Women who used levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices (LG-IUDs) were 22% less likely to have a stroke than those who did not use hormonal contraception, new research suggested.

The Danish study, which included 1.7 million women, also showed no increased risk for intracerebral hemorrhage for those using the IUDs.

“The finding raises the question of whether levonorgestrel, in addition to its contraceptive properties, could have the potential to prevent (ischemic stroke),” wrote corresponding author Tom Skyhøj Olsen, MD, PhD, of Bispebjerg University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark, and coauthors.

The research was published online on May 16, 2024, in the journal Stroke.
 

A Big-Picture Look

Commonly used combined hormonal contraceptives that contain both progestins and ethinylestradiol are linked to an increased risk for ischemic stroke. Previous research suggested that progestin-only options, including LG-IUDs, are not associated with elevated risk and may even lower the risk. The IUDs had also been previously associated with lower risk for thromboembolism.

The new study was a large-scale investigation of all reproductive-age women in Denmark that compared stroke risk in those who used the progestin-only IUDs with those who didn’t use hormonal contraception. It also examined the risk for intracerebral hemorrhage, which had not been previously studied.

The historic cohort study drew on several large national databases in Denmark, including the Danish Stroke Registry, to evaluate the interplay between IUD contraception, stroke, and intracerebral hemorrhage. The study looked back at data collected on all nonpregnant Danish women aged 18-49 years who lived in Denmark for some or all of the period between 2004 and 2021.

Mean age of the 1.7 million women in the study was 30 years, and the mean follow-up period was about 7 years. More than 364,700 participants used LG-IUDs.

During the study period, 2916 women had an ischemic stroke, and 367 experienced intracerebral hemorrhage.

Among IUD users, the incidence of stroke was 19.2 per 100,000 person years. For women who didn’t use contraception, the rate was 25.2.

Overall, those who used an IUD had a 22% lower risk for ischemic stroke than those who didn’t (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.70-0.88).

The incidence of brain bleeds was similar in both groups.

Does Age Matter?

The incidence of stroke did not differ significantly between the three age groups analyzed in the study: Women aged 18-29 years, 30-39 years, and 40-49 years. Incidence rates of intracerebral hemorrhage were similar between age groups 30-39 years and 40-49 years, but the risk was higher for those aged 18-29 years than for those aged 40-49 years (IRR, 4.49; 95% CI, 1.65-12.19).

The researchers urged caution in interpreting the apparent higher risk for brain bleeds in younger women, noting that the overall number of events was low, resulting in wide CIs.

Investigators also found that women who moved to Denmark from non-Western countries had a significantly lower stroke rate than native Danes. Incidence rates of intracerebral hemorrhage were not affected by country of origin.

The research team noted that they had only indirect information about women’s stroke risk factors including diabetes, high blood pressure, and migraine and had no information about smoking, alcohol consumption, and body mass index.

“Regarding a possible potential for stroke prevention, our study cannot stand alone and requires confirmation in further research. Even though the incidence rate for [ischemic stroke] and [intracerebral hemorrhage] did not significantly change after adjustment for various factors, bias…cannot be fully ruled out,” the researchers wrote.

The study was funded by the Aase og Ejnar Danielsens Fond and Familien Hede Nielsens Fond. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Women who used levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices (LG-IUDs) were 22% less likely to have a stroke than those who did not use hormonal contraception, new research suggested.

The Danish study, which included 1.7 million women, also showed no increased risk for intracerebral hemorrhage for those using the IUDs.

“The finding raises the question of whether levonorgestrel, in addition to its contraceptive properties, could have the potential to prevent (ischemic stroke),” wrote corresponding author Tom Skyhøj Olsen, MD, PhD, of Bispebjerg University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark, and coauthors.

The research was published online on May 16, 2024, in the journal Stroke.
 

A Big-Picture Look

Commonly used combined hormonal contraceptives that contain both progestins and ethinylestradiol are linked to an increased risk for ischemic stroke. Previous research suggested that progestin-only options, including LG-IUDs, are not associated with elevated risk and may even lower the risk. The IUDs had also been previously associated with lower risk for thromboembolism.

The new study was a large-scale investigation of all reproductive-age women in Denmark that compared stroke risk in those who used the progestin-only IUDs with those who didn’t use hormonal contraception. It also examined the risk for intracerebral hemorrhage, which had not been previously studied.

The historic cohort study drew on several large national databases in Denmark, including the Danish Stroke Registry, to evaluate the interplay between IUD contraception, stroke, and intracerebral hemorrhage. The study looked back at data collected on all nonpregnant Danish women aged 18-49 years who lived in Denmark for some or all of the period between 2004 and 2021.

Mean age of the 1.7 million women in the study was 30 years, and the mean follow-up period was about 7 years. More than 364,700 participants used LG-IUDs.

During the study period, 2916 women had an ischemic stroke, and 367 experienced intracerebral hemorrhage.

Among IUD users, the incidence of stroke was 19.2 per 100,000 person years. For women who didn’t use contraception, the rate was 25.2.

Overall, those who used an IUD had a 22% lower risk for ischemic stroke than those who didn’t (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.70-0.88).

The incidence of brain bleeds was similar in both groups.

Does Age Matter?

The incidence of stroke did not differ significantly between the three age groups analyzed in the study: Women aged 18-29 years, 30-39 years, and 40-49 years. Incidence rates of intracerebral hemorrhage were similar between age groups 30-39 years and 40-49 years, but the risk was higher for those aged 18-29 years than for those aged 40-49 years (IRR, 4.49; 95% CI, 1.65-12.19).

The researchers urged caution in interpreting the apparent higher risk for brain bleeds in younger women, noting that the overall number of events was low, resulting in wide CIs.

Investigators also found that women who moved to Denmark from non-Western countries had a significantly lower stroke rate than native Danes. Incidence rates of intracerebral hemorrhage were not affected by country of origin.

The research team noted that they had only indirect information about women’s stroke risk factors including diabetes, high blood pressure, and migraine and had no information about smoking, alcohol consumption, and body mass index.

“Regarding a possible potential for stroke prevention, our study cannot stand alone and requires confirmation in further research. Even though the incidence rate for [ischemic stroke] and [intracerebral hemorrhage] did not significantly change after adjustment for various factors, bias…cannot be fully ruled out,” the researchers wrote.

The study was funded by the Aase og Ejnar Danielsens Fond and Familien Hede Nielsens Fond. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Women who used levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices (LG-IUDs) were 22% less likely to have a stroke than those who did not use hormonal contraception, new research suggested.

The Danish study, which included 1.7 million women, also showed no increased risk for intracerebral hemorrhage for those using the IUDs.

“The finding raises the question of whether levonorgestrel, in addition to its contraceptive properties, could have the potential to prevent (ischemic stroke),” wrote corresponding author Tom Skyhøj Olsen, MD, PhD, of Bispebjerg University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark, and coauthors.

The research was published online on May 16, 2024, in the journal Stroke.
 

A Big-Picture Look

Commonly used combined hormonal contraceptives that contain both progestins and ethinylestradiol are linked to an increased risk for ischemic stroke. Previous research suggested that progestin-only options, including LG-IUDs, are not associated with elevated risk and may even lower the risk. The IUDs had also been previously associated with lower risk for thromboembolism.

The new study was a large-scale investigation of all reproductive-age women in Denmark that compared stroke risk in those who used the progestin-only IUDs with those who didn’t use hormonal contraception. It also examined the risk for intracerebral hemorrhage, which had not been previously studied.

The historic cohort study drew on several large national databases in Denmark, including the Danish Stroke Registry, to evaluate the interplay between IUD contraception, stroke, and intracerebral hemorrhage. The study looked back at data collected on all nonpregnant Danish women aged 18-49 years who lived in Denmark for some or all of the period between 2004 and 2021.

Mean age of the 1.7 million women in the study was 30 years, and the mean follow-up period was about 7 years. More than 364,700 participants used LG-IUDs.

During the study period, 2916 women had an ischemic stroke, and 367 experienced intracerebral hemorrhage.

Among IUD users, the incidence of stroke was 19.2 per 100,000 person years. For women who didn’t use contraception, the rate was 25.2.

Overall, those who used an IUD had a 22% lower risk for ischemic stroke than those who didn’t (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.70-0.88).

The incidence of brain bleeds was similar in both groups.

Does Age Matter?

The incidence of stroke did not differ significantly between the three age groups analyzed in the study: Women aged 18-29 years, 30-39 years, and 40-49 years. Incidence rates of intracerebral hemorrhage were similar between age groups 30-39 years and 40-49 years, but the risk was higher for those aged 18-29 years than for those aged 40-49 years (IRR, 4.49; 95% CI, 1.65-12.19).

The researchers urged caution in interpreting the apparent higher risk for brain bleeds in younger women, noting that the overall number of events was low, resulting in wide CIs.

Investigators also found that women who moved to Denmark from non-Western countries had a significantly lower stroke rate than native Danes. Incidence rates of intracerebral hemorrhage were not affected by country of origin.

The research team noted that they had only indirect information about women’s stroke risk factors including diabetes, high blood pressure, and migraine and had no information about smoking, alcohol consumption, and body mass index.

“Regarding a possible potential for stroke prevention, our study cannot stand alone and requires confirmation in further research. Even though the incidence rate for [ischemic stroke] and [intracerebral hemorrhage] did not significantly change after adjustment for various factors, bias…cannot be fully ruled out,” the researchers wrote.

The study was funded by the Aase og Ejnar Danielsens Fond and Familien Hede Nielsens Fond. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Children with concomitant atopic dermatitis (AD) and alopecia areata (AA) who were treated with dupilumab demonstrated significant hair regrowth over a mean of nearly 68 weeks, preliminary results from a small case series showed.

“We might be opening a new avenue for a safe, long-term treatment for our children with AA,” the study’s lead investigator, Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, professor and chair of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said in an interview during the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology (SID), where the results were presented during a poster session. “I think AA is likely joining the atopic march, which may allow us to adapt some treatments from the atopy world to AA.”

When the original phase 2 and phase 3 trials of dupilumab for patients with moderate to severe AD were being conducted, Dr. Guttman-Yassky, one of the investigators, recalled observing that some patients who also had patch alopecia experienced hair regrowth. “I was scratching my head because, at the time, AA was considered to be only a Th1-driven disease,” she said. “I asked myself, ‘How can this happen?’ I looked in the literature and found many publications linking atopy in general to alopecia areata. The largest of the dermatologic publications showed that eczema and atopy in general are the highest comorbidities in alopecia areata.”

Courtesy Mount Sinai Health System

“This and other findings such as IL [interleukin]-13 genetic linkage with AA and high IgE in patients with AA link AA with Th2 immune skewing, particularly in the setting of atopy,” she continued. In addition, she said, in a large biomarker study involving the scalp and blood of patients with AA, “we found increases in Th2 biomarkers that were associated with alopecia severity.”
 

Case Series of 20 Pediatric Patients

As part of a case series of children with both AD and AA, Dr. Guttman-Yassky and colleagues evaluated hair regrowth using the Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) in 20 pediatric patients (mean age, 10.8 years) who were being treated at Mount Sinai. They collected patient demographics, atopic history, immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels, and SALT scores at follow-up visits every 12-16 weeks for more than 72 weeks and performed Spearman correlations between clinical scores, demographics, and IgE levels.

At baseline, the mean SALT score was 54.4, the mean IgE level was 1567.7 IU/mL, and 75% of patients also had a family history of atopy. The mean follow-up was 67.6 weeks. The researchers observed a significant reduction in SALT scores at week 48 compared with baseline (a mean score of 20.4; P < .01) and continued improvement up to at least 72 weeks (P < .01 vs baseline). They also noted that patients who achieved a treatment response at week 24 had baseline IgE levels > 200 IU/mL.

In other findings, baseline IgE positively correlated with improvement in SALT scores at week 36 (P < .05), while baseline SALT scores positively correlated with disease duration (P < .01) and negatively correlated with improvement in SALT scores at weeks 24, 36, and 48 (P < .005). “The robustness of the response surprised me,” Dr. Guttman-Yassky said in the interview. “Dupilumab for AA takes time to work, but once it kicks in, it kicks in. It takes anywhere from 6 to 12 months to see hair regrowth.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including its small sample size and the fact that it was not a standardized trial. “But, based on our data and the adult data, we are very encouraged about the potential of using dupilumab for children with AA,” she said.

Mount Sinai recently announced that the National Institutes of Health awarded a $6.6 million, 5-year grant to Dr. Guttman-Yassky to further investigate dupilumab as a treatment for children with AA. She will lead a multicenter controlled trial of 76 children with alopecia affecting at least 30% of the scalp, who will be randomized 2:1 (dupilumab:placebo) for 48 weeks, followed by 48 weeks of open-label dupilumab for all participants, with 16 weeks of follow-up, for a total of 112 weeks. Participating sites include Mount Sinai, Yale University, Northwestern University, and the University of California, Irvine.

Dr. Guttman-Yassky disclosed that she is a consultant to many pharmaceutical companies, including dupilumab manufacturers Sanofi and Regeneron.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Children with concomitant atopic dermatitis (AD) and alopecia areata (AA) who were treated with dupilumab demonstrated significant hair regrowth over a mean of nearly 68 weeks, preliminary results from a small case series showed.

“We might be opening a new avenue for a safe, long-term treatment for our children with AA,” the study’s lead investigator, Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, professor and chair of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said in an interview during the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology (SID), where the results were presented during a poster session. “I think AA is likely joining the atopic march, which may allow us to adapt some treatments from the atopy world to AA.”

