Black patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) are less likely to receive chemotherapy but have better survival, compared with White patients, according to a study published in JTO Clinical Research and Reports.

This study provides a large-scale analysis of real-world data identifying racial and socioeconomic factors impacting systemic therapy delivery and survival in ES-SCLC.

“The most important finding was the significant disparity in receipt of chemotherapy,” said study author Umit Tapan, MD, of Boston Medical Center.

“Black individuals with ES-SCLC were less likely to receive chemotherapy compared to Whites and other racial groups. Similarly, elderly, uninsured patients, patients with nonprivate health insurance, and those with lower education levels were less likely to be treated with chemotherapy,” Dr. Tapan said.

Using the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB), Dr. Tapan and colleagues identified 148,961 patients who were diagnosed with stage IV ES-SCLC during 2004-2016. In all, 82,592 patients were included in the study.
 

Results: Treatment and survival

Compared with White patients, Black patients (adjusted odds ratio, 0.85; P = .0004) and patients from other racial groups (aOR, 0.87; P = .126) had lower odds of receiving chemotherapy on multivariate analysis.

However, survival was superior in Black patients (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.92; P < .0001) and other non-White patients (aHR 0.86; P < .0001).

“We speculate that additional factors, such as performance status, which is not captured by NCDB, might have accounted for better survival for Black patients,” Dr. Tapan said, noting that the analysis was adjusted for known possible confounding factors, such as age, gender, and comorbidity status.

Black patients had higher odds of receiving chemotherapy between 2010 and 2016 compared with 2004 and 2009. “This suggests a positive impact of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010,” Dr. Tapan said.

Another surprising finding pertained to patients with nonprivate insurance. These patients had even lower odds of getting chemotherapy after the implementation of ACA, Dr. Tapan said. Patients who had private insurance had higher survival compared with those who were uninsured.

Higher level of education, measured by percentage of residents with a high school degree, increased the odds of receiving chemotherapy.

Age also had a significant impact on receipt of chemotherapy. About 83% of patients over age 80 years received chemotherapy, compared with 94% of patients aged 40-64 years.
 

Real-world data

Minorities are underrepresented in cancer clinical trials in the United States, with only 2% of National Cancer Institute trials having sufficient minority participants, Dr. Tapan said. A study published in Academic Medicine in 2018 showed that only 13% of 782 National Institute of Health–sponsored clinical trials reported outcomes by race and ethnicity.

As a result, we are missing data on patient care in minority populations, Dr. Tapan said. “Collecting and analyzing real-world data becomes critical to study treatment patterns and outcomes,” he added.

The current real-world study had a somewhat diverse patient population, but 90.6% of patients were White, 7.8% were Black, and 1.7% were other races.

“We would have expected a higher percentage of Black patients considering the most recent U.S. Census Bureau estimates that 76.3% of the U.S. population is White and 13.4% is Black,” Dr. Tapan said. “There are conflicting results in the literature regarding racial disparities in SCLC and survival. Many of these studies were performed via state-based cancer registries instead of on a national level, making prior reports less generalizable.”
 

‘More work to do’

While the new study showed patients with nonprivate insurance or those with no insurance were less likely to receive chemotherapy, studies have shown that chemotherapy administration was not impacted by insurance status in limited-stage SCLC.

This is in contrast to radiotherapy delivery. Studies have revealed a lower likelihood of radiotherapy delivery in limited-stage SCLC for patients with government health insurance such as Medicare/Medicaid, Dr. Tapan said.

“Access to cancer care has been shown to be one of the most important barriers in racial disparity. Studies analyzing outcomes in the equal access health systems, such as the Veteran Administration, have revealed less racial disparities,” Dr. Tapan said.

Even when Black patients have equal access to care, they might receive suboptimal treatment, Dr. Tapan noted.

“Studies have shown that Black patients are not only more likely to refuse surgery, but also are more likely to be given a negative recommendation by a surgeon as compared to Whites, suggesting potential involvement of miscommunication or bias during patient-physician encounters,” Dr. Tapan said. “In the same vein, physicians would need to acknowledge their patients’ beliefs. Not doing so may lead to unsatisfactory physician-patient interactions and suboptimal decision-making.”

“Measures to reduce physician bias are an important step to reduce disparities,” Dr. Tapan continued. “Studies have shown that Black patients are perceived to be less intelligent and educated, less likely to have social support, and more likely to be at risk of noncompliance. For some patients and oncologists, extra effort is needed so that every patient can access the best possible treatments and outcomes. It is the oncologist’s responsibility to advocate for patients, but, ultimately, further legislative actions are needed to mitigate the disparities around cancer care.”

Dr. Tapan noted that, in 1966, Martin Luther King Jr., PhD, stated that “of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.”

Dr. Tapan said: “We have overcome some barriers since 1966, but we have more work to do.” He and colleagues had no disclosures related to this study.

SOURCE: Tapan U et al. JTO Clin Res Rep. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jtocrr.2020.100109.

Black patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) are less likely to receive chemotherapy but have better survival, compared with White patients, according to a study published in JTO Clinical Research and Reports.

This study provides a large-scale analysis of real-world data identifying racial and socioeconomic factors impacting systemic therapy delivery and survival in ES-SCLC.

“The most important finding was the significant disparity in receipt of chemotherapy,” said study author Umit Tapan, MD, of Boston Medical Center.

“Black individuals with ES-SCLC were less likely to receive chemotherapy compared to Whites and other racial groups. Similarly, elderly, uninsured patients, patients with nonprivate health insurance, and those with lower education levels were less likely to be treated with chemotherapy,” Dr. Tapan said.

Using the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB), Dr. Tapan and colleagues identified 148,961 patients who were diagnosed with stage IV ES-SCLC during 2004-2016. In all, 82,592 patients were included in the study.
 

Results: Treatment and survival

Compared with White patients, Black patients (adjusted odds ratio, 0.85; P = .0004) and patients from other racial groups (aOR, 0.87; P = .126) had lower odds of receiving chemotherapy on multivariate analysis.

However, survival was superior in Black patients (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.92; P < .0001) and other non-White patients (aHR 0.86; P < .0001).

“We speculate that additional factors, such as performance status, which is not captured by NCDB, might have accounted for better survival for Black patients,” Dr. Tapan said, noting that the analysis was adjusted for known possible confounding factors, such as age, gender, and comorbidity status.

Black patients had higher odds of receiving chemotherapy between 2010 and 2016 compared with 2004 and 2009. “This suggests a positive impact of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010,” Dr. Tapan said.

Another surprising finding pertained to patients with nonprivate insurance. These patients had even lower odds of getting chemotherapy after the implementation of ACA, Dr. Tapan said. Patients who had private insurance had higher survival compared with those who were uninsured.

Higher level of education, measured by percentage of residents with a high school degree, increased the odds of receiving chemotherapy.

Age also had a significant impact on receipt of chemotherapy. About 83% of patients over age 80 years received chemotherapy, compared with 94% of patients aged 40-64 years.
 

Real-world data

Minorities are underrepresented in cancer clinical trials in the United States, with only 2% of National Cancer Institute trials having sufficient minority participants, Dr. Tapan said. A study published in Academic Medicine in 2018 showed that only 13% of 782 National Institute of Health–sponsored clinical trials reported outcomes by race and ethnicity.

As a result, we are missing data on patient care in minority populations, Dr. Tapan said. “Collecting and analyzing real-world data becomes critical to study treatment patterns and outcomes,” he added.

The current real-world study had a somewhat diverse patient population, but 90.6% of patients were White, 7.8% were Black, and 1.7% were other races.

“We would have expected a higher percentage of Black patients considering the most recent U.S. Census Bureau estimates that 76.3% of the U.S. population is White and 13.4% is Black,” Dr. Tapan said. “There are conflicting results in the literature regarding racial disparities in SCLC and survival. Many of these studies were performed via state-based cancer registries instead of on a national level, making prior reports less generalizable.”
 

‘More work to do’

While the new study showed patients with nonprivate insurance or those with no insurance were less likely to receive chemotherapy, studies have shown that chemotherapy administration was not impacted by insurance status in limited-stage SCLC.

This is in contrast to radiotherapy delivery. Studies have revealed a lower likelihood of radiotherapy delivery in limited-stage SCLC for patients with government health insurance such as Medicare/Medicaid, Dr. Tapan said.

“Access to cancer care has been shown to be one of the most important barriers in racial disparity. Studies analyzing outcomes in the equal access health systems, such as the Veteran Administration, have revealed less racial disparities,” Dr. Tapan said.

Even when Black patients have equal access to care, they might receive suboptimal treatment, Dr. Tapan noted.

“Studies have shown that Black patients are not only more likely to refuse surgery, but also are more likely to be given a negative recommendation by a surgeon as compared to Whites, suggesting potential involvement of miscommunication or bias during patient-physician encounters,” Dr. Tapan said. “In the same vein, physicians would need to acknowledge their patients’ beliefs. Not doing so may lead to unsatisfactory physician-patient interactions and suboptimal decision-making.”

“Measures to reduce physician bias are an important step to reduce disparities,” Dr. Tapan continued. “Studies have shown that Black patients are perceived to be less intelligent and educated, less likely to have social support, and more likely to be at risk of noncompliance. For some patients and oncologists, extra effort is needed so that every patient can access the best possible treatments and outcomes. It is the oncologist’s responsibility to advocate for patients, but, ultimately, further legislative actions are needed to mitigate the disparities around cancer care.”

Dr. Tapan noted that, in 1966, Martin Luther King Jr., PhD, stated that “of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.”

Dr. Tapan said: “We have overcome some barriers since 1966, but we have more work to do.” He and colleagues had no disclosures related to this study.

SOURCE: Tapan U et al. JTO Clin Res Rep. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jtocrr.2020.100109.

Black patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) are less likely to receive chemotherapy but have better survival, compared with White patients, according to a study published in JTO Clinical Research and Reports.

This study provides a large-scale analysis of real-world data identifying racial and socioeconomic factors impacting systemic therapy delivery and survival in ES-SCLC.

“The most important finding was the significant disparity in receipt of chemotherapy,” said study author Umit Tapan, MD, of Boston Medical Center.

“Black individuals with ES-SCLC were less likely to receive chemotherapy compared to Whites and other racial groups. Similarly, elderly, uninsured patients, patients with nonprivate health insurance, and those with lower education levels were less likely to be treated with chemotherapy,” Dr. Tapan said.

Using the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB), Dr. Tapan and colleagues identified 148,961 patients who were diagnosed with stage IV ES-SCLC during 2004-2016. In all, 82,592 patients were included in the study.
 

Results: Treatment and survival

Compared with White patients, Black patients (adjusted odds ratio, 0.85; P = .0004) and patients from other racial groups (aOR, 0.87; P = .126) had lower odds of receiving chemotherapy on multivariate analysis.

However, survival was superior in Black patients (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.92; P < .0001) and other non-White patients (aHR 0.86; P < .0001).

“We speculate that additional factors, such as performance status, which is not captured by NCDB, might have accounted for better survival for Black patients,” Dr. Tapan said, noting that the analysis was adjusted for known possible confounding factors, such as age, gender, and comorbidity status.

Black patients had higher odds of receiving chemotherapy between 2010 and 2016 compared with 2004 and 2009. “This suggests a positive impact of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010,” Dr. Tapan said.

Another surprising finding pertained to patients with nonprivate insurance. These patients had even lower odds of getting chemotherapy after the implementation of ACA, Dr. Tapan said. Patients who had private insurance had higher survival compared with those who were uninsured.

Higher level of education, measured by percentage of residents with a high school degree, increased the odds of receiving chemotherapy.

