomberg that pharmacies told them in August and September that the drug was out of stock. The patients were told the drug might not be available for weeks, though it’s supposed to be taken daily. BuzzFeed News said 20 people across the nation said that their pharmacies didn’t have Adderall in stock.

“It’s so frustrating that getting my meds requires me to be organized, focused, and motivated – all the things I’m on these meds to help with,” Irene Kelly, who has been using Adderall for 14 years, told BuzzFeed News.

Two pharmacy chains told Bloomberg that Adderall has not always been available to sell. Walgreens spokesperson Rebekah Pajak said there were “supply chain challenges” affecting instant-release and extended-release versions of the drug. CVS pharmacies can fill Adderall prescriptions “in most cases,” CVS spokesperson Matthew Blanchette said.

Several drugmakers have had brand-name and generic versions of Adderall on back order for months, Bloomberg reported. The problem started with a labor shortage at Teva Pharmaceutical, the top seller of Adderall in the United States, that created a limited supply of brand-name and generic instant-release Adderall, according to the outlet.

That said, the Food and Drug Administration is not reporting an Adderall shortage on its drug shortages database. The federal agency says it lists a drug as being in short supply when “overall market demand is not being met by the manufacturers of the product,” Bloomberg said.

“Manufacturers continue to release product,” FDA spokesperson Cherie Duvall-Jones said, according to Bloomberg.

Demand for Adderall is growing, possibly because of rising ADHD diagnoses that occurred during telehealth medical appointments amid the COVID-19 pandemic, Bloomberg reported, noting that some of those telehealth companies have come under scrutiny by the Drug Enforcement Administration and other government agencies.

NBC News, citing IQVIA, an analytics provider for the life sciences industry, reported that 41.4 million Adderall prescriptions were issued last year, up 10.4% from 2020.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Adderall, the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder medication, is in short supply in some parts of the nation, pharmacy chains and Adderall users say.

Half a dozen people told Bloomberg that pharmacies told them in August and September that the drug was out of stock. The patients were told the drug might not be available for weeks, though it’s supposed to be taken daily. BuzzFeed News said 20 people across the nation said that their pharmacies didn’t have Adderall in stock.

“It’s so frustrating that getting my meds requires me to be organized, focused, and motivated – all the things I’m on these meds to help with,” Irene Kelly, who has been using Adderall for 14 years, told BuzzFeed News.

Two pharmacy chains told Bloomberg that Adderall has not always been available to sell. Walgreens spokesperson Rebekah Pajak said there were “supply chain challenges” affecting instant-release and extended-release versions of the drug. CVS pharmacies can fill Adderall prescriptions “in most cases,” CVS spokesperson Matthew Blanchette said.

Several drugmakers have had brand-name and generic versions of Adderall on back order for months, Bloomberg reported. The problem started with a labor shortage at Teva Pharmaceutical, the top seller of Adderall in the United States, that created a limited supply of brand-name and generic instant-release Adderall, according to the outlet.

That said, the Food and Drug Administration is not reporting an Adderall shortage on its drug shortages database. The federal agency says it lists a drug as being in short supply when “overall market demand is not being met by the manufacturers of the product,” Bloomberg said.

“Manufacturers continue to release product,” FDA spokesperson Cherie Duvall-Jones said, according to Bloomberg.

Demand for Adderall is growing, possibly because of rising ADHD diagnoses that occurred during telehealth medical appointments amid the COVID-19 pandemic, Bloomberg reported, noting that some of those telehealth companies have come under scrutiny by the Drug Enforcement Administration and other government agencies.

NBC News, citing IQVIA, an analytics provider for the life sciences industry, reported that 41.4 million Adderall prescriptions were issued last year, up 10.4% from 2020.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

PARIS – Patients with untreated non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who could not withstand the rigors of platinum-based chemotherapy regimens had significantly better overall survival when treated with the immune checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab (Tecentriq), compared with their counterparts treated with either vinorelbine or gemcitabine in a phase 3 randomized trial.

Among 353 patients with treatment-naive stage 3B to 4 NSCLC who were not candidates for platinum-based chemotherapy because of poor performance status (PS), advanced age, or significant comorbidities, the median overall survival (OS) was 10.3 months for patients treated with atezolizumab vs. 9.2 months for patients assigned to receive the investigator’s choice of single-agent chemotherapy.

This difference translated into a hazard ratio for death with atezolizumab of 0.78 (P = .028), Siow Ming Lee, MD, PhD, of University College London, reported at the ESMO Congress.