When the original phase 2 and phase 3 trials of dupilumab for patients with moderate to severe AD were being conducted, Dr. Guttman-Yassky, one of the investigators, recalled observing that some patients who also had patch alopecia experienced hair regrowth. “I was scratching my head because, at the time, AA was considered to be only a Th1-driven disease,” she said. “I asked myself, ‘How can this happen?’ I looked in the literature and found many publications linking atopy in general to alopecia areata. The largest of the dermatologic publications showed that eczema and atopy in general are the highest comorbidities in alopecia areata.”

Courtesy Mount Sinai Health System

“This and other findings such as IL [interleukin]-13 genetic linkage with AA and high IgE in patients with AA link AA with Th2 immune skewing, particularly in the setting of atopy,” she continued. In addition, she said, in a large biomarker study involving the scalp and blood of patients with AA, “we found increases in Th2 biomarkers that were associated with alopecia severity.”
 

Case Series of 20 Pediatric Patients

As part of a case series of children with both AD and AA, Dr. Guttman-Yassky and colleagues evaluated hair regrowth using the Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) in 20 pediatric patients (mean age, 10.8 years) who were being treated at Mount Sinai. They collected patient demographics, atopic history, immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels, and SALT scores at follow-up visits every 12-16 weeks for more than 72 weeks and performed Spearman correlations between clinical scores, demographics, and IgE levels.

At baseline, the mean SALT score was 54.4, the mean IgE level was 1567.7 IU/mL, and 75% of patients also had a family history of atopy. The mean follow-up was 67.6 weeks. The researchers observed a significant reduction in SALT scores at week 48 compared with baseline (a mean score of 20.4; P < .01) and continued improvement up to at least 72 weeks (P < .01 vs baseline). They also noted that patients who achieved a treatment response at week 24 had baseline IgE levels > 200 IU/mL.

In other findings, baseline IgE positively correlated with improvement in SALT scores at week 36 (P < .05), while baseline SALT scores positively correlated with disease duration (P < .01) and negatively correlated with improvement in SALT scores at weeks 24, 36, and 48 (P < .005). “The robustness of the response surprised me,” Dr. Guttman-Yassky said in the interview. “Dupilumab for AA takes time to work, but once it kicks in, it kicks in. It takes anywhere from 6 to 12 months to see hair regrowth.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including its small sample size and the fact that it was not a standardized trial. “But, based on our data and the adult data, we are very encouraged about the potential of using dupilumab for children with AA,” she said.

Mount Sinai recently announced that the National Institutes of Health awarded a $6.6 million, 5-year grant to Dr. Guttman-Yassky to further investigate dupilumab as a treatment for children with AA. She will lead a multicenter controlled trial of 76 children with alopecia affecting at least 30% of the scalp, who will be randomized 2:1 (dupilumab:placebo) for 48 weeks, followed by 48 weeks of open-label dupilumab for all participants, with 16 weeks of follow-up, for a total of 112 weeks. Participating sites include Mount Sinai, Yale University, Northwestern University, and the University of California, Irvine.

Dr. Guttman-Yassky disclosed that she is a consultant to many pharmaceutical companies, including dupilumab manufacturers Sanofi and Regeneron.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Children with concomitant atopic dermatitis (AD) and alopecia areata (AA) who were treated with dupilumab demonstrated significant hair regrowth over a mean of nearly 68 weeks, preliminary results from a small case series showed.

“We might be opening a new avenue for a safe, long-term treatment for our children with AA,” the study’s lead investigator, Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, professor and chair of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said in an interview during the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology (SID), where the results were presented during a poster session. “I think AA is likely joining the atopic march, which may allow us to adapt some treatments from the atopy world to AA.”

When the original phase 2 and phase 3 trials of dupilumab for patients with moderate to severe AD were being conducted, Dr. Guttman-Yassky, one of the investigators, recalled observing that some patients who also had patch alopecia experienced hair regrowth. “I was scratching my head because, at the time, AA was considered to be only a Th1-driven disease,” she said. “I asked myself, ‘How can this happen?’ I looked in the literature and found many publications linking atopy in general to alopecia areata. The largest of the dermatologic publications showed that eczema and atopy in general are the highest comorbidities in alopecia areata.”

Courtesy Mount Sinai Health System

“This and other findings such as IL [interleukin]-13 genetic linkage with AA and high IgE in patients with AA link AA with Th2 immune skewing, particularly in the setting of atopy,” she continued. In addition, she said, in a large biomarker study involving the scalp and blood of patients with AA, “we found increases in Th2 biomarkers that were associated with alopecia severity.”
 

Case Series of 20 Pediatric Patients

As part of a case series of children with both AD and AA, Dr. Guttman-Yassky and colleagues evaluated hair regrowth using the Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) in 20 pediatric patients (mean age, 10.8 years) who were being treated at Mount Sinai. They collected patient demographics, atopic history, immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels, and SALT scores at follow-up visits every 12-16 weeks for more than 72 weeks and performed Spearman correlations between clinical scores, demographics, and IgE levels.

At baseline, the mean SALT score was 54.4, the mean IgE level was 1567.7 IU/mL, and 75% of patients also had a family history of atopy. The mean follow-up was 67.6 weeks. The researchers observed a significant reduction in SALT scores at week 48 compared with baseline (a mean score of 20.4; P < .01) and continued improvement up to at least 72 weeks (P < .01 vs baseline). They also noted that patients who achieved a treatment response at week 24 had baseline IgE levels > 200 IU/mL.

In other findings, baseline IgE positively correlated with improvement in SALT scores at week 36 (P < .05), while baseline SALT scores positively correlated with disease duration (P < .01) and negatively correlated with improvement in SALT scores at weeks 24, 36, and 48 (P < .005). “The robustness of the response surprised me,” Dr. Guttman-Yassky said in the interview. “Dupilumab for AA takes time to work, but once it kicks in, it kicks in. It takes anywhere from 6 to 12 months to see hair regrowth.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including its small sample size and the fact that it was not a standardized trial. “But, based on our data and the adult data, we are very encouraged about the potential of using dupilumab for children with AA,” she said.

Mount Sinai recently announced that the National Institutes of Health awarded a $6.6 million, 5-year grant to Dr. Guttman-Yassky to further investigate dupilumab as a treatment for children with AA. She will lead a multicenter controlled trial of 76 children with alopecia affecting at least 30% of the scalp, who will be randomized 2:1 (dupilumab:placebo) for 48 weeks, followed by 48 weeks of open-label dupilumab for all participants, with 16 weeks of follow-up, for a total of 112 weeks. Participating sites include Mount Sinai, Yale University, Northwestern University, and the University of California, Irvine.

Dr. Guttman-Yassky disclosed that she is a consultant to many pharmaceutical companies, including dupilumab manufacturers Sanofi and Regeneron.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Women with low bone density are more likely to report their first fragility hip fracture in their 60s rather than at older ages.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used hip fracture data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for 2009-2010, 2013-2014, and 2017-2018.
• They included women older than 60 years with a bone mineral density T score ≤ −1 at the femur neck, measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry.
• Fragility fractures are defined as a self-reported hip fracture resulting from a fall from standing height or less.

TAKEAWAY:

• The number of women in their 60s who reported their first hip fracture grew by 50% from 2009 to 2018.
• The opposite was true for women in their 70s and 80s who reported fewer first hip fractures over the study period.
• Reported fragility hip fractures in women overall decreased by half from 2009 to 2018.
• The prevalence of women with osteoporosis (T score ≤ −2.5) grew from 18.1% to 21.3% over 10 years.

IN PRACTICE:

The decrease in fractures overall and in women older than 70 years “may be due to increasing awareness and utilization of measures to decrease falls such as exercise, nutrition, health education, and environmental modifications targeted toward the elderly population,” the authors wrote. The findings also underscore the importance of earlier bone health awareness in primary care to curb the rising trend in younger women, they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Avica Atri, MD, of Albert Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia. She presented the findings at ENDO 2024: The Endocrine Society Annual Meeting.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective in nature and included self-reported health data.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no commercial funding. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Women with low bone density are more likely to report their first fragility hip fracture in their 60s rather than at older ages.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used hip fracture data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for 2009-2010, 2013-2014, and 2017-2018.
• They included women older than 60 years with a bone mineral density T score ≤ −1 at the femur neck, measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry.
• Fragility fractures are defined as a self-reported hip fracture resulting from a fall from standing height or less.

TAKEAWAY:

• The number of women in their 60s who reported their first hip fracture grew by 50% from 2009 to 2018.
• The opposite was true for women in their 70s and 80s who reported fewer first hip fractures over the study period.
• Reported fragility hip fractures in women overall decreased by half from 2009 to 2018.
• The prevalence of women with osteoporosis (T score ≤ −2.5) grew from 18.1% to 21.3% over 10 years.

IN PRACTICE:

The decrease in fractures overall and in women older than 70 years “may be due to increasing awareness and utilization of measures to decrease falls such as exercise, nutrition, health education, and environmental modifications targeted toward the elderly population,” the authors wrote. The findings also underscore the importance of earlier bone health awareness in primary care to curb the rising trend in younger women, they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Avica Atri, MD, of Albert Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia. She presented the findings at ENDO 2024: The Endocrine Society Annual Meeting.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective in nature and included self-reported health data.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no commercial funding. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Women with low bone density are more likely to report their first fragility hip fracture in their 60s rather than at older ages.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used hip fracture data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for 2009-2010, 2013-2014, and 2017-2018.
• They included women older than 60 years with a bone mineral density T score ≤ −1 at the femur neck, measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry.
• Fragility fractures are defined as a self-reported hip fracture resulting from a fall from standing height or less.

TAKEAWAY:

• The number of women in their 60s who reported their first hip fracture grew by 50% from 2009 to 2018.
• The opposite was true for women in their 70s and 80s who reported fewer first hip fractures over the study period.
• Reported fragility hip fractures in women overall decreased by half from 2009 to 2018.
• The prevalence of women with osteoporosis (T score ≤ −2.5) grew from 18.1% to 21.3% over 10 years.

IN PRACTICE:

The decrease in fractures overall and in women older than 70 years “may be due to increasing awareness and utilization of measures to decrease falls such as exercise, nutrition, health education, and environmental modifications targeted toward the elderly population,” the authors wrote. The findings also underscore the importance of earlier bone health awareness in primary care to curb the rising trend in younger women, they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Avica Atri, MD, of Albert Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia. She presented the findings at ENDO 2024: The Endocrine Society Annual Meeting.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective in nature and included self-reported health data.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no commercial funding. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Tricia Ward: Hi. I’m Tricia Ward, from theheart.org/Medscape Cardiology. I’m joined today by Dr Matthew Budoff. He is professor of medicine at UCLA and the endowed chair of preventive cardiology at the Lundquist Institute. Welcome, Dr Budoff. 

Matthew J. Budoff, MD: Thank you. 

Dietary Calcium vs Coronary Calcium

Ms. Ward: The reason I wanted to talk to you today is because there have been some recent studies linking calcium supplements to an increased risk for cardiovascular disease. I’m old enough to remember when we used to tell people that dietary calcium and coronary calcium weren’t connected and weren’t the same. Were we wrong?

Dr. Budoff: I think there’s a large amount of mixed data out there still. The US Preventive Services Task Force looked into this a number of years ago and said there’s no association between calcium supplementation and increased risk for cardiovascular disease. 

As you mentioned, there are a couple of newer studies that point us toward a relationship. I think that we still have a little bit of a mixed bag, but we need to dive a little deeper into that to figure out what’s going on. 

Ms. Ward: Does it appear to be connected to calcium in the form of supplements vs calcium from foods? 

Dr. Budoff: We looked very carefully at dietary calcium in the MESA study, the multiethnic study of atherosclerosis. There is no relationship between dietary calcium intake and coronary calcium or cardiovascular events. We’re talking mostly about supplements now when we talk about this increased risk that we’re seeing.
 

Does Vitamin D Exacerbate Risk? 

Ms. Ward: Because it’s seen with supplements, is that likely because that’s a much higher concentration of calcium coming in or do you think it’s something inherent in its being in the form of a supplement?

Dr. Budoff: I think there are two things. One, it’s definitely a higher concentration all at once. You get many more milligrams at a time when you take a supplement than if you had a high-calcium food or drink.

Also, most supplements have vitamin D as well. I think vitamin D and calcium work synergistically. When you give them both together simultaneously, I think that may have more of a potentiating effect that might exacerbate any potential risk. 

Ms. Ward: Is there any reason to think there might be a difference in type of calcium supplement? I always think of the chalky tablet form vs calcium chews. 

Dr. Budoff: I’m not aware of a difference in the supplement type. I think the vitamin D issue is a big problem because we all have patients who take thousands of units of vitamin D — just crazy numbers. People advocate really high numbers and that stays in the system. 

Personally, I think part of the explanation is that with very high levels of vitamin D on top of calcium supplementation, you now absorb it better. You now get it into the bone, but maybe also into the coronary arteries. If you’re very high in vitamin D and then are taking a large calcium supplement, it might be the calcium/vitamin D combination that’s giving us some trouble. I think people on vitamin D supplements really need to watch their levels and not get supratherapeutic. 

Ms. Ward: With the vitamin D? 

Dr. Budoff: With the vitamin D.
 

Diabetes and Renal Function

Ms. Ward: In some of the studies, there seems to be a higher risk in patients with diabetes. Is there any reason why that would be?

Dr. Budoff: I can’t think of a reason exactly why with diabetes per se, except for renal disease. Patients with diabetes have more intrinsic renal disease, proteinuria, and even a reduced eGFR. We’ve seen that the kidney is very strongly tied to this. We have a very strong relationship, in work I’ve done a decade ago now, showing that calcium supplementation (in the form of phosphate binders) in patients on dialysis or with advanced renal disease is linked to much higher coronary calcium progression. 