Age also had a significant impact on receipt of chemotherapy. About 83% of patients over age 80 years received chemotherapy, compared with 94% of patients aged 40-64 years.
 

Real-world data

Minorities are underrepresented in cancer clinical trials in the United States, with only 2% of National Cancer Institute trials having sufficient minority participants, Dr. Tapan said. A study published in Academic Medicine in 2018 showed that only 13% of 782 National Institute of Health–sponsored clinical trials reported outcomes by race and ethnicity.

As a result, we are missing data on patient care in minority populations, Dr. Tapan said. “Collecting and analyzing real-world data becomes critical to study treatment patterns and outcomes,” he added.

The current real-world study had a somewhat diverse patient population, but 90.6% of patients were White, 7.8% were Black, and 1.7% were other races.

“We would have expected a higher percentage of Black patients considering the most recent U.S. Census Bureau estimates that 76.3% of the U.S. population is White and 13.4% is Black,” Dr. Tapan said. “There are conflicting results in the literature regarding racial disparities in SCLC and survival. Many of these studies were performed via state-based cancer registries instead of on a national level, making prior reports less generalizable.”
 

‘More work to do’

While the new study showed patients with nonprivate insurance or those with no insurance were less likely to receive chemotherapy, studies have shown that chemotherapy administration was not impacted by insurance status in limited-stage SCLC.

This is in contrast to radiotherapy delivery. Studies have revealed a lower likelihood of radiotherapy delivery in limited-stage SCLC for patients with government health insurance such as Medicare/Medicaid, Dr. Tapan said.

“Access to cancer care has been shown to be one of the most important barriers in racial disparity. Studies analyzing outcomes in the equal access health systems, such as the Veteran Administration, have revealed less racial disparities,” Dr. Tapan said.

Even when Black patients have equal access to care, they might receive suboptimal treatment, Dr. Tapan noted.

“Studies have shown that Black patients are not only more likely to refuse surgery, but also are more likely to be given a negative recommendation by a surgeon as compared to Whites, suggesting potential involvement of miscommunication or bias during patient-physician encounters,” Dr. Tapan said. “In the same vein, physicians would need to acknowledge their patients’ beliefs. Not doing so may lead to unsatisfactory physician-patient interactions and suboptimal decision-making.”

“Measures to reduce physician bias are an important step to reduce disparities,” Dr. Tapan continued. “Studies have shown that Black patients are perceived to be less intelligent and educated, less likely to have social support, and more likely to be at risk of noncompliance. For some patients and oncologists, extra effort is needed so that every patient can access the best possible treatments and outcomes. It is the oncologist’s responsibility to advocate for patients, but, ultimately, further legislative actions are needed to mitigate the disparities around cancer care.”

Dr. Tapan noted that, in 1966, Martin Luther King Jr., PhD, stated that “of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.”

Dr. Tapan said: “We have overcome some barriers since 1966, but we have more work to do.” He and colleagues had no disclosures related to this study.

SOURCE: Tapan U et al. JTO Clin Res Rep. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jtocrr.2020.100109.

Amidst the pandemic and election, two anniversaries passed almost unnoticed in early November.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Amidst the pandemic and election, two anniversaries passed almost unnoticed in early November.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Amidst the pandemic and election, two anniversaries passed almost unnoticed in early November.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Background: Adverse events in the immediate posthospitalization period are a serious threat to patients 65 years and older who are residents of long-term care facilities. Changes during hospitalization – such as fasting for procedures, immobility, change in surroundings, disruption of sleep, and medication adjustments – can lead to adverse events such as falls, pressure ulcers, adverse drug reactions, and health care–acquired infections. However, the frequency and preventability of these adverse events has not been measured.

Of the 555 residents, 65.5% were female and the mean age was 82.2. There were 379 adverse events identified; 52% involved pressure ulcers, skin tears, and falls with injury, which were deemed preventable. Healthcare-acquired infections totaled 28.5% and adverse drug events were 16.5%. Close to half of the events were serious, life threatening, or fatal. The study was limited by subjectivity in classifying the adverse events.

Hospitalists should ensure proper coordination and handoff when transitioning patients back to their nursing home.

Bottom line: Adverse events occur in 4 of 10 discharges from the hospital to long-term care facilities, and most events are preventable.

Citation: Kapoor A et al. Adverse events in long-term care residents transitioning from hospital back to nursing home. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Jul 22;179(9):1254-61.

Dr. Ali is assistant professor of internal medicine and section chief of hospital medicine at St. Louis University School of Medicine.

Background: Adverse events in the immediate posthospitalization period are a serious threat to patients 65 years and older who are residents of long-term care facilities. Changes during hospitalization – such as fasting for procedures, immobility, change in surroundings, disruption of sleep, and medication adjustments – can lead to adverse events such as falls, pressure ulcers, adverse drug reactions, and health care–acquired infections. However, the frequency and preventability of these adverse events has not been measured.

Of the 555 residents, 65.5% were female and the mean age was 82.2. There were 379 adverse events identified; 52% involved pressure ulcers, skin tears, and falls with injury, which were deemed preventable. Healthcare-acquired infections totaled 28.5% and adverse drug events were 16.5%. Close to half of the events were serious, life threatening, or fatal. The study was limited by subjectivity in classifying the adverse events.

Hospitalists should ensure proper coordination and handoff when transitioning patients back to their nursing home.

Bottom line: Adverse events occur in 4 of 10 discharges from the hospital to long-term care facilities, and most events are preventable.

Citation: Kapoor A et al. Adverse events in long-term care residents transitioning from hospital back to nursing home. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Jul 22;179(9):1254-61.

Dr. Ali is assistant professor of internal medicine and section chief of hospital medicine at St. Louis University School of Medicine.

Background: Adverse events in the immediate posthospitalization period are a serious threat to patients 65 years and older who are residents of long-term care facilities. Changes during hospitalization – such as fasting for procedures, immobility, change in surroundings, disruption of sleep, and medication adjustments – can lead to adverse events such as falls, pressure ulcers, adverse drug reactions, and health care–acquired infections. However, the frequency and preventability of these adverse events has not been measured.

Of the 555 residents, 65.5% were female and the mean age was 82.2. There were 379 adverse events identified; 52% involved pressure ulcers, skin tears, and falls with injury, which were deemed preventable. Healthcare-acquired infections totaled 28.5% and adverse drug events were 16.5%. Close to half of the events were serious, life threatening, or fatal. The study was limited by subjectivity in classifying the adverse events.

Hospitalists should ensure proper coordination and handoff when transitioning patients back to their nursing home.

Bottom line: Adverse events occur in 4 of 10 discharges from the hospital to long-term care facilities, and most events are preventable.

Citation: Kapoor A et al. Adverse events in long-term care residents transitioning from hospital back to nursing home. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Jul 22;179(9):1254-61.

Dr. Ali is assistant professor of internal medicine and section chief of hospital medicine at St. Louis University School of Medicine.

Q2. Correct answer: D  
 
Rationale  
Deficient intake of fiber and folate may originate in the food choice of the individual, whereas some deficiencies of intake, such as thiamine, appear to be celiac specific. The provider should encourage intake of nutrient-dense foods including wholegrain foods, enriched if possible, legumes, fruits, vegetables, lean meat, fish, chicken, and eggs. It is not necessary to prioritize micronutrient supplements over achieving nutritional adequacy through dietary intake. Iron deficiency is an effect of untreated celiac disease.  
 
Reference  
1. Shepherd SJ, Gibson PR. J Human Nutr Dietet. 2012;26:349-58. 
 

Q2. Correct answer: D  
 
Rationale  
Deficient intake of fiber and folate may originate in the food choice of the individual, whereas some deficiencies of intake, such as thiamine, appear to be celiac specific. The provider should encourage intake of nutrient-dense foods including wholegrain foods, enriched if possible, legumes, fruits, vegetables, lean meat, fish, chicken, and eggs. It is not necessary to prioritize micronutrient supplements over achieving nutritional adequacy through dietary intake. Iron deficiency is an effect of untreated celiac disease.  
 
Reference  
1. Shepherd SJ, Gibson PR. J Human Nutr Dietet. 2012;26:349-58. 
 

Q2. Correct answer: D  
 
Rationale  
Deficient intake of fiber and folate may originate in the food choice of the individual, whereas some deficiencies of intake, such as thiamine, appear to be celiac specific. The provider should encourage intake of nutrient-dense foods including wholegrain foods, enriched if possible, legumes, fruits, vegetables, lean meat, fish, chicken, and eggs. It is not necessary to prioritize micronutrient supplements over achieving nutritional adequacy through dietary intake. Iron deficiency is an effect of untreated celiac disease.  
 
Reference  
1. Shepherd SJ, Gibson PR. J Human Nutr Dietet. 2012;26:349-58. 
 

Correct answer: C  
 
Rationale  
According to the Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, colonoscopy should be performed 1 year after resection, and again 3 years later, in order to decrease the risk of metachronous colorectal cancer.  
 
Reference  
1. Kahi CJ, Boland CR, Dominitz JA. Gastroenterology. 2016. 150(3):758-68.e11.

Correct answer: C  
 
Rationale  
According to the Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, colonoscopy should be performed 1 year after resection, and again 3 years later, in order to decrease the risk of metachronous colorectal cancer.  
 
Reference  
1. Kahi CJ, Boland CR, Dominitz JA. Gastroenterology. 2016. 150(3):758-68.e11.

Correct answer: C  
 
Rationale  
According to the Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, colonoscopy should be performed 1 year after resection, and again 3 years later, in order to decrease the risk of metachronous colorectal cancer.  
 
Reference  
1. Kahi CJ, Boland CR, Dominitz JA. Gastroenterology. 2016. 150(3):758-68.e11.

Men with genetic variants that cause hereditary hemochromatosis have an increased risk of liver cancer and death, according to a large cohort study.

Hereditary hemochromatosis is primarily caused by HFE gene variants. Past research suggested that 81% of patients with hereditary hemochromatosis carry the p.C282Y variant and 5% carry the p.C282Y/p.H63D compound heterozygote genotype.

In a new study, the presence of HFE p.C282Y and p.H63D genotypes was associated with a 10-fold greater risk of developing a hepatic malignancy among men of European ancestry aged 40-70 years. In addition, men with HFE variants were 1.2 times more likely to die of any cause, compared with men who had neither pathogenic variant.

Janice L. Atkins, PhD, of the University of Exeter (England), and colleagues reported these findings in JAMA.

For this study, Dr. Atkins and colleagues used follow-up data from a large genotyped community sample to estimate the incidence of primary hepatic carcinomas and deaths by HFE variant status in participants of European descent.

Data for the two linked coprimary endpoints, incident primary liver carcinoma and all-cause mortality, were derived from hospital and death certificate records. Where available, primary care data was also included.
 

Results: Increased risks for men, not women

The researchers analyzed data from 451,186 men and women, aged 40-70 years, from the UK Biobank. There were 2,890 (0.9%) patients who were p.C282Y homozygous, 1,294 of whom were men.

Among the 1,294 men with HFE p.C282Y homozygosity, 21 were diagnosed with a primary hepatic malignancy. Ten of these patients were not diagnosed with hemochromatosis at baseline.

At a median follow-up of 8.9 years, the risk of primary hepatic malignancy was significantly higher in men with HFE p.C282Y homozygosity, compared with men without HFE pathogenic variants (hazard ratio, 10.5; 95% confidence interval, 6.6-16.7; P < .001).

The risk of all-cause death was significantly higher in men with HFE p.C282Y homozygosity as well (HR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0-1.5; P  = .046).

In contrast, female HFE p.C282Y homozygotes had no significant increases in the risk of incident primary hepatic malignancy or all-cause mortality.

