TOPLINE: 

A recent study found that long-term exposure to fine particulate matter ≤ 2.5 μm (PM_2.5) is associated with an increased risk for breast cancer, with the highest risk observed among White women.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies have suggested that exposure to air pollution — specifically PM_2.5 — may increase the risk for breast cancer, but data are largely in populations of White women.
• The current analysis explored the potential risk among a more racially and ethnically diverse group.
• The study included 58,358 women (median age, 60.4 years at enrollment) from the California Cancer Registry, followed over an average of 19.3 years. Overall, 35% were African American, 39% were Latino, 15% were White, and 10% were Japanese American.
• Researchers measured PM_2.5 exposure using satellite-based data and geocoded addresses. Other pollutants, such as PM₁₀, NO₂, NOX, and CO, were also tracked using Environmental Protection Agency data.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 3524 invasive breast cancer cases were diagnosed over an average follow-up period of 19.3 years. PM_2.5 exposure was associated with a 28% increased risk for breast cancer overall (hazard ratio [HR], 1.28; 95% CI, 1.08-1.51).
• When looking at risk by racial/ethnic group, the association between PM_2.5 exposure and breast cancer risk was strongest among White women (HR, 1.67). PM_2.5 exposure was also associated with a higher risk for breast cancer among African American women (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.89-1.46) and Latino women (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.94-1.92), but the associations were not significant.
• Overall breast cancer incidence was also positively associated with exposure to NO₂, NOX, and CO (HRs, 1.09-1.11), but the associations were not significant. A meta-analysis of this study and ten other cohorts estimated a 5% increased breast cancer incidence per 10-unit increase in PM_2.5 (HR, 1.05).

IN PRACTICE:

“Collective findings suggest that PM_2.5 exposure should be considered a risk factor for breast cancer, and curtailing air pollution exposures at the population level using regulatory strategies should be a priority,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Anna H. Wu, PhD, MPH, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study did not include data on nonresidential exposures or residential history before cohort entry, which limited the assessment of earlier exposures. The study also lacked information on specific sources of PM emissions, as well as an explanation for why White women had the highest breast cancer risk compared with other racial/ethnic groups.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Health Effects Air Pollution Foundation, the National Cancer Institute, USC Environmental Exposures, Host Factors, and Human Disease, and the California Air Resource Board. One author disclosed being an associate editor for the Journal of Clinical Oncology. No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

A recent study found that long-term exposure to fine particulate matter ≤ 2.5 μm (PM_2.5) is associated with an increased risk for breast cancer, with the highest risk observed among White women.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies have suggested that exposure to air pollution — specifically PM_2.5 — may increase the risk for breast cancer, but data are largely in populations of White women.
• The current analysis explored the potential risk among a more racially and ethnically diverse group.
• The study included 58,358 women (median age, 60.4 years at enrollment) from the California Cancer Registry, followed over an average of 19.3 years. Overall, 35% were African American, 39% were Latino, 15% were White, and 10% were Japanese American.
• Researchers measured PM_2.5 exposure using satellite-based data and geocoded addresses. Other pollutants, such as PM₁₀, NO₂, NOX, and CO, were also tracked using Environmental Protection Agency data.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 3524 invasive breast cancer cases were diagnosed over an average follow-up period of 19.3 years. PM_2.5 exposure was associated with a 28% increased risk for breast cancer overall (hazard ratio [HR], 1.28; 95% CI, 1.08-1.51).
• When looking at risk by racial/ethnic group, the association between PM_2.5 exposure and breast cancer risk was strongest among White women (HR, 1.67). PM_2.5 exposure was also associated with a higher risk for breast cancer among African American women (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.89-1.46) and Latino women (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.94-1.92), but the associations were not significant.
• Overall breast cancer incidence was also positively associated with exposure to NO₂, NOX, and CO (HRs, 1.09-1.11), but the associations were not significant. A meta-analysis of this study and ten other cohorts estimated a 5% increased breast cancer incidence per 10-unit increase in PM_2.5 (HR, 1.05).

IN PRACTICE:

“Collective findings suggest that PM_2.5 exposure should be considered a risk factor for breast cancer, and curtailing air pollution exposures at the population level using regulatory strategies should be a priority,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Anna H. Wu, PhD, MPH, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study did not include data on nonresidential exposures or residential history before cohort entry, which limited the assessment of earlier exposures. The study also lacked information on specific sources of PM emissions, as well as an explanation for why White women had the highest breast cancer risk compared with other racial/ethnic groups.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Health Effects Air Pollution Foundation, the National Cancer Institute, USC Environmental Exposures, Host Factors, and Human Disease, and the California Air Resource Board. One author disclosed being an associate editor for the Journal of Clinical Oncology. No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

A recent study found that long-term exposure to fine particulate matter ≤ 2.5 μm (PM_2.5) is associated with an increased risk for breast cancer, with the highest risk observed among White women.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies have suggested that exposure to air pollution — specifically PM_2.5 — may increase the risk for breast cancer, but data are largely in populations of White women.
• The current analysis explored the potential risk among a more racially and ethnically diverse group.
• The study included 58,358 women (median age, 60.4 years at enrollment) from the California Cancer Registry, followed over an average of 19.3 years. Overall, 35% were African American, 39% were Latino, 15% were White, and 10% were Japanese American.
• Researchers measured PM_2.5 exposure using satellite-based data and geocoded addresses. Other pollutants, such as PM₁₀, NO₂, NOX, and CO, were also tracked using Environmental Protection Agency data.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 3524 invasive breast cancer cases were diagnosed over an average follow-up period of 19.3 years. PM_2.5 exposure was associated with a 28% increased risk for breast cancer overall (hazard ratio [HR], 1.28; 95% CI, 1.08-1.51).
• When looking at risk by racial/ethnic group, the association between PM_2.5 exposure and breast cancer risk was strongest among White women (HR, 1.67). PM_2.5 exposure was also associated with a higher risk for breast cancer among African American women (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.89-1.46) and Latino women (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.94-1.92), but the associations were not significant.
• Overall breast cancer incidence was also positively associated with exposure to NO₂, NOX, and CO (HRs, 1.09-1.11), but the associations were not significant. A meta-analysis of this study and ten other cohorts estimated a 5% increased breast cancer incidence per 10-unit increase in PM_2.5 (HR, 1.05).

IN PRACTICE:

“Collective findings suggest that PM_2.5 exposure should be considered a risk factor for breast cancer, and curtailing air pollution exposures at the population level using regulatory strategies should be a priority,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Anna H. Wu, PhD, MPH, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study did not include data on nonresidential exposures or residential history before cohort entry, which limited the assessment of earlier exposures. The study also lacked information on specific sources of PM emissions, as well as an explanation for why White women had the highest breast cancer risk compared with other racial/ethnic groups.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Health Effects Air Pollution Foundation, the National Cancer Institute, USC Environmental Exposures, Host Factors, and Human Disease, and the California Air Resource Board. One author disclosed being an associate editor for the Journal of Clinical Oncology. No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox Cosmetic) for temporary improvement in the appearance of moderate to severe platysma bands in adults.

According to a press release from Allergan Aesthetics, which developed onabotulinumtoxinA, by injecting along the jawline and the vertical bands connecting the jaw and neck with one of the FDA-approved doses of the product based on severity, onabotulinumtoxinA temporarily reduces underlying muscle activity.

The company cited results from phase 3 clinical studies, which demonstrated statistical significance for the improvement in appearance of platysma bands from baseline with onabotulinumtoxinA compared with placebo on both investigator and patient assessment (P < .0001).

All secondary endpoints were also met, as measured by multiple validated, proprietary patient-reported outcome instruments. In two of the clinical studies, for example, 65% and 62% of patients reported being “very satisfied” or “satisfied,” respectively, with their neck and jawline definition 14 days after treatment with a dose of 26, 31, or 36 units of onabotulinumtoxinA, compared with 12% with placebo in both studies.

The development marks the fourth indication for onabotulinumtoxinA. The others are for moderate to severe glabellar lines associated with corrugator and/or procerus muscle activity, moderate to severe lateral canthal lines associated with orbicularis oculi activity, and moderate to severe forehead lines associated with frontalis activity.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox Cosmetic) for temporary improvement in the appearance of moderate to severe platysma bands in adults.

According to a press release from Allergan Aesthetics, which developed onabotulinumtoxinA, by injecting along the jawline and the vertical bands connecting the jaw and neck with one of the FDA-approved doses of the product based on severity, onabotulinumtoxinA temporarily reduces underlying muscle activity.

The company cited results from phase 3 clinical studies, which demonstrated statistical significance for the improvement in appearance of platysma bands from baseline with onabotulinumtoxinA compared with placebo on both investigator and patient assessment (P < .0001).

All secondary endpoints were also met, as measured by multiple validated, proprietary patient-reported outcome instruments. In two of the clinical studies, for example, 65% and 62% of patients reported being “very satisfied” or “satisfied,” respectively, with their neck and jawline definition 14 days after treatment with a dose of 26, 31, or 36 units of onabotulinumtoxinA, compared with 12% with placebo in both studies.

The development marks the fourth indication for onabotulinumtoxinA. The others are for moderate to severe glabellar lines associated with corrugator and/or procerus muscle activity, moderate to severe lateral canthal lines associated with orbicularis oculi activity, and moderate to severe forehead lines associated with frontalis activity.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox Cosmetic) for temporary improvement in the appearance of moderate to severe platysma bands in adults.

According to a press release from Allergan Aesthetics, which developed onabotulinumtoxinA, by injecting along the jawline and the vertical bands connecting the jaw and neck with one of the FDA-approved doses of the product based on severity, onabotulinumtoxinA temporarily reduces underlying muscle activity.

The company cited results from phase 3 clinical studies, which demonstrated statistical significance for the improvement in appearance of platysma bands from baseline with onabotulinumtoxinA compared with placebo on both investigator and patient assessment (P < .0001).

All secondary endpoints were also met, as measured by multiple validated, proprietary patient-reported outcome instruments. In two of the clinical studies, for example, 65% and 62% of patients reported being “very satisfied” or “satisfied,” respectively, with their neck and jawline definition 14 days after treatment with a dose of 26, 31, or 36 units of onabotulinumtoxinA, compared with 12% with placebo in both studies.

The development marks the fourth indication for onabotulinumtoxinA. The others are for moderate to severe glabellar lines associated with corrugator and/or procerus muscle activity, moderate to severe lateral canthal lines associated with orbicularis oculi activity, and moderate to severe forehead lines associated with frontalis activity.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA — There is a lack of understanding among neuromuscular specialists on how to balance the risks for and benefits of corticosteroids when treating patients with generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG) and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), results of a US survey showed.

For both MG and CIDP specialists, uncertainty around corticosteroid dosing, duration, and toxicity underscores the need for more guidance, the investigators noted. Over 85% of respondents indicated that a tool for systematically monitoring corticosteroid toxicity would be valuable.

The results indicate “a lack of knowledge by this pool of neurologists about the guidelines and what they contain,” said study investigator Gil Wolfe, MD, professor of neurology at the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, in New York.

Clearer guidance on how to administer corticosteroids and manage toxicities in patients with gMG and CIDP “would be welcomed by neurologists and have potential for benefit to patient care,” the team noted.

The findings were presented at the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) 2024.
 

Lack of Knowledge

Although guidelines for both CIDP and gMG recommend corticosteroids as first-line treatment and emphasize using the lowest effective dose to control symptoms, they do not include specific recommendations on dosing, duration, or toxicity monitoring, the researchers noted.

Despite this, a large proportion of survey respondents reported using guidelines to make clinical decisions on monitoring toxicity, with up to a third actually endorsing a guideline that doesn’t exist.

The cross-sectional, online survey was deployed in November and December 2023 and included 200 US neurologists. Of these, 99 answered questions on CIDP, and 101 answered similar questions on gMG.

To participate in the survey, respondents had to be board-certified neurologists, practicing for at least 2 years post-residency, and have treated or consulted on at least three patients with CIDP or 10 patients with gMG in the past year who were on a corticosteroid dose of at least 10 mg daily for 1 month or more.

CIDP respondents had been practicing a mean of 18.1 years since residency and were board certified in neuromuscular (20%), electrodiagnostic medicine/clinical neurophysiology (21%), and pediatric neurology (8%). Two thirds of them accepted referrals from other neurologists.

The gMG respondents had been practicing a mean of 20.5 years since residency and were board certified in neuromuscular (45%), electrodiagnostic medicine/clinical neurophysiology (35%), and pediatric neurology (17%). A total of 72% accepted referrals from other neurologists.

Respondents estimated that about 60% of their patients with gMG and 58% of patients with CIDP were being treated with corticosteroids, with gMG and CIDP respondents reporting a mean of 26.4 and 15.6 patients, respectively, meeting the study’s dosing criteria.
 

Appropriate Dosing

When asked what chronic, long-term (≥ 6 months) corticosteroid dose they considered safe in terms of minimizing adverse events, 43% of CIDP respondents and 51% of gMG respondents considered corticosteroid doses of 10 mg/d or less (prednisone equivalent) well tolerated; additionally, 32% and 31%, respectively, considered 20-40 mg/d well tolerated. Moreover, they said only about half of their patients would be able to taper to less than 10 mg/d in less than 6 months.

“Studies suggest safety is not seen until patients are on doses at 5 mg/d or less,” Wolfe said. “There is not enough appreciation that doses at levels we once considered safe really do pose significant risk,” he added.

“With the increasing number of treatment options in MG and to a lesser extent in CIDP, we need to do all we can to use corticosteroids as judiciously as possible and be aware of side effects our patients may not even report unless we make a pointed effort to ask about them.”

Familiarity with corticosteroid toxicities was more common among gMG respondents, of whom 77% reported being very/extremely familiar, than among 55% of CIDP respondents. Appetite/weight gain was reported among the most common adverse effects (AEs) associated with long-term CS use (reported by 68% of CIDP and 58% of gMG respondents). Other common AEs reported were insulin resistance (53% of CIDP and 50% of gMG respondents), decreased bone density (47% and 48%, respectively), immunosuppression (37% and 45%, respectively). Mood and behavioral change were noted by 56% of CIDP and 37% of gMG respondents, particularly mood swings, irritability, mania, and sleep disorders.

When asked how they balanced the risk for and benefit of corticosteroids, more than 80% of CIDP specialists reported personally monitoring for corticosteroid-related toxicity, and 42% reported they collaborated with the patient’s primary care provider. However, fewer than 10% reported ordering lab tests. Among neurologists treating gMG, 84% said they typically monitor corticosteroid toxicity independently, while 41% reported doing so in collaboration with primary care providers.

Two thirds of CIDP respondents and 53% of gMG respondents reported using guidelines to make clinical decisions on monitoring toxicity, and 34% of gMG respondents actually endorsed using the Guideline for Systematic Surveillance of Steroid Safety, which does not exist.
 

‘A Big Issue’ in Neurology

Commenting on the results, Said R. Beydoun, MD, professor and division chief, Neuromuscular Medicine, Department of Neurology at Keck Medicine of University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said steroid toxicity is “a big issue” in neurology.