The 2-year OS rate with atezolizumab was 24.3%, compared with 12.4% for single-agent chemotherapy.

“When I saw the data, I was amazed. One of four patients survived for 2 years!” he said in an interview.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Excluded from clinical trials

“Cancer chemotherapy has changed the treatment landscape for the metastatic NSCLC population, but these treatments are mainly recommended for fit patients,” Dr. Lee said during his presentation of the data in a presidential symposium.

First-line pivotal trials for lung cancer patients comparing either single-agent immunotherapy or an immunotherapy/chemotherapy combination have all been conducted in fit patients, with ECOG PS of 0 or 1, he noted.

“In reality, we still have a large population of unfit NSCLC patients, of at least 40%, many of which we cannot treat with standard platinum chemotherapy. There are many elderly patients with poor performance status, and the elderly with many comorbidities, and they are frequently on many drug medications, which we see frequently in our clinic,” he said.
 

Study details

To see whether immunotherapy could improve outcomes for unfit patients, investigators designed the IPSOS trial, a phase 3 multicenter open-label study of efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes with atezolizumab compared with single-agent chemotherapy.

Patients from 23 centers in North America, South America, Europe, and Asia who were ineligible for platinum-based chemotherapy because of ECOG performance status of 2 or 3, or who were aged 70 or older with performance status 0 or 1 but with multiple comorbidities or other contraindications to platinum were stratified by histology, programmed death-ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression, and brain metastases, and were then randomly assigned to receive either atezolizumab 1,200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks (302 patients), or to investigator’s choice of either vinorelbine delivered orally or intravenously, according to local practice, or intravenous gemcitabine given intravenously per local practice (151 patients).

As noted before, overall survival, the primary endpoint, was significantly better with atezolizumab, translating into a 22% reduction in risk of death compared with chemotherapy.

The 1-year OS rates were 43.7% with atezolizumab vs. 36.6% with chemotherapy, and the 2-year rates were 24.3% vs. 12.4%, respectively.

­­A subgroup analysis showed trends toward better benefit for immunotherapy regardless of age, sex, race, performance status, history of tobacco use, tumor histology, stage, presence of liver metastases, number of metastatic sites, or PD-L1 expression levels. The benefit of atezolizumab was also significantly better among patients without brain metastases.

The median duration of response was 14 months with ateziluzmab vs. 7.8 months with chemotherapy. Respective objective response rates were 16.9% vs. 15.5%. Median progression-free survival, a secondary endpoint, was 4.2 months with atezolizumab and 4 months with chemotherapy, a difference that was not statistically significant. Median treatment duration was 3.5 months with atezolizumab, 2.3 months with gemcitabine, and 1.8 months with vinorelbine. Treatment-related adverse events of any grade occurred in 57% of patients on immunotherapy vs. 80.3% of those on chemotherapy. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events related to therapy occurred in 16.3% vs. 33.3%, respectively. About 13% of patients in each arm had an adverse event leading to drug discontinuation. There were three treatment-related deaths among patients on atezolizumab, and four among patients on chemotherapy. Compared with chemotherapy, atezolizumab was associated with stabilizing of health-related quality-of-life domains of functioning, and significant improvement in delaying the time to deterioration of chest pain.
 

Age is not prognostic

“I think it’s important though to remember that in this study there are very distinct populations of patients. Poor performance status and comorbidities are prognostic, but age is not,” Dr. Leighl said in her discussion.

“In terms of current standards, performance status 3 patients are currently recommended to have best supportive care unless a targeted therapy is available for them, and while PS 2 patients have been excluded from checkpoint inhibitor trials, we treat most of these patients the same way. In this study in particular, patients had to be ineligible for platinum doublet therapy, but of course this definition was subjective,” she said.

She also commented that “if we’re now going to treat everyone with atezolizumab, I think the budget impact of this is going to be huge.”

It will be important to identify more clearly those patients aged 80 and older who might benefit from atezolizumab in this setting by better incorporating biomarkers such as PD-L1 levels to determine who can benefit from therapy and who might be spared the necessity of coming into the hospital or clinic for regular intravenous infusions, she added.

The study was supported by F. Hoffman-La Roche. Dr. Lee disclosed research funding from the company to his institution. Dr. Leighl disclosed institutional grant funding and personal fees from Roche and others.