Life table projections estimated that 7.2% of men with HFE p.C282Y homozygosity will develop a primary hepatic malignancy by age 75, compared with 0.6% of men without p.C282Y or p.H63D variants.

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of this study was the ancestral homogeneity of the cohort. Thus, the findings may not be generalizable to all patient populations.
 

Implications: Earlier diagnosis and treatment

The results of this study underline the importance of early diagnosis and genetic testing, according to the researchers.

“Tragically, men with the hemochromatosis faulty genes have been dying of liver cancer for many years, but this was thought to be rare,” study author David Melzer, MBBCh, PhD, of University of Exeter, said in a press release.

“The large scale of the UK Biobank study allowed us to measure cancer risk accurately. We were shocked to find that more than 7% of men with two faulty genes are likely to develop liver cancer by age 75, particularly considering that the U.K. has the second-highest rate of these faulty genes in the world. Fortunately, most of these cancers could be prevented with early treatment,” Dr. Melzer added.

“Physicians and scientists have long acknowledged that iron overload is an important cofactor fueling the development of many serious diseases, including cancer,” said study author Jeremy Shearman, MBChB, DPhil, of Nuffield Health and South Warwickshire NHS Foundation Trust in the United Kingdom.

“This research is a vital step towards quantifying that risk and should raise awareness of the importance of iron in the minds of both clinicians and patients. Measurement of iron stores and recognition of the genetic risk of iron overload needs to become a routine part of health assessment and monitoring in the U.K.,” Dr. Shearman added.

“The UK Biobank project is a glimpse into the future of medicine where all known genes are tested and then treatable conditions are offered treatment before serious complications develop,” said study author Paul Adams, MD, of the University of Western Ontario in London.

This research was funded by the UK Medical Research Council. Dr. Melzer disclosed financial affiliations with the UK Medical Research Council during the conduct of the study.

SOURCE: Atkins JL et al. JAMA. 2020 Nov 24. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.21566.

Men with genetic variants that cause hereditary hemochromatosis have an increased risk of liver cancer and death, according to a large cohort study.

Hereditary hemochromatosis is primarily caused by HFE gene variants. Past research suggested that 81% of patients with hereditary hemochromatosis carry the p.C282Y variant and 5% carry the p.C282Y/p.H63D compound heterozygote genotype.

In a new study, the presence of HFE p.C282Y and p.H63D genotypes was associated with a 10-fold greater risk of developing a hepatic malignancy among men of European ancestry aged 40-70 years. In addition, men with HFE variants were 1.2 times more likely to die of any cause, compared with men who had neither pathogenic variant.

Janice L. Atkins, PhD, of the University of Exeter (England), and colleagues reported these findings in JAMA.

For this study, Dr. Atkins and colleagues used follow-up data from a large genotyped community sample to estimate the incidence of primary hepatic carcinomas and deaths by HFE variant status in participants of European descent.

Data for the two linked coprimary endpoints, incident primary liver carcinoma and all-cause mortality, were derived from hospital and death certificate records. Where available, primary care data was also included.
 

Results: Increased risks for men, not women

The researchers analyzed data from 451,186 men and women, aged 40-70 years, from the UK Biobank. There were 2,890 (0.9%) patients who were p.C282Y homozygous, 1,294 of whom were men.

Among the 1,294 men with HFE p.C282Y homozygosity, 21 were diagnosed with a primary hepatic malignancy. Ten of these patients were not diagnosed with hemochromatosis at baseline.

At a median follow-up of 8.9 years, the risk of primary hepatic malignancy was significantly higher in men with HFE p.C282Y homozygosity, compared with men without HFE pathogenic variants (hazard ratio, 10.5; 95% confidence interval, 6.6-16.7; P < .001).

The risk of all-cause death was significantly higher in men with HFE p.C282Y homozygosity as well (HR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0-1.5; P  = .046).

In contrast, female HFE p.C282Y homozygotes had no significant increases in the risk of incident primary hepatic malignancy or all-cause mortality.

Life table projections estimated that 7.2% of men with HFE p.C282Y homozygosity will develop a primary hepatic malignancy by age 75, compared with 0.6% of men without p.C282Y or p.H63D variants.

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of this study was the ancestral homogeneity of the cohort. Thus, the findings may not be generalizable to all patient populations.
 

Implications: Earlier diagnosis and treatment

The results of this study underline the importance of early diagnosis and genetic testing, according to the researchers.

“Tragically, men with the hemochromatosis faulty genes have been dying of liver cancer for many years, but this was thought to be rare,” study author David Melzer, MBBCh, PhD, of University of Exeter, said in a press release.

“The large scale of the UK Biobank study allowed us to measure cancer risk accurately. We were shocked to find that more than 7% of men with two faulty genes are likely to develop liver cancer by age 75, particularly considering that the U.K. has the second-highest rate of these faulty genes in the world. Fortunately, most of these cancers could be prevented with early treatment,” Dr. Melzer added.

“Physicians and scientists have long acknowledged that iron overload is an important cofactor fueling the development of many serious diseases, including cancer,” said study author Jeremy Shearman, MBChB, DPhil, of Nuffield Health and South Warwickshire NHS Foundation Trust in the United Kingdom.

“This research is a vital step towards quantifying that risk and should raise awareness of the importance of iron in the minds of both clinicians and patients. Measurement of iron stores and recognition of the genetic risk of iron overload needs to become a routine part of health assessment and monitoring in the U.K.,” Dr. Shearman added.

“The UK Biobank project is a glimpse into the future of medicine where all known genes are tested and then treatable conditions are offered treatment before serious complications develop,” said study author Paul Adams, MD, of the University of Western Ontario in London.

This research was funded by the UK Medical Research Council. Dr. Melzer disclosed financial affiliations with the UK Medical Research Council during the conduct of the study.

SOURCE: Atkins JL et al. JAMA. 2020 Nov 24. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.21566.

Men with genetic variants that cause hereditary hemochromatosis have an increased risk of liver cancer and death, according to a large cohort study.

Hereditary hemochromatosis is primarily caused by HFE gene variants. Past research suggested that 81% of patients with hereditary hemochromatosis carry the p.C282Y variant and 5% carry the p.C282Y/p.H63D compound heterozygote genotype.

In a new study, the presence of HFE p.C282Y and p.H63D genotypes was associated with a 10-fold greater risk of developing a hepatic malignancy among men of European ancestry aged 40-70 years. In addition, men with HFE variants were 1.2 times more likely to die of any cause, compared with men who had neither pathogenic variant.

Janice L. Atkins, PhD, of the University of Exeter (England), and colleagues reported these findings in JAMA.

For this study, Dr. Atkins and colleagues used follow-up data from a large genotyped community sample to estimate the incidence of primary hepatic carcinomas and deaths by HFE variant status in participants of European descent.

Data for the two linked coprimary endpoints, incident primary liver carcinoma and all-cause mortality, were derived from hospital and death certificate records. Where available, primary care data was also included.
 

Results: Increased risks for men, not women

The researchers analyzed data from 451,186 men and women, aged 40-70 years, from the UK Biobank. There were 2,890 (0.9%) patients who were p.C282Y homozygous, 1,294 of whom were men.

Among the 1,294 men with HFE p.C282Y homozygosity, 21 were diagnosed with a primary hepatic malignancy. Ten of these patients were not diagnosed with hemochromatosis at baseline.

At a median follow-up of 8.9 years, the risk of primary hepatic malignancy was significantly higher in men with HFE p.C282Y homozygosity, compared with men without HFE pathogenic variants (hazard ratio, 10.5; 95% confidence interval, 6.6-16.7; P < .001).

The risk of all-cause death was significantly higher in men with HFE p.C282Y homozygosity as well (HR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0-1.5; P  = .046).

In contrast, female HFE p.C282Y homozygotes had no significant increases in the risk of incident primary hepatic malignancy or all-cause mortality.

Life table projections estimated that 7.2% of men with HFE p.C282Y homozygosity will develop a primary hepatic malignancy by age 75, compared with 0.6% of men without p.C282Y or p.H63D variants.

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of this study was the ancestral homogeneity of the cohort. Thus, the findings may not be generalizable to all patient populations.
 

Implications: Earlier diagnosis and treatment

The results of this study underline the importance of early diagnosis and genetic testing, according to the researchers.

“Tragically, men with the hemochromatosis faulty genes have been dying of liver cancer for many years, but this was thought to be rare,” study author David Melzer, MBBCh, PhD, of University of Exeter, said in a press release.

“The large scale of the UK Biobank study allowed us to measure cancer risk accurately. We were shocked to find that more than 7% of men with two faulty genes are likely to develop liver cancer by age 75, particularly considering that the U.K. has the second-highest rate of these faulty genes in the world. Fortunately, most of these cancers could be prevented with early treatment,” Dr. Melzer added.

“Physicians and scientists have long acknowledged that iron overload is an important cofactor fueling the development of many serious diseases, including cancer,” said study author Jeremy Shearman, MBChB, DPhil, of Nuffield Health and South Warwickshire NHS Foundation Trust in the United Kingdom.

“This research is a vital step towards quantifying that risk and should raise awareness of the importance of iron in the minds of both clinicians and patients. Measurement of iron stores and recognition of the genetic risk of iron overload needs to become a routine part of health assessment and monitoring in the U.K.,” Dr. Shearman added.

“The UK Biobank project is a glimpse into the future of medicine where all known genes are tested and then treatable conditions are offered treatment before serious complications develop,” said study author Paul Adams, MD, of the University of Western Ontario in London.

This research was funded by the UK Medical Research Council. Dr. Melzer disclosed financial affiliations with the UK Medical Research Council during the conduct of the study.

SOURCE: Atkins JL et al. JAMA. 2020 Nov 24. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.21566.

While stressing the urgent need to vaccinate the whole U.S. population, infectious disease experts and medical ethicists are raising questions about the clinical trials needed to answer important questions about the new COVID-19 vaccines.

In a statement released on Nov. 20, Barbara Alexander, MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and a professor at Duke University, Durham, N.C., commented on Pfizer and BioNTech’s application to the Food and Drug Administration for an emergency use authorization (EUA) for its COVID-19 vaccine. Besides emphasizing the need for a transparent review of the companies’ trial data prior to the FDA’s granting an EUA, she said, “If emergency use authorization is granted, clinical trials and data collection must continue.”

In an interview, Dr. Alexander said she is convinced that both Pfizer and Moderna, which is also expected to seek an EUA soon, will continue their clinical trials to monitor the long-term safety and efficacy of their vaccines.

“The EUA guidance for COVID vaccine authorization is very clear that clinical trials will move forward,” she said. “Any EUA request would have to include a strategy to ensure that the long-term safety and efficacy of a vaccine could be monitored. I see no evidence that either Pfizer or Moderna is not prepared to follow those regulations.”

Eventually, she added, the drug makers will have to seek full FDA approval to replace an EUA, which as its name signifies, is designed for public health emergencies. “The EUA is a tool to help us get the vaccine into circulation and have it start working as quickly as possible in the current health crisis,” she said. “But once the crisis is over, if the sponsors want to continue to market their vaccines, they have to go forward and get full approval.”

Medical ethicists, however, point out there may be ethical and practical dilemmas involved in continuing or initiating clinical trials once a vaccine has been approved for use even on an emergency basis.

In a commentary in Annals of Internal Medicine, Rafael Dal-Re, MD, PhD, Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, and two other ethicists stipulated that the pandemic requires early licensing and deployment of COVID-19 vaccines. Nevertheless, they noted, additional months of data are required to establish the long-term efficacy and safety of the vaccines. “Moreover, early deployment could interfere with the acquisition of long-term data,” both on these vaccines and on others coming through the pipeline, they wrote.