These patients can be on chronic therapy, and they aren’t really monitored for osteoporosis or other complications, he said, adding that neurologists aren’t always taking the necessary precautions to prevent steroid toxicity.

Beydoun estimated that about half of neurologists are not adequately familiar with balancing the efficacy of corticosteroids versus in toxicity.

“Objective improvement, either on the functional scale or the muscle impairment scale — that’s really response treatment. Whereas adverse effects of a treatment are something separate. The patient may be improving but also maybe developing other complications from the treatment,” he said.

Also commenting, Ghazala Hayat, MD, professor of neurology and director of neuromuscular and clinical neurophysiology services at Saint Louis University in St. Louis, said there is a clear need for more education.

“I always say prednisone is our best friend initially, and then it becomes the worst enemy. If you don’t see lots of neuromuscular patients, you might not know even how to recognize toxicity or how to taper. Or the opposite to that, if you taper too quickly, patients relapse.”

The study was funded by argenx. Wolfe reported serving on advisory boards for Alexion, argenx, UCB, and Johnson & Johnson. Neelam Goyal, MD, is a consultant/advisor for Alexion, argenx, Amgen, Janssen, Lycia Therapeutics, and UCB and has received grant support from argenx. Beydoun reported receiving research support and consulting and speaking fees from Healey Center, Amylyx, AB Science, Sanofi, Janssen, Genentech, Regeneron, UCB, Abcuro argenx, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Amylyx, CSL Behring, Grifols, Takeda, Octapharma, UCB, and Janssen. Hayat reported speaker and advisory roles with argenx, Alexion, and MTPA.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA — There is a lack of understanding among neuromuscular specialists on how to balance the risks for and benefits of corticosteroids when treating patients with generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG) and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), results of a US survey showed.

For both MG and CIDP specialists, uncertainty around corticosteroid dosing, duration, and toxicity underscores the need for more guidance, the investigators noted. Over 85% of respondents indicated that a tool for systematically monitoring corticosteroid toxicity would be valuable.

The results indicate “a lack of knowledge by this pool of neurologists about the guidelines and what they contain,” said study investigator Gil Wolfe, MD, professor of neurology at the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, in New York.

Clearer guidance on how to administer corticosteroids and manage toxicities in patients with gMG and CIDP “would be welcomed by neurologists and have potential for benefit to patient care,” the team noted.

The findings were presented at the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) 2024.
 

Lack of Knowledge

Although guidelines for both CIDP and gMG recommend corticosteroids as first-line treatment and emphasize using the lowest effective dose to control symptoms, they do not include specific recommendations on dosing, duration, or toxicity monitoring, the researchers noted.

Despite this, a large proportion of survey respondents reported using guidelines to make clinical decisions on monitoring toxicity, with up to a third actually endorsing a guideline that doesn’t exist.

The cross-sectional, online survey was deployed in November and December 2023 and included 200 US neurologists. Of these, 99 answered questions on CIDP, and 101 answered similar questions on gMG.

To participate in the survey, respondents had to be board-certified neurologists, practicing for at least 2 years post-residency, and have treated or consulted on at least three patients with CIDP or 10 patients with gMG in the past year who were on a corticosteroid dose of at least 10 mg daily for 1 month or more.

CIDP respondents had been practicing a mean of 18.1 years since residency and were board certified in neuromuscular (20%), electrodiagnostic medicine/clinical neurophysiology (21%), and pediatric neurology (8%). Two thirds of them accepted referrals from other neurologists.

The gMG respondents had been practicing a mean of 20.5 years since residency and were board certified in neuromuscular (45%), electrodiagnostic medicine/clinical neurophysiology (35%), and pediatric neurology (17%). A total of 72% accepted referrals from other neurologists.

Respondents estimated that about 60% of their patients with gMG and 58% of patients with CIDP were being treated with corticosteroids, with gMG and CIDP respondents reporting a mean of 26.4 and 15.6 patients, respectively, meeting the study’s dosing criteria.
 

Appropriate Dosing

When asked what chronic, long-term (≥ 6 months) corticosteroid dose they considered safe in terms of minimizing adverse events, 43% of CIDP respondents and 51% of gMG respondents considered corticosteroid doses of 10 mg/d or less (prednisone equivalent) well tolerated; additionally, 32% and 31%, respectively, considered 20-40 mg/d well tolerated. Moreover, they said only about half of their patients would be able to taper to less than 10 mg/d in less than 6 months.

“Studies suggest safety is not seen until patients are on doses at 5 mg/d or less,” Wolfe said. “There is not enough appreciation that doses at levels we once considered safe really do pose significant risk,” he added.

“With the increasing number of treatment options in MG and to a lesser extent in CIDP, we need to do all we can to use corticosteroids as judiciously as possible and be aware of side effects our patients may not even report unless we make a pointed effort to ask about them.”

Familiarity with corticosteroid toxicities was more common among gMG respondents, of whom 77% reported being very/extremely familiar, than among 55% of CIDP respondents. Appetite/weight gain was reported among the most common adverse effects (AEs) associated with long-term CS use (reported by 68% of CIDP and 58% of gMG respondents). Other common AEs reported were insulin resistance (53% of CIDP and 50% of gMG respondents), decreased bone density (47% and 48%, respectively), immunosuppression (37% and 45%, respectively). Mood and behavioral change were noted by 56% of CIDP and 37% of gMG respondents, particularly mood swings, irritability, mania, and sleep disorders.

When asked how they balanced the risk for and benefit of corticosteroids, more than 80% of CIDP specialists reported personally monitoring for corticosteroid-related toxicity, and 42% reported they collaborated with the patient’s primary care provider. However, fewer than 10% reported ordering lab tests. Among neurologists treating gMG, 84% said they typically monitor corticosteroid toxicity independently, while 41% reported doing so in collaboration with primary care providers.

Two thirds of CIDP respondents and 53% of gMG respondents reported using guidelines to make clinical decisions on monitoring toxicity, and 34% of gMG respondents actually endorsed using the Guideline for Systematic Surveillance of Steroid Safety, which does not exist.
 

‘A Big Issue’ in Neurology

Commenting on the results, Said R. Beydoun, MD, professor and division chief, Neuromuscular Medicine, Department of Neurology at Keck Medicine of University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said steroid toxicity is “a big issue” in neurology.

These patients can be on chronic therapy, and they aren’t really monitored for osteoporosis or other complications, he said, adding that neurologists aren’t always taking the necessary precautions to prevent steroid toxicity.

Beydoun estimated that about half of neurologists are not adequately familiar with balancing the efficacy of corticosteroids versus in toxicity.

“Objective improvement, either on the functional scale or the muscle impairment scale — that’s really response treatment. Whereas adverse effects of a treatment are something separate. The patient may be improving but also maybe developing other complications from the treatment,” he said.

Also commenting, Ghazala Hayat, MD, professor of neurology and director of neuromuscular and clinical neurophysiology services at Saint Louis University in St. Louis, said there is a clear need for more education.

“I always say prednisone is our best friend initially, and then it becomes the worst enemy. If you don’t see lots of neuromuscular patients, you might not know even how to recognize toxicity or how to taper. Or the opposite to that, if you taper too quickly, patients relapse.”

The study was funded by argenx. Wolfe reported serving on advisory boards for Alexion, argenx, UCB, and Johnson & Johnson. Neelam Goyal, MD, is a consultant/advisor for Alexion, argenx, Amgen, Janssen, Lycia Therapeutics, and UCB and has received grant support from argenx. Beydoun reported receiving research support and consulting and speaking fees from Healey Center, Amylyx, AB Science, Sanofi, Janssen, Genentech, Regeneron, UCB, Abcuro argenx, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Amylyx, CSL Behring, Grifols, Takeda, Octapharma, UCB, and Janssen. Hayat reported speaker and advisory roles with argenx, Alexion, and MTPA.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA — There is a lack of understanding among neuromuscular specialists on how to balance the risks for and benefits of corticosteroids when treating patients with generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG) and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), results of a US survey showed.

For both MG and CIDP specialists, uncertainty around corticosteroid dosing, duration, and toxicity underscores the need for more guidance, the investigators noted. Over 85% of respondents indicated that a tool for systematically monitoring corticosteroid toxicity would be valuable.

The results indicate “a lack of knowledge by this pool of neurologists about the guidelines and what they contain,” said study investigator Gil Wolfe, MD, professor of neurology at the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, in New York.

Clearer guidance on how to administer corticosteroids and manage toxicities in patients with gMG and CIDP “would be welcomed by neurologists and have potential for benefit to patient care,” the team noted.

The findings were presented at the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) 2024.
 

Lack of Knowledge

Although guidelines for both CIDP and gMG recommend corticosteroids as first-line treatment and emphasize using the lowest effective dose to control symptoms, they do not include specific recommendations on dosing, duration, or toxicity monitoring, the researchers noted.

Despite this, a large proportion of survey respondents reported using guidelines to make clinical decisions on monitoring toxicity, with up to a third actually endorsing a guideline that doesn’t exist.

The cross-sectional, online survey was deployed in November and December 2023 and included 200 US neurologists. Of these, 99 answered questions on CIDP, and 101 answered similar questions on gMG.

To participate in the survey, respondents had to be board-certified neurologists, practicing for at least 2 years post-residency, and have treated or consulted on at least three patients with CIDP or 10 patients with gMG in the past year who were on a corticosteroid dose of at least 10 mg daily for 1 month or more.

CIDP respondents had been practicing a mean of 18.1 years since residency and were board certified in neuromuscular (20%), electrodiagnostic medicine/clinical neurophysiology (21%), and pediatric neurology (8%). Two thirds of them accepted referrals from other neurologists.

The gMG respondents had been practicing a mean of 20.5 years since residency and were board certified in neuromuscular (45%), electrodiagnostic medicine/clinical neurophysiology (35%), and pediatric neurology (17%). A total of 72% accepted referrals from other neurologists.

Respondents estimated that about 60% of their patients with gMG and 58% of patients with CIDP were being treated with corticosteroids, with gMG and CIDP respondents reporting a mean of 26.4 and 15.6 patients, respectively, meeting the study’s dosing criteria.
 

Appropriate Dosing

When asked what chronic, long-term (≥ 6 months) corticosteroid dose they considered safe in terms of minimizing adverse events, 43% of CIDP respondents and 51% of gMG respondents considered corticosteroid doses of 10 mg/d or less (prednisone equivalent) well tolerated; additionally, 32% and 31%, respectively, considered 20-40 mg/d well tolerated. Moreover, they said only about half of their patients would be able to taper to less than 10 mg/d in less than 6 months.

“Studies suggest safety is not seen until patients are on doses at 5 mg/d or less,” Wolfe said. “There is not enough appreciation that doses at levels we once considered safe really do pose significant risk,” he added.

“With the increasing number of treatment options in MG and to a lesser extent in CIDP, we need to do all we can to use corticosteroids as judiciously as possible and be aware of side effects our patients may not even report unless we make a pointed effort to ask about them.”

Familiarity with corticosteroid toxicities was more common among gMG respondents, of whom 77% reported being very/extremely familiar, than among 55% of CIDP respondents. Appetite/weight gain was reported among the most common adverse effects (AEs) associated with long-term CS use (reported by 68% of CIDP and 58% of gMG respondents). Other common AEs reported were insulin resistance (53% of CIDP and 50% of gMG respondents), decreased bone density (47% and 48%, respectively), immunosuppression (37% and 45%, respectively). Mood and behavioral change were noted by 56% of CIDP and 37% of gMG respondents, particularly mood swings, irritability, mania, and sleep disorders.

When asked how they balanced the risk for and benefit of corticosteroids, more than 80% of CIDP specialists reported personally monitoring for corticosteroid-related toxicity, and 42% reported they collaborated with the patient’s primary care provider. However, fewer than 10% reported ordering lab tests. Among neurologists treating gMG, 84% said they typically monitor corticosteroid toxicity independently, while 41% reported doing so in collaboration with primary care providers.

Two thirds of CIDP respondents and 53% of gMG respondents reported using guidelines to make clinical decisions on monitoring toxicity, and 34% of gMG respondents actually endorsed using the Guideline for Systematic Surveillance of Steroid Safety, which does not exist.
 

‘A Big Issue’ in Neurology

Commenting on the results, Said R. Beydoun, MD, professor and division chief, Neuromuscular Medicine, Department of Neurology at Keck Medicine of University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said steroid toxicity is “a big issue” in neurology.

These patients can be on chronic therapy, and they aren’t really monitored for osteoporosis or other complications, he said, adding that neurologists aren’t always taking the necessary precautions to prevent steroid toxicity.

Beydoun estimated that about half of neurologists are not adequately familiar with balancing the efficacy of corticosteroids versus in toxicity.

“Objective improvement, either on the functional scale or the muscle impairment scale — that’s really response treatment. Whereas adverse effects of a treatment are something separate. The patient may be improving but also maybe developing other complications from the treatment,” he said.

Also commenting, Ghazala Hayat, MD, professor of neurology and director of neuromuscular and clinical neurophysiology services at Saint Louis University in St. Louis, said there is a clear need for more education.

“I always say prednisone is our best friend initially, and then it becomes the worst enemy. If you don’t see lots of neuromuscular patients, you might not know even how to recognize toxicity or how to taper. Or the opposite to that, if you taper too quickly, patients relapse.”

The study was funded by argenx. Wolfe reported serving on advisory boards for Alexion, argenx, UCB, and Johnson & Johnson. Neelam Goyal, MD, is a consultant/advisor for Alexion, argenx, Amgen, Janssen, Lycia Therapeutics, and UCB and has received grant support from argenx. Beydoun reported receiving research support and consulting and speaking fees from Healey Center, Amylyx, AB Science, Sanofi, Janssen, Genentech, Regeneron, UCB, Abcuro argenx, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Amylyx, CSL Behring, Grifols, Takeda, Octapharma, UCB, and Janssen. Hayat reported speaker and advisory roles with argenx, Alexion, and MTPA.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA — Teamwork and transdisciplinary collaboration create an effective system of care for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), ensuring improved health both for patients and clinicians alike, said one expert.

In a plenary address at the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) 2024, Ileana Howard, MD, medical co-director of the ALS Center of Excellence at VA Puget Sound in Seattle, said the recently released National Academies report “Living with ALS” cited the Veterans Administration as “a bright spot in the landscape of ALS care due to its interdisciplinary, holistic, and proactive approach to care.”

Since the early 2000s and the publication of several studies linking active military service with ALS, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has opened an ALS registry, a tissue and brain biobank, and in 2008, granted 100% presumptive service connection to any individual who served more than 90 days of active duty and was later diagnosed with ALS, she said.

“We now serve approximately 4000 veterans with ALS across the system, and we count 47 full interdisciplinary clinics within VA across the nation, with ALS coordinators designated for all 170 VA facilities, regardless of whether they had an ALS clinic or not, to serve as a navigator for patients and their families, to identify the closest ALS clinic that could meet their needs.” 
 