PARIS – Patients with untreated non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who could not withstand the rigors of platinum-based chemotherapy regimens had significantly better overall survival when treated with the immune checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab (Tecentriq), compared with their counterparts treated with either vinorelbine or gemcitabine in a phase 3 randomized trial.

Among 353 patients with treatment-naive stage 3B to 4 NSCLC who were not candidates for platinum-based chemotherapy because of poor performance status (PS), advanced age, or significant comorbidities, the median overall survival (OS) was 10.3 months for patients treated with atezolizumab vs. 9.2 months for patients assigned to receive the investigator’s choice of single-agent chemotherapy.

This difference translated into a hazard ratio for death with atezolizumab of 0.78 (P = .028), Siow Ming Lee, MD, PhD, of University College London, reported at the ESMO Congress.

The 2-year OS rate with atezolizumab was 24.3%, compared with 12.4% for single-agent chemotherapy.

“When I saw the data, I was amazed. One of four patients survived for 2 years!” he said in an interview.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Excluded from clinical trials

“Cancer chemotherapy has changed the treatment landscape for the metastatic NSCLC population, but these treatments are mainly recommended for fit patients,” Dr. Lee said during his presentation of the data in a presidential symposium.

First-line pivotal trials for lung cancer patients comparing either single-agent immunotherapy or an immunotherapy/chemotherapy combination have all been conducted in fit patients, with ECOG PS of 0 or 1, he noted.

“In reality, we still have a large population of unfit NSCLC patients, of at least 40%, many of which we cannot treat with standard platinum chemotherapy. There are many elderly patients with poor performance status, and the elderly with many comorbidities, and they are frequently on many drug medications, which we see frequently in our clinic,” he said.
 

Study details

To see whether immunotherapy could improve outcomes for unfit patients, investigators designed the IPSOS trial, a phase 3 multicenter open-label study of efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes with atezolizumab compared with single-agent chemotherapy.

Patients from 23 centers in North America, South America, Europe, and Asia who were ineligible for platinum-based chemotherapy because of ECOG performance status of 2 or 3, or who were aged 70 or older with performance status 0 or 1 but with multiple comorbidities or other contraindications to platinum were stratified by histology, programmed death-ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression, and brain metastases, and were then randomly assigned to receive either atezolizumab 1,200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks (302 patients), or to investigator’s choice of either vinorelbine delivered orally or intravenously, according to local practice, or intravenous gemcitabine given intravenously per local practice (151 patients).

As noted before, overall survival, the primary endpoint, was significantly better with atezolizumab, translating into a 22% reduction in risk of death compared with chemotherapy.

The 1-year OS rates were 43.7% with atezolizumab vs. 36.6% with chemotherapy, and the 2-year rates were 24.3% vs. 12.4%, respectively.

­­A subgroup analysis showed trends toward better benefit for immunotherapy regardless of age, sex, race, performance status, history of tobacco use, tumor histology, stage, presence of liver metastases, number of metastatic sites, or PD-L1 expression levels. The benefit of atezolizumab was also significantly better among patients without brain metastases.

The median duration of response was 14 months with ateziluzmab vs. 7.8 months with chemotherapy. Respective objective response rates were 16.9% vs. 15.5%. Median progression-free survival, a secondary endpoint, was 4.2 months with atezolizumab and 4 months with chemotherapy, a difference that was not statistically significant. Median treatment duration was 3.5 months with atezolizumab, 2.3 months with gemcitabine, and 1.8 months with vinorelbine. Treatment-related adverse events of any grade occurred in 57% of patients on immunotherapy vs. 80.3% of those on chemotherapy. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events related to therapy occurred in 16.3% vs. 33.3%, respectively. About 13% of patients in each arm had an adverse event leading to drug discontinuation. There were three treatment-related deaths among patients on atezolizumab, and four among patients on chemotherapy. Compared with chemotherapy, atezolizumab was associated with stabilizing of health-related quality-of-life domains of functioning, and significant improvement in delaying the time to deterioration of chest pain.
 

Age is not prognostic

“I think it’s important though to remember that in this study there are very distinct populations of patients. Poor performance status and comorbidities are prognostic, but age is not,” Dr. Leighl said in her discussion.

“In terms of current standards, performance status 3 patients are currently recommended to have best supportive care unless a targeted therapy is available for them, and while PS 2 patients have been excluded from checkpoint inhibitor trials, we treat most of these patients the same way. In this study in particular, patients had to be ineligible for platinum doublet therapy, but of course this definition was subjective,” she said.