In countries where an approved vaccine is deployed, the ethicists noted, investigators must inform participants in an ongoing trial about the approved vaccine’s status and ask if they want to continue in the study. If enough participants decline, the trial might have to be terminated early. At that point, researchers may not have sufficient long-term data to identify late-term safety issues, determine how long efficacy lasts, determine whether waning immunity is associated with reduced levels of antibodies, or identify the level of neutralizing antibodies that correlates with immunity.

Moreover, they observed, long-term trials are especially important for vaccines that use mRNA technology, because less is known about them than about traditional kinds of vaccines.

The authors also pointed out that early licensing of any vaccine might make it harder to evaluate vaccines that haven’t yet been approved. “Once a vaccine is licensed, new placebo-controlled RCTs [randomized controlled trials] of other vaccines will not be acceptable ethically, and noninferiority RCTs will be the most likely alternative.

“The goal of noninferiority trials will be to demonstrate that the immune response (that is, neutralizing antibody titers or levels) of the candidate vaccine is not inferior to that of the approved vaccine within a prespecified margin, which the FDA has established as less than 10% for COVID-19 vaccines,” the authors noted. 
 

More data with more study designs

Dial Hewlett Jr., MD, medical director for disease control services, Westchester County Department of Health, White Plains, N.Y., said in an interview that the ethicists raise important issues that have been discussed in other forums, including a recent webinar of the National Academy of Medicine.

“As the authors point out, once you have a vaccine that has been shown to be effective and safe, it’s no longer ethical to enroll people in placebo trials,” he said.

Therefore, he said, Pfizer and Moderna will undoubtedly offer their vaccines to the people in their studies’ placebo groups after the vaccines receive an EUA. Then they will follow everyone who has been vaccinated for 2 years to determine long-term safety. Efficacy will also continue to be measured as an adjunct of safety, he said.

With regard to the difficulty of reconsenting individuals to enter a new clinical trial after a vaccine has been approved, he said, “I’d agree that trying to get all the same participants to come into another study would be a challenge. You can, however, design studies that will allow you to obtain the same information. You will have a large number of people out there who haven’t been vaccinated, and you can do single-arm longitudinal studies and measure a number of things in the individuals who are enrolled in those studies,” he said.

“You can look at the immunologic markers, both antibody and T-cell. You can follow these individuals longitudinally to see if they do develop disease over a period of time. If they do, you can determine what their levels of response were,” he added. “So there are opportunities to design studies that would give you some of the same information, although it would not be in the same population that was in the randomized trials.”

For newer vaccines that have yet to be tested, he said, developers can compare “historical controls” from the trials of approved vaccines, i.e., data from the unvaccinated participants in those studies, with the data from inoculating people with the novel agents. The historical data can be sex- and age-matched, among other things, to individuals in the new trials. Moreover, because the study protocols have been harmonized for all trials under Operation Warp Speed, it doesn’t matter what kind of vaccine they’re testing, he said.

It may be necessary to do additional studies to find out how long immunity lasts after people have been vaccinated, Dr. Hewlett pointed out.

“You may have a different trial design. You don’t need a control arm to determine how long immunity lasts. You’re just comparing the patients who were vaccinated to nothing,” he said. “So you could have a single-arm trial on a group of people who consent to be immunized and followed. You can see what their antibody levels are and other surrogate markers, and you can see when they might develop disease, if they do. You’d need a large sample, but you can do that.”

Dr. Hewlett noted that additional studies will be required to determine whether the new vaccines stop transmission of the coronavirus or just prevent symptoms of COVID-19. Until it’s established that a vaccine halts transmission or the country achieves herd immunity, he said, “we’ll still have to wear masks and take other precautions, because a significant portion of people will still be at risk.”
 

‘A lot of redundancy’

Dr. Alexander emphasized that any safety or efficacy issues with the first COVID-19 vaccines must be identified before the vaccine is offered to a large portion of the U.S. population.

“While the data from the Pfizer and Moderna trials are said to be favorable, we at IDSA want to make sure that whatever vaccine comes to market is safe,” she said. “Having an unsafe vaccine on the market would be worse than no vaccine, because you’re compromising the public confidence. We have to make sure the public trusts the process and that sufficient data have been evaluated to ensure the vaccine is safe and efficacious.

“I believe the FDA is being very careful and thoughtful in [its] response,” Dr. Alexander said. “They realize how important it is to get a vaccine and save lives. While they’re doing things differently and moving much faster than before, they’re still trying to be thoughtful and reasonable. They don’t seem to be putting people at risk or circumventing the regulatory standards.”

Moreover, she pointed out, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, which is expected to meet on Dec. 10, will review the trial data before the agency grants an EUA to Pfizer or Moderna. Then the FDA will post the data publicly.

The next step is for the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to look at the data and decide who in the United States should receive the vaccine first, she pointed out. And both Pfizer and Moderna have shown their data to advisory panels of outside experts.

“There’s a lot of redundancy, and a lot of people are looking at the data,” Dr. Alexander said. “So I don’t think we’re cutting corners to get it out there more quickly.”

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

While stressing the urgent need to vaccinate the whole U.S. population, infectious disease experts and medical ethicists are raising questions about the clinical trials needed to answer important questions about the new COVID-19 vaccines.

In a statement released on Nov. 20, Barbara Alexander, MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and a professor at Duke University, Durham, N.C., commented on Pfizer and BioNTech’s application to the Food and Drug Administration for an emergency use authorization (EUA) for its COVID-19 vaccine. Besides emphasizing the need for a transparent review of the companies’ trial data prior to the FDA’s granting an EUA, she said, “If emergency use authorization is granted, clinical trials and data collection must continue.”

In an interview, Dr. Alexander said she is convinced that both Pfizer and Moderna, which is also expected to seek an EUA soon, will continue their clinical trials to monitor the long-term safety and efficacy of their vaccines.

“The EUA guidance for COVID vaccine authorization is very clear that clinical trials will move forward,” she said. “Any EUA request would have to include a strategy to ensure that the long-term safety and efficacy of a vaccine could be monitored. I see no evidence that either Pfizer or Moderna is not prepared to follow those regulations.”

Eventually, she added, the drug makers will have to seek full FDA approval to replace an EUA, which as its name signifies, is designed for public health emergencies. “The EUA is a tool to help us get the vaccine into circulation and have it start working as quickly as possible in the current health crisis,” she said. “But once the crisis is over, if the sponsors want to continue to market their vaccines, they have to go forward and get full approval.”

Medical ethicists, however, point out there may be ethical and practical dilemmas involved in continuing or initiating clinical trials once a vaccine has been approved for use even on an emergency basis.

In a commentary in Annals of Internal Medicine, Rafael Dal-Re, MD, PhD, Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, and two other ethicists stipulated that the pandemic requires early licensing and deployment of COVID-19 vaccines. Nevertheless, they noted, additional months of data are required to establish the long-term efficacy and safety of the vaccines. “Moreover, early deployment could interfere with the acquisition of long-term data,” both on these vaccines and on others coming through the pipeline, they wrote.

In countries where an approved vaccine is deployed, the ethicists noted, investigators must inform participants in an ongoing trial about the approved vaccine’s status and ask if they want to continue in the study. If enough participants decline, the trial might have to be terminated early. At that point, researchers may not have sufficient long-term data to identify late-term safety issues, determine how long efficacy lasts, determine whether waning immunity is associated with reduced levels of antibodies, or identify the level of neutralizing antibodies that correlates with immunity.

Moreover, they observed, long-term trials are especially important for vaccines that use mRNA technology, because less is known about them than about traditional kinds of vaccines.

The authors also pointed out that early licensing of any vaccine might make it harder to evaluate vaccines that haven’t yet been approved. “Once a vaccine is licensed, new placebo-controlled RCTs [randomized controlled trials] of other vaccines will not be acceptable ethically, and noninferiority RCTs will be the most likely alternative.

“The goal of noninferiority trials will be to demonstrate that the immune response (that is, neutralizing antibody titers or levels) of the candidate vaccine is not inferior to that of the approved vaccine within a prespecified margin, which the FDA has established as less than 10% for COVID-19 vaccines,” the authors noted. 
 

More data with more study designs

Dial Hewlett Jr., MD, medical director for disease control services, Westchester County Department of Health, White Plains, N.Y., said in an interview that the ethicists raise important issues that have been discussed in other forums, including a recent webinar of the National Academy of Medicine.

“As the authors point out, once you have a vaccine that has been shown to be effective and safe, it’s no longer ethical to enroll people in placebo trials,” he said.

Therefore, he said, Pfizer and Moderna will undoubtedly offer their vaccines to the people in their studies’ placebo groups after the vaccines receive an EUA. Then they will follow everyone who has been vaccinated for 2 years to determine long-term safety. Efficacy will also continue to be measured as an adjunct of safety, he said.

With regard to the difficulty of reconsenting individuals to enter a new clinical trial after a vaccine has been approved, he said, “I’d agree that trying to get all the same participants to come into another study would be a challenge. You can, however, design studies that will allow you to obtain the same information. You will have a large number of people out there who haven’t been vaccinated, and you can do single-arm longitudinal studies and measure a number of things in the individuals who are enrolled in those studies,” he said.

“You can look at the immunologic markers, both antibody and T-cell. You can follow these individuals longitudinally to see if they do develop disease over a period of time. If they do, you can determine what their levels of response were,” he added. “So there are opportunities to design studies that would give you some of the same information, although it would not be in the same population that was in the randomized trials.”

For newer vaccines that have yet to be tested, he said, developers can compare “historical controls” from the trials of approved vaccines, i.e., data from the unvaccinated participants in those studies, with the data from inoculating people with the novel agents. The historical data can be sex- and age-matched, among other things, to individuals in the new trials. Moreover, because the study protocols have been harmonized for all trials under Operation Warp Speed, it doesn’t matter what kind of vaccine they’re testing, he said.

It may be necessary to do additional studies to find out how long immunity lasts after people have been vaccinated, Dr. Hewlett pointed out.

“You may have a different trial design. You don’t need a control arm to determine how long immunity lasts. You’re just comparing the patients who were vaccinated to nothing,” he said. “So you could have a single-arm trial on a group of people who consent to be immunized and followed. You can see what their antibody levels are and other surrogate markers, and you can see when they might develop disease, if they do. You’d need a large sample, but you can do that.”

Dr. Hewlett noted that additional studies will be required to determine whether the new vaccines stop transmission of the coronavirus or just prevent symptoms of COVID-19. Until it’s established that a vaccine halts transmission or the country achieves herd immunity, he said, “we’ll still have to wear masks and take other precautions, because a significant portion of people will still be at risk.”
 

‘A lot of redundancy’

Dr. Alexander emphasized that any safety or efficacy issues with the first COVID-19 vaccines must be identified before the vaccine is offered to a large portion of the U.S. population.

“While the data from the Pfizer and Moderna trials are said to be favorable, we at IDSA want to make sure that whatever vaccine comes to market is safe,” she said. “Having an unsafe vaccine on the market would be worse than no vaccine, because you’re compromising the public confidence. We have to make sure the public trusts the process and that sufficient data have been evaluated to ensure the vaccine is safe and efficacious.

“I believe the FDA is being very careful and thoughtful in [its] response,” Dr. Alexander said. “They realize how important it is to get a vaccine and save lives. While they’re doing things differently and moving much faster than before, they’re still trying to be thoughtful and reasonable. They don’t seem to be putting people at risk or circumventing the regulatory standards.”

Moreover, she pointed out, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, which is expected to meet on Dec. 10, will review the trial data before the agency grants an EUA to Pfizer or Moderna. Then the FDA will post the data publicly.