We did prospective, randomized trials showing that calcium intake as binders to reduce phosphorus led to more coronary calcium. We always thought that was just relegated to the renal population, and there might be an overlap here with the diabetes and more renal disease. I have a feeling that it has to do with more of that. It might be regulation of parathyroid hormone as well, which might be more abnormal in patients with diabetes. 
 

Avoid Supratherapeutic Vitamin D Levels

Ms. Ward:: What are you telling your patients? 

Dr. Budoff: I tell patients with normal kidney function that the bone will modulate 99.9% of the calcium uptake. If they have osteopenia or osteoporosis, regardless of their calcium score, I’m very comfortable putting them on supplements. 

I’m a little more cautious with the vitamin D levels, and I keep an eye on that and regulate how much vitamin D they get based on their levels. I get them into the normal range, but I don’t want them supratherapeutic. You can even follow their calcium score. Again, we’ve shown that if you’re taking too much calcium, your calcium score will go up. I can just check it again in a couple of years to make sure that it’s safe. 

Ms. Ward:: In terms of vitamin D levels, when you’re saying “supratherapeutic,” what levels do you consider a safe amount to take?

Dr. Budoff: I’d like them under 100 ng/mL as far as their upper level. Normal is around 70 ng/mL at most labs. I try to keep them in the normal range. I don’t even want them to be high-normal if I’m going to be concomitantly giving them calcium supplements. Of course, if they have renal insufficiency, then I’m much more cautious. We’ve even seen calcium supplements raise the serum calcium, which you never see with dietary calcium. That’s another potential proof that it might be too much too fast. 

For renal patients, even in mild renal insufficiency, maybe even in diabetes where we’ve seen a signal, maybe aim lower in the amount of calcium supplementation if diet is insufficient, and aim a little lower in vitamin D targets, and I think you’ll be in a safer place. 

Ms. Ward: Is there anything else you want to add? 

Dr. Budoff: The evidence is still evolving. I’d say that it’s interesting and maybe a little frustrating that we don’t have a final answer on all of this. I would stay tuned for more data because we’re looking at many of the epidemiologic studies to try to see what happens in the real world, with both dietary intake of calcium and calcium supplementation. 

Ms. Ward: Thank you very much for joining me today. 

Dr. Budoff: It’s a pleasure. Thanks for having me. 

Dr. Budoff disclosed being a speaker for Amarin Pharma.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Tricia Ward: Hi. I’m Tricia Ward, from theheart.org/Medscape Cardiology. I’m joined today by Dr Matthew Budoff. He is professor of medicine at UCLA and the endowed chair of preventive cardiology at the Lundquist Institute. Welcome, Dr Budoff. 

Matthew J. Budoff, MD: Thank you. 

Dietary Calcium vs Coronary Calcium

Ms. Ward: The reason I wanted to talk to you today is because there have been some recent studies linking calcium supplements to an increased risk for cardiovascular disease. I’m old enough to remember when we used to tell people that dietary calcium and coronary calcium weren’t connected and weren’t the same. Were we wrong?

Dr. Budoff: I think there’s a large amount of mixed data out there still. The US Preventive Services Task Force looked into this a number of years ago and said there’s no association between calcium supplementation and increased risk for cardiovascular disease. 

As you mentioned, there are a couple of newer studies that point us toward a relationship. I think that we still have a little bit of a mixed bag, but we need to dive a little deeper into that to figure out what’s going on. 

Ms. Ward: Does it appear to be connected to calcium in the form of supplements vs calcium from foods? 

Dr. Budoff: We looked very carefully at dietary calcium in the MESA study, the multiethnic study of atherosclerosis. There is no relationship between dietary calcium intake and coronary calcium or cardiovascular events. We’re talking mostly about supplements now when we talk about this increased risk that we’re seeing.
 

Does Vitamin D Exacerbate Risk? 

Ms. Ward: Because it’s seen with supplements, is that likely because that’s a much higher concentration of calcium coming in or do you think it’s something inherent in its being in the form of a supplement?

Dr. Budoff: I think there are two things. One, it’s definitely a higher concentration all at once. You get many more milligrams at a time when you take a supplement than if you had a high-calcium food or drink.

Also, most supplements have vitamin D as well. I think vitamin D and calcium work synergistically. When you give them both together simultaneously, I think that may have more of a potentiating effect that might exacerbate any potential risk. 

Ms. Ward: Is there any reason to think there might be a difference in type of calcium supplement? I always think of the chalky tablet form vs calcium chews. 

Dr. Budoff: I’m not aware of a difference in the supplement type. I think the vitamin D issue is a big problem because we all have patients who take thousands of units of vitamin D — just crazy numbers. People advocate really high numbers and that stays in the system. 

Personally, I think part of the explanation is that with very high levels of vitamin D on top of calcium supplementation, you now absorb it better. You now get it into the bone, but maybe also into the coronary arteries. If you’re very high in vitamin D and then are taking a large calcium supplement, it might be the calcium/vitamin D combination that’s giving us some trouble. I think people on vitamin D supplements really need to watch their levels and not get supratherapeutic. 

Ms. Ward: With the vitamin D? 

Dr. Budoff: With the vitamin D.
 

Diabetes and Renal Function

Ms. Ward: In some of the studies, there seems to be a higher risk in patients with diabetes. Is there any reason why that would be?

Dr. Budoff: I can’t think of a reason exactly why with diabetes per se, except for renal disease. Patients with diabetes have more intrinsic renal disease, proteinuria, and even a reduced eGFR. We’ve seen that the kidney is very strongly tied to this. We have a very strong relationship, in work I’ve done a decade ago now, showing that calcium supplementation (in the form of phosphate binders) in patients on dialysis or with advanced renal disease is linked to much higher coronary calcium progression. 

We did prospective, randomized trials showing that calcium intake as binders to reduce phosphorus led to more coronary calcium. We always thought that was just relegated to the renal population, and there might be an overlap here with the diabetes and more renal disease. I have a feeling that it has to do with more of that. It might be regulation of parathyroid hormone as well, which might be more abnormal in patients with diabetes. 
 

Avoid Supratherapeutic Vitamin D Levels

Ms. Ward:: What are you telling your patients? 

Dr. Budoff: I tell patients with normal kidney function that the bone will modulate 99.9% of the calcium uptake. If they have osteopenia or osteoporosis, regardless of their calcium score, I’m very comfortable putting them on supplements. 

I’m a little more cautious with the vitamin D levels, and I keep an eye on that and regulate how much vitamin D they get based on their levels. I get them into the normal range, but I don’t want them supratherapeutic. You can even follow their calcium score. Again, we’ve shown that if you’re taking too much calcium, your calcium score will go up. I can just check it again in a couple of years to make sure that it’s safe. 

Ms. Ward:: In terms of vitamin D levels, when you’re saying “supratherapeutic,” what levels do you consider a safe amount to take?

Dr. Budoff: I’d like them under 100 ng/mL as far as their upper level. Normal is around 70 ng/mL at most labs. I try to keep them in the normal range. I don’t even want them to be high-normal if I’m going to be concomitantly giving them calcium supplements. Of course, if they have renal insufficiency, then I’m much more cautious. We’ve even seen calcium supplements raise the serum calcium, which you never see with dietary calcium. That’s another potential proof that it might be too much too fast. 

For renal patients, even in mild renal insufficiency, maybe even in diabetes where we’ve seen a signal, maybe aim lower in the amount of calcium supplementation if diet is insufficient, and aim a little lower in vitamin D targets, and I think you’ll be in a safer place. 

Ms. Ward: Is there anything else you want to add? 

Dr. Budoff: The evidence is still evolving. I’d say that it’s interesting and maybe a little frustrating that we don’t have a final answer on all of this. I would stay tuned for more data because we’re looking at many of the epidemiologic studies to try to see what happens in the real world, with both dietary intake of calcium and calcium supplementation. 

Ms. Ward: Thank you very much for joining me today. 

Dr. Budoff: It’s a pleasure. Thanks for having me. 

Dr. Budoff disclosed being a speaker for Amarin Pharma.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Tricia Ward: Hi. I’m Tricia Ward, from theheart.org/Medscape Cardiology. I’m joined today by Dr Matthew Budoff. He is professor of medicine at UCLA and the endowed chair of preventive cardiology at the Lundquist Institute. Welcome, Dr Budoff. 

Matthew J. Budoff, MD: Thank you. 

Dietary Calcium vs Coronary Calcium

Ms. Ward: The reason I wanted to talk to you today is because there have been some recent studies linking calcium supplements to an increased risk for cardiovascular disease. I’m old enough to remember when we used to tell people that dietary calcium and coronary calcium weren’t connected and weren’t the same. Were we wrong?

Dr. Budoff: I think there’s a large amount of mixed data out there still. The US Preventive Services Task Force looked into this a number of years ago and said there’s no association between calcium supplementation and increased risk for cardiovascular disease. 

As you mentioned, there are a couple of newer studies that point us toward a relationship. I think that we still have a little bit of a mixed bag, but we need to dive a little deeper into that to figure out what’s going on. 

Ms. Ward: Does it appear to be connected to calcium in the form of supplements vs calcium from foods? 

Dr. Budoff: We looked very carefully at dietary calcium in the MESA study, the multiethnic study of atherosclerosis. There is no relationship between dietary calcium intake and coronary calcium or cardiovascular events. We’re talking mostly about supplements now when we talk about this increased risk that we’re seeing.
 

Does Vitamin D Exacerbate Risk? 

Ms. Ward: Because it’s seen with supplements, is that likely because that’s a much higher concentration of calcium coming in or do you think it’s something inherent in its being in the form of a supplement?

Dr. Budoff: I think there are two things. One, it’s definitely a higher concentration all at once. You get many more milligrams at a time when you take a supplement than if you had a high-calcium food or drink.

Also, most supplements have vitamin D as well. I think vitamin D and calcium work synergistically. When you give them both together simultaneously, I think that may have more of a potentiating effect that might exacerbate any potential risk. 

Ms. Ward: Is there any reason to think there might be a difference in type of calcium supplement? I always think of the chalky tablet form vs calcium chews. 

Dr. Budoff: I’m not aware of a difference in the supplement type. I think the vitamin D issue is a big problem because we all have patients who take thousands of units of vitamin D — just crazy numbers. People advocate really high numbers and that stays in the system. 

Personally, I think part of the explanation is that with very high levels of vitamin D on top of calcium supplementation, you now absorb it better. You now get it into the bone, but maybe also into the coronary arteries. If you’re very high in vitamin D and then are taking a large calcium supplement, it might be the calcium/vitamin D combination that’s giving us some trouble. I think people on vitamin D supplements really need to watch their levels and not get supratherapeutic. 

Ms. Ward: With the vitamin D? 

Dr. Budoff: With the vitamin D.
 

Diabetes and Renal Function

Ms. Ward: In some of the studies, there seems to be a higher risk in patients with diabetes. Is there any reason why that would be?

Dr. Budoff: I can’t think of a reason exactly why with diabetes per se, except for renal disease. Patients with diabetes have more intrinsic renal disease, proteinuria, and even a reduced eGFR. We’ve seen that the kidney is very strongly tied to this. We have a very strong relationship, in work I’ve done a decade ago now, showing that calcium supplementation (in the form of phosphate binders) in patients on dialysis or with advanced renal disease is linked to much higher coronary calcium progression. 

We did prospective, randomized trials showing that calcium intake as binders to reduce phosphorus led to more coronary calcium. We always thought that was just relegated to the renal population, and there might be an overlap here with the diabetes and more renal disease. I have a feeling that it has to do with more of that. It might be regulation of parathyroid hormone as well, which might be more abnormal in patients with diabetes. 
 

Avoid Supratherapeutic Vitamin D Levels

Ms. Ward:: What are you telling your patients? 

Dr. Budoff: I tell patients with normal kidney function that the bone will modulate 99.9% of the calcium uptake. If they have osteopenia or osteoporosis, regardless of their calcium score, I’m very comfortable putting them on supplements. 

I’m a little more cautious with the vitamin D levels, and I keep an eye on that and regulate how much vitamin D they get based on their levels. I get them into the normal range, but I don’t want them supratherapeutic. You can even follow their calcium score. Again, we’ve shown that if you’re taking too much calcium, your calcium score will go up. I can just check it again in a couple of years to make sure that it’s safe. 

Ms. Ward:: In terms of vitamin D levels, when you’re saying “supratherapeutic,” what levels do you consider a safe amount to take?

Dr. Budoff: I’d like them under 100 ng/mL as far as their upper level. Normal is around 70 ng/mL at most labs. I try to keep them in the normal range. I don’t even want them to be high-normal if I’m going to be concomitantly giving them calcium supplements. Of course, if they have renal insufficiency, then I’m much more cautious. We’ve even seen calcium supplements raise the serum calcium, which you never see with dietary calcium. That’s another potential proof that it might be too much too fast. 

For renal patients, even in mild renal insufficiency, maybe even in diabetes where we’ve seen a signal, maybe aim lower in the amount of calcium supplementation if diet is insufficient, and aim a little lower in vitamin D targets, and I think you’ll be in a safer place. 

Ms. Ward: Is there anything else you want to add? 

Dr. Budoff: The evidence is still evolving. I’d say that it’s interesting and maybe a little frustrating that we don’t have a final answer on all of this. I would stay tuned for more data because we’re looking at many of the epidemiologic studies to try to see what happens in the real world, with both dietary intake of calcium and calcium supplementation. 

Ms. Ward: Thank you very much for joining me today. 

Dr. Budoff: It’s a pleasure. Thanks for having me. 