She also commented that “if we’re now going to treat everyone with atezolizumab, I think the budget impact of this is going to be huge.”

It will be important to identify more clearly those patients aged 80 and older who might benefit from atezolizumab in this setting by better incorporating biomarkers such as PD-L1 levels to determine who can benefit from therapy and who might be spared the necessity of coming into the hospital or clinic for regular intravenous infusions, she added.

The study was supported by F. Hoffman-La Roche. Dr. Lee disclosed research funding from the company to his institution. Dr. Leighl disclosed institutional grant funding and personal fees from Roche and others.

PARIS – Patients with untreated non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who could not withstand the rigors of platinum-based chemotherapy regimens had significantly better overall survival when treated with the immune checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab (Tecentriq), compared with their counterparts treated with either vinorelbine or gemcitabine in a phase 3 randomized trial.

Among 353 patients with treatment-naive stage 3B to 4 NSCLC who were not candidates for platinum-based chemotherapy because of poor performance status (PS), advanced age, or significant comorbidities, the median overall survival (OS) was 10.3 months for patients treated with atezolizumab vs. 9.2 months for patients assigned to receive the investigator’s choice of single-agent chemotherapy.

This difference translated into a hazard ratio for death with atezolizumab of 0.78 (P = .028), Siow Ming Lee, MD, PhD, of University College London, reported at the ESMO Congress.

The 2-year OS rate with atezolizumab was 24.3%, compared with 12.4% for single-agent chemotherapy.

“When I saw the data, I was amazed. One of four patients survived for 2 years!” he said in an interview.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Excluded from clinical trials

“Cancer chemotherapy has changed the treatment landscape for the metastatic NSCLC population, but these treatments are mainly recommended for fit patients,” Dr. Lee said during his presentation of the data in a presidential symposium.

First-line pivotal trials for lung cancer patients comparing either single-agent immunotherapy or an immunotherapy/chemotherapy combination have all been conducted in fit patients, with ECOG PS of 0 or 1, he noted.

“In reality, we still have a large population of unfit NSCLC patients, of at least 40%, many of which we cannot treat with standard platinum chemotherapy. There are many elderly patients with poor performance status, and the elderly with many comorbidities, and they are frequently on many drug medications, which we see frequently in our clinic,” he said.
 

Study details

To see whether immunotherapy could improve outcomes for unfit patients, investigators designed the IPSOS trial, a phase 3 multicenter open-label study of efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes with atezolizumab compared with single-agent chemotherapy.

Patients from 23 centers in North America, South America, Europe, and Asia who were ineligible for platinum-based chemotherapy because of ECOG performance status of 2 or 3, or who were aged 70 or older with performance status 0 or 1 but with multiple comorbidities or other contraindications to platinum were stratified by histology, programmed death-ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression, and brain metastases, and were then randomly assigned to receive either atezolizumab 1,200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks (302 patients), or to investigator’s choice of either vinorelbine delivered orally or intravenously, according to local practice, or intravenous gemcitabine given intravenously per local practice (151 patients).

As noted before, overall survival, the primary endpoint, was significantly better with atezolizumab, translating into a 22% reduction in risk of death compared with chemotherapy.

The 1-year OS rates were 43.7% with atezolizumab vs. 36.6% with chemotherapy, and the 2-year rates were 24.3% vs. 12.4%, respectively.

­­A subgroup analysis showed trends toward better benefit for immunotherapy regardless of age, sex, race, performance status, history of tobacco use, tumor histology, stage, presence of liver metastases, number of metastatic sites, or PD-L1 expression levels. The benefit of atezolizumab was also significantly better among patients without brain metastases.

The median duration of response was 14 months with ateziluzmab vs. 7.8 months with chemotherapy. Respective objective response rates were 16.9% vs. 15.5%. Median progression-free survival, a secondary endpoint, was 4.2 months with atezolizumab and 4 months with chemotherapy, a difference that was not statistically significant. Median treatment duration was 3.5 months with atezolizumab, 2.3 months with gemcitabine, and 1.8 months with vinorelbine. Treatment-related adverse events of any grade occurred in 57% of patients on immunotherapy vs. 80.3% of those on chemotherapy. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events related to therapy occurred in 16.3% vs. 33.3%, respectively. About 13% of patients in each arm had an adverse event leading to drug discontinuation. There were three treatment-related deaths among patients on atezolizumab, and four among patients on chemotherapy. Compared with chemotherapy, atezolizumab was associated with stabilizing of health-related quality-of-life domains of functioning, and significant improvement in delaying the time to deterioration of chest pain.
 