The next step is for the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to look at the data and decide who in the United States should receive the vaccine first, she pointed out. And both Pfizer and Moderna have shown their data to advisory panels of outside experts.

“There’s a lot of redundancy, and a lot of people are looking at the data,” Dr. Alexander said. “So I don’t think we’re cutting corners to get it out there more quickly.”

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

While stressing the urgent need to vaccinate the whole U.S. population, infectious disease experts and medical ethicists are raising questions about the clinical trials needed to answer important questions about the new COVID-19 vaccines.

In a statement released on Nov. 20, Barbara Alexander, MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and a professor at Duke University, Durham, N.C., commented on Pfizer and BioNTech’s application to the Food and Drug Administration for an emergency use authorization (EUA) for its COVID-19 vaccine. Besides emphasizing the need for a transparent review of the companies’ trial data prior to the FDA’s granting an EUA, she said, “If emergency use authorization is granted, clinical trials and data collection must continue.”

In an interview, Dr. Alexander said she is convinced that both Pfizer and Moderna, which is also expected to seek an EUA soon, will continue their clinical trials to monitor the long-term safety and efficacy of their vaccines.

“The EUA guidance for COVID vaccine authorization is very clear that clinical trials will move forward,” she said. “Any EUA request would have to include a strategy to ensure that the long-term safety and efficacy of a vaccine could be monitored. I see no evidence that either Pfizer or Moderna is not prepared to follow those regulations.”

Eventually, she added, the drug makers will have to seek full FDA approval to replace an EUA, which as its name signifies, is designed for public health emergencies. “The EUA is a tool to help us get the vaccine into circulation and have it start working as quickly as possible in the current health crisis,” she said. “But once the crisis is over, if the sponsors want to continue to market their vaccines, they have to go forward and get full approval.”

Medical ethicists, however, point out there may be ethical and practical dilemmas involved in continuing or initiating clinical trials once a vaccine has been approved for use even on an emergency basis.

In a commentary in Annals of Internal Medicine, Rafael Dal-Re, MD, PhD, Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, and two other ethicists stipulated that the pandemic requires early licensing and deployment of COVID-19 vaccines. Nevertheless, they noted, additional months of data are required to establish the long-term efficacy and safety of the vaccines. “Moreover, early deployment could interfere with the acquisition of long-term data,” both on these vaccines and on others coming through the pipeline, they wrote.

In countries where an approved vaccine is deployed, the ethicists noted, investigators must inform participants in an ongoing trial about the approved vaccine’s status and ask if they want to continue in the study. If enough participants decline, the trial might have to be terminated early. At that point, researchers may not have sufficient long-term data to identify late-term safety issues, determine how long efficacy lasts, determine whether waning immunity is associated with reduced levels of antibodies, or identify the level of neutralizing antibodies that correlates with immunity.

Moreover, they observed, long-term trials are especially important for vaccines that use mRNA technology, because less is known about them than about traditional kinds of vaccines.

The authors also pointed out that early licensing of any vaccine might make it harder to evaluate vaccines that haven’t yet been approved. “Once a vaccine is licensed, new placebo-controlled RCTs [randomized controlled trials] of other vaccines will not be acceptable ethically, and noninferiority RCTs will be the most likely alternative.

“The goal of noninferiority trials will be to demonstrate that the immune response (that is, neutralizing antibody titers or levels) of the candidate vaccine is not inferior to that of the approved vaccine within a prespecified margin, which the FDA has established as less than 10% for COVID-19 vaccines,” the authors noted. 
 

More data with more study designs

Dial Hewlett Jr., MD, medical director for disease control services, Westchester County Department of Health, White Plains, N.Y., said in an interview that the ethicists raise important issues that have been discussed in other forums, including a recent webinar of the National Academy of Medicine.

“As the authors point out, once you have a vaccine that has been shown to be effective and safe, it’s no longer ethical to enroll people in placebo trials,” he said.

Therefore, he said, Pfizer and Moderna will undoubtedly offer their vaccines to the people in their studies’ placebo groups after the vaccines receive an EUA. Then they will follow everyone who has been vaccinated for 2 years to determine long-term safety. Efficacy will also continue to be measured as an adjunct of safety, he said.

With regard to the difficulty of reconsenting individuals to enter a new clinical trial after a vaccine has been approved, he said, “I’d agree that trying to get all the same participants to come into another study would be a challenge. You can, however, design studies that will allow you to obtain the same information. You will have a large number of people out there who haven’t been vaccinated, and you can do single-arm longitudinal studies and measure a number of things in the individuals who are enrolled in those studies,” he said.

“You can look at the immunologic markers, both antibody and T-cell. You can follow these individuals longitudinally to see if they do develop disease over a period of time. If they do, you can determine what their levels of response were,” he added. “So there are opportunities to design studies that would give you some of the same information, although it would not be in the same population that was in the randomized trials.”

For newer vaccines that have yet to be tested, he said, developers can compare “historical controls” from the trials of approved vaccines, i.e., data from the unvaccinated participants in those studies, with the data from inoculating people with the novel agents. The historical data can be sex- and age-matched, among other things, to individuals in the new trials. Moreover, because the study protocols have been harmonized for all trials under Operation Warp Speed, it doesn’t matter what kind of vaccine they’re testing, he said.

It may be necessary to do additional studies to find out how long immunity lasts after people have been vaccinated, Dr. Hewlett pointed out.

“You may have a different trial design. You don’t need a control arm to determine how long immunity lasts. You’re just comparing the patients who were vaccinated to nothing,” he said. “So you could have a single-arm trial on a group of people who consent to be immunized and followed. You can see what their antibody levels are and other surrogate markers, and you can see when they might develop disease, if they do. You’d need a large sample, but you can do that.”

Dr. Hewlett noted that additional studies will be required to determine whether the new vaccines stop transmission of the coronavirus or just prevent symptoms of COVID-19. Until it’s established that a vaccine halts transmission or the country achieves herd immunity, he said, “we’ll still have to wear masks and take other precautions, because a significant portion of people will still be at risk.”
 

‘A lot of redundancy’

Dr. Alexander emphasized that any safety or efficacy issues with the first COVID-19 vaccines must be identified before the vaccine is offered to a large portion of the U.S. population.

“While the data from the Pfizer and Moderna trials are said to be favorable, we at IDSA want to make sure that whatever vaccine comes to market is safe,” she said. “Having an unsafe vaccine on the market would be worse than no vaccine, because you’re compromising the public confidence. We have to make sure the public trusts the process and that sufficient data have been evaluated to ensure the vaccine is safe and efficacious.

“I believe the FDA is being very careful and thoughtful in [its] response,” Dr. Alexander said. “They realize how important it is to get a vaccine and save lives. While they’re doing things differently and moving much faster than before, they’re still trying to be thoughtful and reasonable. They don’t seem to be putting people at risk or circumventing the regulatory standards.”

Moreover, she pointed out, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, which is expected to meet on Dec. 10, will review the trial data before the agency grants an EUA to Pfizer or Moderna. Then the FDA will post the data publicly.

The next step is for the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to look at the data and decide who in the United States should receive the vaccine first, she pointed out. And both Pfizer and Moderna have shown their data to advisory panels of outside experts.

“There’s a lot of redundancy, and a lot of people are looking at the data,” Dr. Alexander said. “So I don’t think we’re cutting corners to get it out there more quickly.”

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

Big changes are coming in the use of oral apremilast, currently approved for moderate to severe psoriasis and plaque psoriasis in adults, Bruce E. Strober, MD, PhD, predicted at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, held virtually this year.

“We’ll have a pediatric indication for apremilast in psoriasis down the line, and probably a mild to moderate indication for psoriasis, meaning we can use this drug in patients in whom we typically think about using only topical therapies. Keep on the lookout: I think the mild to moderate indication may be coming next year, and that’s going to really shake up the whole landscape of psoriasis therapy,” said Dr. Strober, a dermatologist at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., and Central Connecticut Dermatology in Cromwell, Conn.
 

Mild or moderate psoriasis

Apremilast manufacturer Amgen has announced positive topline results from the phase 3 ADVANCE trial, a multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind, study of 595 patients with mild or moderate psoriasis as defined by an involved body surface area of 2%-15% and a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score of 2-15. Participants were randomized to the approved dose of apremilast (Otezla) – 30 mg twice daily – or placebo for 16 weeks, followed by 16 weeks of open-label apremilast for all. The full study findings haven’t yet been published or presented at a medical conference, but Amgen announced that the results were positive for all primary and secondary endpoints, and the company plans to file a request with the Food and Drug Administration for an expanded indication for the oral agent.

Pediatric studies

A recently published phase 2, open-label, 1-year study of apremilast in 42 children and adolescents with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis demonstrated that weight-based dosing is the best approach in the pediatric population. The study, which serves as the template for coming phase 3 trials, showed that dosing apremilast at 20 mg twice daily in youths weighing not more than 35 kg and 30 mg twice daily in those who weighed more provided pharmacokinetic exposure similar to that achieved with apremilast at the standard adult dose of 30 mg twice daily. Most participants liked the taste of the tablet.

“My prediction is apremilast will have efficacy in children and teenagers comparable to what it has in adults, with a similar safety and adverse event profile,” Dr. Strober said.

Apremilast works by blocking phosphodiesterase type 4, thereby reducing cyclic AMP metabolism, with a resultant increase in cyclic AMP levels. Cyclic AMP is a regulator of inflammation. Boosting its level has the effect of decreasing tumor necrosis factor and other proinflammatory cytokines while increasing anti-inflammatory mediators, such as interleukin-10.

Dr. Strober characterized apremilast’s efficacy as “modest” by contemporary standards in adults with moderate to severe psoriasis, with week 16 PASI 75 rates of about 30% in randomized trials, compared with 5% in placebo-treated controls. He considers it a good option in patients with moderate disease who are needle phobic and in those averse to the inconvenience of laboratory monitoring. The drug is useful in treating psoriasis in especially challenging locations. Apremilast is specifically approved for scalp psoriasis, and Dr. Strober has anecdotally found it helpful in patients with palmoplantar psoriasis or genital psoriasis.

“Apremilast has tolerability issues: first and foremost diarrhea, nausea, and headache. Probably 15%-20% of patients have nausea or diarrhea ranging from mild to severe, and 1 in 20 have headache. You have to warn patients,” he said.

Roughly 1% of patients experience depressed mood. “I’ve seen it in a few patients. I definitely believe it’s real, so query patients about mood changes while taking apremilast,” the dermatologist advised.

One in 5 patients loses 5% of body weight during the first 6 months on apremilast, but there’s no additional weight loss thereafter. It’s wrong to characterize the oral agent as a weight-loss drug, though, since 80% of patients don’t lose weight, Dr. Strober noted.
 

Topical PDE-4 inhibitor shows promise

Separately at the Las Vegas meeting, Linda Stein Gold, MD, provided highlights of a phase 2b randomized trial of a topical cream formulation of an extremely potent PDE-4 inhibitor, roflumilast, in patients with chronic plaque psoriasis. This molecule is a couple hundred times more effective at inhibiting the PDE-4 receptor than either oral apremilast or topical crisaborole (Eucrisa). And as a once-daily topical agent with very little systemic absorption, roflumilast cream sidesteps the tolerability issues that accompany apremilast.

“Roflumilast is currently available as an oral formulation for treatment of [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease], so it has a fairly well-established safety profile,” noted Dr. Stein Gold, director of dermatology clinical research at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit.