Dr. Budoff disclosed being a speaker for Amarin Pharma.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LYON, FRANCE — High levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] in the blood are associated with a significantly increased risk for chronic kidney disease, report investigators who are studying the link in a two-part study of more than 100,000 people.

There is already genetic evidence showing that Lp(a) can cause cardiovascular conditions, including myocardial infarction, aortic valve stenosis, peripheral artery disease, and ischemic stroke.

Now, researchers presenting at the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) 2024 Congress are adding new organs – the kidneys – to the list of those that can be damaged by elevated Lp(a).

“This is very important,” said lead investigator Anne Langsted, MD, PhD, DMSc, from the Department of Clinical Biochemistry at the Rigshospitalet in Denmark. And “hopefully, we’ll have a treatment for Lp(a) on the market very soon. Until then, I think individuals who have kidney disease would benefit a lot from reducing other risk factors, if they also have high levels” of Lp(a).

Using data gathered from the Copenhagen General Population Study, the study involved 108,439 individuals who had a range of tests including estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), plasma Lp(a) levels, and LPA genotyping. The patients were then linked to a series of national registries to study outcomes. 

The researchers conducted two separate analyses: an observational study of Lp(a) levels in 70,040 individuals and a Mendelian randomization study of LPA kringle IV–type 2 domain repeats in 106,624 individuals. The number of those repeats is inversely associated with median Lp(a) plasma levels.

The observational study showed that eGFR decreased with increasing median plasma Lp(a) levels; the Mendelian randomization study indicated that eGFR decreased KIV-2 repeat numbers dropped.

Across both parts of the study, it was found that each 50 mg/dL increase in plasma Lp(a) levels was associated with an increased risk of at least 25% for chronic kidney disease.
 

Lp(a) and Chronic Kidney Disease

When high plasma levels of Lp(a) have been spotted before in patients with kidney disease, “we’ve kind of assumed that it was probably the kidney disease that caused the higher levels,” Dr. Langsted said. But her team hypothesized that the opposite was at play and that Lp(a) levels are genetically determined, and increased plasma Lp(a) levels may be causally associated with rising risk for chronic kidney disease.

Gerald F. Watts, MD, PhD, DSc, Winthrop Professor of cardiometabolic and internal medicine at the University of Western Australia in Perth, and co-chair of the study, said in an interview that “although Mendelian randomization is a technique that allows you to infer causality, it’s probably a little bit more complex than that in reality,” adding that there is likely a bidirectional relationship between Lp(a) and chronic kidney disease.

Having increased Lp(a) levels on their own is not sufficient to trigger chronic kidney disease. “You probably need another event and then you get into a vicious cycle,” Dr. Watts said.

The mechanism linking Lp(a) with chronic kidney disease remains unclear, but Dr. Watts explained that the lipoprotein probably damages the renal tubes when it is reabsorbed after it dissociates from low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

The next step will be to identify the people who are most susceptible to this and figure out what treatment might help. Dr. Watts suggested that gene silencing, in which Lp(a) is “completely obliterated,” will lead to an improvement in renal function.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LYON, FRANCE — High levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] in the blood are associated with a significantly increased risk for chronic kidney disease, report investigators who are studying the link in a two-part study of more than 100,000 people.

There is already genetic evidence showing that Lp(a) can cause cardiovascular conditions, including myocardial infarction, aortic valve stenosis, peripheral artery disease, and ischemic stroke.

Now, researchers presenting at the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) 2024 Congress are adding new organs – the kidneys – to the list of those that can be damaged by elevated Lp(a).

“This is very important,” said lead investigator Anne Langsted, MD, PhD, DMSc, from the Department of Clinical Biochemistry at the Rigshospitalet in Denmark. And “hopefully, we’ll have a treatment for Lp(a) on the market very soon. Until then, I think individuals who have kidney disease would benefit a lot from reducing other risk factors, if they also have high levels” of Lp(a).

Using data gathered from the Copenhagen General Population Study, the study involved 108,439 individuals who had a range of tests including estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), plasma Lp(a) levels, and LPA genotyping. The patients were then linked to a series of national registries to study outcomes. 

The researchers conducted two separate analyses: an observational study of Lp(a) levels in 70,040 individuals and a Mendelian randomization study of LPA kringle IV–type 2 domain repeats in 106,624 individuals. The number of those repeats is inversely associated with median Lp(a) plasma levels.

The observational study showed that eGFR decreased with increasing median plasma Lp(a) levels; the Mendelian randomization study indicated that eGFR decreased KIV-2 repeat numbers dropped.

Across both parts of the study, it was found that each 50 mg/dL increase in plasma Lp(a) levels was associated with an increased risk of at least 25% for chronic kidney disease.
 

Lp(a) and Chronic Kidney Disease

When high plasma levels of Lp(a) have been spotted before in patients with kidney disease, “we’ve kind of assumed that it was probably the kidney disease that caused the higher levels,” Dr. Langsted said. But her team hypothesized that the opposite was at play and that Lp(a) levels are genetically determined, and increased plasma Lp(a) levels may be causally associated with rising risk for chronic kidney disease.

Gerald F. Watts, MD, PhD, DSc, Winthrop Professor of cardiometabolic and internal medicine at the University of Western Australia in Perth, and co-chair of the study, said in an interview that “although Mendelian randomization is a technique that allows you to infer causality, it’s probably a little bit more complex than that in reality,” adding that there is likely a bidirectional relationship between Lp(a) and chronic kidney disease.

Having increased Lp(a) levels on their own is not sufficient to trigger chronic kidney disease. “You probably need another event and then you get into a vicious cycle,” Dr. Watts said.

The mechanism linking Lp(a) with chronic kidney disease remains unclear, but Dr. Watts explained that the lipoprotein probably damages the renal tubes when it is reabsorbed after it dissociates from low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

The next step will be to identify the people who are most susceptible to this and figure out what treatment might help. Dr. Watts suggested that gene silencing, in which Lp(a) is “completely obliterated,” will lead to an improvement in renal function.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LYON, FRANCE — High levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] in the blood are associated with a significantly increased risk for chronic kidney disease, report investigators who are studying the link in a two-part study of more than 100,000 people.

There is already genetic evidence showing that Lp(a) can cause cardiovascular conditions, including myocardial infarction, aortic valve stenosis, peripheral artery disease, and ischemic stroke.

Now, researchers presenting at the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) 2024 Congress are adding new organs – the kidneys – to the list of those that can be damaged by elevated Lp(a).

“This is very important,” said lead investigator Anne Langsted, MD, PhD, DMSc, from the Department of Clinical Biochemistry at the Rigshospitalet in Denmark. And “hopefully, we’ll have a treatment for Lp(a) on the market very soon. Until then, I think individuals who have kidney disease would benefit a lot from reducing other risk factors, if they also have high levels” of Lp(a).

Using data gathered from the Copenhagen General Population Study, the study involved 108,439 individuals who had a range of tests including estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), plasma Lp(a) levels, and LPA genotyping. The patients were then linked to a series of national registries to study outcomes. 

The researchers conducted two separate analyses: an observational study of Lp(a) levels in 70,040 individuals and a Mendelian randomization study of LPA kringle IV–type 2 domain repeats in 106,624 individuals. The number of those repeats is inversely associated with median Lp(a) plasma levels.

The observational study showed that eGFR decreased with increasing median plasma Lp(a) levels; the Mendelian randomization study indicated that eGFR decreased KIV-2 repeat numbers dropped.

Across both parts of the study, it was found that each 50 mg/dL increase in plasma Lp(a) levels was associated with an increased risk of at least 25% for chronic kidney disease.
 

Lp(a) and Chronic Kidney Disease

When high plasma levels of Lp(a) have been spotted before in patients with kidney disease, “we’ve kind of assumed that it was probably the kidney disease that caused the higher levels,” Dr. Langsted said. But her team hypothesized that the opposite was at play and that Lp(a) levels are genetically determined, and increased plasma Lp(a) levels may be causally associated with rising risk for chronic kidney disease.

Gerald F. Watts, MD, PhD, DSc, Winthrop Professor of cardiometabolic and internal medicine at the University of Western Australia in Perth, and co-chair of the study, said in an interview that “although Mendelian randomization is a technique that allows you to infer causality, it’s probably a little bit more complex than that in reality,” adding that there is likely a bidirectional relationship between Lp(a) and chronic kidney disease.

Having increased Lp(a) levels on their own is not sufficient to trigger chronic kidney disease. “You probably need another event and then you get into a vicious cycle,” Dr. Watts said.

The mechanism linking Lp(a) with chronic kidney disease remains unclear, but Dr. Watts explained that the lipoprotein probably damages the renal tubes when it is reabsorbed after it dissociates from low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

The next step will be to identify the people who are most susceptible to this and figure out what treatment might help. Dr. Watts suggested that gene silencing, in which Lp(a) is “completely obliterated,” will lead to an improvement in renal function.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

They call it the “golden hour”: 60 minutes, give or take, when the chance to save the life of a trauma victim is at its greatest. If the patient can be resuscitated and stabilized in that time window, they stand a good chance of surviving. If not, well, they don’t.

But resuscitation is complicated. It requires blood products, fluids, vasopressors — all given in precise doses in response to rapidly changing hemodynamics. To do it right takes specialized training, advanced life support (ALS). If the patient is in a remote area or an area without ALS-certified emergency medical services, or is far from the nearest trauma center, that golden hour is lost. And the patient may be as well.

But we live in the future. We have robots in factories, self-driving cars, autonomous drones. Why not an autonomous trauma doctor? If you are in a life-threatening accident, would you want to be treated ... by a robot?

Enter “resuscitation based on functional hemodynamic monitoring,” or “ReFit,” introduced in this article appearing in the journal Intensive Care Medicine Experimental.

The idea behind ReFit is straightforward. Resuscitation after trauma should be based on hitting key hemodynamic targets using the tools we have available in the field: blood, fluids, pressors. The researchers wanted to develop a closed-loop system, something that could be used by minimally trained personnel. The input to the system? Hemodynamic data, provided through a single measurement device, an arterial catheter. The output: blood, fluids, and pressors, delivered intravenously.

The body (a prototype) of the system looks like this. You can see various pumps labeled with various fluids, electronic controllers, and so forth.

Nate Langer, UPMC

Nate Langer, UPMC

Nate Langer, UPMC

Intensive Care Medicine Experimental

Intensive Care Medicine Experimental

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

They call it the “golden hour”: 60 minutes, give or take, when the chance to save the life of a trauma victim is at its greatest. If the patient can be resuscitated and stabilized in that time window, they stand a good chance of surviving. If not, well, they don’t.

But resuscitation is complicated. It requires blood products, fluids, vasopressors — all given in precise doses in response to rapidly changing hemodynamics. To do it right takes specialized training, advanced life support (ALS). If the patient is in a remote area or an area without ALS-certified emergency medical services, or is far from the nearest trauma center, that golden hour is lost. And the patient may be as well.

But we live in the future. We have robots in factories, self-driving cars, autonomous drones. Why not an autonomous trauma doctor? If you are in a life-threatening accident, would you want to be treated ... by a robot?

Enter “resuscitation based on functional hemodynamic monitoring,” or “ReFit,” introduced in this article appearing in the journal Intensive Care Medicine Experimental.

The idea behind ReFit is straightforward. Resuscitation after trauma should be based on hitting key hemodynamic targets using the tools we have available in the field: blood, fluids, pressors. The researchers wanted to develop a closed-loop system, something that could be used by minimally trained personnel. The input to the system? Hemodynamic data, provided through a single measurement device, an arterial catheter. The output: blood, fluids, and pressors, delivered intravenously.

The body (a prototype) of the system looks like this. You can see various pumps labeled with various fluids, electronic controllers, and so forth.

Nate Langer, UPMC

Nate Langer, UPMC

Nate Langer, UPMC

Intensive Care Medicine Experimental

Intensive Care Medicine Experimental

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

They call it the “golden hour”: 60 minutes, give or take, when the chance to save the life of a trauma victim is at its greatest. If the patient can be resuscitated and stabilized in that time window, they stand a good chance of surviving. If not, well, they don’t.

But resuscitation is complicated. It requires blood products, fluids, vasopressors — all given in precise doses in response to rapidly changing hemodynamics. To do it right takes specialized training, advanced life support (ALS). If the patient is in a remote area or an area without ALS-certified emergency medical services, or is far from the nearest trauma center, that golden hour is lost. And the patient may be as well.

But we live in the future. We have robots in factories, self-driving cars, autonomous drones. Why not an autonomous trauma doctor? If you are in a life-threatening accident, would you want to be treated ... by a robot?

Enter “resuscitation based on functional hemodynamic monitoring,” or “ReFit,” introduced in this article appearing in the journal Intensive Care Medicine Experimental.

The idea behind ReFit is straightforward. Resuscitation after trauma should be based on hitting key hemodynamic targets using the tools we have available in the field: blood, fluids, pressors. The researchers wanted to develop a closed-loop system, something that could be used by minimally trained personnel. The input to the system? Hemodynamic data, provided through a single measurement device, an arterial catheter. The output: blood, fluids, and pressors, delivered intravenously.

The body (a prototype) of the system looks like this. You can see various pumps labeled with various fluids, electronic controllers, and so forth.

Nate Langer, UPMC

Nate Langer, UPMC

Nate Langer, UPMC

Intensive Care Medicine Experimental

Intensive Care Medicine Experimental

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Almost sixty percent of patients with macroscopic stage III melanoma who were randomized to 6 weeks of neoadjuvant immunotherapy needed no further treatment after therapeutic lymph node dissection in the phase 3 NADINA trial.