Multidisciplinary vs Interdisciplinary

Howard emphasized that transdisciplinary collaboration is essential for maintaining an effective system. She pointed out that the term “multidisciplinary” is outdated, referring to teams that work independently but in parallel on the same issue.

In contrast, interdisciplinary teams integrate their assessments into a cohesive plan of care, whereas transdisciplinary teams take it further by combining both their assessments and care plans, allowing for greater intentional overlap.

The VA’s ALS handbook lists approximately 20 essential clinicians for a VA ALS clinic, including recreation therapists, assistive technology specialists, and veteran benefit service officers to assist with disability benefits application, among others, she said.

Essential to this collaboration is “role release,” which deliberately blurs the boundaries between disciplines. “The future of our specialty hinges on effective and selfless collaboration,” she said.

Howard encouraged ALS healthcare providers to move away from outdated terminology rooted in hierarchical team models and to break down silos that no longer benefit either the patients or the care teams.

She noted that while teamwork can enhance patient outcomes and overall health, it has also been associated with better health among healthcare providers. It’s well-known, she said, that neurologists and physiatrists are among the specialties with the highest burnout rates, and ALS teams, in particular, experience significant stress and burnout.
 

Better Together

A recent Canadian study on resiliency and burnout in ALS clinics surveyed a wide range of practitioners within ALS centers and found respondents drew resiliency through relationships with patients and colleagues, and that there was a strongly expressed desire for increased resources, team building/debriefing, and formal training in emotional exhaustion and burnout.

“A consistent theme was the lack of adequate allied health support (nursing, social work, occupational therapy) to address the complex needs of patients,” said the report’s senior author Kerri Lynn Schellenberg, MD, medical director of the ALS/Motor Neuron Diseases clinic and associate professor at the University of Saskatchewan College of Medicine in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.

“The majority of participants felt they would benefit from more consistent team building exercises and debriefing,” noted the authors.

Schellenberg agreed, emphasizing that care teams perform best when there is mutual appreciation and support among members. By learning from one another and reaching consensus together, the care plan benefits from the collective expertise of the team. “We are stronger together,” she said.

Howard and Schellenberg reported no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA — Teamwork and transdisciplinary collaboration create an effective system of care for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), ensuring improved health both for patients and clinicians alike, said one expert.

In a plenary address at the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) 2024, Ileana Howard, MD, medical co-director of the ALS Center of Excellence at VA Puget Sound in Seattle, said the recently released National Academies report “Living with ALS” cited the Veterans Administration as “a bright spot in the landscape of ALS care due to its interdisciplinary, holistic, and proactive approach to care.”

Since the early 2000s and the publication of several studies linking active military service with ALS, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has opened an ALS registry, a tissue and brain biobank, and in 2008, granted 100% presumptive service connection to any individual who served more than 90 days of active duty and was later diagnosed with ALS, she said.

“We now serve approximately 4000 veterans with ALS across the system, and we count 47 full interdisciplinary clinics within VA across the nation, with ALS coordinators designated for all 170 VA facilities, regardless of whether they had an ALS clinic or not, to serve as a navigator for patients and their families, to identify the closest ALS clinic that could meet their needs.” 
 

Multidisciplinary vs Interdisciplinary

Howard emphasized that transdisciplinary collaboration is essential for maintaining an effective system. She pointed out that the term “multidisciplinary” is outdated, referring to teams that work independently but in parallel on the same issue.

In contrast, interdisciplinary teams integrate their assessments into a cohesive plan of care, whereas transdisciplinary teams take it further by combining both their assessments and care plans, allowing for greater intentional overlap.

The VA’s ALS handbook lists approximately 20 essential clinicians for a VA ALS clinic, including recreation therapists, assistive technology specialists, and veteran benefit service officers to assist with disability benefits application, among others, she said.

Essential to this collaboration is “role release,” which deliberately blurs the boundaries between disciplines. “The future of our specialty hinges on effective and selfless collaboration,” she said.

Howard encouraged ALS healthcare providers to move away from outdated terminology rooted in hierarchical team models and to break down silos that no longer benefit either the patients or the care teams.

She noted that while teamwork can enhance patient outcomes and overall health, it has also been associated with better health among healthcare providers. It’s well-known, she said, that neurologists and physiatrists are among the specialties with the highest burnout rates, and ALS teams, in particular, experience significant stress and burnout.
 

Better Together

A recent Canadian study on resiliency and burnout in ALS clinics surveyed a wide range of practitioners within ALS centers and found respondents drew resiliency through relationships with patients and colleagues, and that there was a strongly expressed desire for increased resources, team building/debriefing, and formal training in emotional exhaustion and burnout.

“A consistent theme was the lack of adequate allied health support (nursing, social work, occupational therapy) to address the complex needs of patients,” said the report’s senior author Kerri Lynn Schellenberg, MD, medical director of the ALS/Motor Neuron Diseases clinic and associate professor at the University of Saskatchewan College of Medicine in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.

“The majority of participants felt they would benefit from more consistent team building exercises and debriefing,” noted the authors.

Schellenberg agreed, emphasizing that care teams perform best when there is mutual appreciation and support among members. By learning from one another and reaching consensus together, the care plan benefits from the collective expertise of the team. “We are stronger together,” she said.

Howard and Schellenberg reported no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA — Teamwork and transdisciplinary collaboration create an effective system of care for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), ensuring improved health both for patients and clinicians alike, said one expert.

In a plenary address at the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) 2024, Ileana Howard, MD, medical co-director of the ALS Center of Excellence at VA Puget Sound in Seattle, said the recently released National Academies report “Living with ALS” cited the Veterans Administration as “a bright spot in the landscape of ALS care due to its interdisciplinary, holistic, and proactive approach to care.”

Since the early 2000s and the publication of several studies linking active military service with ALS, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has opened an ALS registry, a tissue and brain biobank, and in 2008, granted 100% presumptive service connection to any individual who served more than 90 days of active duty and was later diagnosed with ALS, she said.

“We now serve approximately 4000 veterans with ALS across the system, and we count 47 full interdisciplinary clinics within VA across the nation, with ALS coordinators designated for all 170 VA facilities, regardless of whether they had an ALS clinic or not, to serve as a navigator for patients and their families, to identify the closest ALS clinic that could meet their needs.” 
 

Multidisciplinary vs Interdisciplinary

Howard emphasized that transdisciplinary collaboration is essential for maintaining an effective system. She pointed out that the term “multidisciplinary” is outdated, referring to teams that work independently but in parallel on the same issue.

In contrast, interdisciplinary teams integrate their assessments into a cohesive plan of care, whereas transdisciplinary teams take it further by combining both their assessments and care plans, allowing for greater intentional overlap.

The VA’s ALS handbook lists approximately 20 essential clinicians for a VA ALS clinic, including recreation therapists, assistive technology specialists, and veteran benefit service officers to assist with disability benefits application, among others, she said.

Essential to this collaboration is “role release,” which deliberately blurs the boundaries between disciplines. “The future of our specialty hinges on effective and selfless collaboration,” she said.

Howard encouraged ALS healthcare providers to move away from outdated terminology rooted in hierarchical team models and to break down silos that no longer benefit either the patients or the care teams.

She noted that while teamwork can enhance patient outcomes and overall health, it has also been associated with better health among healthcare providers. It’s well-known, she said, that neurologists and physiatrists are among the specialties with the highest burnout rates, and ALS teams, in particular, experience significant stress and burnout.
 

Better Together

A recent Canadian study on resiliency and burnout in ALS clinics surveyed a wide range of practitioners within ALS centers and found respondents drew resiliency through relationships with patients and colleagues, and that there was a strongly expressed desire for increased resources, team building/debriefing, and formal training in emotional exhaustion and burnout.

“A consistent theme was the lack of adequate allied health support (nursing, social work, occupational therapy) to address the complex needs of patients,” said the report’s senior author Kerri Lynn Schellenberg, MD, medical director of the ALS/Motor Neuron Diseases clinic and associate professor at the University of Saskatchewan College of Medicine in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.

“The majority of participants felt they would benefit from more consistent team building exercises and debriefing,” noted the authors.

Schellenberg agreed, emphasizing that care teams perform best when there is mutual appreciation and support among members. By learning from one another and reaching consensus together, the care plan benefits from the collective expertise of the team. “We are stronger together,” she said.

Howard and Schellenberg reported no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA — A digital tool to help neurologists assess steroid toxicity in patients with myasthenia gravis (MG) demonstrated sensitivity in distinguishing between different doses and durations of steroid exposure in a retrospective, real-world study.

The Glucocorticoid Toxicity Index-Metabolic Domains (GTI-MD), an abbreviated version of the GTI (Steritas), used weighted, standardized clinical outcome assessments to calculate steroid toxicity using a de-identified electronic health record (EHR) dataset.

“The results of our study indicate that patients with MG who initiated steroids demonstrated evidence of steroid toxicity in as little as 90 days after initial exposure, which was significant for patients with 20+ mg at index with repeated use,” noted study investigators, led by Neelam Goyal, MD, clinical professor of neurology and neurological sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine in Palo Alto, California.

The findings were presented at American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) 2024.
 

Rapid Evidence of Toxicity

The GTI uses nine health domains to calculate steroid toxicity scores, and the GTI-MD, which has been shown to be closely correlated, uses four domains collected routinely in clinical practice: Body mass index (BMI), blood pressure, glucose tolerance, and lipid metabolism.

The study used the Optum EHR dataset to identify 682 adult patients with MG, mean age of 70 years, 38% women, with at least two confirmed diagnoses of MG between 30 and 730 days apart and information on steroid utilization.

Patients were divided into two groups: Steroid initiators (SI; n = 377) were those whose steroid use was already in progress at the index date, whereas steroid-naive (SN) patients (n = 305) began their steroid use at the index date. Among the SI group, 30% were on doses greater than 20 mg/d and 22% were on lower doses. Among the SN group, 22% were on doses greater than 20 mg/d and 26% were on lower doses.

As expected, mean GTI-MD scores measured 90 days after the index date were higher in the SI group than in the SN group, indicating a higher level of steroid toxicity in the SI group. This was measured with two subscores of the GTI-MD: The Cumulative Worsening Score (22.6 vs 18.7; P = .007) and the Aggregate Improvement Score (4.9 vs 1.9; P = .27), the latter incorporating resolved toxicities resulting from the introduction of steroid-sparing agents.

The authors commented that scores were higher in the SN group than expected, “which could be explained by age, previous steroid exposure, comorbidities, and side effects from other medications.” However, they concluded that the findings suggest utility of the tool retrospectively, with EHR data.
 

Clinical Application

The GTI and related measurements are proprietary tools and therefore not readily available to all clinicians, noted Marie Beaudin, MD, another neurologist at Stanford University School of Medicine, who was not involved in the research.

In a separate, observational, ongoing study, Beaudin and Goyal’s team are examining the use of the tool prospectively for following the steroid toxicity burden in 50 patients with MG and correlating it with MG outcomes measured using the MG-Activities of Daily Living, MG Composite, and MG-Quality of Life 15R validated scales, as well as the adverse event unit.

“The objective of this study is to quantify the burden of toxicity that our patients are having from glucocorticoids, see how sensitive to change the scale is as their dosage of prednisone changes, and explore the correlations between the score and their disease outcome measures,” Beaudin said.

Unlike the abbreviated GTI-MD, the GTI measures nine domains: Bone mineral density, BMI, lipid metabolism, blood pressure, glucose tolerance, myopathy, skin toxicity, neuropsychiatric symptoms, and infections.

The score involves actively prompting and examining the patient, making it quite comprehensive. Beaudin said the study has revealed interesting insights into how patients report their side effects. When asked broadly about steroid-related side effects, many patients mention issues like weight or skin issues.

However, she noted, when prompted specifically about symptoms like insomnia, irritability, depression, or cognitive changes, there was an unexpected increase in positive responses, as patients are often unaware these could be side effects. This suggests the study may capture a greater burden than originally anticipated, said Beaudin.

She added that the long-term utility of the GTI score might be to help clinicians predict steroid toxicity and guide management.

“Then we would get more aggressive in trying to wean or taper patients. But these are often complicated cases because as soon as we taper, the disease flares. It’s a difficult decision whether to reduce the dosage of prednisone because toxicity burden is high, when disease burden is high too, and that’s where other medications can come into play.”

For example, she said, for insurance coverage, a high steroid toxicity score could justify the need to initiate more expensive steroid-sparing agents.

Both studies were funded by argenx. Goyal reported that she has consulted and received grant support from argenx, UCB, Alexion, and Janssen argenx. Beaudin is supported by a McLaughlin Scholarship from Laval University, Quebec, Canada.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA — A digital tool to help neurologists assess steroid toxicity in patients with myasthenia gravis (MG) demonstrated sensitivity in distinguishing between different doses and durations of steroid exposure in a retrospective, real-world study.

The Glucocorticoid Toxicity Index-Metabolic Domains (GTI-MD), an abbreviated version of the GTI (Steritas), used weighted, standardized clinical outcome assessments to calculate steroid toxicity using a de-identified electronic health record (EHR) dataset.

“The results of our study indicate that patients with MG who initiated steroids demonstrated evidence of steroid toxicity in as little as 90 days after initial exposure, which was significant for patients with 20+ mg at index with repeated use,” noted study investigators, led by Neelam Goyal, MD, clinical professor of neurology and neurological sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine in Palo Alto, California.

The findings were presented at American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) 2024.
 

Rapid Evidence of Toxicity

The GTI uses nine health domains to calculate steroid toxicity scores, and the GTI-MD, which has been shown to be closely correlated, uses four domains collected routinely in clinical practice: Body mass index (BMI), blood pressure, glucose tolerance, and lipid metabolism.

The study used the Optum EHR dataset to identify 682 adult patients with MG, mean age of 70 years, 38% women, with at least two confirmed diagnoses of MG between 30 and 730 days apart and information on steroid utilization.

Patients were divided into two groups: Steroid initiators (SI; n = 377) were those whose steroid use was already in progress at the index date, whereas steroid-naive (SN) patients (n = 305) began their steroid use at the index date. Among the SI group, 30% were on doses greater than 20 mg/d and 22% were on lower doses. Among the SN group, 22% were on doses greater than 20 mg/d and 26% were on lower doses.

As expected, mean GTI-MD scores measured 90 days after the index date were higher in the SI group than in the SN group, indicating a higher level of steroid toxicity in the SI group. This was measured with two subscores of the GTI-MD: The Cumulative Worsening Score (22.6 vs 18.7; P = .007) and the Aggregate Improvement Score (4.9 vs 1.9; P = .27), the latter incorporating resolved toxicities resulting from the introduction of steroid-sparing agents.

The authors commented that scores were higher in the SN group than expected, “which could be explained by age, previous steroid exposure, comorbidities, and side effects from other medications.” However, they concluded that the findings suggest utility of the tool retrospectively, with EHR data.
 

Clinical Application

The GTI and related measurements are proprietary tools and therefore not readily available to all clinicians, noted Marie Beaudin, MD, another neurologist at Stanford University School of Medicine, who was not involved in the research.