Age is not prognostic

“I think it’s important though to remember that in this study there are very distinct populations of patients. Poor performance status and comorbidities are prognostic, but age is not,” Dr. Leighl said in her discussion.

“In terms of current standards, performance status 3 patients are currently recommended to have best supportive care unless a targeted therapy is available for them, and while PS 2 patients have been excluded from checkpoint inhibitor trials, we treat most of these patients the same way. In this study in particular, patients had to be ineligible for platinum doublet therapy, but of course this definition was subjective,” she said.

She also commented that “if we’re now going to treat everyone with atezolizumab, I think the budget impact of this is going to be huge.”

It will be important to identify more clearly those patients aged 80 and older who might benefit from atezolizumab in this setting by better incorporating biomarkers such as PD-L1 levels to determine who can benefit from therapy and who might be spared the necessity of coming into the hospital or clinic for regular intravenous infusions, she added.

The study was supported by F. Hoffman-La Roche. Dr. Lee disclosed research funding from the company to his institution. Dr. Leighl disclosed institutional grant funding and personal fees from Roche and others.

Long-awaited global transgender care guidelines have dropped, with no recommendations regarding age limits for treatment and surgery in teenagers but acknowledging the complexity of dealing with such adolescents amid lack of longitudinal research on the impact of transitioning gender.

The World Professional Association of Transgender Health published its latest standards of care (SOC8) as it opens its annual meeting on Sept. 16 in Montreal.

Origovisualis/Getty Images

These are “the most comprehensive set of guidelines ever produced to assist health care professionals around the world in support of transgender and gender diverse adults, adolescents, and children who are taking steps to live their lives authentically,” wrote WPATH President Walter Bouman, MD, PhD, and WPATH President-Elect Marci Bowers, MD, in a news release.

The SOC8 is the first update to guidance on the treatment of transgender individuals in 10 years and appears online in the International Journal of Transgender Health.

For the first time, the association wrote a chapter dedicated to transgender and gender-diverse adolescents – distinct from the child chapter.
 

The complexity of treating adolescents

WPATH officials said that this was owed to exponential growth in adolescent referral rates, more research on adolescent gender diversity–related care, and the unique developmental and care issues of this age group.

Until recently, there was limited information regarding the prevalence of gender diversity among adolescents. Studies from high-school samples indicate much higher rates than was earlier thought, with reports of up to 1.2% of participants identifying as transgender and up to 2.7% or more (for example, 7%-9%) experiencing some level of self-reported gender diversity, WPATH said.

The new chapter “applies to adolescents from the start of puberty until the legal age of majority (in most cases 18 years),” it stated.

However, WPATH did not go as far as to recommend lowering the age at which youth can receive cross-sex hormone therapy or gender-affirming surgeries, as earlier decreed in a draft of the guidelines. That draft suggested that young people could receive hormone therapy at age 14 years and surgeries for double mastectomies at age 15 years and for genital reassignment at age 17 years.

The exception was phalloplasty – surgery to construct a penis in female-to-male individuals – which WPATH stressed should not be performed under the age of 18 years owing to its complexity.

Now, the final SOC8 emphasizes that each transgender adolescent is unique, and decisions must be made on an individual basis, with no recommendations on specific ages for any treatment. This could be interpreted in many ways.

The SOC8 also acknowledges the “very rare” regret of individuals who have transitioned to the opposite gender and then changed their minds.

“[Health care] providers may consider the possibility an adolescent may regret gender-affirming decisions made during adolescence, and a young person will want to stop treatment and return to living in the birth-assigned gender role in the future. Providers may discuss this topic in a collaborative and trusting manner with the adolescent and their parents/caregivers before gender-affirming medical treatments are started,” it states.

WPATH, in addition, stressed the importance of counseling and supporting regretting patients, many who “expressed difficulties finding help during their detransition process and reported their detransition was an isolating experience during which they did not receive either sufficient or appropriate support.”

Although it doesn’t put a firm figure on the rate of regret overall, in its chapter on surgery, WPATH estimates that 0.3%-3.8% of transgender individuals regret gender-affirming surgery.

SOC8 also acknowledges “A pattern of uneven ratios by assigned sex has been reported in gender clinics, with assigned female-at-birth patients initiating care 2.5-7.1 times more frequently” than patients who were assigned male at birth.