These results set a new standard of care in this patient population, the study’s lead author, Christian U. Blank, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago.

Dr. Blank, a hematologist/oncologist from the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam, called the result “very special,” noting that the trial included an active comparator, rather than a placebo control.

“When we treat these patients with surgery only, the outcome … is very bad: The 5-year relapse-free survival is only 30% and the overall survival is only 50%. Adjuvant therapy improves relapse-free survival but not overall survival ...Thus, there is an urgent need for these patients for novel therapy approaches,” he said during a press conference at the meeting.
 

Study Methods and Results

The study included 423 patients with stage III de novo or recurrent pathologically proven resectable melanoma with at least 1 lymph node metastasis. Patients were randomized to either the experimental neoadjuvant arm (n = 212), or the standard treatment control arm (n = 211), which consisted of therapeutic lymph node dissection (TLND) followed by 12 cycles of adjuvant nivolumab (NIVO 480 mg every 4 weeks).

Patients in the experimental arm received two cycles of neoadjuvant ipilimumab (IPI 80 mg every 3 weeks) plus NIVO 240 mg for 3 weeks followed by TLND. Those with a major pathologic response (MPR), defined as less than 10% vital tumor cells in the post-neoadjuvant resection specimen, went straight to follow-up.

Those without an MPR received adjuvant therapy. For patients with BRAF wild-type, this involved 11 cycles of adjuvant NIVO (480 mg every 4 weeks), while BRAF-mutated patients received dabrafenib plus trametinib (150 mg b.i.d./2 mg once a day; 46 weeks).

The study met its primary endpoint — event-free survival (EFS) — at the first interim analysis. After a median follow-up of 9.9 months, the estimated EFS was 83.7% for neoadjuvant immunotherapy versus 57.2% for standard of care, (P less than .0001, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.32).

“When we look into the subgroups, for example BRAF-mutated status or BRAF-wild-type status ... you see for both groups also a highly statistically significant outcome favoring the neoadjuvant therapy with hazard ratios of 0.29 and 0.35,” said Dr. Blank.

In total, 59% of patients in the experimental arm had an MPR needing no further treatment. “This is important, because the patients that achieve a major pathologic response have excellent outcomes, with an EFS of 95%,” said Dr. Blank.

He added that those with a partial response had an EFS of 76%, and among those who had “nonresponse,” the EFS was 57% — the same as that of patients in the control arm.

Toxicities were considered transient and acceptable, with systemic treatment-related grade 3 or 4 events in 29.7% of the neoadjuvant arm and 14.7% of the adjuvant arm.

NADINA is the first neoadjuvant checkpoint inhibitor phase 3 study in melanoma and the first phase 3 trial in oncology testing a checkpoint inhibitor without chemotherapy, noted Dr. Blank.

“At the moment we see only additions of immunotherapy to the chemotherapy neoadjuvant arms, but here you see that we can also treat patients with pure immunotherapy.”
 

Neoadjuvant Therapy Defined as Standard of Care

When considered along with evidence from the phase 2 SWOG 1801 study (N Engl J Med. 2023;388:813-8), “NADINA defines neoadjuvant therapy as the new standard of care for macroscopic stage III melanoma “which means that all trials currently ongoing need to be amended from adjuvant comparators to neoadjuvant comparators,” he said.

Dr. Blank called the trial a “new template for other malignancies implementing a neoadjuvant immunotherapy regimen followed by a response-driven adjuvant therapy.

“I think we see at the moment only sandwich designs, and this is more sales driven than patient driven, because what we have seen is that if a patient achieves a really deep response, the patient doesn’t need an adjuvant part,” he said.

Commenting during the press conference, Michael Lowe, MD, said the result “confirms and shows for the first time in a phase 3 study that giving immunotherapy before surgery results in superior outcomes to giving immunotherapy only after surgery.”

Dr. Lowe, associate professor in the Division of Surgical Oncology, at Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, added that the study “also confirms that giving two immunotherapy drugs before surgery results in excellent responses.”

However, he cautioned that “we cannot make comparisons to trials in which patients only got one immunotherapy. But this study confirms that consistency that patients who receive ipilimumab and nivolumab have superior responses compared to single-agent immunotherapy.”

He noted that all of the patients in the new study had all of their lymph nodes removed and called for doing that to remain the standard of care in terms of surgical approach.

“With short follow-up, it is too early to tell if some patients may have benefited from that adjuvant therapy. However, NADINA confirms that immunotherapy should be given to all patients with advanced melanoma before surgery, when possible, and establishes dual therapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab, as the standard of care in the appropriate patient,” Dr. Lowe said.
 

EFS Improvement Exceeds Expectations

In an interview, Rodabe N. Amaria, MD, a medical oncologist and professor at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, agreed with Dr. Lowe’s assessment of the findings.

“For years we have been doing neoadjuvant immunotherapy trials, all with favorable results, but all relatively small, with data that was intriguing, but not necessarily definitive,” she said. “I see the data from the NADINA trial as being definitive and true evidence of the many advantages of neoadjuvant immunotherapy for clinical stage 3 melanoma ... This work builds on the data from the SWOG 1801 trial but also exceeds expectations with the 68% improvement in EFS appreciated with the dual combination immunotherapy regimen compared to adjuvant nivolumab.”

Additionally, the approximately 30% grade 3 or higher immune-mediated toxicity is reasonable and in keeping with known data, and this trial demonstrates clearly that neoadjuvant immunotherapy does not increase the rate of surgical complications, she said.

Dr. Amaria also considered that 59% of patients who achieved a major pathologic response were observed in the neoadjuvant setting to be a key finding.

This indicates thats “over half the patients could be spared additional immunotherapy and risk of further immune-mediated toxicities by having only two doses of neoadjuvant immunotherapy, she said.

The results “demonstrate the superiority of a neoadjuvant combination immunotherapy approach for patients with clinical stage III melanoma,” she added.

The study was funded by Bristol Myers-Squibb and the Australian government.

Dr. Blank disclosed ties with Immagene, Signature Oncology, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GenMab, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche/Genentech, Third Rock Ventures, 4SC, NanoString Technologies, WO 2021/177822 A1, and Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. No other experts reported any relevant disclosures.

Almost sixty percent of patients with macroscopic stage III melanoma who were randomized to 6 weeks of neoadjuvant immunotherapy needed no further treatment after therapeutic lymph node dissection in the phase 3 NADINA trial.

These results set a new standard of care in this patient population, the study’s lead author, Christian U. Blank, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago.

Dr. Blank, a hematologist/oncologist from the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam, called the result “very special,” noting that the trial included an active comparator, rather than a placebo control.

“When we treat these patients with surgery only, the outcome … is very bad: The 5-year relapse-free survival is only 30% and the overall survival is only 50%. Adjuvant therapy improves relapse-free survival but not overall survival ...Thus, there is an urgent need for these patients for novel therapy approaches,” he said during a press conference at the meeting.
 

Study Methods and Results

The study included 423 patients with stage III de novo or recurrent pathologically proven resectable melanoma with at least 1 lymph node metastasis. Patients were randomized to either the experimental neoadjuvant arm (n = 212), or the standard treatment control arm (n = 211), which consisted of therapeutic lymph node dissection (TLND) followed by 12 cycles of adjuvant nivolumab (NIVO 480 mg every 4 weeks).

Patients in the experimental arm received two cycles of neoadjuvant ipilimumab (IPI 80 mg every 3 weeks) plus NIVO 240 mg for 3 weeks followed by TLND. Those with a major pathologic response (MPR), defined as less than 10% vital tumor cells in the post-neoadjuvant resection specimen, went straight to follow-up.

Those without an MPR received adjuvant therapy. For patients with BRAF wild-type, this involved 11 cycles of adjuvant NIVO (480 mg every 4 weeks), while BRAF-mutated patients received dabrafenib plus trametinib (150 mg b.i.d./2 mg once a day; 46 weeks).

The study met its primary endpoint — event-free survival (EFS) — at the first interim analysis. After a median follow-up of 9.9 months, the estimated EFS was 83.7% for neoadjuvant immunotherapy versus 57.2% for standard of care, (P less than .0001, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.32).

“When we look into the subgroups, for example BRAF-mutated status or BRAF-wild-type status ... you see for both groups also a highly statistically significant outcome favoring the neoadjuvant therapy with hazard ratios of 0.29 and 0.35,” said Dr. Blank.

In total, 59% of patients in the experimental arm had an MPR needing no further treatment. “This is important, because the patients that achieve a major pathologic response have excellent outcomes, with an EFS of 95%,” said Dr. Blank.

He added that those with a partial response had an EFS of 76%, and among those who had “nonresponse,” the EFS was 57% — the same as that of patients in the control arm.

Toxicities were considered transient and acceptable, with systemic treatment-related grade 3 or 4 events in 29.7% of the neoadjuvant arm and 14.7% of the adjuvant arm.

NADINA is the first neoadjuvant checkpoint inhibitor phase 3 study in melanoma and the first phase 3 trial in oncology testing a checkpoint inhibitor without chemotherapy, noted Dr. Blank.

“At the moment we see only additions of immunotherapy to the chemotherapy neoadjuvant arms, but here you see that we can also treat patients with pure immunotherapy.”
 

Neoadjuvant Therapy Defined as Standard of Care

When considered along with evidence from the phase 2 SWOG 1801 study (N Engl J Med. 2023;388:813-8), “NADINA defines neoadjuvant therapy as the new standard of care for macroscopic stage III melanoma “which means that all trials currently ongoing need to be amended from adjuvant comparators to neoadjuvant comparators,” he said.

Dr. Blank called the trial a “new template for other malignancies implementing a neoadjuvant immunotherapy regimen followed by a response-driven adjuvant therapy.

“I think we see at the moment only sandwich designs, and this is more sales driven than patient driven, because what we have seen is that if a patient achieves a really deep response, the patient doesn’t need an adjuvant part,” he said.

Commenting during the press conference, Michael Lowe, MD, said the result “confirms and shows for the first time in a phase 3 study that giving immunotherapy before surgery results in superior outcomes to giving immunotherapy only after surgery.”

Dr. Lowe, associate professor in the Division of Surgical Oncology, at Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, added that the study “also confirms that giving two immunotherapy drugs before surgery results in excellent responses.”

However, he cautioned that “we cannot make comparisons to trials in which patients only got one immunotherapy. But this study confirms that consistency that patients who receive ipilimumab and nivolumab have superior responses compared to single-agent immunotherapy.”

He noted that all of the patients in the new study had all of their lymph nodes removed and called for doing that to remain the standard of care in terms of surgical approach.

“With short follow-up, it is too early to tell if some patients may have benefited from that adjuvant therapy. However, NADINA confirms that immunotherapy should be given to all patients with advanced melanoma before surgery, when possible, and establishes dual therapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab, as the standard of care in the appropriate patient,” Dr. Lowe said.
 

EFS Improvement Exceeds Expectations

In an interview, Rodabe N. Amaria, MD, a medical oncologist and professor at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, agreed with Dr. Lowe’s assessment of the findings.

“For years we have been doing neoadjuvant immunotherapy trials, all with favorable results, but all relatively small, with data that was intriguing, but not necessarily definitive,” she said. “I see the data from the NADINA trial as being definitive and true evidence of the many advantages of neoadjuvant immunotherapy for clinical stage 3 melanoma ... This work builds on the data from the SWOG 1801 trial but also exceeds expectations with the 68% improvement in EFS appreciated with the dual combination immunotherapy regimen compared to adjuvant nivolumab.”

Additionally, the approximately 30% grade 3 or higher immune-mediated toxicity is reasonable and in keeping with known data, and this trial demonstrates clearly that neoadjuvant immunotherapy does not increase the rate of surgical complications, she said.

Dr. Amaria also considered that 59% of patients who achieved a major pathologic response were observed in the neoadjuvant setting to be a key finding.

This indicates thats “over half the patients could be spared additional immunotherapy and risk of further immune-mediated toxicities by having only two doses of neoadjuvant immunotherapy, she said.

The results “demonstrate the superiority of a neoadjuvant combination immunotherapy approach for patients with clinical stage III melanoma,” she added.

The study was funded by Bristol Myers-Squibb and the Australian government.

Dr. Blank disclosed ties with Immagene, Signature Oncology, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GenMab, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche/Genentech, Third Rock Ventures, 4SC, NanoString Technologies, WO 2021/177822 A1, and Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. No other experts reported any relevant disclosures.

Almost sixty percent of patients with macroscopic stage III melanoma who were randomized to 6 weeks of neoadjuvant immunotherapy needed no further treatment after therapeutic lymph node dissection in the phase 3 NADINA trial.

These results set a new standard of care in this patient population, the study’s lead author, Christian U. Blank, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago.

Dr. Blank, a hematologist/oncologist from the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam, called the result “very special,” noting that the trial included an active comparator, rather than a placebo control.

“When we treat these patients with surgery only, the outcome … is very bad: The 5-year relapse-free survival is only 30% and the overall survival is only 50%. Adjuvant therapy improves relapse-free survival but not overall survival ...Thus, there is an urgent need for these patients for novel therapy approaches,” he said during a press conference at the meeting.
 

Study Methods and Results

The study included 423 patients with stage III de novo or recurrent pathologically proven resectable melanoma with at least 1 lymph node metastasis. Patients were randomized to either the experimental neoadjuvant arm (n = 212), or the standard treatment control arm (n = 211), which consisted of therapeutic lymph node dissection (TLND) followed by 12 cycles of adjuvant nivolumab (NIVO 480 mg every 4 weeks).