In a separate, observational, ongoing study, Beaudin and Goyal’s team are examining the use of the tool prospectively for following the steroid toxicity burden in 50 patients with MG and correlating it with MG outcomes measured using the MG-Activities of Daily Living, MG Composite, and MG-Quality of Life 15R validated scales, as well as the adverse event unit.

“The objective of this study is to quantify the burden of toxicity that our patients are having from glucocorticoids, see how sensitive to change the scale is as their dosage of prednisone changes, and explore the correlations between the score and their disease outcome measures,” Beaudin said.

Unlike the abbreviated GTI-MD, the GTI measures nine domains: Bone mineral density, BMI, lipid metabolism, blood pressure, glucose tolerance, myopathy, skin toxicity, neuropsychiatric symptoms, and infections.

The score involves actively prompting and examining the patient, making it quite comprehensive. Beaudin said the study has revealed interesting insights into how patients report their side effects. When asked broadly about steroid-related side effects, many patients mention issues like weight or skin issues.

However, she noted, when prompted specifically about symptoms like insomnia, irritability, depression, or cognitive changes, there was an unexpected increase in positive responses, as patients are often unaware these could be side effects. This suggests the study may capture a greater burden than originally anticipated, said Beaudin.

She added that the long-term utility of the GTI score might be to help clinicians predict steroid toxicity and guide management.

“Then we would get more aggressive in trying to wean or taper patients. But these are often complicated cases because as soon as we taper, the disease flares. It’s a difficult decision whether to reduce the dosage of prednisone because toxicity burden is high, when disease burden is high too, and that’s where other medications can come into play.”

For example, she said, for insurance coverage, a high steroid toxicity score could justify the need to initiate more expensive steroid-sparing agents.

Both studies were funded by argenx. Goyal reported that she has consulted and received grant support from argenx, UCB, Alexion, and Janssen argenx. Beaudin is supported by a McLaughlin Scholarship from Laval University, Quebec, Canada.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA — A digital tool to help neurologists assess steroid toxicity in patients with myasthenia gravis (MG) demonstrated sensitivity in distinguishing between different doses and durations of steroid exposure in a retrospective, real-world study.

The Glucocorticoid Toxicity Index-Metabolic Domains (GTI-MD), an abbreviated version of the GTI (Steritas), used weighted, standardized clinical outcome assessments to calculate steroid toxicity using a de-identified electronic health record (EHR) dataset.

“The results of our study indicate that patients with MG who initiated steroids demonstrated evidence of steroid toxicity in as little as 90 days after initial exposure, which was significant for patients with 20+ mg at index with repeated use,” noted study investigators, led by Neelam Goyal, MD, clinical professor of neurology and neurological sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine in Palo Alto, California.

The findings were presented at American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) 2024.
 

Rapid Evidence of Toxicity

The GTI uses nine health domains to calculate steroid toxicity scores, and the GTI-MD, which has been shown to be closely correlated, uses four domains collected routinely in clinical practice: Body mass index (BMI), blood pressure, glucose tolerance, and lipid metabolism.

The study used the Optum EHR dataset to identify 682 adult patients with MG, mean age of 70 years, 38% women, with at least two confirmed diagnoses of MG between 30 and 730 days apart and information on steroid utilization.

Patients were divided into two groups: Steroid initiators (SI; n = 377) were those whose steroid use was already in progress at the index date, whereas steroid-naive (SN) patients (n = 305) began their steroid use at the index date. Among the SI group, 30% were on doses greater than 20 mg/d and 22% were on lower doses. Among the SN group, 22% were on doses greater than 20 mg/d and 26% were on lower doses.

As expected, mean GTI-MD scores measured 90 days after the index date were higher in the SI group than in the SN group, indicating a higher level of steroid toxicity in the SI group. This was measured with two subscores of the GTI-MD: The Cumulative Worsening Score (22.6 vs 18.7; P = .007) and the Aggregate Improvement Score (4.9 vs 1.9; P = .27), the latter incorporating resolved toxicities resulting from the introduction of steroid-sparing agents.

The authors commented that scores were higher in the SN group than expected, “which could be explained by age, previous steroid exposure, comorbidities, and side effects from other medications.” However, they concluded that the findings suggest utility of the tool retrospectively, with EHR data.
 

Clinical Application

The GTI and related measurements are proprietary tools and therefore not readily available to all clinicians, noted Marie Beaudin, MD, another neurologist at Stanford University School of Medicine, who was not involved in the research.

In a separate, observational, ongoing study, Beaudin and Goyal’s team are examining the use of the tool prospectively for following the steroid toxicity burden in 50 patients with MG and correlating it with MG outcomes measured using the MG-Activities of Daily Living, MG Composite, and MG-Quality of Life 15R validated scales, as well as the adverse event unit.

“The objective of this study is to quantify the burden of toxicity that our patients are having from glucocorticoids, see how sensitive to change the scale is as their dosage of prednisone changes, and explore the correlations between the score and their disease outcome measures,” Beaudin said.

Unlike the abbreviated GTI-MD, the GTI measures nine domains: Bone mineral density, BMI, lipid metabolism, blood pressure, glucose tolerance, myopathy, skin toxicity, neuropsychiatric symptoms, and infections.

The score involves actively prompting and examining the patient, making it quite comprehensive. Beaudin said the study has revealed interesting insights into how patients report their side effects. When asked broadly about steroid-related side effects, many patients mention issues like weight or skin issues.

However, she noted, when prompted specifically about symptoms like insomnia, irritability, depression, or cognitive changes, there was an unexpected increase in positive responses, as patients are often unaware these could be side effects. This suggests the study may capture a greater burden than originally anticipated, said Beaudin.

She added that the long-term utility of the GTI score might be to help clinicians predict steroid toxicity and guide management.

“Then we would get more aggressive in trying to wean or taper patients. But these are often complicated cases because as soon as we taper, the disease flares. It’s a difficult decision whether to reduce the dosage of prednisone because toxicity burden is high, when disease burden is high too, and that’s where other medications can come into play.”

For example, she said, for insurance coverage, a high steroid toxicity score could justify the need to initiate more expensive steroid-sparing agents.

Both studies were funded by argenx. Goyal reported that she has consulted and received grant support from argenx, UCB, Alexion, and Janssen argenx. Beaudin is supported by a McLaughlin Scholarship from Laval University, Quebec, Canada.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

High-intensity exercise suppresses ghrelin levels more than moderate-intensity exercise, leading to a greater reduction in hunger. This effect may be more pronounced in women than in men.

METHODOLOGY:

• Ghrelin circulates in acylated and deacylated forms and is associated with hunger perceptions. Previous studies have indicated that acute exercise can modulate ghrelin levels, but data on the effect of exercise intensity on ghrelin levels and appetite remain limited.
• To close this gap, researchers examined 14 adults, including eight men (mean age, 43.1 years; body mass index [BMI], 22.2) and six women (mean age, 32.2 years; BMI, 22.7) who fasted overnight and then completed exercises of varying intensity.
• Participants completed a maximal graded cycle ergometer lactate threshold (LT) and peak oxygen consumption (VO2_peak) test to determine the exercise intensity.
• Three calorically matched cycle exercise bouts were conducted: Control (no exercise), moderate-intensity (power output at LT), and high-intensity (power output associated with 75% of the difference between LT and VO2_peak).
• Total ghrelin, acylated ghrelin, deacylated ghrelin, and lactate levels were measured at baseline and at multiple intervals post-exercise; appetite ratings were assessed using a visual analog scale at baseline and every 30 minutes thereafter.

TAKEAWAY:

• Total ghrelin levels were significantly lower during high-intensity exercise than during moderate-intensity and no exercise (P < .0001 for both).
• Both men and women had significantly lower deacylated ghrelin levels during high-intensity exercise than during moderate-intensity (P < .0001) and no exercise (P = .002), whereas only women had significantly lower acylated ghrelin levels during high-intensity exercise (P < .0001).
• Hunger scores were higher in the moderate-intensity exercise group than in the no exercise group (P < .01), with no differences found between high-intensity exercise and moderate-intensity or no exercise.
• Lactate levels were significantly higher during high-intensity exercise than during moderate-intensity and no exercise (P < .0001 for both).

IN PRACTICE:

“Exercise should be thought of as a ‘drug,’ where the ‘dose’ should be customized based on an individual’s personal goals,” the lead author said in a news release. “Our research suggests that high-intensity exercise may be important for appetite suppression, which can be particularly useful as part of a weight loss program.”

SOURCE:

This study was led by Kara C. Anderson, PhD, Department of Kinesiology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, and was published online on October 24, 2024, in the Journal of the Endocrine Society.

LIMITATIONS: 

The real-world application of the study was limited as participants were tested under fasting conditions, which may not have reflected typical exercise scenarios. The differences in fitness levels and exercise caloric expenditure between men and women may have affected the findings. The study only included lean individuals, limiting the applicability of the findings to individuals with overweight or obesity.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by funds from the School of Education and Human Development, University of Virginia, and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. One author reported serving as an editor for the Journal of the Endocrine Society, which played no role in the evaluation of the manuscript.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

High-intensity exercise suppresses ghrelin levels more than moderate-intensity exercise, leading to a greater reduction in hunger. This effect may be more pronounced in women than in men.

METHODOLOGY:

• Ghrelin circulates in acylated and deacylated forms and is associated with hunger perceptions. Previous studies have indicated that acute exercise can modulate ghrelin levels, but data on the effect of exercise intensity on ghrelin levels and appetite remain limited.
• To close this gap, researchers examined 14 adults, including eight men (mean age, 43.1 years; body mass index [BMI], 22.2) and six women (mean age, 32.2 years; BMI, 22.7) who fasted overnight and then completed exercises of varying intensity.
• Participants completed a maximal graded cycle ergometer lactate threshold (LT) and peak oxygen consumption (VO2_peak) test to determine the exercise intensity.
• Three calorically matched cycle exercise bouts were conducted: Control (no exercise), moderate-intensity (power output at LT), and high-intensity (power output associated with 75% of the difference between LT and VO2_peak).
• Total ghrelin, acylated ghrelin, deacylated ghrelin, and lactate levels were measured at baseline and at multiple intervals post-exercise; appetite ratings were assessed using a visual analog scale at baseline and every 30 minutes thereafter.

TAKEAWAY:

• Total ghrelin levels were significantly lower during high-intensity exercise than during moderate-intensity and no exercise (P < .0001 for both).
• Both men and women had significantly lower deacylated ghrelin levels during high-intensity exercise than during moderate-intensity (P < .0001) and no exercise (P = .002), whereas only women had significantly lower acylated ghrelin levels during high-intensity exercise (P < .0001).
• Hunger scores were higher in the moderate-intensity exercise group than in the no exercise group (P < .01), with no differences found between high-intensity exercise and moderate-intensity or no exercise.
• Lactate levels were significantly higher during high-intensity exercise than during moderate-intensity and no exercise (P < .0001 for both).

IN PRACTICE:

“Exercise should be thought of as a ‘drug,’ where the ‘dose’ should be customized based on an individual’s personal goals,” the lead author said in a news release. “Our research suggests that high-intensity exercise may be important for appetite suppression, which can be particularly useful as part of a weight loss program.”

SOURCE:

This study was led by Kara C. Anderson, PhD, Department of Kinesiology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, and was published online on October 24, 2024, in the Journal of the Endocrine Society.

LIMITATIONS: 

The real-world application of the study was limited as participants were tested under fasting conditions, which may not have reflected typical exercise scenarios. The differences in fitness levels and exercise caloric expenditure between men and women may have affected the findings. The study only included lean individuals, limiting the applicability of the findings to individuals with overweight or obesity.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by funds from the School of Education and Human Development, University of Virginia, and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. One author reported serving as an editor for the Journal of the Endocrine Society, which played no role in the evaluation of the manuscript.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

High-intensity exercise suppresses ghrelin levels more than moderate-intensity exercise, leading to a greater reduction in hunger. This effect may be more pronounced in women than in men.

METHODOLOGY:

• Ghrelin circulates in acylated and deacylated forms and is associated with hunger perceptions. Previous studies have indicated that acute exercise can modulate ghrelin levels, but data on the effect of exercise intensity on ghrelin levels and appetite remain limited.
• To close this gap, researchers examined 14 adults, including eight men (mean age, 43.1 years; body mass index [BMI], 22.2) and six women (mean age, 32.2 years; BMI, 22.7) who fasted overnight and then completed exercises of varying intensity.
• Participants completed a maximal graded cycle ergometer lactate threshold (LT) and peak oxygen consumption (VO2_peak) test to determine the exercise intensity.
• Three calorically matched cycle exercise bouts were conducted: Control (no exercise), moderate-intensity (power output at LT), and high-intensity (power output associated with 75% of the difference between LT and VO2_peak).
• Total ghrelin, acylated ghrelin, deacylated ghrelin, and lactate levels were measured at baseline and at multiple intervals post-exercise; appetite ratings were assessed using a visual analog scale at baseline and every 30 minutes thereafter.

TAKEAWAY:

• Total ghrelin levels were significantly lower during high-intensity exercise than during moderate-intensity and no exercise (P < .0001 for both).
• Both men and women had significantly lower deacylated ghrelin levels during high-intensity exercise than during moderate-intensity (P < .0001) and no exercise (P = .002), whereas only women had significantly lower acylated ghrelin levels during high-intensity exercise (P < .0001).
• Hunger scores were higher in the moderate-intensity exercise group than in the no exercise group (P < .01), with no differences found between high-intensity exercise and moderate-intensity or no exercise.
• Lactate levels were significantly higher during high-intensity exercise than during moderate-intensity and no exercise (P < .0001 for both).

IN PRACTICE:

“Exercise should be thought of as a ‘drug,’ where the ‘dose’ should be customized based on an individual’s personal goals,” the lead author said in a news release. “Our research suggests that high-intensity exercise may be important for appetite suppression, which can be particularly useful as part of a weight loss program.”

SOURCE:

This study was led by Kara C. Anderson, PhD, Department of Kinesiology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, and was published online on October 24, 2024, in the Journal of the Endocrine Society.

LIMITATIONS: 

The real-world application of the study was limited as participants were tested under fasting conditions, which may not have reflected typical exercise scenarios. The differences in fitness levels and exercise caloric expenditure between men and women may have affected the findings. The study only included lean individuals, limiting the applicability of the findings to individuals with overweight or obesity.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by funds from the School of Education and Human Development, University of Virginia, and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. One author reported serving as an editor for the Journal of the Endocrine Society, which played no role in the evaluation of the manuscript.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As primary care doctors, we diagnosis and treat many patients with osteoarthritis. In fact, according to World Health Organization statistics, approximately 528 million people around the world suffer from some form of this type of arthritis. With the aging of the population and the obesity epidemic, the rate of osteoarthritis has increased 113% since 1990 and is predicted to continue to rise.

While the knee is the most commonly affected joint, osteoarthritis also frequently affects the hands and hips. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons issued guidelines concerning the management of osteoarthritis of the hip. The clinical guidelines are aimed at orthopedists, but it is important for primary care doctors be aware of them as well since we are the physicians who usually diagnose the disease, manage it in its early stages, and follow the patients with and after the orthopedist has undertaken any procedures.