And WPATH states in SOC8 that another phenomenon is the growing number of adolescents seeking care who had not previously experienced or expressed gender diversity during their childhood years.

It goes on to cite the 2018 paper of Lisa Littman, MD, MPH, now president of the Institute for Comprehensive Gender Dysphoria Research. Dr. Littman coined the term, “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” to describe this phenomenon; SOC8 refrains from using this phrase, but does acknowledge: “For a select subgroup of young people, susceptibility to social influence impacting gender may be an important differential to consider.”

SOC8 recommends that before any medical or surgical treatment is considered, health care professionals “undertake a comprehensive biopsychosocial assessment of adolescents who present with gender identity-related concerns and seek medical/surgical transition-related care.”

And it specifically mentions that transgender adolescents “show high rates of autism spectrum disorder/characteristics,” and notes that “other neurodevelopmental presentations and/or mental health challenges may also be present, (e.g., ADHD, intellectual disability, and psychotic disorders).”

Who uses WPATH to guide care? This is ‘a big unknown’

WPATH is an umbrella organization with offshoots in most Western nations, such as USPATH in the United States, EPATH in Europe, and AUSPATH and NZPATH in Australia and New Zealand.

However, it is not the only organization to issue guidance on the care of transgender individuals; several specialties take care of this patient population, including, but not limited to: pediatricians, endocrinologists, psychiatrists, psychologists and plastic surgeons.

The extent to which any health care professional, or professional body, follows WPATH guidance is extremely varied.

“There is nothing binding clinicians to the SOC, and the SOC is so broad and vague that anyone can say they’re following it but according to their own biases and interpretation,” Aaron Kimberly, a trans man and mental health clinician from the Gender Dysphoria Alliance, said in an interview.

In North America, some clinics practice full “informed consent” with no assessment and prescriptions at the first visit, Mr. Kimberly said, whereas others do comprehensive assessments.

“I think SOC should be observed. It shouldn’t just be people going rogue,” Erica Anderson, a clinical psychologist in Berkeley, Calif., former president of USPATH, and former member of WPATH, who is herself transgender, said in an interview. “The reason there are standards of care is because hundreds of scientists have weighed in – is it perfect? No. We have a long way to go. But you can’t just ignore whatever it is that we know and let people make their own decisions.”

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

Long-awaited global transgender care guidelines have dropped, with no recommendations regarding age limits for treatment and surgery in teenagers but acknowledging the complexity of dealing with such adolescents amid lack of longitudinal research on the impact of transitioning gender.

The World Professional Association of Transgender Health published its latest standards of care (SOC8) as it opens its annual meeting on Sept. 16 in Montreal.

Origovisualis/Getty Images

These are “the most comprehensive set of guidelines ever produced to assist health care professionals around the world in support of transgender and gender diverse adults, adolescents, and children who are taking steps to live their lives authentically,” wrote WPATH President Walter Bouman, MD, PhD, and WPATH President-Elect Marci Bowers, MD, in a news release.

The SOC8 is the first update to guidance on the treatment of transgender individuals in 10 years and appears online in the International Journal of Transgender Health.

For the first time, the association wrote a chapter dedicated to transgender and gender-diverse adolescents – distinct from the child chapter.
 

The complexity of treating adolescents

WPATH officials said that this was owed to exponential growth in adolescent referral rates, more research on adolescent gender diversity–related care, and the unique developmental and care issues of this age group.

Until recently, there was limited information regarding the prevalence of gender diversity among adolescents. Studies from high-school samples indicate much higher rates than was earlier thought, with reports of up to 1.2% of participants identifying as transgender and up to 2.7% or more (for example, 7%-9%) experiencing some level of self-reported gender diversity, WPATH said.

The new chapter “applies to adolescents from the start of puberty until the legal age of majority (in most cases 18 years),” it stated.

However, WPATH did not go as far as to recommend lowering the age at which youth can receive cross-sex hormone therapy or gender-affirming surgeries, as earlier decreed in a draft of the guidelines. That draft suggested that young people could receive hormone therapy at age 14 years and surgeries for double mastectomies at age 15 years and for genital reassignment at age 17 years.

The exception was phalloplasty – surgery to construct a penis in female-to-male individuals – which WPATH stressed should not be performed under the age of 18 years owing to its complexity.

Now, the final SOC8 emphasizes that each transgender adolescent is unique, and decisions must be made on an individual basis, with no recommendations on specific ages for any treatment. This could be interpreted in many ways.