Patients in the experimental arm received two cycles of neoadjuvant ipilimumab (IPI 80 mg every 3 weeks) plus NIVO 240 mg for 3 weeks followed by TLND. Those with a major pathologic response (MPR), defined as less than 10% vital tumor cells in the post-neoadjuvant resection specimen, went straight to follow-up.

Those without an MPR received adjuvant therapy. For patients with BRAF wild-type, this involved 11 cycles of adjuvant NIVO (480 mg every 4 weeks), while BRAF-mutated patients received dabrafenib plus trametinib (150 mg b.i.d./2 mg once a day; 46 weeks).

The study met its primary endpoint — event-free survival (EFS) — at the first interim analysis. After a median follow-up of 9.9 months, the estimated EFS was 83.7% for neoadjuvant immunotherapy versus 57.2% for standard of care, (P less than .0001, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.32).

“When we look into the subgroups, for example BRAF-mutated status or BRAF-wild-type status ... you see for both groups also a highly statistically significant outcome favoring the neoadjuvant therapy with hazard ratios of 0.29 and 0.35,” said Dr. Blank.

In total, 59% of patients in the experimental arm had an MPR needing no further treatment. “This is important, because the patients that achieve a major pathologic response have excellent outcomes, with an EFS of 95%,” said Dr. Blank.

He added that those with a partial response had an EFS of 76%, and among those who had “nonresponse,” the EFS was 57% — the same as that of patients in the control arm.

Toxicities were considered transient and acceptable, with systemic treatment-related grade 3 or 4 events in 29.7% of the neoadjuvant arm and 14.7% of the adjuvant arm.

NADINA is the first neoadjuvant checkpoint inhibitor phase 3 study in melanoma and the first phase 3 trial in oncology testing a checkpoint inhibitor without chemotherapy, noted Dr. Blank.

“At the moment we see only additions of immunotherapy to the chemotherapy neoadjuvant arms, but here you see that we can also treat patients with pure immunotherapy.”
 

Neoadjuvant Therapy Defined as Standard of Care

When considered along with evidence from the phase 2 SWOG 1801 study (N Engl J Med. 2023;388:813-8), “NADINA defines neoadjuvant therapy as the new standard of care for macroscopic stage III melanoma “which means that all trials currently ongoing need to be amended from adjuvant comparators to neoadjuvant comparators,” he said.

Dr. Blank called the trial a “new template for other malignancies implementing a neoadjuvant immunotherapy regimen followed by a response-driven adjuvant therapy.

“I think we see at the moment only sandwich designs, and this is more sales driven than patient driven, because what we have seen is that if a patient achieves a really deep response, the patient doesn’t need an adjuvant part,” he said.

Commenting during the press conference, Michael Lowe, MD, said the result “confirms and shows for the first time in a phase 3 study that giving immunotherapy before surgery results in superior outcomes to giving immunotherapy only after surgery.”

Dr. Lowe, associate professor in the Division of Surgical Oncology, at Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, added that the study “also confirms that giving two immunotherapy drugs before surgery results in excellent responses.”

However, he cautioned that “we cannot make comparisons to trials in which patients only got one immunotherapy. But this study confirms that consistency that patients who receive ipilimumab and nivolumab have superior responses compared to single-agent immunotherapy.”

He noted that all of the patients in the new study had all of their lymph nodes removed and called for doing that to remain the standard of care in terms of surgical approach.

“With short follow-up, it is too early to tell if some patients may have benefited from that adjuvant therapy. However, NADINA confirms that immunotherapy should be given to all patients with advanced melanoma before surgery, when possible, and establishes dual therapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab, as the standard of care in the appropriate patient,” Dr. Lowe said.
 

EFS Improvement Exceeds Expectations

In an interview, Rodabe N. Amaria, MD, a medical oncologist and professor at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, agreed with Dr. Lowe’s assessment of the findings.

“For years we have been doing neoadjuvant immunotherapy trials, all with favorable results, but all relatively small, with data that was intriguing, but not necessarily definitive,” she said. “I see the data from the NADINA trial as being definitive and true evidence of the many advantages of neoadjuvant immunotherapy for clinical stage 3 melanoma ... This work builds on the data from the SWOG 1801 trial but also exceeds expectations with the 68% improvement in EFS appreciated with the dual combination immunotherapy regimen compared to adjuvant nivolumab.”

Additionally, the approximately 30% grade 3 or higher immune-mediated toxicity is reasonable and in keeping with known data, and this trial demonstrates clearly that neoadjuvant immunotherapy does not increase the rate of surgical complications, she said.

Dr. Amaria also considered that 59% of patients who achieved a major pathologic response were observed in the neoadjuvant setting to be a key finding.

This indicates thats “over half the patients could be spared additional immunotherapy and risk of further immune-mediated toxicities by having only two doses of neoadjuvant immunotherapy, she said.

The results “demonstrate the superiority of a neoadjuvant combination immunotherapy approach for patients with clinical stage III melanoma,” she added.

The study was funded by Bristol Myers-Squibb and the Australian government.

Dr. Blank disclosed ties with Immagene, Signature Oncology, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GenMab, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche/Genentech, Third Rock Ventures, 4SC, NanoString Technologies, WO 2021/177822 A1, and Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. No other experts reported any relevant disclosures.

BASEL, SWITZERLAND — The anti-inflammatory agent colchicine failed to show significant benefit in the treatment of patients with non-cardioembolic ischemic stroke in the primary analysis of the CONVINCE trial. However, the results did reveal a significant reduction in recurrent stroke and cardiovascular events in the per-protocol analysis and in the subgroup of patients with coronary artery disease.

“Although the primary endpoint was neutral, the CONVINCE results support the hypothesis that long-term anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine may reduce recurrent stroke and cardiovascular events, specifically in stroke patients with atherosclerosis,” lead investigator Peter Kelly, MD, University College Dublin School of Medicine, Dublin, Ireland, concluded.

The results were presented at the European Stroke Organization Conference (ESOC) 2024.

Inflammation, Dr. Kelly said, plays an important role in the pathophysiology of atherosclerotic plaque, a major cause of cardiovascular events and ischemic strokes.

Colchicine, an established, widely available, low-cost drug that reduces inflammatory response, has been shown to reduce recurrent vascular events in patients with coronary artery disease.

The CONVINCE trial was conducted to see whether colchicine could show similar benefits in patients with non-severe, non-cardioembolic stroke or transient ischemic attack.

Conducted in 16 European countries and Canada, the CONVINCE trial included 3154 patients with a recent non-cardioembolic nondisabling ischemic stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack. They were randomly assigned to receive colchicine (0.5 mg/d) or placebo.

Key exclusion criteria included evidence of atrial fibrillation or other source of cardioembolism, a defined cause of stroke other than atherosclerosis or small vessel disease, a glomerular filtration rate below 50 mL/min, and the use of drugs that interact with colchicine.

The primary endpoint was a composite of first recurrent ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, or hospitalization for unstable angina. Study participants were followed-up over 36 months.

Results of the primary intention-to-treat analysis showed that the primary endpoint occurred in 153 patients randomized to low-dose colchicine (9.8%) versus 185 in the placebo group (11.8%). This translated into a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.68-1.05; P = .12) — a nonsignificant result.

Reduced levels of C-reactive protein in the colchicine group showed the anti-inflammatory effect of treatment with colchicine, Dr. Kelly reported.

In a prespecified on-treatment analysis (excluding patients with major protocol violations), colchicine did show a significant benefit in the primary endpoint (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63-0.99).
 

A Novel Target for Stroke Treatment

In addition, significantly reduced rates of recurrent stroke or cardiovascular events were observed in the subgroup of patients with a history of coronary artery disease.

In an updated meta-analysis of existing colchicine studies including CONVINCE, there was a significant reduction in the risk for ischemic stroke (risk ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58-0.90).

“The signals of benefit of colchicine in secondary analyses are in line with findings from previous trials and indicate the potential of colchicine in prevention after stroke,” Dr. Kelly said.

He pointed out that the COVID pandemic reduced the planned follow-up time in the CONVINCE trial, which led to the study being underpowered for the primary analysis.

“Further trials are needed in all stroke subtypes, but with particular focus on patients with objective evidence of atherosclerosis,” he said.

Commenting on the findings, Mira Katan, MD, University Hospital of Basel, Switzerland, noted that inflammation represents a novel target for stroke treatment.

“We have never before looked at treating inflammation in stroke. Although the primary endpoint was not reached in the CONVINCE study, the on-treatment analysis and meta-analysis showed a risk reduction, and we know colchicine works in cardiology. I think this is a fantastic trial, giving us a new target for stroke therapy,” Dr. Katan said.

“I think we have a new tool, but of course we need further trials to confirm that,” she added.

The CONVINCE trial was supported by Health Research Board Ireland, Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft, Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (FWO), and the Irish Heart Foundation. Dr. Kelly received funding from the Irish Heart Foundation. Dr. Katan reported no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BASEL, SWITZERLAND — The anti-inflammatory agent colchicine failed to show significant benefit in the treatment of patients with non-cardioembolic ischemic stroke in the primary analysis of the CONVINCE trial. However, the results did reveal a significant reduction in recurrent stroke and cardiovascular events in the per-protocol analysis and in the subgroup of patients with coronary artery disease.

“Although the primary endpoint was neutral, the CONVINCE results support the hypothesis that long-term anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine may reduce recurrent stroke and cardiovascular events, specifically in stroke patients with atherosclerosis,” lead investigator Peter Kelly, MD, University College Dublin School of Medicine, Dublin, Ireland, concluded.

The results were presented at the European Stroke Organization Conference (ESOC) 2024.

Inflammation, Dr. Kelly said, plays an important role in the pathophysiology of atherosclerotic plaque, a major cause of cardiovascular events and ischemic strokes.

Colchicine, an established, widely available, low-cost drug that reduces inflammatory response, has been shown to reduce recurrent vascular events in patients with coronary artery disease.

The CONVINCE trial was conducted to see whether colchicine could show similar benefits in patients with non-severe, non-cardioembolic stroke or transient ischemic attack.

Conducted in 16 European countries and Canada, the CONVINCE trial included 3154 patients with a recent non-cardioembolic nondisabling ischemic stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack. They were randomly assigned to receive colchicine (0.5 mg/d) or placebo.

Key exclusion criteria included evidence of atrial fibrillation or other source of cardioembolism, a defined cause of stroke other than atherosclerosis or small vessel disease, a glomerular filtration rate below 50 mL/min, and the use of drugs that interact with colchicine.

The primary endpoint was a composite of first recurrent ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, or hospitalization for unstable angina. Study participants were followed-up over 36 months.

Results of the primary intention-to-treat analysis showed that the primary endpoint occurred in 153 patients randomized to low-dose colchicine (9.8%) versus 185 in the placebo group (11.8%). This translated into a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.68-1.05; P = .12) — a nonsignificant result.

Reduced levels of C-reactive protein in the colchicine group showed the anti-inflammatory effect of treatment with colchicine, Dr. Kelly reported.

In a prespecified on-treatment analysis (excluding patients with major protocol violations), colchicine did show a significant benefit in the primary endpoint (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63-0.99).
 

A Novel Target for Stroke Treatment

In addition, significantly reduced rates of recurrent stroke or cardiovascular events were observed in the subgroup of patients with a history of coronary artery disease.

In an updated meta-analysis of existing colchicine studies including CONVINCE, there was a significant reduction in the risk for ischemic stroke (risk ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58-0.90).

“The signals of benefit of colchicine in secondary analyses are in line with findings from previous trials and indicate the potential of colchicine in prevention after stroke,” Dr. Kelly said.

He pointed out that the COVID pandemic reduced the planned follow-up time in the CONVINCE trial, which led to the study being underpowered for the primary analysis.

“Further trials are needed in all stroke subtypes, but with particular focus on patients with objective evidence of atherosclerosis,” he said.

Commenting on the findings, Mira Katan, MD, University Hospital of Basel, Switzerland, noted that inflammation represents a novel target for stroke treatment.

“We have never before looked at treating inflammation in stroke. Although the primary endpoint was not reached in the CONVINCE study, the on-treatment analysis and meta-analysis showed a risk reduction, and we know colchicine works in cardiology. I think this is a fantastic trial, giving us a new target for stroke therapy,” Dr. Katan said.

“I think we have a new tool, but of course we need further trials to confirm that,” she added.

The CONVINCE trial was supported by Health Research Board Ireland, Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft, Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (FWO), and the Irish Heart Foundation. Dr. Kelly received funding from the Irish Heart Foundation. Dr. Katan reported no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BASEL, SWITZERLAND — The anti-inflammatory agent colchicine failed to show significant benefit in the treatment of patients with non-cardioembolic ischemic stroke in the primary analysis of the CONVINCE trial. However, the results did reveal a significant reduction in recurrent stroke and cardiovascular events in the per-protocol analysis and in the subgroup of patients with coronary artery disease.

“Although the primary endpoint was neutral, the CONVINCE results support the hypothesis that long-term anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine may reduce recurrent stroke and cardiovascular events, specifically in stroke patients with atherosclerosis,” lead investigator Peter Kelly, MD, University College Dublin School of Medicine, Dublin, Ireland, concluded.

The results were presented at the European Stroke Organization Conference (ESOC) 2024.

Inflammation, Dr. Kelly said, plays an important role in the pathophysiology of atherosclerotic plaque, a major cause of cardiovascular events and ischemic strokes.

Colchicine, an established, widely available, low-cost drug that reduces inflammatory response, has been shown to reduce recurrent vascular events in patients with coronary artery disease.

The CONVINCE trial was conducted to see whether colchicine could show similar benefits in patients with non-severe, non-cardioembolic stroke or transient ischemic attack.