Castle Connolly

While the complete set of guidelines is 80 pages long, strong recommendations have been made that everyone should be aware of. The role of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs has been reconfirmed as a modality to improve pain and function. A recommendation against using intra-articular hyaluronic acid in the hip was made as the evidence shows it did not improve pain or function better than placebo. Conversely, intra-articular corticosteroids were shown to improve pain and function in the short-term and many primary care doctors provide this treatment in their practice.

These guidelines do a great job covering the totality of management of osteoarthritis of the hip, from conservation management to surgical and post-surgical treatments. Patients often come to us with their questions so not only is it important to know the evidence for what we do in our practices, we need to know what our orthopedic colleagues are doing. We will be the ones asked to do the pre-operative evaluations on these patients, so we need to understand the procedure and its risks. We will also manage these patients post-operatively and need to be aware of what the evidence shows.

Opioid use is also covered in the guidelines: they recommend against the use of opioids to control pain in these patients. In the age of the opioid epidemic, it is a good reminder to be cautious with these meds. It is also a good time to stress smoking cessation with patients.

The guidelines discuss adverse outcomes in patients with diabetes and/or obesity. As primary care physicians, we need to be aware of those risks and be sure our patients are medically optimized before signing that pre-operative form.

A new feature of these guidelines is a discussion on social detriments to health. This is important for many diseases that we treat and we often don’t realize the impact they can have on a patient’s health and recovery. Even if we know a patient would benefit from physical therapy, it doesn’t help them if the patient has no way to get to the appointment. Some patients have copays for every physical therapy session and just can’t afford it. Knowing what the patient needs medically is not enough. We need to understand how they can access that care. Some patients have no one to help them after hip surgery and may avoid doing it for that reason. As primary care doctors, we should be helping our patients access the care they need.

We need to be able to say that a procedure needs to be delayed in the face of poorly controlled disease, such as diabetes. As the rates of osteoarthritis continue to rise, we need to understand that it is not an inevitable age-based occurrence in a patient’s life but rather an inflammatory disease that causes great pain and dysfunction. Utilizing these guidelines and working with our orthopedic colleagues can help patients decrease pain, improve functioning, and enjoy life again.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, New Jersey, and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey. She was paid by Pfizer as a consultant on Paxlovid, paid by GlaxoSmithKline as a consultant for the Shingrix vaccine, and is the editor in chief of Physician’s Weekly.

As primary care doctors, we diagnosis and treat many patients with osteoarthritis. In fact, according to World Health Organization statistics, approximately 528 million people around the world suffer from some form of this type of arthritis. With the aging of the population and the obesity epidemic, the rate of osteoarthritis has increased 113% since 1990 and is predicted to continue to rise.

While the knee is the most commonly affected joint, osteoarthritis also frequently affects the hands and hips. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons issued guidelines concerning the management of osteoarthritis of the hip. The clinical guidelines are aimed at orthopedists, but it is important for primary care doctors be aware of them as well since we are the physicians who usually diagnose the disease, manage it in its early stages, and follow the patients with and after the orthopedist has undertaken any procedures.

Castle Connolly

While the complete set of guidelines is 80 pages long, strong recommendations have been made that everyone should be aware of. The role of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs has been reconfirmed as a modality to improve pain and function. A recommendation against using intra-articular hyaluronic acid in the hip was made as the evidence shows it did not improve pain or function better than placebo. Conversely, intra-articular corticosteroids were shown to improve pain and function in the short-term and many primary care doctors provide this treatment in their practice.

These guidelines do a great job covering the totality of management of osteoarthritis of the hip, from conservation management to surgical and post-surgical treatments. Patients often come to us with their questions so not only is it important to know the evidence for what we do in our practices, we need to know what our orthopedic colleagues are doing. We will be the ones asked to do the pre-operative evaluations on these patients, so we need to understand the procedure and its risks. We will also manage these patients post-operatively and need to be aware of what the evidence shows.

Opioid use is also covered in the guidelines: they recommend against the use of opioids to control pain in these patients. In the age of the opioid epidemic, it is a good reminder to be cautious with these meds. It is also a good time to stress smoking cessation with patients.

The guidelines discuss adverse outcomes in patients with diabetes and/or obesity. As primary care physicians, we need to be aware of those risks and be sure our patients are medically optimized before signing that pre-operative form.

A new feature of these guidelines is a discussion on social detriments to health. This is important for many diseases that we treat and we often don’t realize the impact they can have on a patient’s health and recovery. Even if we know a patient would benefit from physical therapy, it doesn’t help them if the patient has no way to get to the appointment. Some patients have copays for every physical therapy session and just can’t afford it. Knowing what the patient needs medically is not enough. We need to understand how they can access that care. Some patients have no one to help them after hip surgery and may avoid doing it for that reason. As primary care doctors, we should be helping our patients access the care they need.

We need to be able to say that a procedure needs to be delayed in the face of poorly controlled disease, such as diabetes. As the rates of osteoarthritis continue to rise, we need to understand that it is not an inevitable age-based occurrence in a patient’s life but rather an inflammatory disease that causes great pain and dysfunction. Utilizing these guidelines and working with our orthopedic colleagues can help patients decrease pain, improve functioning, and enjoy life again.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, New Jersey, and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey. She was paid by Pfizer as a consultant on Paxlovid, paid by GlaxoSmithKline as a consultant for the Shingrix vaccine, and is the editor in chief of Physician’s Weekly.

As primary care doctors, we diagnosis and treat many patients with osteoarthritis. In fact, according to World Health Organization statistics, approximately 528 million people around the world suffer from some form of this type of arthritis. With the aging of the population and the obesity epidemic, the rate of osteoarthritis has increased 113% since 1990 and is predicted to continue to rise.

While the knee is the most commonly affected joint, osteoarthritis also frequently affects the hands and hips. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons issued guidelines concerning the management of osteoarthritis of the hip. The clinical guidelines are aimed at orthopedists, but it is important for primary care doctors be aware of them as well since we are the physicians who usually diagnose the disease, manage it in its early stages, and follow the patients with and after the orthopedist has undertaken any procedures.

Castle Connolly

While the complete set of guidelines is 80 pages long, strong recommendations have been made that everyone should be aware of. The role of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs has been reconfirmed as a modality to improve pain and function. A recommendation against using intra-articular hyaluronic acid in the hip was made as the evidence shows it did not improve pain or function better than placebo. Conversely, intra-articular corticosteroids were shown to improve pain and function in the short-term and many primary care doctors provide this treatment in their practice.

These guidelines do a great job covering the totality of management of osteoarthritis of the hip, from conservation management to surgical and post-surgical treatments. Patients often come to us with their questions so not only is it important to know the evidence for what we do in our practices, we need to know what our orthopedic colleagues are doing. We will be the ones asked to do the pre-operative evaluations on these patients, so we need to understand the procedure and its risks. We will also manage these patients post-operatively and need to be aware of what the evidence shows.

Opioid use is also covered in the guidelines: they recommend against the use of opioids to control pain in these patients. In the age of the opioid epidemic, it is a good reminder to be cautious with these meds. It is also a good time to stress smoking cessation with patients.

The guidelines discuss adverse outcomes in patients with diabetes and/or obesity. As primary care physicians, we need to be aware of those risks and be sure our patients are medically optimized before signing that pre-operative form.

A new feature of these guidelines is a discussion on social detriments to health. This is important for many diseases that we treat and we often don’t realize the impact they can have on a patient’s health and recovery. Even if we know a patient would benefit from physical therapy, it doesn’t help them if the patient has no way to get to the appointment. Some patients have copays for every physical therapy session and just can’t afford it. Knowing what the patient needs medically is not enough. We need to understand how they can access that care. Some patients have no one to help them after hip surgery and may avoid doing it for that reason. As primary care doctors, we should be helping our patients access the care they need.

We need to be able to say that a procedure needs to be delayed in the face of poorly controlled disease, such as diabetes. As the rates of osteoarthritis continue to rise, we need to understand that it is not an inevitable age-based occurrence in a patient’s life but rather an inflammatory disease that causes great pain and dysfunction. Utilizing these guidelines and working with our orthopedic colleagues can help patients decrease pain, improve functioning, and enjoy life again.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, New Jersey, and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey. She was paid by Pfizer as a consultant on Paxlovid, paid by GlaxoSmithKline as a consultant for the Shingrix vaccine, and is the editor in chief of Physician’s Weekly.

NEW YORK — When patients with multiple myeloma (MM) relapse following chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, bispecific antibodies (BsABs), or both, likely salvage options remain that are being overlooked, including a second course of immunotherapy. Two independent experts, addressing this issue at the 2024 Lymphoma, Leukemia & Myeloma Congress, offered several practical recommendations for eliciting a therapeutic response after patients with multi-refractory MM have failed everything. One approach they endorsed was allowing patients to recover from T-cell exhaustion.

“We used to think that as soon as multiple myeloma patients progress on a CAR T-cell therapy, it was sort of game over,” said Joseph Mikhael, MD, professor, Translational Genomics Research Institute, City of Hope Cancer Center Phoenix, Arizona.

“But I think we are seeing many ways to salvage these patients, including going back to a CAR T product,” said Mikhael, who also serves as the chief medical officer of the International Myeloma Foundation.

Now that CAR T cells and BsABs are widely available, Mikhael warned that there will be a growing need for other strategies to offer when these therapies fail.

A similar point was made by Jorge Monge, MD, an assistant professor, Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City. He largely focused on newer therapies with the potential to provide salvage opportunities in advanced refractory MM, but he pointed out that one application might be to permit T-cell recovery after exhaustion following B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)–targeted therapies.

The two talks covered some of the same ground. Both, for example, discussed a potential role for the exportin 1 (XPO1) inhibitor selinexor (Xpovio) in the multidrug refractory setting. In combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone, selinexor was approved in 2020 for treatment-experienced patients but is often overlooked in late-stage disease.

As a strategy to elicit a response following BCMA-targeted therapies, both Mikhael and Monge cited data showing selinexor to be active and that side effects are relatively well managed if antiemetics are offered preemptively to control nausea, one of its most common side effects.

Monge also talked about the promise of cereblon E3 ligase modulatory drugs (CELMoDs) that are now in clinical trials. These drugs, such as mezigdomide and iberdomide, both of which are in advanced stages of clinical testing, are similar to the immunomodulatory agents lenalidomide and pomalidomide. However, their greater potency does not appear to substantially increase risk for adverse events, according to Monge.
 

CELMoDs Active After CAR T-Cell Therapy

Most importantly, from the standpoint of their potential role in multidrug-refractory MM, both mezigdomide and iberdomide have so far shown substantial activity in patients previously exposed to BCMA-targeted therapies, according to Monge. Although the data have been generated in small numbers of patients, he reported that objective response rates have ranged from 37% to 50%.

These rates in treatment-experience patients are lower relative to those achieved in patients with no prior exposure to BCMA-targeted drugs, but Monge said that the durations of response, exceeding 6 months in some studies, might provide enough time for the T-cell recovery needed for a second course of CAR T-cell therapy.

There are other promising therapies on the horizon relevant to controlling multidrug refractory MM, including the likely return of the antibody drug conjugate (ADC) belantamab mafodotin (Blenrep^®). This drug was withdrawn in 2022, when the DREAMM-3 trial failed to show an advantage on the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) for this drug alone over pomalidomide and dexamethasone. The failed results of the DREAMM-3 trial meant that the drug did not meet FDA requirements for confirmatory trials of drugs approved through the agency’s accelerated approval program.

However, recently published results from the phase 3 DREAMM-8 trial did show a PFS advantage for belantamab mafodotin, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone over pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone at 12 months (HR 0.50; P < .0010). On the basis of this result and other positive findings, including a deeper response, Mikhael predicted that this drug will be reintroduced.

It “might take a year or more” to find its way through the approval process, but Mikhael said that he is among those who think it will have value in advanced MM.*

Many of the newer MM drugs, including bispecifics that engage proteins on the surface of the myeloma cell other than BCMA, such as G protein–coupled receptor family C group, might provide alternatives to BCMA-targeted therapies in late stages of disease, but at least some newer drugs, as well as existing drugs in combinations, might play an important role in refractory MM by restoring BCMA as a target.

“The BCMA target is not easily lost, and I think we can leverage it more than once,” Mikhael said.

This potential, which Mikhael acknowledged is mostly supported with relatively small sets of data, involves “a lot of question marks, a lot of maybes,” so the strategies are hard to compared. However, the “incredible evolution in multiple myeloma therapy” over the past few years is not necessarily linear, according to Mikhael.
 

Recycling MM Therapies Deserves Consideration

In other words, CAR T cells and BsABs are not the last stop in the available lines of therapy for MM. The next best therapy is dependent on numerous considerations, including prior therapy exposure, but Mikhael pointed out that many patients in advanced stages have not been exposed to therapies known to be active or are not being considered for therapies to which they were exposed but are not necessarily resistant.

Monge made similar comments. He agreed with Mikhael that clinicians faced with a patient with multitherapy-refractory MM might forget about the XPO1 inhibitor selinexor, the alkylating agent bendamustine, or even the B-cell lymphoma 2 inhibitor venetoclax.

Any of these agents alone or in combination could be considered to “give the patient some time to improve” T-cell function, Monge said.

This approach will have even more promise if better assays of T-cell function become available, Mikhael said. Although he explained that T-cell exhaustion is clearly one of the reasons that CAR T-cell therapies stop working, this cannot be measured accurately at this time.

“Better T-cell assays may help,” he said.

Mikhael reported financial relationships with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Sanofi, and Takeda. Monge disclosed ties with Bristol Myers Squibb and Karyopharm Therapeutics.

*Correction, 10/29/24: We are correcting the name of the DREAMM-3 trial and clarifying that its failed results meant that the drug did not meet the FDA’s requirements for confirmatory trials of drugs to be approved through the agency’s accelerated approval program.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — When patients with multiple myeloma (MM) relapse following chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, bispecific antibodies (BsABs), or both, likely salvage options remain that are being overlooked, including a second course of immunotherapy. Two independent experts, addressing this issue at the 2024 Lymphoma, Leukemia & Myeloma Congress, offered several practical recommendations for eliciting a therapeutic response after patients with multi-refractory MM have failed everything. One approach they endorsed was allowing patients to recover from T-cell exhaustion.

“We used to think that as soon as multiple myeloma patients progress on a CAR T-cell therapy, it was sort of game over,” said Joseph Mikhael, MD, professor, Translational Genomics Research Institute, City of Hope Cancer Center Phoenix, Arizona.

“But I think we are seeing many ways to salvage these patients, including going back to a CAR T product,” said Mikhael, who also serves as the chief medical officer of the International Myeloma Foundation.

Now that CAR T cells and BsABs are widely available, Mikhael warned that there will be a growing need for other strategies to offer when these therapies fail.