The 12-week, multicenter, phase 2b study sponsored by Arcutis Biotherapeutics included 331 patients with chronic plaque psoriasis who were randomized to once-daily 0.3% roflumilast cream, 0.15% roflumilast cream, or vehicle. Three-quarters of participants had baseline moderate disease.

A week-8 Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1, meaning clear skin or almost clear, plus at least a 2-grade improvement from baseline occurred in 32% of the high-dose roflumilast group, 25% of those on the 0.15% formulation, and 10% of controls. On the secondary endpoint of improvement in tough-to-treat intertriginous psoriasis, at week 12 an intertriginous IGA score of 0 or 1 plus at least a 2-point improvement from baseline was seen in 86% of the 0.3% roflumilast cream group, 50% on low-dose therapy, and 29% of controls. Moreover, the clinical improvements in IGA and itch kicked in quickly, with significant separation from placebo by week 2, Dr. Stein Gold noted.

The phase 3 program is now recruiting participants.

Dr. Strober and Dr. Stein Gold reported receiving research funding from and serving as consultants to Amgen and numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

Big changes are coming in the use of oral apremilast, currently approved for moderate to severe psoriasis and plaque psoriasis in adults, Bruce E. Strober, MD, PhD, predicted at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, held virtually this year.

“We’ll have a pediatric indication for apremilast in psoriasis down the line, and probably a mild to moderate indication for psoriasis, meaning we can use this drug in patients in whom we typically think about using only topical therapies. Keep on the lookout: I think the mild to moderate indication may be coming next year, and that’s going to really shake up the whole landscape of psoriasis therapy,” said Dr. Strober, a dermatologist at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., and Central Connecticut Dermatology in Cromwell, Conn.
 

Mild or moderate psoriasis

Apremilast manufacturer Amgen has announced positive topline results from the phase 3 ADVANCE trial, a multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind, study of 595 patients with mild or moderate psoriasis as defined by an involved body surface area of 2%-15% and a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score of 2-15. Participants were randomized to the approved dose of apremilast (Otezla) – 30 mg twice daily – or placebo for 16 weeks, followed by 16 weeks of open-label apremilast for all. The full study findings haven’t yet been published or presented at a medical conference, but Amgen announced that the results were positive for all primary and secondary endpoints, and the company plans to file a request with the Food and Drug Administration for an expanded indication for the oral agent.

Pediatric studies

A recently published phase 2, open-label, 1-year study of apremilast in 42 children and adolescents with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis demonstrated that weight-based dosing is the best approach in the pediatric population. The study, which serves as the template for coming phase 3 trials, showed that dosing apremilast at 20 mg twice daily in youths weighing not more than 35 kg and 30 mg twice daily in those who weighed more provided pharmacokinetic exposure similar to that achieved with apremilast at the standard adult dose of 30 mg twice daily. Most participants liked the taste of the tablet.

“My prediction is apremilast will have efficacy in children and teenagers comparable to what it has in adults, with a similar safety and adverse event profile,” Dr. Strober said.

Apremilast works by blocking phosphodiesterase type 4, thereby reducing cyclic AMP metabolism, with a resultant increase in cyclic AMP levels. Cyclic AMP is a regulator of inflammation. Boosting its level has the effect of decreasing tumor necrosis factor and other proinflammatory cytokines while increasing anti-inflammatory mediators, such as interleukin-10.

Dr. Strober characterized apremilast’s efficacy as “modest” by contemporary standards in adults with moderate to severe psoriasis, with week 16 PASI 75 rates of about 30% in randomized trials, compared with 5% in placebo-treated controls. He considers it a good option in patients with moderate disease who are needle phobic and in those averse to the inconvenience of laboratory monitoring. The drug is useful in treating psoriasis in especially challenging locations. Apremilast is specifically approved for scalp psoriasis, and Dr. Strober has anecdotally found it helpful in patients with palmoplantar psoriasis or genital psoriasis.

“Apremilast has tolerability issues: first and foremost diarrhea, nausea, and headache. Probably 15%-20% of patients have nausea or diarrhea ranging from mild to severe, and 1 in 20 have headache. You have to warn patients,” he said.

Roughly 1% of patients experience depressed mood. “I’ve seen it in a few patients. I definitely believe it’s real, so query patients about mood changes while taking apremilast,” the dermatologist advised.

One in 5 patients loses 5% of body weight during the first 6 months on apremilast, but there’s no additional weight loss thereafter. It’s wrong to characterize the oral agent as a weight-loss drug, though, since 80% of patients don’t lose weight, Dr. Strober noted.
 

Topical PDE-4 inhibitor shows promise

Separately at the Las Vegas meeting, Linda Stein Gold, MD, provided highlights of a phase 2b randomized trial of a topical cream formulation of an extremely potent PDE-4 inhibitor, roflumilast, in patients with chronic plaque psoriasis. This molecule is a couple hundred times more effective at inhibiting the PDE-4 receptor than either oral apremilast or topical crisaborole (Eucrisa). And as a once-daily topical agent with very little systemic absorption, roflumilast cream sidesteps the tolerability issues that accompany apremilast.

“Roflumilast is currently available as an oral formulation for treatment of [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease], so it has a fairly well-established safety profile,” noted Dr. Stein Gold, director of dermatology clinical research at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit.

The 12-week, multicenter, phase 2b study sponsored by Arcutis Biotherapeutics included 331 patients with chronic plaque psoriasis who were randomized to once-daily 0.3% roflumilast cream, 0.15% roflumilast cream, or vehicle. Three-quarters of participants had baseline moderate disease.

A week-8 Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1, meaning clear skin or almost clear, plus at least a 2-grade improvement from baseline occurred in 32% of the high-dose roflumilast group, 25% of those on the 0.15% formulation, and 10% of controls. On the secondary endpoint of improvement in tough-to-treat intertriginous psoriasis, at week 12 an intertriginous IGA score of 0 or 1 plus at least a 2-point improvement from baseline was seen in 86% of the 0.3% roflumilast cream group, 50% on low-dose therapy, and 29% of controls. Moreover, the clinical improvements in IGA and itch kicked in quickly, with significant separation from placebo by week 2, Dr. Stein Gold noted.

The phase 3 program is now recruiting participants.

Dr. Strober and Dr. Stein Gold reported receiving research funding from and serving as consultants to Amgen and numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

Big changes are coming in the use of oral apremilast, currently approved for moderate to severe psoriasis and plaque psoriasis in adults, Bruce E. Strober, MD, PhD, predicted at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, held virtually this year.

“We’ll have a pediatric indication for apremilast in psoriasis down the line, and probably a mild to moderate indication for psoriasis, meaning we can use this drug in patients in whom we typically think about using only topical therapies. Keep on the lookout: I think the mild to moderate indication may be coming next year, and that’s going to really shake up the whole landscape of psoriasis therapy,” said Dr. Strober, a dermatologist at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., and Central Connecticut Dermatology in Cromwell, Conn.
 

Mild or moderate psoriasis

Apremilast manufacturer Amgen has announced positive topline results from the phase 3 ADVANCE trial, a multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind, study of 595 patients with mild or moderate psoriasis as defined by an involved body surface area of 2%-15% and a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score of 2-15. Participants were randomized to the approved dose of apremilast (Otezla) – 30 mg twice daily – or placebo for 16 weeks, followed by 16 weeks of open-label apremilast for all. The full study findings haven’t yet been published or presented at a medical conference, but Amgen announced that the results were positive for all primary and secondary endpoints, and the company plans to file a request with the Food and Drug Administration for an expanded indication for the oral agent.

Pediatric studies

A recently published phase 2, open-label, 1-year study of apremilast in 42 children and adolescents with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis demonstrated that weight-based dosing is the best approach in the pediatric population. The study, which serves as the template for coming phase 3 trials, showed that dosing apremilast at 20 mg twice daily in youths weighing not more than 35 kg and 30 mg twice daily in those who weighed more provided pharmacokinetic exposure similar to that achieved with apremilast at the standard adult dose of 30 mg twice daily. Most participants liked the taste of the tablet.

“My prediction is apremilast will have efficacy in children and teenagers comparable to what it has in adults, with a similar safety and adverse event profile,” Dr. Strober said.

Apremilast works by blocking phosphodiesterase type 4, thereby reducing cyclic AMP metabolism, with a resultant increase in cyclic AMP levels. Cyclic AMP is a regulator of inflammation. Boosting its level has the effect of decreasing tumor necrosis factor and other proinflammatory cytokines while increasing anti-inflammatory mediators, such as interleukin-10.

Dr. Strober characterized apremilast’s efficacy as “modest” by contemporary standards in adults with moderate to severe psoriasis, with week 16 PASI 75 rates of about 30% in randomized trials, compared with 5% in placebo-treated controls. He considers it a good option in patients with moderate disease who are needle phobic and in those averse to the inconvenience of laboratory monitoring. The drug is useful in treating psoriasis in especially challenging locations. Apremilast is specifically approved for scalp psoriasis, and Dr. Strober has anecdotally found it helpful in patients with palmoplantar psoriasis or genital psoriasis.

“Apremilast has tolerability issues: first and foremost diarrhea, nausea, and headache. Probably 15%-20% of patients have nausea or diarrhea ranging from mild to severe, and 1 in 20 have headache. You have to warn patients,” he said.

Roughly 1% of patients experience depressed mood. “I’ve seen it in a few patients. I definitely believe it’s real, so query patients about mood changes while taking apremilast,” the dermatologist advised.

One in 5 patients loses 5% of body weight during the first 6 months on apremilast, but there’s no additional weight loss thereafter. It’s wrong to characterize the oral agent as a weight-loss drug, though, since 80% of patients don’t lose weight, Dr. Strober noted.
 

Topical PDE-4 inhibitor shows promise

Separately at the Las Vegas meeting, Linda Stein Gold, MD, provided highlights of a phase 2b randomized trial of a topical cream formulation of an extremely potent PDE-4 inhibitor, roflumilast, in patients with chronic plaque psoriasis. This molecule is a couple hundred times more effective at inhibiting the PDE-4 receptor than either oral apremilast or topical crisaborole (Eucrisa). And as a once-daily topical agent with very little systemic absorption, roflumilast cream sidesteps the tolerability issues that accompany apremilast.

“Roflumilast is currently available as an oral formulation for treatment of [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease], so it has a fairly well-established safety profile,” noted Dr. Stein Gold, director of dermatology clinical research at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit.

The 12-week, multicenter, phase 2b study sponsored by Arcutis Biotherapeutics included 331 patients with chronic plaque psoriasis who were randomized to once-daily 0.3% roflumilast cream, 0.15% roflumilast cream, or vehicle. Three-quarters of participants had baseline moderate disease.

A week-8 Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1, meaning clear skin or almost clear, plus at least a 2-grade improvement from baseline occurred in 32% of the high-dose roflumilast group, 25% of those on the 0.15% formulation, and 10% of controls. On the secondary endpoint of improvement in tough-to-treat intertriginous psoriasis, at week 12 an intertriginous IGA score of 0 or 1 plus at least a 2-point improvement from baseline was seen in 86% of the 0.3% roflumilast cream group, 50% on low-dose therapy, and 29% of controls. Moreover, the clinical improvements in IGA and itch kicked in quickly, with significant separation from placebo by week 2, Dr. Stein Gold noted.

The phase 3 program is now recruiting participants.

Dr. Strober and Dr. Stein Gold reported receiving research funding from and serving as consultants to Amgen and numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

Historically the standard treatment approach for advanced ovarian cancer has been to perform up-front primary cytoreduction surgery or primary “debulking” surgery (PDS) followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. The goal of surgery was to establish cytoreduction of the tumor to optimal (<1 cm³ disease) or, ideally, complete (no gross residual disease). While PDS has long been considered the default treatment approach, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by interval cytoreductive surgery, typically after three or four cycles of chemotherapy, was the alternative strategy if it was anticipated or known that an “optimal” cytoreduction was not possible, feasible, or associated with acceptable morbidity. However, NACT was, and to some degree still is, widely considered the inferior strategy, reserved for patients with the worst prognosis. While mounting data challenges the inherent superiority of PDS, it still largely remains the default.