The SOC8 also acknowledges the “very rare” regret of individuals who have transitioned to the opposite gender and then changed their minds.

“[Health care] providers may consider the possibility an adolescent may regret gender-affirming decisions made during adolescence, and a young person will want to stop treatment and return to living in the birth-assigned gender role in the future. Providers may discuss this topic in a collaborative and trusting manner with the adolescent and their parents/caregivers before gender-affirming medical treatments are started,” it states.

WPATH, in addition, stressed the importance of counseling and supporting regretting patients, many who “expressed difficulties finding help during their detransition process and reported their detransition was an isolating experience during which they did not receive either sufficient or appropriate support.”

Although it doesn’t put a firm figure on the rate of regret overall, in its chapter on surgery, WPATH estimates that 0.3%-3.8% of transgender individuals regret gender-affirming surgery.

SOC8 also acknowledges “A pattern of uneven ratios by assigned sex has been reported in gender clinics, with assigned female-at-birth patients initiating care 2.5-7.1 times more frequently” than patients who were assigned male at birth.

And WPATH states in SOC8 that another phenomenon is the growing number of adolescents seeking care who had not previously experienced or expressed gender diversity during their childhood years.

It goes on to cite the 2018 paper of Lisa Littman, MD, MPH, now president of the Institute for Comprehensive Gender Dysphoria Research. Dr. Littman coined the term, “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” to describe this phenomenon; SOC8 refrains from using this phrase, but does acknowledge: “For a select subgroup of young people, susceptibility to social influence impacting gender may be an important differential to consider.”

SOC8 recommends that before any medical or surgical treatment is considered, health care professionals “undertake a comprehensive biopsychosocial assessment of adolescents who present with gender identity-related concerns and seek medical/surgical transition-related care.”

And it specifically mentions that transgender adolescents “show high rates of autism spectrum disorder/characteristics,” and notes that “other neurodevelopmental presentations and/or mental health challenges may also be present, (e.g., ADHD, intellectual disability, and psychotic disorders).”

Who uses WPATH to guide care? This is ‘a big unknown’

WPATH is an umbrella organization with offshoots in most Western nations, such as USPATH in the United States, EPATH in Europe, and AUSPATH and NZPATH in Australia and New Zealand.

However, it is not the only organization to issue guidance on the care of transgender individuals; several specialties take care of this patient population, including, but not limited to: pediatricians, endocrinologists, psychiatrists, psychologists and plastic surgeons.

The extent to which any health care professional, or professional body, follows WPATH guidance is extremely varied.

“There is nothing binding clinicians to the SOC, and the SOC is so broad and vague that anyone can say they’re following it but according to their own biases and interpretation,” Aaron Kimberly, a trans man and mental health clinician from the Gender Dysphoria Alliance, said in an interview.

In North America, some clinics practice full “informed consent” with no assessment and prescriptions at the first visit, Mr. Kimberly said, whereas others do comprehensive assessments.

“I think SOC should be observed. It shouldn’t just be people going rogue,” Erica Anderson, a clinical psychologist in Berkeley, Calif., former president of USPATH, and former member of WPATH, who is herself transgender, said in an interview. “The reason there are standards of care is because hundreds of scientists have weighed in – is it perfect? No. We have a long way to go. But you can’t just ignore whatever it is that we know and let people make their own decisions.”

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

Long-awaited global transgender care guidelines have dropped, with no recommendations regarding age limits for treatment and surgery in teenagers but acknowledging the complexity of dealing with such adolescents amid lack of longitudinal research on the impact of transitioning gender.

The World Professional Association of Transgender Health published its latest standards of care (SOC8) as it opens its annual meeting on Sept. 16 in Montreal.

Origovisualis/Getty Images

These are “the most comprehensive set of guidelines ever produced to assist health care professionals around the world in support of transgender and gender diverse adults, adolescents, and children who are taking steps to live their lives authentically,” wrote WPATH President Walter Bouman, MD, PhD, and WPATH President-Elect Marci Bowers, MD, in a news release.

The SOC8 is the first update to guidance on the treatment of transgender individuals in 10 years and appears online in the International Journal of Transgender Health.

For the first time, the association wrote a chapter dedicated to transgender and gender-diverse adolescents – distinct from the child chapter.
 

The complexity of treating adolescents

WPATH officials said that this was owed to exponential growth in adolescent referral rates, more research on adolescent gender diversity–related care, and the unique developmental and care issues of this age group.