A similar point was made by Jorge Monge, MD, an assistant professor, Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City. He largely focused on newer therapies with the potential to provide salvage opportunities in advanced refractory MM, but he pointed out that one application might be to permit T-cell recovery after exhaustion following B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)–targeted therapies.

The two talks covered some of the same ground. Both, for example, discussed a potential role for the exportin 1 (XPO1) inhibitor selinexor (Xpovio) in the multidrug refractory setting. In combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone, selinexor was approved in 2020 for treatment-experienced patients but is often overlooked in late-stage disease.

As a strategy to elicit a response following BCMA-targeted therapies, both Mikhael and Monge cited data showing selinexor to be active and that side effects are relatively well managed if antiemetics are offered preemptively to control nausea, one of its most common side effects.

Monge also talked about the promise of cereblon E3 ligase modulatory drugs (CELMoDs) that are now in clinical trials. These drugs, such as mezigdomide and iberdomide, both of which are in advanced stages of clinical testing, are similar to the immunomodulatory agents lenalidomide and pomalidomide. However, their greater potency does not appear to substantially increase risk for adverse events, according to Monge.
 

CELMoDs Active After CAR T-Cell Therapy

Most importantly, from the standpoint of their potential role in multidrug-refractory MM, both mezigdomide and iberdomide have so far shown substantial activity in patients previously exposed to BCMA-targeted therapies, according to Monge. Although the data have been generated in small numbers of patients, he reported that objective response rates have ranged from 37% to 50%.

These rates in treatment-experience patients are lower relative to those achieved in patients with no prior exposure to BCMA-targeted drugs, but Monge said that the durations of response, exceeding 6 months in some studies, might provide enough time for the T-cell recovery needed for a second course of CAR T-cell therapy.

There are other promising therapies on the horizon relevant to controlling multidrug refractory MM, including the likely return of the antibody drug conjugate (ADC) belantamab mafodotin (Blenrep^®). This drug was withdrawn in 2022, when the DREAMM-3 trial failed to show an advantage on the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) for this drug alone over pomalidomide and dexamethasone. The failed results of the DREAMM-3 trial meant that the drug did not meet FDA requirements for confirmatory trials of drugs approved through the agency’s accelerated approval program.

However, recently published results from the phase 3 DREAMM-8 trial did show a PFS advantage for belantamab mafodotin, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone over pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone at 12 months (HR 0.50; P < .0010). On the basis of this result and other positive findings, including a deeper response, Mikhael predicted that this drug will be reintroduced.

It “might take a year or more” to find its way through the approval process, but Mikhael said that he is among those who think it will have value in advanced MM.*

Many of the newer MM drugs, including bispecifics that engage proteins on the surface of the myeloma cell other than BCMA, such as G protein–coupled receptor family C group, might provide alternatives to BCMA-targeted therapies in late stages of disease, but at least some newer drugs, as well as existing drugs in combinations, might play an important role in refractory MM by restoring BCMA as a target.

“The BCMA target is not easily lost, and I think we can leverage it more than once,” Mikhael said.

This potential, which Mikhael acknowledged is mostly supported with relatively small sets of data, involves “a lot of question marks, a lot of maybes,” so the strategies are hard to compared. However, the “incredible evolution in multiple myeloma therapy” over the past few years is not necessarily linear, according to Mikhael.
 

Recycling MM Therapies Deserves Consideration

In other words, CAR T cells and BsABs are not the last stop in the available lines of therapy for MM. The next best therapy is dependent on numerous considerations, including prior therapy exposure, but Mikhael pointed out that many patients in advanced stages have not been exposed to therapies known to be active or are not being considered for therapies to which they were exposed but are not necessarily resistant.

Monge made similar comments. He agreed with Mikhael that clinicians faced with a patient with multitherapy-refractory MM might forget about the XPO1 inhibitor selinexor, the alkylating agent bendamustine, or even the B-cell lymphoma 2 inhibitor venetoclax.

Any of these agents alone or in combination could be considered to “give the patient some time to improve” T-cell function, Monge said.

This approach will have even more promise if better assays of T-cell function become available, Mikhael said. Although he explained that T-cell exhaustion is clearly one of the reasons that CAR T-cell therapies stop working, this cannot be measured accurately at this time.

“Better T-cell assays may help,” he said.

Mikhael reported financial relationships with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Sanofi, and Takeda. Monge disclosed ties with Bristol Myers Squibb and Karyopharm Therapeutics.

*Correction, 10/29/24: We are correcting the name of the DREAMM-3 trial and clarifying that its failed results meant that the drug did not meet the FDA’s requirements for confirmatory trials of drugs to be approved through the agency’s accelerated approval program.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — When patients with multiple myeloma (MM) relapse following chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, bispecific antibodies (BsABs), or both, likely salvage options remain that are being overlooked, including a second course of immunotherapy. Two independent experts, addressing this issue at the 2024 Lymphoma, Leukemia & Myeloma Congress, offered several practical recommendations for eliciting a therapeutic response after patients with multi-refractory MM have failed everything. One approach they endorsed was allowing patients to recover from T-cell exhaustion.

“We used to think that as soon as multiple myeloma patients progress on a CAR T-cell therapy, it was sort of game over,” said Joseph Mikhael, MD, professor, Translational Genomics Research Institute, City of Hope Cancer Center Phoenix, Arizona.

“But I think we are seeing many ways to salvage these patients, including going back to a CAR T product,” said Mikhael, who also serves as the chief medical officer of the International Myeloma Foundation.

Now that CAR T cells and BsABs are widely available, Mikhael warned that there will be a growing need for other strategies to offer when these therapies fail.

A similar point was made by Jorge Monge, MD, an assistant professor, Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City. He largely focused on newer therapies with the potential to provide salvage opportunities in advanced refractory MM, but he pointed out that one application might be to permit T-cell recovery after exhaustion following B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)–targeted therapies.

The two talks covered some of the same ground. Both, for example, discussed a potential role for the exportin 1 (XPO1) inhibitor selinexor (Xpovio) in the multidrug refractory setting. In combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone, selinexor was approved in 2020 for treatment-experienced patients but is often overlooked in late-stage disease.

As a strategy to elicit a response following BCMA-targeted therapies, both Mikhael and Monge cited data showing selinexor to be active and that side effects are relatively well managed if antiemetics are offered preemptively to control nausea, one of its most common side effects.

Monge also talked about the promise of cereblon E3 ligase modulatory drugs (CELMoDs) that are now in clinical trials. These drugs, such as mezigdomide and iberdomide, both of which are in advanced stages of clinical testing, are similar to the immunomodulatory agents lenalidomide and pomalidomide. However, their greater potency does not appear to substantially increase risk for adverse events, according to Monge.
 

CELMoDs Active After CAR T-Cell Therapy

Most importantly, from the standpoint of their potential role in multidrug-refractory MM, both mezigdomide and iberdomide have so far shown substantial activity in patients previously exposed to BCMA-targeted therapies, according to Monge. Although the data have been generated in small numbers of patients, he reported that objective response rates have ranged from 37% to 50%.

These rates in treatment-experience patients are lower relative to those achieved in patients with no prior exposure to BCMA-targeted drugs, but Monge said that the durations of response, exceeding 6 months in some studies, might provide enough time for the T-cell recovery needed for a second course of CAR T-cell therapy.

There are other promising therapies on the horizon relevant to controlling multidrug refractory MM, including the likely return of the antibody drug conjugate (ADC) belantamab mafodotin (Blenrep^®). This drug was withdrawn in 2022, when the DREAMM-3 trial failed to show an advantage on the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) for this drug alone over pomalidomide and dexamethasone. The failed results of the DREAMM-3 trial meant that the drug did not meet FDA requirements for confirmatory trials of drugs approved through the agency’s accelerated approval program.

However, recently published results from the phase 3 DREAMM-8 trial did show a PFS advantage for belantamab mafodotin, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone over pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone at 12 months (HR 0.50; P < .0010). On the basis of this result and other positive findings, including a deeper response, Mikhael predicted that this drug will be reintroduced.

It “might take a year or more” to find its way through the approval process, but Mikhael said that he is among those who think it will have value in advanced MM.*

Many of the newer MM drugs, including bispecifics that engage proteins on the surface of the myeloma cell other than BCMA, such as G protein–coupled receptor family C group, might provide alternatives to BCMA-targeted therapies in late stages of disease, but at least some newer drugs, as well as existing drugs in combinations, might play an important role in refractory MM by restoring BCMA as a target.

“The BCMA target is not easily lost, and I think we can leverage it more than once,” Mikhael said.

This potential, which Mikhael acknowledged is mostly supported with relatively small sets of data, involves “a lot of question marks, a lot of maybes,” so the strategies are hard to compared. However, the “incredible evolution in multiple myeloma therapy” over the past few years is not necessarily linear, according to Mikhael.
 

Recycling MM Therapies Deserves Consideration

In other words, CAR T cells and BsABs are not the last stop in the available lines of therapy for MM. The next best therapy is dependent on numerous considerations, including prior therapy exposure, but Mikhael pointed out that many patients in advanced stages have not been exposed to therapies known to be active or are not being considered for therapies to which they were exposed but are not necessarily resistant.

Monge made similar comments. He agreed with Mikhael that clinicians faced with a patient with multitherapy-refractory MM might forget about the XPO1 inhibitor selinexor, the alkylating agent bendamustine, or even the B-cell lymphoma 2 inhibitor venetoclax.

Any of these agents alone or in combination could be considered to “give the patient some time to improve” T-cell function, Monge said.

This approach will have even more promise if better assays of T-cell function become available, Mikhael said. Although he explained that T-cell exhaustion is clearly one of the reasons that CAR T-cell therapies stop working, this cannot be measured accurately at this time.

“Better T-cell assays may help,” he said.

Mikhael reported financial relationships with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Sanofi, and Takeda. Monge disclosed ties with Bristol Myers Squibb and Karyopharm Therapeutics.

*Correction, 10/29/24: We are correcting the name of the DREAMM-3 trial and clarifying that its failed results meant that the drug did not meet the FDA’s requirements for confirmatory trials of drugs to be approved through the agency’s accelerated approval program.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — In a three-way debate on whether to prioritize chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, bispecific antibodies (BsAbs), or one of the novel oral targeted therapies for relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma (R/R FL), no expert conceded.

Acknowledging that hers was the weakest position, even the specialist who defended novel targeted therapies mounted a staunch defense of real-world patients being treated outside of tertiary centers.

“I was told by many of my colleagues that I got the short end of the stick in this debate, but I am actually here to convince everybody that targeted therapies continue to play an important role, despite the fact that they are the least sexy of these treatment options,” said Joanna Rhodes, MD, director of the Lymphoma Program at Rutgers Cancer Institute, Hoboken, New Jersey.
 

Targeted Therapies Still Relevant to Advanced FL

Although even the newest or coming targeted therapies, such as the EZH2 inhibitor tazemetostat or next-generation Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors, are not likely to achieve the deep responses and long-term progression-free survival possible with BsAbs or CAR T-cell therapy, the sustained disease control they offer for many patients with R/R FL is not trivial, according to Rhodes.

“The majority of these [advanced follicular lymphoma] patients are being managed in the community,” Rhodes argued at the 2024 Lymphoma, Leukemia, & Myeloma Congress. Access to tertiary centers where the most advanced therapies are available in some cases might not even be feasible. 

Moreover, there are barriers to CAR T cells and BsAbs even at centers where these are available, Rhodes said. On a long list of barriers, lack of caregiver support is an example of one common disqualification at her own institution. 

The experience with CAR T cells in R/R FL has been relatively short, so Rhodes used data on CAR T cells for B-cell lymphoma to make her point. It is not just that the proportion of eligible patients is limited. 

“The majority of B-cell lymphoma patients who are eligible for CAR T cells are not getting them,” she said. “It will be the same for FL.”

In other words, Rhodes indicated that it is premature to count out targeted oral agents or lenalidomide despite the excitement surrounding BsAbs and CAR T cells. The targeted agents and immunomodulatory drugs remain appropriate choices for patients unable or unwilling to travel to tertiary centers for treatment, for frail patients, and for well-informed patients who understand their options and still consider better tolerated therapies to be more consistent with their perception of an adequate risk-benefit ratio. 
 

BsAbs Vie With CAR T Cells in Advanced FL

Hers might be a valid summary, but it did not derail arguments about whether CAR T-cell therapy should be prioritized over BsAbs or the other way around for patients who are candidates for both. 

There are two BsAbs currently approved for R/R FL: glofitamab and mosunetuzumab. More are coming, according to Nina Wagner-Johnston, MD, director of hematologic malignancies at Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. She provided several reasons why BsAbs might be considered before CAR T-cell therapies in at least some individuals. 

“The biggest advantage is that these therapies…are off the shelf,” she said. This avoids the delay of T-cell manufacturing, the potential need for bridging therapies, and the need for conditioning regimens. With more experience, BsAbs offer the potential for treatment even in a community-practice setting, particularly for maintenance dosing.

“I do think this is a safe treatment in patients who are elderly or unfit,” Wagner-Johnston said, suggesting she tends to lean toward prioritizing BsAbs over CAR T cells when the ability to tolerate an aggressive strategy is a concern. She specified that these drugs are associated with a low relative incidence of grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome or immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome, and faster B-cell aplasia recovery. 

The third participant in the debate, who described the efficacy and safety of the three currently approved CAR T-cell therapies for R/R FL, did not agree with this characterization. Daniel J. Landsburg, MD, associate professor of clinical medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, acknowledged that BsAb agents have an important role to play in the advanced FL setting, but he thinks that CAR T-cell therapies should be prioritized in at least some patients. 

In particular, he would not rule out CAR T-cell therapy in patients with comorbidities or other characteristics that raise questions about fitness for aggressive treatment. 

“In fact, you might want to treat a frail patient just one time with CAR T-cell therapy rather than dose after dose with a bispecific drug,” he said. 
 

No Data to Compare BsAbs and CAR T-Cells Directly

Both agreed that there have been no trials directly comparing a BsAb therapy vs CAR T cells, so there is no definitive answer, and Landsburg was reluctant to take a hard line on reserving BsAbs until after CAR T-cell therapy has been tried.

“Because BsAbs and CAR Ts are approved in the third-line setting, you might consider debulking a patient getting ready for a CAR T with a bispecific,” Landsburg said. However, he acknowledged that the next step becomes complex if patients achieved a complete response after just a few BsAb doses.

“Do you stop what is already working?” Landsburg asked rhetorically, suggesting that the best way forward is not always clear.

For R/R FL, currently there are three approved products: axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta), tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah), and lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi). The entry criteria and design of the three pivotal trials differed, so their specific indications vary. Looking across the trials, Landsburg suggested that there might be differences in activity as defined by objective response rates or risk for cytokine release syndrome, but these remain theoretical without head-to-head comparisons.

“My suspicion is we are going to see very similar — quote, unquote — long-term survival curves for patients treated with any of these therapies,” he said, noting that progression-free survival at 3 years has been in the vicinity of 50% for the trials that have had long enough follow-up to judge.