Why was PDS considered superior?

Why was PDS for advanced ovarian cancer considered a superior sequencing when it is so rarely considered appropriate for other disseminated cancers? This was born from the observation among retrospective data showing that survival was best when surgery was performed first, and when surgery was able to remove most or all visible disease (“complete” or “optimal” cytoreduction), NACT was performed.¹ Several theories were proposed to explain the observations. These included the theory that bulky tumors contained avascular regions that would be less well accessed by chemotherapy, as well as the notion that chemotherapy exerts a constant fraction of kill on tumor cells, and if there is a lower burden of tumor cells to begin with, fewer cycles of chemotherapy will be necessary to eliminate all cells. Coupled with this was the notion that, if fewer cycles of chemotherapy are necessary, there would be less opportunity for development of drug resistance. Other theories such as the inflammatory effects of surgery impacting immune-mediated kill of malignant cells also are reported. These theories were largely found in the pages of textbooks, only supported by heavily biased observational series and not in the results of elegant translational studies. Of course, the observed superiority of PDS in these cohort studies was not surprising given that the patients who were historically selected for NACT had their treatment course chosen specifically for their poor prognostic factors (large volume, unresectable disease, poor performance status, and comorbidities). These “studies” were self-fulfilling prophecies.

Anecdotally I can attest that most patients are enthusiastic about a primary surgical approach to their advanced cancer. There is something concretely satisfying for patient and surgeon alike in the physical act of removing disease. As surgeons, if we believe that our added surgical effort will be rewarded with better outcomes for the patients, we will “try harder” in the operating room in order for them to do better. However, mounting data challenges whether it is our aggressive surgical effort as much as it is primary tumor biology that is the driver of prognosis in this disease. And aggressive primary surgery may add little other than perioperative morbidity.
 

Why that perspective may be changing

A culmination of many years of sophisticated translational research led by Anil Sood, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, established there are fundamental biologic differences in the tumors of patients with ovarian cancer whose disease is amenable or not to a complete cytoreduction with PDS.² In their work, the researchers sampled tumors from patients with advanced ovarian cancer who had been triaged either to PDS or NACT based on a standardized, validated laparoscopic algorithm that predicted a high probability of complete surgical resection. They performed pretreatment biopsies in both groups of patients and conducted a range of “omics” analyses to stratify these two subsets of patients – those who had a disease burden amenable to complete surgical resection versus those whose presenting disease burden exceeded an acceptable surgical effort). They identified several key molecular differences in the pretreatment biopsies of these two groups of patients, including alterations which might explain better or worse responses to therapy. These results suggest that the tumors of patients who go on to have successful PDS to no gross residual disease have different tumor biology to begin with. Otherwise said, perhaps it is favorable tumor biology that is associated with both a disease burden that is more amenable to both primary complete cytoreduction and better oncologic outcomes, rather than the surgical effort in and of itself.

This finding is supported by a study in which ovarian cancer survival outcomes were stratified by disease burden, surgical complexity scores, and postoperative residual disease among patients who were enrolled in GOG-182.³ Investigators led by Neil Horowitz, MD, created scores for surgical complexity, disease burden, and residual disease. They observed that the radicality of surgery (complexity score) was not an independent determinant of survival, but rather, patients who presented with a lower disease burden that required a less radical surgery had the best oncologic outcomes.

If the complexity of surgery does not influence outcomes as much as the predetermined, unmodifiable tumor biology, how should surgeons make decisions about the sequencing of treatment? Over the past 10 years, four randomized trials have been completed including more than 1,600 patients randomized to either PDS or NACT.^4-7 All four have found no difference in the oncologic outcomes (progression-free or overall survival) between patients when randomized to PDS or NACT. While the statistical designs vary slightly, some being designed to look for noninferiority and others for superiority, they all showed that the sequence in which surgery and chemotherapy was performed mattered less than whether optimal cytoreduction was achieved when surgery was performed. As stated above, this phenomenon seems to be best determined by unmodifiable tumor biology. Unsurprisingly, these studies also have consistently found that perioperative outcomes (e.g., surgical complications, length of stay, death) were worse with PDS because of the higher surgical complexity that it demands. In the most recent SCORPION trial, rates of major postoperative complications in the PDS group were 25.9%, compared with only 7.6% in the NACT group (P < .0001) and all of the deaths from postoperative complications occurred in the PDS group at a rate of 8.3% (7 of 84 patients).⁷

Therefore, the wealth of data supports that oncologic outcomes are equivalent, and perioperative outcomes are improved for patients who undergo NACT for advanced, bulky ovarian cancer.
 

Why physicians still are questioning

Unfortunately, because ofthe nature of the disease, these prospective trials include heterogeneous populations of disease presentation, surgeon skill, and hospital settings. They have been criticized for achieving “low” rates of complete or optimal cytoreduction in the PDS arm. They also identified subgroups of patients who may do better with PDS (such as those with lower-volume stage IIIC disease) and those who have better outcomes with NACT (patients with stage IV disease). Therefore, not satisfied that we have definitively answered the question, a fifth randomized study, the TRUST trial, is underway.⁸ This study includes surgeons at high-volume institutions, purported to have the highest degree of skill and quality in executing radical debulking procedures. Perhaps this fifth trial will show that, if performed in the most skilled hands and quality settings, PDS is preferable to NACT. Perhaps. However, the generalizability of these results will be poor for all patients with advanced ovarian cancer, most of whom will have limited access to these highest-volume surgeons.

What can be agreed upon is that an individualized and nuanced approach is best for advanced ovarian cancer. There will be some patients who benefit from PDS (e.g., healthy, young patients with low-volume disease). However, for most patients, the bulk of prospective and translational research supports NACT as the default treatment course, associated with noninferior survival and superior perioperative outcomes (including postoperative death). While it may not be a one-size-fits-all approach, one could argue that NACT should be the default strategy, and surgeons should look for reasons to “opt in” to PDS in special circumstances guided by biomarkers such as imaging, tumor markers, clinical factors, and surgical findings.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Gynecol Oncol. 2006 Dec. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.06.025.

2. Cell Rep. 2020 Apr 14. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2020.03.066.

3. J Clin Oncol. 2015 Mar 10. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.56.3106.

4. N Engl J Med. 2010 Sep 2. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0908806.

5. Lancet. 2015 Jul 18. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62223-6.

6. Eur J Cancer. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2020.02.020.

7. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-001640.

8. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2019-000682.

Historically the standard treatment approach for advanced ovarian cancer has been to perform up-front primary cytoreduction surgery or primary “debulking” surgery (PDS) followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. The goal of surgery was to establish cytoreduction of the tumor to optimal (<1 cm³ disease) or, ideally, complete (no gross residual disease). While PDS has long been considered the default treatment approach, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by interval cytoreductive surgery, typically after three or four cycles of chemotherapy, was the alternative strategy if it was anticipated or known that an “optimal” cytoreduction was not possible, feasible, or associated with acceptable morbidity. However, NACT was, and to some degree still is, widely considered the inferior strategy, reserved for patients with the worst prognosis. While mounting data challenges the inherent superiority of PDS, it still largely remains the default.

Why was PDS considered superior?

Why was PDS for advanced ovarian cancer considered a superior sequencing when it is so rarely considered appropriate for other disseminated cancers? This was born from the observation among retrospective data showing that survival was best when surgery was performed first, and when surgery was able to remove most or all visible disease (“complete” or “optimal” cytoreduction), NACT was performed.¹ Several theories were proposed to explain the observations. These included the theory that bulky tumors contained avascular regions that would be less well accessed by chemotherapy, as well as the notion that chemotherapy exerts a constant fraction of kill on tumor cells, and if there is a lower burden of tumor cells to begin with, fewer cycles of chemotherapy will be necessary to eliminate all cells. Coupled with this was the notion that, if fewer cycles of chemotherapy are necessary, there would be less opportunity for development of drug resistance. Other theories such as the inflammatory effects of surgery impacting immune-mediated kill of malignant cells also are reported. These theories were largely found in the pages of textbooks, only supported by heavily biased observational series and not in the results of elegant translational studies. Of course, the observed superiority of PDS in these cohort studies was not surprising given that the patients who were historically selected for NACT had their treatment course chosen specifically for their poor prognostic factors (large volume, unresectable disease, poor performance status, and comorbidities). These “studies” were self-fulfilling prophecies.

Anecdotally I can attest that most patients are enthusiastic about a primary surgical approach to their advanced cancer. There is something concretely satisfying for patient and surgeon alike in the physical act of removing disease. As surgeons, if we believe that our added surgical effort will be rewarded with better outcomes for the patients, we will “try harder” in the operating room in order for them to do better. However, mounting data challenges whether it is our aggressive surgical effort as much as it is primary tumor biology that is the driver of prognosis in this disease. And aggressive primary surgery may add little other than perioperative morbidity.
 

Why that perspective may be changing

A culmination of many years of sophisticated translational research led by Anil Sood, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, established there are fundamental biologic differences in the tumors of patients with ovarian cancer whose disease is amenable or not to a complete cytoreduction with PDS.² In their work, the researchers sampled tumors from patients with advanced ovarian cancer who had been triaged either to PDS or NACT based on a standardized, validated laparoscopic algorithm that predicted a high probability of complete surgical resection. They performed pretreatment biopsies in both groups of patients and conducted a range of “omics” analyses to stratify these two subsets of patients – those who had a disease burden amenable to complete surgical resection versus those whose presenting disease burden exceeded an acceptable surgical effort). They identified several key molecular differences in the pretreatment biopsies of these two groups of patients, including alterations which might explain better or worse responses to therapy. These results suggest that the tumors of patients who go on to have successful PDS to no gross residual disease have different tumor biology to begin with. Otherwise said, perhaps it is favorable tumor biology that is associated with both a disease burden that is more amenable to both primary complete cytoreduction and better oncologic outcomes, rather than the surgical effort in and of itself.

This finding is supported by a study in which ovarian cancer survival outcomes were stratified by disease burden, surgical complexity scores, and postoperative residual disease among patients who were enrolled in GOG-182.³ Investigators led by Neil Horowitz, MD, created scores for surgical complexity, disease burden, and residual disease. They observed that the radicality of surgery (complexity score) was not an independent determinant of survival, but rather, patients who presented with a lower disease burden that required a less radical surgery had the best oncologic outcomes.

If the complexity of surgery does not influence outcomes as much as the predetermined, unmodifiable tumor biology, how should surgeons make decisions about the sequencing of treatment? Over the past 10 years, four randomized trials have been completed including more than 1,600 patients randomized to either PDS or NACT.^4-7 All four have found no difference in the oncologic outcomes (progression-free or overall survival) between patients when randomized to PDS or NACT. While the statistical designs vary slightly, some being designed to look for noninferiority and others for superiority, they all showed that the sequence in which surgery and chemotherapy was performed mattered less than whether optimal cytoreduction was achieved when surgery was performed. As stated above, this phenomenon seems to be best determined by unmodifiable tumor biology. Unsurprisingly, these studies also have consistently found that perioperative outcomes (e.g., surgical complications, length of stay, death) were worse with PDS because of the higher surgical complexity that it demands. In the most recent SCORPION trial, rates of major postoperative complications in the PDS group were 25.9%, compared with only 7.6% in the NACT group (P < .0001) and all of the deaths from postoperative complications occurred in the PDS group at a rate of 8.3% (7 of 84 patients).⁷

Therefore, the wealth of data supports that oncologic outcomes are equivalent, and perioperative outcomes are improved for patients who undergo NACT for advanced, bulky ovarian cancer.
 