Conducted in 16 European countries and Canada, the CONVINCE trial included 3154 patients with a recent non-cardioembolic nondisabling ischemic stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack. They were randomly assigned to receive colchicine (0.5 mg/d) or placebo.

Key exclusion criteria included evidence of atrial fibrillation or other source of cardioembolism, a defined cause of stroke other than atherosclerosis or small vessel disease, a glomerular filtration rate below 50 mL/min, and the use of drugs that interact with colchicine.

The primary endpoint was a composite of first recurrent ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, or hospitalization for unstable angina. Study participants were followed-up over 36 months.

Results of the primary intention-to-treat analysis showed that the primary endpoint occurred in 153 patients randomized to low-dose colchicine (9.8%) versus 185 in the placebo group (11.8%). This translated into a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.68-1.05; P = .12) — a nonsignificant result.

Reduced levels of C-reactive protein in the colchicine group showed the anti-inflammatory effect of treatment with colchicine, Dr. Kelly reported.

In a prespecified on-treatment analysis (excluding patients with major protocol violations), colchicine did show a significant benefit in the primary endpoint (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63-0.99).
 

A Novel Target for Stroke Treatment

In addition, significantly reduced rates of recurrent stroke or cardiovascular events were observed in the subgroup of patients with a history of coronary artery disease.

In an updated meta-analysis of existing colchicine studies including CONVINCE, there was a significant reduction in the risk for ischemic stroke (risk ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58-0.90).

“The signals of benefit of colchicine in secondary analyses are in line with findings from previous trials and indicate the potential of colchicine in prevention after stroke,” Dr. Kelly said.

He pointed out that the COVID pandemic reduced the planned follow-up time in the CONVINCE trial, which led to the study being underpowered for the primary analysis.

“Further trials are needed in all stroke subtypes, but with particular focus on patients with objective evidence of atherosclerosis,” he said.

Commenting on the findings, Mira Katan, MD, University Hospital of Basel, Switzerland, noted that inflammation represents a novel target for stroke treatment.

“We have never before looked at treating inflammation in stroke. Although the primary endpoint was not reached in the CONVINCE study, the on-treatment analysis and meta-analysis showed a risk reduction, and we know colchicine works in cardiology. I think this is a fantastic trial, giving us a new target for stroke therapy,” Dr. Katan said.

“I think we have a new tool, but of course we need further trials to confirm that,” she added.

The CONVINCE trial was supported by Health Research Board Ireland, Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft, Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (FWO), and the Irish Heart Foundation. Dr. Kelly received funding from the Irish Heart Foundation. Dr. Katan reported no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Routine removal of healthy lymph nodes should not be a part of ovarian cancer treatment, according to results of the CARACO trial.

Retroperitoneal pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy (RPPL) in patients undergoing either primary or interval surgery during ovarian cancer treatment for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC) resulted in no benefit and significant harm, the new study found.

“[RPPL] brings only toxicity and it does not increase survival ... because we have a lot of improvement with other treatments than surgery,” lead author Jean-Marc Classe, MD, PhD, said during a press conference at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “It’s a surgical de-escalation, because it is not useful.”

Enrollment for the multicenter, phase III CARACO trial stagnated after the LION trial (N Engl J Med . 2019 Feb 28;380[9]:822-832) showed no benefit to doing RPPL in patients undergoing primary surgery for AEOC. Ultimately, the CARACO trial did not enroll the prespecified sample size needed in order for the researchers to show that not doing RPPL was superior. 

Dr. Classe, a surgical oncologist at Nantes Université, in Nantes, France, explained that primary surgery is currently much less common than interval surgery for AEOC , thus it was important to design the CARACO trial to explore the risks and benefits of RPPL in a patient population that included more interval surgery.

CARACO enrolled 379 patients, with median age 64-65 years, and was closed prematurely due to stagnation of enrollment. Patients were randomized to no-RPPL (n = 193) or RPPL (n = 186), with about 75% in each arm receiving interval surgery (neoadjuvant chemotherapy, followed by cytoreductive surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy), and about 25% receiving primary surgery (initial cytoreductive surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy). There was a similar postsurgical rate of no residual disease (85.6% and 88.3% in the no-RPPL and RPPL groups, respectively), and lymph node metastases were diagnosed in 43% of the patients in the RPPL arm, with a median of 3 involved lymph nodes.

After a median follow-up of 9 years both the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS), and secondary endpoint of overall survival (OS) showed no advantage to RPPL, with a median PFS of 14.8 months in the no-RPPL arm and 18.5 months in the RPPL arm (HR 0.96), and a median OS of 48.9 months and 58.0 months respectively (HR 0.92).

Surgery in the lymphadenectomy arm was 300 minutes versus 240 minutes.

“We observed statistically significant more morbidity in the lymphadenectomy arm with more transfusion (72 vs 57 patients), more re-intervention (15 vs 6 patients), more urinary injury (7 vs zero patients),” said Dr. Classe. Mortality was the same in both arms.

There were 314 events observed in the trial, which was 22 events fewer than the required sample size to show superiority. However, Dr. Classe said, a “worst-case scenario” calculation, assuming that all events would have favored lymphadenectomy, did not change the overall result.

The discussant for the trial, Shitanshu Uppal, MD, assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, agreed that the study investigators adequately addressed this concern with the “counterfactual scenario.” He added that “as utilization of neoadjuvant chemotherapy goes up these results are really helpful in consolidating the results of the prior LION study, that lymph node dissection has no role in interval debulking surgery as well.”

Commenting on the study during the press conference, Michael Lowe, MD, associate professor in the division of surgical oncology at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, said the CARACO study investigators’ efforts “underscore the difficulty of designing and accruing surgical clinical trials, especially clinical trials in which patients are offered less surgery.” He said the trial’s findings are consistent with other clinical trials in breast cancer and melanoma “that likewise showed similar outcomes for patients that did not undergo removal of clinically normal appearing lymph nodes.”

He pointed out that all of these studies highlight that the focus should turn to improving medical therapies.

Echoing this sentiment, Julie Gralow, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice-president, said, “it is very clear that lymph node dissection has significant morbidity ... and it’s very clear that we should not be doing more surgery than is needed ... In advanced ovarian cancer where the majority already have distant disease [focusing] on systemic therapy is probably what will have the most impact.”

Christina Annunziata, MD, PhD, senior vice president, Extramural Discovery Science, at the American Cancer Society, and an expert in ovarian cancer, said the analysis “leaves little doubt that there would be a statistically significant difference between the two arms. The numbers are small, but since this study results were consistent with the similar LION trial, I think that this study will tip the balance further towards omitting the lymphadenectomy in both primary and interval surgeries,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Annunziata added that surgeons are already omitting the dissection based on the LION study.

The study was funded by the French National Institute of Cancer. Dr. Classe disclosed consulting or advisory roles for GlaxoSmithKline, Myriad Genetics, and Roche.

None of the other experts interviewed for this piece declared having any relevant disclosures.

Routine removal of healthy lymph nodes should not be a part of ovarian cancer treatment, according to results of the CARACO trial.

Retroperitoneal pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy (RPPL) in patients undergoing either primary or interval surgery during ovarian cancer treatment for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC) resulted in no benefit and significant harm, the new study found.

“[RPPL] brings only toxicity and it does not increase survival ... because we have a lot of improvement with other treatments than surgery,” lead author Jean-Marc Classe, MD, PhD, said during a press conference at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “It’s a surgical de-escalation, because it is not useful.”

Enrollment for the multicenter, phase III CARACO trial stagnated after the LION trial (N Engl J Med . 2019 Feb 28;380[9]:822-832) showed no benefit to doing RPPL in patients undergoing primary surgery for AEOC. Ultimately, the CARACO trial did not enroll the prespecified sample size needed in order for the researchers to show that not doing RPPL was superior. 

Dr. Classe, a surgical oncologist at Nantes Université, in Nantes, France, explained that primary surgery is currently much less common than interval surgery for AEOC , thus it was important to design the CARACO trial to explore the risks and benefits of RPPL in a patient population that included more interval surgery.

CARACO enrolled 379 patients, with median age 64-65 years, and was closed prematurely due to stagnation of enrollment. Patients were randomized to no-RPPL (n = 193) or RPPL (n = 186), with about 75% in each arm receiving interval surgery (neoadjuvant chemotherapy, followed by cytoreductive surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy), and about 25% receiving primary surgery (initial cytoreductive surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy). There was a similar postsurgical rate of no residual disease (85.6% and 88.3% in the no-RPPL and RPPL groups, respectively), and lymph node metastases were diagnosed in 43% of the patients in the RPPL arm, with a median of 3 involved lymph nodes.

After a median follow-up of 9 years both the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS), and secondary endpoint of overall survival (OS) showed no advantage to RPPL, with a median PFS of 14.8 months in the no-RPPL arm and 18.5 months in the RPPL arm (HR 0.96), and a median OS of 48.9 months and 58.0 months respectively (HR 0.92).

Surgery in the lymphadenectomy arm was 300 minutes versus 240 minutes.

“We observed statistically significant more morbidity in the lymphadenectomy arm with more transfusion (72 vs 57 patients), more re-intervention (15 vs 6 patients), more urinary injury (7 vs zero patients),” said Dr. Classe. Mortality was the same in both arms.

There were 314 events observed in the trial, which was 22 events fewer than the required sample size to show superiority. However, Dr. Classe said, a “worst-case scenario” calculation, assuming that all events would have favored lymphadenectomy, did not change the overall result.

The discussant for the trial, Shitanshu Uppal, MD, assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, agreed that the study investigators adequately addressed this concern with the “counterfactual scenario.” He added that “as utilization of neoadjuvant chemotherapy goes up these results are really helpful in consolidating the results of the prior LION study, that lymph node dissection has no role in interval debulking surgery as well.”

Commenting on the study during the press conference, Michael Lowe, MD, associate professor in the division of surgical oncology at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, said the CARACO study investigators’ efforts “underscore the difficulty of designing and accruing surgical clinical trials, especially clinical trials in which patients are offered less surgery.” He said the trial’s findings are consistent with other clinical trials in breast cancer and melanoma “that likewise showed similar outcomes for patients that did not undergo removal of clinically normal appearing lymph nodes.”

He pointed out that all of these studies highlight that the focus should turn to improving medical therapies.

Echoing this sentiment, Julie Gralow, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice-president, said, “it is very clear that lymph node dissection has significant morbidity ... and it’s very clear that we should not be doing more surgery than is needed ... In advanced ovarian cancer where the majority already have distant disease [focusing] on systemic therapy is probably what will have the most impact.”

Christina Annunziata, MD, PhD, senior vice president, Extramural Discovery Science, at the American Cancer Society, and an expert in ovarian cancer, said the analysis “leaves little doubt that there would be a statistically significant difference between the two arms. The numbers are small, but since this study results were consistent with the similar LION trial, I think that this study will tip the balance further towards omitting the lymphadenectomy in both primary and interval surgeries,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Annunziata added that surgeons are already omitting the dissection based on the LION study.

The study was funded by the French National Institute of Cancer. Dr. Classe disclosed consulting or advisory roles for GlaxoSmithKline, Myriad Genetics, and Roche.

None of the other experts interviewed for this piece declared having any relevant disclosures.

Routine removal of healthy lymph nodes should not be a part of ovarian cancer treatment, according to results of the CARACO trial.

Retroperitoneal pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy (RPPL) in patients undergoing either primary or interval surgery during ovarian cancer treatment for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC) resulted in no benefit and significant harm, the new study found.

“[RPPL] brings only toxicity and it does not increase survival ... because we have a lot of improvement with other treatments than surgery,” lead author Jean-Marc Classe, MD, PhD, said during a press conference at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “It’s a surgical de-escalation, because it is not useful.”

Enrollment for the multicenter, phase III CARACO trial stagnated after the LION trial (N Engl J Med . 2019 Feb 28;380[9]:822-832) showed no benefit to doing RPPL in patients undergoing primary surgery for AEOC. Ultimately, the CARACO trial did not enroll the prespecified sample size needed in order for the researchers to show that not doing RPPL was superior. 

Dr. Classe, a surgical oncologist at Nantes Université, in Nantes, France, explained that primary surgery is currently much less common than interval surgery for AEOC , thus it was important to design the CARACO trial to explore the risks and benefits of RPPL in a patient population that included more interval surgery.

CARACO enrolled 379 patients, with median age 64-65 years, and was closed prematurely due to stagnation of enrollment. Patients were randomized to no-RPPL (n = 193) or RPPL (n = 186), with about 75% in each arm receiving interval surgery (neoadjuvant chemotherapy, followed by cytoreductive surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy), and about 25% receiving primary surgery (initial cytoreductive surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy). There was a similar postsurgical rate of no residual disease (85.6% and 88.3% in the no-RPPL and RPPL groups, respectively), and lymph node metastases were diagnosed in 43% of the patients in the RPPL arm, with a median of 3 involved lymph nodes.

After a median follow-up of 9 years both the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS), and secondary endpoint of overall survival (OS) showed no advantage to RPPL, with a median PFS of 14.8 months in the no-RPPL arm and 18.5 months in the RPPL arm (HR 0.96), and a median OS of 48.9 months and 58.0 months respectively (HR 0.92).

Surgery in the lymphadenectomy arm was 300 minutes versus 240 minutes.

“We observed statistically significant more morbidity in the lymphadenectomy arm with more transfusion (72 vs 57 patients), more re-intervention (15 vs 6 patients), more urinary injury (7 vs zero patients),” said Dr. Classe. Mortality was the same in both arms.

There were 314 events observed in the trial, which was 22 events fewer than the required sample size to show superiority. However, Dr. Classe said, a “worst-case scenario” calculation, assuming that all events would have favored lymphadenectomy, did not change the overall result.