Rather than trying to pick the best agent, he suggested that it makes more sense now to concentrate on strategies to improve response irrespective of CAR T-cell product; these include paying attention to total metabolic tumor volume at the time of infusion, optimizing bridging therapies, and thinking about T-cell fitness, which might be impaired in some patients by recent exposure to bendamustine.

Overall, with multiple ongoing studies with both CAR T-cell therapies and BsAbs in R/R FL — as well with targeted small-molecule agents and immunomodulatory drugs — all of the debate participants acknowledged that choices in R/R FL will evolve. 

“I actually think that combinations will be the future,” Wagner-Johnston said. Singling out tazemetostat and a BsAb and one approach that seems promising, she also predicted that some of the therapies in advanced disease are likely to be moved forward to earlier stages of FL therapy.

Rhodes reported ties with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, ADC Therapeutics, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Epizyme, Genentech, Genmab, Janssen, Loxo Oncology, MorphoSys, Pharmacyclics, and Pfizer. Wagner-Johnston disclosed relationships with Cuno Science, Dava Oncology, Epizyme, Grünenthal, Karyopharm, and Seagen. Landsburg reported ties with ADC Therapeutics, Calithera, Curis, Epizyme, Karyopharm, MorphoSys, and Novartis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — In a three-way debate on whether to prioritize chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, bispecific antibodies (BsAbs), or one of the novel oral targeted therapies for relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma (R/R FL), no expert conceded.

Acknowledging that hers was the weakest position, even the specialist who defended novel targeted therapies mounted a staunch defense of real-world patients being treated outside of tertiary centers.

“I was told by many of my colleagues that I got the short end of the stick in this debate, but I am actually here to convince everybody that targeted therapies continue to play an important role, despite the fact that they are the least sexy of these treatment options,” said Joanna Rhodes, MD, director of the Lymphoma Program at Rutgers Cancer Institute, Hoboken, New Jersey.
 

Targeted Therapies Still Relevant to Advanced FL

Although even the newest or coming targeted therapies, such as the EZH2 inhibitor tazemetostat or next-generation Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors, are not likely to achieve the deep responses and long-term progression-free survival possible with BsAbs or CAR T-cell therapy, the sustained disease control they offer for many patients with R/R FL is not trivial, according to Rhodes.

“The majority of these [advanced follicular lymphoma] patients are being managed in the community,” Rhodes argued at the 2024 Lymphoma, Leukemia, & Myeloma Congress. Access to tertiary centers where the most advanced therapies are available in some cases might not even be feasible. 

Moreover, there are barriers to CAR T cells and BsAbs even at centers where these are available, Rhodes said. On a long list of barriers, lack of caregiver support is an example of one common disqualification at her own institution. 

The experience with CAR T cells in R/R FL has been relatively short, so Rhodes used data on CAR T cells for B-cell lymphoma to make her point. It is not just that the proportion of eligible patients is limited. 

“The majority of B-cell lymphoma patients who are eligible for CAR T cells are not getting them,” she said. “It will be the same for FL.”

In other words, Rhodes indicated that it is premature to count out targeted oral agents or lenalidomide despite the excitement surrounding BsAbs and CAR T cells. The targeted agents and immunomodulatory drugs remain appropriate choices for patients unable or unwilling to travel to tertiary centers for treatment, for frail patients, and for well-informed patients who understand their options and still consider better tolerated therapies to be more consistent with their perception of an adequate risk-benefit ratio. 
 

BsAbs Vie With CAR T Cells in Advanced FL

Hers might be a valid summary, but it did not derail arguments about whether CAR T-cell therapy should be prioritized over BsAbs or the other way around for patients who are candidates for both. 

There are two BsAbs currently approved for R/R FL: glofitamab and mosunetuzumab. More are coming, according to Nina Wagner-Johnston, MD, director of hematologic malignancies at Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. She provided several reasons why BsAbs might be considered before CAR T-cell therapies in at least some individuals. 

“The biggest advantage is that these therapies…are off the shelf,” she said. This avoids the delay of T-cell manufacturing, the potential need for bridging therapies, and the need for conditioning regimens. With more experience, BsAbs offer the potential for treatment even in a community-practice setting, particularly for maintenance dosing.

“I do think this is a safe treatment in patients who are elderly or unfit,” Wagner-Johnston said, suggesting she tends to lean toward prioritizing BsAbs over CAR T cells when the ability to tolerate an aggressive strategy is a concern. She specified that these drugs are associated with a low relative incidence of grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome or immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome, and faster B-cell aplasia recovery. 

The third participant in the debate, who described the efficacy and safety of the three currently approved CAR T-cell therapies for R/R FL, did not agree with this characterization. Daniel J. Landsburg, MD, associate professor of clinical medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, acknowledged that BsAb agents have an important role to play in the advanced FL setting, but he thinks that CAR T-cell therapies should be prioritized in at least some patients. 

In particular, he would not rule out CAR T-cell therapy in patients with comorbidities or other characteristics that raise questions about fitness for aggressive treatment. 

“In fact, you might want to treat a frail patient just one time with CAR T-cell therapy rather than dose after dose with a bispecific drug,” he said. 
 

No Data to Compare BsAbs and CAR T-Cells Directly

Both agreed that there have been no trials directly comparing a BsAb therapy vs CAR T cells, so there is no definitive answer, and Landsburg was reluctant to take a hard line on reserving BsAbs until after CAR T-cell therapy has been tried.

“Because BsAbs and CAR Ts are approved in the third-line setting, you might consider debulking a patient getting ready for a CAR T with a bispecific,” Landsburg said. However, he acknowledged that the next step becomes complex if patients achieved a complete response after just a few BsAb doses.

“Do you stop what is already working?” Landsburg asked rhetorically, suggesting that the best way forward is not always clear.

For R/R FL, currently there are three approved products: axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta), tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah), and lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi). The entry criteria and design of the three pivotal trials differed, so their specific indications vary. Looking across the trials, Landsburg suggested that there might be differences in activity as defined by objective response rates or risk for cytokine release syndrome, but these remain theoretical without head-to-head comparisons.

“My suspicion is we are going to see very similar — quote, unquote — long-term survival curves for patients treated with any of these therapies,” he said, noting that progression-free survival at 3 years has been in the vicinity of 50% for the trials that have had long enough follow-up to judge.

Rather than trying to pick the best agent, he suggested that it makes more sense now to concentrate on strategies to improve response irrespective of CAR T-cell product; these include paying attention to total metabolic tumor volume at the time of infusion, optimizing bridging therapies, and thinking about T-cell fitness, which might be impaired in some patients by recent exposure to bendamustine.

Overall, with multiple ongoing studies with both CAR T-cell therapies and BsAbs in R/R FL — as well with targeted small-molecule agents and immunomodulatory drugs — all of the debate participants acknowledged that choices in R/R FL will evolve. 

“I actually think that combinations will be the future,” Wagner-Johnston said. Singling out tazemetostat and a BsAb and one approach that seems promising, she also predicted that some of the therapies in advanced disease are likely to be moved forward to earlier stages of FL therapy.

Rhodes reported ties with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, ADC Therapeutics, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Epizyme, Genentech, Genmab, Janssen, Loxo Oncology, MorphoSys, Pharmacyclics, and Pfizer. Wagner-Johnston disclosed relationships with Cuno Science, Dava Oncology, Epizyme, Grünenthal, Karyopharm, and Seagen. Landsburg reported ties with ADC Therapeutics, Calithera, Curis, Epizyme, Karyopharm, MorphoSys, and Novartis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — In a three-way debate on whether to prioritize chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, bispecific antibodies (BsAbs), or one of the novel oral targeted therapies for relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma (R/R FL), no expert conceded.

Acknowledging that hers was the weakest position, even the specialist who defended novel targeted therapies mounted a staunch defense of real-world patients being treated outside of tertiary centers.

“I was told by many of my colleagues that I got the short end of the stick in this debate, but I am actually here to convince everybody that targeted therapies continue to play an important role, despite the fact that they are the least sexy of these treatment options,” said Joanna Rhodes, MD, director of the Lymphoma Program at Rutgers Cancer Institute, Hoboken, New Jersey.
 

Targeted Therapies Still Relevant to Advanced FL

Although even the newest or coming targeted therapies, such as the EZH2 inhibitor tazemetostat or next-generation Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors, are not likely to achieve the deep responses and long-term progression-free survival possible with BsAbs or CAR T-cell therapy, the sustained disease control they offer for many patients with R/R FL is not trivial, according to Rhodes.

“The majority of these [advanced follicular lymphoma] patients are being managed in the community,” Rhodes argued at the 2024 Lymphoma, Leukemia, & Myeloma Congress. Access to tertiary centers where the most advanced therapies are available in some cases might not even be feasible. 

Moreover, there are barriers to CAR T cells and BsAbs even at centers where these are available, Rhodes said. On a long list of barriers, lack of caregiver support is an example of one common disqualification at her own institution. 

The experience with CAR T cells in R/R FL has been relatively short, so Rhodes used data on CAR T cells for B-cell lymphoma to make her point. It is not just that the proportion of eligible patients is limited. 

“The majority of B-cell lymphoma patients who are eligible for CAR T cells are not getting them,” she said. “It will be the same for FL.”

In other words, Rhodes indicated that it is premature to count out targeted oral agents or lenalidomide despite the excitement surrounding BsAbs and CAR T cells. The targeted agents and immunomodulatory drugs remain appropriate choices for patients unable or unwilling to travel to tertiary centers for treatment, for frail patients, and for well-informed patients who understand their options and still consider better tolerated therapies to be more consistent with their perception of an adequate risk-benefit ratio. 
 

BsAbs Vie With CAR T Cells in Advanced FL

Hers might be a valid summary, but it did not derail arguments about whether CAR T-cell therapy should be prioritized over BsAbs or the other way around for patients who are candidates for both. 

There are two BsAbs currently approved for R/R FL: glofitamab and mosunetuzumab. More are coming, according to Nina Wagner-Johnston, MD, director of hematologic malignancies at Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. She provided several reasons why BsAbs might be considered before CAR T-cell therapies in at least some individuals. 

“The biggest advantage is that these therapies…are off the shelf,” she said. This avoids the delay of T-cell manufacturing, the potential need for bridging therapies, and the need for conditioning regimens. With more experience, BsAbs offer the potential for treatment even in a community-practice setting, particularly for maintenance dosing.

“I do think this is a safe treatment in patients who are elderly or unfit,” Wagner-Johnston said, suggesting she tends to lean toward prioritizing BsAbs over CAR T cells when the ability to tolerate an aggressive strategy is a concern. She specified that these drugs are associated with a low relative incidence of grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome or immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome, and faster B-cell aplasia recovery. 

The third participant in the debate, who described the efficacy and safety of the three currently approved CAR T-cell therapies for R/R FL, did not agree with this characterization. Daniel J. Landsburg, MD, associate professor of clinical medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, acknowledged that BsAb agents have an important role to play in the advanced FL setting, but he thinks that CAR T-cell therapies should be prioritized in at least some patients. 

In particular, he would not rule out CAR T-cell therapy in patients with comorbidities or other characteristics that raise questions about fitness for aggressive treatment. 

“In fact, you might want to treat a frail patient just one time with CAR T-cell therapy rather than dose after dose with a bispecific drug,” he said. 
 

No Data to Compare BsAbs and CAR T-Cells Directly

Both agreed that there have been no trials directly comparing a BsAb therapy vs CAR T cells, so there is no definitive answer, and Landsburg was reluctant to take a hard line on reserving BsAbs until after CAR T-cell therapy has been tried.

“Because BsAbs and CAR Ts are approved in the third-line setting, you might consider debulking a patient getting ready for a CAR T with a bispecific,” Landsburg said. However, he acknowledged that the next step becomes complex if patients achieved a complete response after just a few BsAb doses.

“Do you stop what is already working?” Landsburg asked rhetorically, suggesting that the best way forward is not always clear.

For R/R FL, currently there are three approved products: axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta), tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah), and lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi). The entry criteria and design of the three pivotal trials differed, so their specific indications vary. Looking across the trials, Landsburg suggested that there might be differences in activity as defined by objective response rates or risk for cytokine release syndrome, but these remain theoretical without head-to-head comparisons.

“My suspicion is we are going to see very similar — quote, unquote — long-term survival curves for patients treated with any of these therapies,” he said, noting that progression-free survival at 3 years has been in the vicinity of 50% for the trials that have had long enough follow-up to judge.

Rather than trying to pick the best agent, he suggested that it makes more sense now to concentrate on strategies to improve response irrespective of CAR T-cell product; these include paying attention to total metabolic tumor volume at the time of infusion, optimizing bridging therapies, and thinking about T-cell fitness, which might be impaired in some patients by recent exposure to bendamustine.

Overall, with multiple ongoing studies with both CAR T-cell therapies and BsAbs in R/R FL — as well with targeted small-molecule agents and immunomodulatory drugs — all of the debate participants acknowledged that choices in R/R FL will evolve. 

“I actually think that combinations will be the future,” Wagner-Johnston said. Singling out tazemetostat and a BsAb and one approach that seems promising, she also predicted that some of the therapies in advanced disease are likely to be moved forward to earlier stages of FL therapy.

Rhodes reported ties with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, ADC Therapeutics, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Epizyme, Genentech, Genmab, Janssen, Loxo Oncology, MorphoSys, Pharmacyclics, and Pfizer. Wagner-Johnston disclosed relationships with Cuno Science, Dava Oncology, Epizyme, Grünenthal, Karyopharm, and Seagen. Landsburg reported ties with ADC Therapeutics, Calithera, Curis, Epizyme, Karyopharm, MorphoSys, and Novartis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — In the wake of details about the molecular pathophysiology of Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM), an expert gave an update on current and expanding options for treatment.

Most importantly, determining the mutational status of patients with WM has become a first or early step in guiding first- and second-line therapies, according to Edward A. Stadtmauer, MD, professor of medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Presenting at the 2024 Lymphoma, Leukemia & Myeloma Congress in New York City, Stadtmauer discussed how MYD88 and CXCR4 gene mutations influence his therapeutic choices.

While delivering the Bruce Waterfall Memorial Lecture, funded by the International WM Foundation, he explained that the vast majority of patients with WM have a MYD88 mutation that is highly sensitive to Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors.

Due to greater specificity on the BTK target, which has implications for safety and efficacy, the first-generation BTK inhibitor ibrutinib has been largely supplanted by next generation drugs such as zanubrutinib.
 

Deep Responses in WM Remain Elusive

The support for next-generation BTK inhibitors over ibrutinib; bendamustine plus rituximab (BR); or cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (CyBorD) is, in his opinion, “a superior toxicity profile, high response rates, and prolonged response.” However, he conceded that the weaknesses of this approach include a low chance of a deep remission and the need for continuous therapy.

On account of these limitations, he typically favors the alkylating agent bendamustine plus the anti-CD20 rituximab over BTK inhibitors in the absence of MYD88 mutations. This once standard approach has become less commonly used in the era of BTK inhibitors, but it is also highly effective, is generally administered in a time-limited regimen, and may be more likely to push patients into a deep remission.