Until recently, there was limited information regarding the prevalence of gender diversity among adolescents. Studies from high-school samples indicate much higher rates than was earlier thought, with reports of up to 1.2% of participants identifying as transgender and up to 2.7% or more (for example, 7%-9%) experiencing some level of self-reported gender diversity, WPATH said.

The new chapter “applies to adolescents from the start of puberty until the legal age of majority (in most cases 18 years),” it stated.

However, WPATH did not go as far as to recommend lowering the age at which youth can receive cross-sex hormone therapy or gender-affirming surgeries, as earlier decreed in a draft of the guidelines. That draft suggested that young people could receive hormone therapy at age 14 years and surgeries for double mastectomies at age 15 years and for genital reassignment at age 17 years.

The exception was phalloplasty – surgery to construct a penis in female-to-male individuals – which WPATH stressed should not be performed under the age of 18 years owing to its complexity.

Now, the final SOC8 emphasizes that each transgender adolescent is unique, and decisions must be made on an individual basis, with no recommendations on specific ages for any treatment. This could be interpreted in many ways.

The SOC8 also acknowledges the “very rare” regret of individuals who have transitioned to the opposite gender and then changed their minds.

“[Health care] providers may consider the possibility an adolescent may regret gender-affirming decisions made during adolescence, and a young person will want to stop treatment and return to living in the birth-assigned gender role in the future. Providers may discuss this topic in a collaborative and trusting manner with the adolescent and their parents/caregivers before gender-affirming medical treatments are started,” it states.

WPATH, in addition, stressed the importance of counseling and supporting regretting patients, many who “expressed difficulties finding help during their detransition process and reported their detransition was an isolating experience during which they did not receive either sufficient or appropriate support.”

Although it doesn’t put a firm figure on the rate of regret overall, in its chapter on surgery, WPATH estimates that 0.3%-3.8% of transgender individuals regret gender-affirming surgery.

SOC8 also acknowledges “A pattern of uneven ratios by assigned sex has been reported in gender clinics, with assigned female-at-birth patients initiating care 2.5-7.1 times more frequently” than patients who were assigned male at birth.

And WPATH states in SOC8 that another phenomenon is the growing number of adolescents seeking care who had not previously experienced or expressed gender diversity during their childhood years.

It goes on to cite the 2018 paper of Lisa Littman, MD, MPH, now president of the Institute for Comprehensive Gender Dysphoria Research. Dr. Littman coined the term, “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” to describe this phenomenon; SOC8 refrains from using this phrase, but does acknowledge: “For a select subgroup of young people, susceptibility to social influence impacting gender may be an important differential to consider.”

SOC8 recommends that before any medical or surgical treatment is considered, health care professionals “undertake a comprehensive biopsychosocial assessment of adolescents who present with gender identity-related concerns and seek medical/surgical transition-related care.”

And it specifically mentions that transgender adolescents “show high rates of autism spectrum disorder/characteristics,” and notes that “other neurodevelopmental presentations and/or mental health challenges may also be present, (e.g., ADHD, intellectual disability, and psychotic disorders).”

Who uses WPATH to guide care? This is ‘a big unknown’

WPATH is an umbrella organization with offshoots in most Western nations, such as USPATH in the United States, EPATH in Europe, and AUSPATH and NZPATH in Australia and New Zealand.

However, it is not the only organization to issue guidance on the care of transgender individuals; several specialties take care of this patient population, including, but not limited to: pediatricians, endocrinologists, psychiatrists, psychologists and plastic surgeons.

The extent to which any health care professional, or professional body, follows WPATH guidance is extremely varied.

“There is nothing binding clinicians to the SOC, and the SOC is so broad and vague that anyone can say they’re following it but according to their own biases and interpretation,” Aaron Kimberly, a trans man and mental health clinician from the Gender Dysphoria Alliance, said in an interview.

In North America, some clinics practice full “informed consent” with no assessment and prescriptions at the first visit, Mr. Kimberly said, whereas others do comprehensive assessments.

“I think SOC should be observed. It shouldn’t just be people going rogue,” Erica Anderson, a clinical psychologist in Berkeley, Calif., former president of USPATH, and former member of WPATH, who is herself transgender, said in an interview. “The reason there are standards of care is because hundreds of scientists have weighed in – is it perfect? No. We have a long way to go. But you can’t just ignore whatever it is that we know and let people make their own decisions.”

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