The discussant for the trial, Shitanshu Uppal, MD, assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, agreed that the study investigators adequately addressed this concern with the “counterfactual scenario.” He added that “as utilization of neoadjuvant chemotherapy goes up these results are really helpful in consolidating the results of the prior LION study, that lymph node dissection has no role in interval debulking surgery as well.”

Commenting on the study during the press conference, Michael Lowe, MD, associate professor in the division of surgical oncology at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, said the CARACO study investigators’ efforts “underscore the difficulty of designing and accruing surgical clinical trials, especially clinical trials in which patients are offered less surgery.” He said the trial’s findings are consistent with other clinical trials in breast cancer and melanoma “that likewise showed similar outcomes for patients that did not undergo removal of clinically normal appearing lymph nodes.”

He pointed out that all of these studies highlight that the focus should turn to improving medical therapies.

Echoing this sentiment, Julie Gralow, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice-president, said, “it is very clear that lymph node dissection has significant morbidity ... and it’s very clear that we should not be doing more surgery than is needed ... In advanced ovarian cancer where the majority already have distant disease [focusing] on systemic therapy is probably what will have the most impact.”

Christina Annunziata, MD, PhD, senior vice president, Extramural Discovery Science, at the American Cancer Society, and an expert in ovarian cancer, said the analysis “leaves little doubt that there would be a statistically significant difference between the two arms. The numbers are small, but since this study results were consistent with the similar LION trial, I think that this study will tip the balance further towards omitting the lymphadenectomy in both primary and interval surgeries,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Annunziata added that surgeons are already omitting the dissection based on the LION study.

The study was funded by the French National Institute of Cancer. Dr. Classe disclosed consulting or advisory roles for GlaxoSmithKline, Myriad Genetics, and Roche.

None of the other experts interviewed for this piece declared having any relevant disclosures.

Use of biologics significantly reduced exacerbations and hospitalizations in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and overlapping type 2 asthma inflammation, based on data from a new study presented at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.

Patients diagnosed with COPD on maximum medical therapy may continue to have disease exacerbations that are highly morbid and are associated with worsening lung function, increased hospitalizations, and worsened mortality, said lead author Stephen Dachert, MD, Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, in an interview.

“Biologic therapy has been shown to reduce exacerbations in type 2 airway inflammation in patients with asthma and may be a potential target in patients with COPD and type 2 inflammation,” he said. In type 2 inflammation, a systematic allergic response activates immune cells, including eosinophils, mast cells, and T cells.

Previous research has examined the association between use of individual biologics and reduction in acute exacerbations of COPD, but real-world data on the use of biologics for COPD and asthma-COPD overlap syndrome (ACOS) are lacking, Dr. Dachert and colleagues wrote in their abstract.

In the current study, the researchers reviewed data from 53 adults with COPD who were seen at a single center; 30 had ACOS, and 23 had COPD only. The mean age of the participants was 68.2 years, approximately half were White/Caucasian individuals, 26% were Black/African American individuals, 17% were Hispanic individuals, 4% were Asian individuals/Pacific Islanders, and 2% were from other races/ethnicities; 62% were women. The study population included patients with prior diagnosis codes for COPD and dupilumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, or tezepelumab; the mean eosinophil count before biologics initiation was 471.
 

Reduction in Exacerbations and Hospitalizations

The researchers assessed change in exacerbations, hospitalizations, and spirometry from 1 year before to 1 year after initiation of treatment with biologics. Overall, after the use of biologics, patients experienced a significant mean reduction in exacerbations and hospitalizations of 1.780 and 0.944, respectively (both P < .001, using a paired T-test). 

In addition, the researchers found a mean reduction of forced expiratory volume per second percent predicted of 0.57% and a mean increase in forced vital capacity percent predicted of 1.3% after the initiation of biologics.

Increases also occurred in total lung capacity percent predicted, residual volume percent predicted, and diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percent predicted (3.37%, 9.90%, and 4.58%, respectively). Of these, only DLCO percent predicted approached statistical significance, the researchers wrote.

The study findings make sense physiologically, Dr. Dachert said in an interview. “If large, randomized trials have shown a reduction in exacerbations in patients with type 2 inflammation asthma, it makes sense that we would see similar results in patients with COPD and type 2 inflammation,” he said. However, as yet only one of several large randomized trials has shown reductions in exacerbations and COPD with type 2 inflammation, he added.

“In our real-world cohort, we saw both a reduction in exacerbations and hospitalizations in the year following initiation of biologic therapy,” Dr. Dachert said. A reduction in hospitalizations, in particular, had not previously been shown in this population, he noted.

The findings were limited by the retrospective design and use of data from a single center; moreover, larger real-world studies are needed to confirm the results, said Dr. Dachert. “As we add patients to our cohort, we may be able to identify which clinical characteristics/risk factors may be associated with an even more robust reduction in exacerbations or hospitalizations,” he said.

“Our cohort of patients was more diverse than those included in prior randomized clinical trials and also has high rates of emphysema and airflow obstruction, populations typically excluded in large randomized trials,” he said.
 

Data Support the Potential of Biologics for COPD

Biologic agents have been effective in reducing asthma exacerbations, and understanding their effectiveness in reducing COPD exacerbations in a real-world setting is important, said Arianne K. Baldomero, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, in an interview.

Dr, Baldomero said she was not surprised by the current study results “as clinical trials are showing similar findings among this group of patients with elevated eosinophil counts.”

The current study adds to the growing evidence supporting the use of biologics to reduce COPD exacerbations, Dr. Baldomero told this news organization. “I anticipate that we will soon begin using biologics to manage frequent exacerbations in patients with COPD,” she said.

“For both asthma and COPD, more research is needed to guide clinicians in tapering or weaning down biologic treatment and determining whether patients still need to use inhalers,” Dr. Baldomero added.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Baldomero had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of biologics significantly reduced exacerbations and hospitalizations in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and overlapping type 2 asthma inflammation, based on data from a new study presented at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.

Patients diagnosed with COPD on maximum medical therapy may continue to have disease exacerbations that are highly morbid and are associated with worsening lung function, increased hospitalizations, and worsened mortality, said lead author Stephen Dachert, MD, Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, in an interview.

“Biologic therapy has been shown to reduce exacerbations in type 2 airway inflammation in patients with asthma and may be a potential target in patients with COPD and type 2 inflammation,” he said. In type 2 inflammation, a systematic allergic response activates immune cells, including eosinophils, mast cells, and T cells.

Previous research has examined the association between use of individual biologics and reduction in acute exacerbations of COPD, but real-world data on the use of biologics for COPD and asthma-COPD overlap syndrome (ACOS) are lacking, Dr. Dachert and colleagues wrote in their abstract.

In the current study, the researchers reviewed data from 53 adults with COPD who were seen at a single center; 30 had ACOS, and 23 had COPD only. The mean age of the participants was 68.2 years, approximately half were White/Caucasian individuals, 26% were Black/African American individuals, 17% were Hispanic individuals, 4% were Asian individuals/Pacific Islanders, and 2% were from other races/ethnicities; 62% were women. The study population included patients with prior diagnosis codes for COPD and dupilumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, or tezepelumab; the mean eosinophil count before biologics initiation was 471.
 

Reduction in Exacerbations and Hospitalizations

The researchers assessed change in exacerbations, hospitalizations, and spirometry from 1 year before to 1 year after initiation of treatment with biologics. Overall, after the use of biologics, patients experienced a significant mean reduction in exacerbations and hospitalizations of 1.780 and 0.944, respectively (both P < .001, using a paired T-test). 

In addition, the researchers found a mean reduction of forced expiratory volume per second percent predicted of 0.57% and a mean increase in forced vital capacity percent predicted of 1.3% after the initiation of biologics.

Increases also occurred in total lung capacity percent predicted, residual volume percent predicted, and diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percent predicted (3.37%, 9.90%, and 4.58%, respectively). Of these, only DLCO percent predicted approached statistical significance, the researchers wrote.

The study findings make sense physiologically, Dr. Dachert said in an interview. “If large, randomized trials have shown a reduction in exacerbations in patients with type 2 inflammation asthma, it makes sense that we would see similar results in patients with COPD and type 2 inflammation,” he said. However, as yet only one of several large randomized trials has shown reductions in exacerbations and COPD with type 2 inflammation, he added.

“In our real-world cohort, we saw both a reduction in exacerbations and hospitalizations in the year following initiation of biologic therapy,” Dr. Dachert said. A reduction in hospitalizations, in particular, had not previously been shown in this population, he noted.

The findings were limited by the retrospective design and use of data from a single center; moreover, larger real-world studies are needed to confirm the results, said Dr. Dachert. “As we add patients to our cohort, we may be able to identify which clinical characteristics/risk factors may be associated with an even more robust reduction in exacerbations or hospitalizations,” he said.

“Our cohort of patients was more diverse than those included in prior randomized clinical trials and also has high rates of emphysema and airflow obstruction, populations typically excluded in large randomized trials,” he said.
 

Data Support the Potential of Biologics for COPD

Biologic agents have been effective in reducing asthma exacerbations, and understanding their effectiveness in reducing COPD exacerbations in a real-world setting is important, said Arianne K. Baldomero, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, in an interview.

Dr, Baldomero said she was not surprised by the current study results “as clinical trials are showing similar findings among this group of patients with elevated eosinophil counts.”

The current study adds to the growing evidence supporting the use of biologics to reduce COPD exacerbations, Dr. Baldomero told this news organization. “I anticipate that we will soon begin using biologics to manage frequent exacerbations in patients with COPD,” she said.

“For both asthma and COPD, more research is needed to guide clinicians in tapering or weaning down biologic treatment and determining whether patients still need to use inhalers,” Dr. Baldomero added.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Baldomero had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of biologics significantly reduced exacerbations and hospitalizations in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and overlapping type 2 asthma inflammation, based on data from a new study presented at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.

Patients diagnosed with COPD on maximum medical therapy may continue to have disease exacerbations that are highly morbid and are associated with worsening lung function, increased hospitalizations, and worsened mortality, said lead author Stephen Dachert, MD, Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, in an interview.

“Biologic therapy has been shown to reduce exacerbations in type 2 airway inflammation in patients with asthma and may be a potential target in patients with COPD and type 2 inflammation,” he said. In type 2 inflammation, a systematic allergic response activates immune cells, including eosinophils, mast cells, and T cells.

Previous research has examined the association between use of individual biologics and reduction in acute exacerbations of COPD, but real-world data on the use of biologics for COPD and asthma-COPD overlap syndrome (ACOS) are lacking, Dr. Dachert and colleagues wrote in their abstract.

In the current study, the researchers reviewed data from 53 adults with COPD who were seen at a single center; 30 had ACOS, and 23 had COPD only. The mean age of the participants was 68.2 years, approximately half were White/Caucasian individuals, 26% were Black/African American individuals, 17% were Hispanic individuals, 4% were Asian individuals/Pacific Islanders, and 2% were from other races/ethnicities; 62% were women. The study population included patients with prior diagnosis codes for COPD and dupilumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, or tezepelumab; the mean eosinophil count before biologics initiation was 471.
 

Reduction in Exacerbations and Hospitalizations

The researchers assessed change in exacerbations, hospitalizations, and spirometry from 1 year before to 1 year after initiation of treatment with biologics. Overall, after the use of biologics, patients experienced a significant mean reduction in exacerbations and hospitalizations of 1.780 and 0.944, respectively (both P < .001, using a paired T-test). 

In addition, the researchers found a mean reduction of forced expiratory volume per second percent predicted of 0.57% and a mean increase in forced vital capacity percent predicted of 1.3% after the initiation of biologics.

Increases also occurred in total lung capacity percent predicted, residual volume percent predicted, and diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percent predicted (3.37%, 9.90%, and 4.58%, respectively). Of these, only DLCO percent predicted approached statistical significance, the researchers wrote.

The study findings make sense physiologically, Dr. Dachert said in an interview. “If large, randomized trials have shown a reduction in exacerbations in patients with type 2 inflammation asthma, it makes sense that we would see similar results in patients with COPD and type 2 inflammation,” he said. However, as yet only one of several large randomized trials has shown reductions in exacerbations and COPD with type 2 inflammation, he added.

“In our real-world cohort, we saw both a reduction in exacerbations and hospitalizations in the year following initiation of biologic therapy,” Dr. Dachert said. A reduction in hospitalizations, in particular, had not previously been shown in this population, he noted.

The findings were limited by the retrospective design and use of data from a single center; moreover, larger real-world studies are needed to confirm the results, said Dr. Dachert. “As we add patients to our cohort, we may be able to identify which clinical characteristics/risk factors may be associated with an even more robust reduction in exacerbations or hospitalizations,” he said.

“Our cohort of patients was more diverse than those included in prior randomized clinical trials and also has high rates of emphysema and airflow obstruction, populations typically excluded in large randomized trials,” he said.
 

Data Support the Potential of Biologics for COPD

Biologic agents have been effective in reducing asthma exacerbations, and understanding their effectiveness in reducing COPD exacerbations in a real-world setting is important, said Arianne K. Baldomero, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, in an interview.

Dr, Baldomero said she was not surprised by the current study results “as clinical trials are showing similar findings among this group of patients with elevated eosinophil counts.”

The current study adds to the growing evidence supporting the use of biologics to reduce COPD exacerbations, Dr. Baldomero told this news organization. “I anticipate that we will soon begin using biologics to manage frequent exacerbations in patients with COPD,” she said.

“For both asthma and COPD, more research is needed to guide clinicians in tapering or weaning down biologic treatment and determining whether patients still need to use inhalers,” Dr. Baldomero added.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Baldomero had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.