A similar rationale might be considered for CyBorD, but Stadtmauer believes that BR provides a higher rate of PFS with a lower risk for neuropathy, although he admitted this opinion is based on cross-study comparisons, not comparative trials.

While efforts to develop therapies capable of producing a deep response “should not be abandoned,” particularly with the T-cell engager therapies on the horizon, he is not convinced that the benefit-to-risk ratio of aggressive therapies is yet warranted in a disease the often progresses slowly.

“I must admit I am still under the philosophy that Waldenström’s is a chronic disease even if we are seeing a growing list of options for relapsed or poorly responding disease, so I am still not pushing patients too aggressively to knock them into a complete remission,” he said.

MYD88 mutations are not unique to WM, an uncommon, slow-growing form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. They are found in a small proportion of patients with other hematologic disorders, such as marginal zone lymphomas, but Stadtmauer estimated they occur in 90% of patients with WM. They are common enough that they can help with diagnosis.
 

CXCR4 Mutations Predict Worse Outcomes

The CXCR4 mutation occurs in an estimated 40% of patients with WM. When present, they are associated with worse outcomes, including a faster time to progression and a reduced overall survival, according to Stadtmauer.

The prognostic impact of less common mutations, such as TP53 and TERT or deletions in LYN, are less well characterized, but Stadtmauer said that most mutations associated with WM result in constitutive or continuous activation in BTK, which, in turn drives WM cell proliferation and survival.

The importance of BTK in WM progression is the reason targeted inhibitors have assumed such a key role in first-line treatment, but Stadtmauer cautioned that these drugs, like other therapies, should not be initiated in asymptomatic patients. This has been stated in past and current guidelines.

More accurately, therapy should be held until just prior to symptomatic manifestations of disease, Stadtmauer specified.

For an optimal response, “you want to start therapy about 3 or 4 months before the symptoms begin,” said Stadtmauer characterizing efforts to do so as “the art of medicine.” Starting therapy just prior to symptoms is advantageous, but it involves following patients closely. Any single biomarker might not be enough.

“In an asymptomatic patient, the level of monoclonal IgM is not an indication to start therapy,” he said, citing studies showing no effect on subsequent disease control from treating this biomarker alone.

However, he listed the development of moderate peripheral neuropathy (PN) as an exception. Essentially, anything greater than mild PN is “still bad” in Stadtmauer’s opinion, so treatment is warranted.

The growing number of second-line options relieves some of the concern when patients progress. Stadtmauer said he is now using BR more often in the second-line drug now that he is using BTK inhibitor more in the first line.

The Bcl-2 inhibitor venetoclax is highly effective and is another first- or second-line option even if this agent, like BTK inhibitors, also appears to require continuous dosing, said Stadtmauer, citing a study that showed patients relapsed relatively rapidly when the drug was stopped.

He now thinks of regimens with proteasome inhibitors as third line.

In selected patients who do not tolerate the non-covalent second-generation BTK inhibitors in the first or second line, he said, “I move quickly to the covalent BTKi pirtobrutinib,” based on data suggesting responses that are at least as good but with a better tolerability profile.
 

T-Cell Engager Data Are Limited

Without spending much time on the T-cell engagers, such as CAR T-cells or bispecific antibodies, Stadtmauer said that the advances he sees on the horizon “are tremendous,” and the “future is bright.” Such approaches could yield deep responses that could extend control or even provide cure, but these are speculations until more patients have been treated and followed long term.

Morton Coleman, MD, director of the Center for Lymphoma and Myeloma at Weill Cornell Medicine and the chairperson of the LLM Congress, called the talk a valuable and practical summary from a knowledgeable source. BTK inhibitors have represented a major evolution in WM management, but Coleman appreciated the underlying concept that treatment still has to be individualized.

“I think one of the most important take home messages is that the characterization of the mutational profile in patients with Waldenström should be considered a standard of care,” Coleman said. Helpful now, the mutational profile is likely to have a more valuable role as treatment is increasingly individualized.

Stadtmauer reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, and Sorrento. Coleman disclosed ties with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Loxo Oncology, Janssen, and Pharmacyclics.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — In the wake of details about the molecular pathophysiology of Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM), an expert gave an update on current and expanding options for treatment.

Most importantly, determining the mutational status of patients with WM has become a first or early step in guiding first- and second-line therapies, according to Edward A. Stadtmauer, MD, professor of medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Presenting at the 2024 Lymphoma, Leukemia & Myeloma Congress in New York City, Stadtmauer discussed how MYD88 and CXCR4 gene mutations influence his therapeutic choices.

While delivering the Bruce Waterfall Memorial Lecture, funded by the International WM Foundation, he explained that the vast majority of patients with WM have a MYD88 mutation that is highly sensitive to Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors.

Due to greater specificity on the BTK target, which has implications for safety and efficacy, the first-generation BTK inhibitor ibrutinib has been largely supplanted by next generation drugs such as zanubrutinib.
 

Deep Responses in WM Remain Elusive

The support for next-generation BTK inhibitors over ibrutinib; bendamustine plus rituximab (BR); or cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (CyBorD) is, in his opinion, “a superior toxicity profile, high response rates, and prolonged response.” However, he conceded that the weaknesses of this approach include a low chance of a deep remission and the need for continuous therapy.

On account of these limitations, he typically favors the alkylating agent bendamustine plus the anti-CD20 rituximab over BTK inhibitors in the absence of MYD88 mutations. This once standard approach has become less commonly used in the era of BTK inhibitors, but it is also highly effective, is generally administered in a time-limited regimen, and may be more likely to push patients into a deep remission.

A similar rationale might be considered for CyBorD, but Stadtmauer believes that BR provides a higher rate of PFS with a lower risk for neuropathy, although he admitted this opinion is based on cross-study comparisons, not comparative trials.

While efforts to develop therapies capable of producing a deep response “should not be abandoned,” particularly with the T-cell engager therapies on the horizon, he is not convinced that the benefit-to-risk ratio of aggressive therapies is yet warranted in a disease the often progresses slowly.

“I must admit I am still under the philosophy that Waldenström’s is a chronic disease even if we are seeing a growing list of options for relapsed or poorly responding disease, so I am still not pushing patients too aggressively to knock them into a complete remission,” he said.

MYD88 mutations are not unique to WM, an uncommon, slow-growing form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. They are found in a small proportion of patients with other hematologic disorders, such as marginal zone lymphomas, but Stadtmauer estimated they occur in 90% of patients with WM. They are common enough that they can help with diagnosis.
 

CXCR4 Mutations Predict Worse Outcomes

The CXCR4 mutation occurs in an estimated 40% of patients with WM. When present, they are associated with worse outcomes, including a faster time to progression and a reduced overall survival, according to Stadtmauer.

The prognostic impact of less common mutations, such as TP53 and TERT or deletions in LYN, are less well characterized, but Stadtmauer said that most mutations associated with WM result in constitutive or continuous activation in BTK, which, in turn drives WM cell proliferation and survival.

The importance of BTK in WM progression is the reason targeted inhibitors have assumed such a key role in first-line treatment, but Stadtmauer cautioned that these drugs, like other therapies, should not be initiated in asymptomatic patients. This has been stated in past and current guidelines.

More accurately, therapy should be held until just prior to symptomatic manifestations of disease, Stadtmauer specified.

For an optimal response, “you want to start therapy about 3 or 4 months before the symptoms begin,” said Stadtmauer characterizing efforts to do so as “the art of medicine.” Starting therapy just prior to symptoms is advantageous, but it involves following patients closely. Any single biomarker might not be enough.

“In an asymptomatic patient, the level of monoclonal IgM is not an indication to start therapy,” he said, citing studies showing no effect on subsequent disease control from treating this biomarker alone.

However, he listed the development of moderate peripheral neuropathy (PN) as an exception. Essentially, anything greater than mild PN is “still bad” in Stadtmauer’s opinion, so treatment is warranted.

The growing number of second-line options relieves some of the concern when patients progress. Stadtmauer said he is now using BR more often in the second-line drug now that he is using BTK inhibitor more in the first line.

The Bcl-2 inhibitor venetoclax is highly effective and is another first- or second-line option even if this agent, like BTK inhibitors, also appears to require continuous dosing, said Stadtmauer, citing a study that showed patients relapsed relatively rapidly when the drug was stopped.

He now thinks of regimens with proteasome inhibitors as third line.

In selected patients who do not tolerate the non-covalent second-generation BTK inhibitors in the first or second line, he said, “I move quickly to the covalent BTKi pirtobrutinib,” based on data suggesting responses that are at least as good but with a better tolerability profile.
 

T-Cell Engager Data Are Limited

Without spending much time on the T-cell engagers, such as CAR T-cells or bispecific antibodies, Stadtmauer said that the advances he sees on the horizon “are tremendous,” and the “future is bright.” Such approaches could yield deep responses that could extend control or even provide cure, but these are speculations until more patients have been treated and followed long term.

Morton Coleman, MD, director of the Center for Lymphoma and Myeloma at Weill Cornell Medicine and the chairperson of the LLM Congress, called the talk a valuable and practical summary from a knowledgeable source. BTK inhibitors have represented a major evolution in WM management, but Coleman appreciated the underlying concept that treatment still has to be individualized.

“I think one of the most important take home messages is that the characterization of the mutational profile in patients with Waldenström should be considered a standard of care,” Coleman said. Helpful now, the mutational profile is likely to have a more valuable role as treatment is increasingly individualized.

Stadtmauer reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, and Sorrento. Coleman disclosed ties with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Loxo Oncology, Janssen, and Pharmacyclics.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — In the wake of details about the molecular pathophysiology of Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM), an expert gave an update on current and expanding options for treatment.

Most importantly, determining the mutational status of patients with WM has become a first or early step in guiding first- and second-line therapies, according to Edward A. Stadtmauer, MD, professor of medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Presenting at the 2024 Lymphoma, Leukemia & Myeloma Congress in New York City, Stadtmauer discussed how MYD88 and CXCR4 gene mutations influence his therapeutic choices.

While delivering the Bruce Waterfall Memorial Lecture, funded by the International WM Foundation, he explained that the vast majority of patients with WM have a MYD88 mutation that is highly sensitive to Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors.

Due to greater specificity on the BTK target, which has implications for safety and efficacy, the first-generation BTK inhibitor ibrutinib has been largely supplanted by next generation drugs such as zanubrutinib.
 

Deep Responses in WM Remain Elusive

The support for next-generation BTK inhibitors over ibrutinib; bendamustine plus rituximab (BR); or cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (CyBorD) is, in his opinion, “a superior toxicity profile, high response rates, and prolonged response.” However, he conceded that the weaknesses of this approach include a low chance of a deep remission and the need for continuous therapy.

On account of these limitations, he typically favors the alkylating agent bendamustine plus the anti-CD20 rituximab over BTK inhibitors in the absence of MYD88 mutations. This once standard approach has become less commonly used in the era of BTK inhibitors, but it is also highly effective, is generally administered in a time-limited regimen, and may be more likely to push patients into a deep remission.

A similar rationale might be considered for CyBorD, but Stadtmauer believes that BR provides a higher rate of PFS with a lower risk for neuropathy, although he admitted this opinion is based on cross-study comparisons, not comparative trials.

While efforts to develop therapies capable of producing a deep response “should not be abandoned,” particularly with the T-cell engager therapies on the horizon, he is not convinced that the benefit-to-risk ratio of aggressive therapies is yet warranted in a disease the often progresses slowly.

“I must admit I am still under the philosophy that Waldenström’s is a chronic disease even if we are seeing a growing list of options for relapsed or poorly responding disease, so I am still not pushing patients too aggressively to knock them into a complete remission,” he said.

MYD88 mutations are not unique to WM, an uncommon, slow-growing form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. They are found in a small proportion of patients with other hematologic disorders, such as marginal zone lymphomas, but Stadtmauer estimated they occur in 90% of patients with WM. They are common enough that they can help with diagnosis.
 

CXCR4 Mutations Predict Worse Outcomes

The CXCR4 mutation occurs in an estimated 40% of patients with WM. When present, they are associated with worse outcomes, including a faster time to progression and a reduced overall survival, according to Stadtmauer.

The prognostic impact of less common mutations, such as TP53 and TERT or deletions in LYN, are less well characterized, but Stadtmauer said that most mutations associated with WM result in constitutive or continuous activation in BTK, which, in turn drives WM cell proliferation and survival.

The importance of BTK in WM progression is the reason targeted inhibitors have assumed such a key role in first-line treatment, but Stadtmauer cautioned that these drugs, like other therapies, should not be initiated in asymptomatic patients. This has been stated in past and current guidelines.

More accurately, therapy should be held until just prior to symptomatic manifestations of disease, Stadtmauer specified.

For an optimal response, “you want to start therapy about 3 or 4 months before the symptoms begin,” said Stadtmauer characterizing efforts to do so as “the art of medicine.” Starting therapy just prior to symptoms is advantageous, but it involves following patients closely. Any single biomarker might not be enough.

“In an asymptomatic patient, the level of monoclonal IgM is not an indication to start therapy,” he said, citing studies showing no effect on subsequent disease control from treating this biomarker alone.

However, he listed the development of moderate peripheral neuropathy (PN) as an exception. Essentially, anything greater than mild PN is “still bad” in Stadtmauer’s opinion, so treatment is warranted.

The growing number of second-line options relieves some of the concern when patients progress. Stadtmauer said he is now using BR more often in the second-line drug now that he is using BTK inhibitor more in the first line.

The Bcl-2 inhibitor venetoclax is highly effective and is another first- or second-line option even if this agent, like BTK inhibitors, also appears to require continuous dosing, said Stadtmauer, citing a study that showed patients relapsed relatively rapidly when the drug was stopped.

He now thinks of regimens with proteasome inhibitors as third line.

In selected patients who do not tolerate the non-covalent second-generation BTK inhibitors in the first or second line, he said, “I move quickly to the covalent BTKi pirtobrutinib,” based on data suggesting responses that are at least as good but with a better tolerability profile.
 

T-Cell Engager Data Are Limited

Without spending much time on the T-cell engagers, such as CAR T-cells or bispecific antibodies, Stadtmauer said that the advances he sees on the horizon “are tremendous,” and the “future is bright.” Such approaches could yield deep responses that could extend control or even provide cure, but these are speculations until more patients have been treated and followed long term.

Morton Coleman, MD, director of the Center for Lymphoma and Myeloma at Weill Cornell Medicine and the chairperson of the LLM Congress, called the talk a valuable and practical summary from a knowledgeable source. BTK inhibitors have represented a major evolution in WM management, but Coleman appreciated the underlying concept that treatment still has to be individualized.

“I think one of the most important take home messages is that the characterization of the mutational profile in patients with Waldenström should be considered a standard of care,” Coleman said. Helpful now, the mutational profile is likely to have a more valuable role as treatment is increasingly individualized.

Stadtmauer reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, and Sorrento. Coleman disclosed ties with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Loxo Oncology, Janssen, and Pharmacyclics.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.