Why physicians still are questioning

Unfortunately, because ofthe nature of the disease, these prospective trials include heterogeneous populations of disease presentation, surgeon skill, and hospital settings. They have been criticized for achieving “low” rates of complete or optimal cytoreduction in the PDS arm. They also identified subgroups of patients who may do better with PDS (such as those with lower-volume stage IIIC disease) and those who have better outcomes with NACT (patients with stage IV disease). Therefore, not satisfied that we have definitively answered the question, a fifth randomized study, the TRUST trial, is underway.⁸ This study includes surgeons at high-volume institutions, purported to have the highest degree of skill and quality in executing radical debulking procedures. Perhaps this fifth trial will show that, if performed in the most skilled hands and quality settings, PDS is preferable to NACT. Perhaps. However, the generalizability of these results will be poor for all patients with advanced ovarian cancer, most of whom will have limited access to these highest-volume surgeons.

What can be agreed upon is that an individualized and nuanced approach is best for advanced ovarian cancer. There will be some patients who benefit from PDS (e.g., healthy, young patients with low-volume disease). However, for most patients, the bulk of prospective and translational research supports NACT as the default treatment course, associated with noninferior survival and superior perioperative outcomes (including postoperative death). While it may not be a one-size-fits-all approach, one could argue that NACT should be the default strategy, and surgeons should look for reasons to “opt in” to PDS in special circumstances guided by biomarkers such as imaging, tumor markers, clinical factors, and surgical findings.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Gynecol Oncol. 2006 Dec. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.06.025.

2. Cell Rep. 2020 Apr 14. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2020.03.066.

3. J Clin Oncol. 2015 Mar 10. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.56.3106.

4. N Engl J Med. 2010 Sep 2. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0908806.

5. Lancet. 2015 Jul 18. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62223-6.

6. Eur J Cancer. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2020.02.020.

7. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-001640.

8. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2019-000682.

Historically the standard treatment approach for advanced ovarian cancer has been to perform up-front primary cytoreduction surgery or primary “debulking” surgery (PDS) followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. The goal of surgery was to establish cytoreduction of the tumor to optimal (<1 cm³ disease) or, ideally, complete (no gross residual disease). While PDS has long been considered the default treatment approach, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by interval cytoreductive surgery, typically after three or four cycles of chemotherapy, was the alternative strategy if it was anticipated or known that an “optimal” cytoreduction was not possible, feasible, or associated with acceptable morbidity. However, NACT was, and to some degree still is, widely considered the inferior strategy, reserved for patients with the worst prognosis. While mounting data challenges the inherent superiority of PDS, it still largely remains the default.

Why was PDS considered superior?

Why was PDS for advanced ovarian cancer considered a superior sequencing when it is so rarely considered appropriate for other disseminated cancers? This was born from the observation among retrospective data showing that survival was best when surgery was performed first, and when surgery was able to remove most or all visible disease (“complete” or “optimal” cytoreduction), NACT was performed.¹ Several theories were proposed to explain the observations. These included the theory that bulky tumors contained avascular regions that would be less well accessed by chemotherapy, as well as the notion that chemotherapy exerts a constant fraction of kill on tumor cells, and if there is a lower burden of tumor cells to begin with, fewer cycles of chemotherapy will be necessary to eliminate all cells. Coupled with this was the notion that, if fewer cycles of chemotherapy are necessary, there would be less opportunity for development of drug resistance. Other theories such as the inflammatory effects of surgery impacting immune-mediated kill of malignant cells also are reported. These theories were largely found in the pages of textbooks, only supported by heavily biased observational series and not in the results of elegant translational studies. Of course, the observed superiority of PDS in these cohort studies was not surprising given that the patients who were historically selected for NACT had their treatment course chosen specifically for their poor prognostic factors (large volume, unresectable disease, poor performance status, and comorbidities). These “studies” were self-fulfilling prophecies.

Anecdotally I can attest that most patients are enthusiastic about a primary surgical approach to their advanced cancer. There is something concretely satisfying for patient and surgeon alike in the physical act of removing disease. As surgeons, if we believe that our added surgical effort will be rewarded with better outcomes for the patients, we will “try harder” in the operating room in order for them to do better. However, mounting data challenges whether it is our aggressive surgical effort as much as it is primary tumor biology that is the driver of prognosis in this disease. And aggressive primary surgery may add little other than perioperative morbidity.
 

Why that perspective may be changing

A culmination of many years of sophisticated translational research led by Anil Sood, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, established there are fundamental biologic differences in the tumors of patients with ovarian cancer whose disease is amenable or not to a complete cytoreduction with PDS.² In their work, the researchers sampled tumors from patients with advanced ovarian cancer who had been triaged either to PDS or NACT based on a standardized, validated laparoscopic algorithm that predicted a high probability of complete surgical resection. They performed pretreatment biopsies in both groups of patients and conducted a range of “omics” analyses to stratify these two subsets of patients – those who had a disease burden amenable to complete surgical resection versus those whose presenting disease burden exceeded an acceptable surgical effort). They identified several key molecular differences in the pretreatment biopsies of these two groups of patients, including alterations which might explain better or worse responses to therapy. These results suggest that the tumors of patients who go on to have successful PDS to no gross residual disease have different tumor biology to begin with. Otherwise said, perhaps it is favorable tumor biology that is associated with both a disease burden that is more amenable to both primary complete cytoreduction and better oncologic outcomes, rather than the surgical effort in and of itself.

This finding is supported by a study in which ovarian cancer survival outcomes were stratified by disease burden, surgical complexity scores, and postoperative residual disease among patients who were enrolled in GOG-182.³ Investigators led by Neil Horowitz, MD, created scores for surgical complexity, disease burden, and residual disease. They observed that the radicality of surgery (complexity score) was not an independent determinant of survival, but rather, patients who presented with a lower disease burden that required a less radical surgery had the best oncologic outcomes.

If the complexity of surgery does not influence outcomes as much as the predetermined, unmodifiable tumor biology, how should surgeons make decisions about the sequencing of treatment? Over the past 10 years, four randomized trials have been completed including more than 1,600 patients randomized to either PDS or NACT.^4-7 All four have found no difference in the oncologic outcomes (progression-free or overall survival) between patients when randomized to PDS or NACT. While the statistical designs vary slightly, some being designed to look for noninferiority and others for superiority, they all showed that the sequence in which surgery and chemotherapy was performed mattered less than whether optimal cytoreduction was achieved when surgery was performed. As stated above, this phenomenon seems to be best determined by unmodifiable tumor biology. Unsurprisingly, these studies also have consistently found that perioperative outcomes (e.g., surgical complications, length of stay, death) were worse with PDS because of the higher surgical complexity that it demands. In the most recent SCORPION trial, rates of major postoperative complications in the PDS group were 25.9%, compared with only 7.6% in the NACT group (P < .0001) and all of the deaths from postoperative complications occurred in the PDS group at a rate of 8.3% (7 of 84 patients).⁷

Therefore, the wealth of data supports that oncologic outcomes are equivalent, and perioperative outcomes are improved for patients who undergo NACT for advanced, bulky ovarian cancer.
 

Why physicians still are questioning

Unfortunately, because ofthe nature of the disease, these prospective trials include heterogeneous populations of disease presentation, surgeon skill, and hospital settings. They have been criticized for achieving “low” rates of complete or optimal cytoreduction in the PDS arm. They also identified subgroups of patients who may do better with PDS (such as those with lower-volume stage IIIC disease) and those who have better outcomes with NACT (patients with stage IV disease). Therefore, not satisfied that we have definitively answered the question, a fifth randomized study, the TRUST trial, is underway.⁸ This study includes surgeons at high-volume institutions, purported to have the highest degree of skill and quality in executing radical debulking procedures. Perhaps this fifth trial will show that, if performed in the most skilled hands and quality settings, PDS is preferable to NACT. Perhaps. However, the generalizability of these results will be poor for all patients with advanced ovarian cancer, most of whom will have limited access to these highest-volume surgeons.

What can be agreed upon is that an individualized and nuanced approach is best for advanced ovarian cancer. There will be some patients who benefit from PDS (e.g., healthy, young patients with low-volume disease). However, for most patients, the bulk of prospective and translational research supports NACT as the default treatment course, associated with noninferior survival and superior perioperative outcomes (including postoperative death). While it may not be a one-size-fits-all approach, one could argue that NACT should be the default strategy, and surgeons should look for reasons to “opt in” to PDS in special circumstances guided by biomarkers such as imaging, tumor markers, clinical factors, and surgical findings.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Gynecol Oncol. 2006 Dec. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.06.025.

2. Cell Rep. 2020 Apr 14. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2020.03.066.

3. J Clin Oncol. 2015 Mar 10. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.56.3106.

4. N Engl J Med. 2010 Sep 2. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0908806.

5. Lancet. 2015 Jul 18. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62223-6.

6. Eur J Cancer. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2020.02.020.

7. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-001640.

8. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2019-000682.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval for naxitamab (Danyelza) to treat certain patients with neuroblastoma, based on response rates in two small trials.

Naxitamab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that targets GD2, a disialoganglioside highly expressed on neuroblastomas.

The FDA approved naxitamab for use in combination with granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) in adults and children aged 1 year and older who have relapsed or refractory, high-risk neuroblastoma in the bone or bone marrow that demonstrated a partial response, minor response, or stable disease to prior therapy.

Naxitamab was originally developed at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, and licensed exclusively to Y-mAbs Therapeutics. As a result of the licensing arrangement, MSKCC has institutional financial interests in the product, the company noted.
 

Study results

The accelerated approval of naxitamab was based on the overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response in two single-arm, open-label trials: Study 201 (NCT03363373) in 22 patients and Study 12-230 (NCT01757626) in 38 patients.

In both studies, patients received naxitamab at 3 mg/kg administered as an intravenous infusion on days 1, 3, and 5 of each 4-week cycle in combination with GM-CSF subcutaneously at 250 mcg/m²/day on days -4 to 0 and at 500 mcg/m²/day on days 1-5.

Some patients also received radiotherapy. At the investigator’s discretion, patients were permitted to receive preplanned radiation to the primary disease site in Study 201 and radiation to nontarget bony lesions or soft tissue disease in Study 12-230.

The ORR was 45% in Study 201 and 34% in Study 12-230. Responses were observed in the bone and/or bone marrow, the FDA noted.

Less than a third of patients had a duration of response that lasted 6 months or more – 30% of responders in Study 201 and 23% of responders in Study 12-230.

The FDA noted that continued approval of naxitamab may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.

The agency also noted that naxitamab was granted priority review, breakthrough therapy, and orphan drug designation. In addition, a priority review voucher was issued for the rare pediatric disease product application.
 

Boxed warning and adverse events

Naxitamab has a boxed warning about serious infusion-related reactions and neurotoxicity.

The product information notes that, in clinical studies, naxitamab has been shown to cause serious infusion reactions, including anaphylaxis, cardiac arrest, bronchospasm, stridor, and hypotension. Infusion reactions generally occurred within 24 hours of completing an infusion, most often within 30 minutes of initiation. Infusion reactions were most frequent during the first infusion in each cycle.

To mitigate these risks, Y-mAbs Therapeutics recommends premedication with an antihistamine, acetaminophen, an H2 antagonist, and corticosteroid, as well as close monitoring of patients during and for at least 2 hours after each infusion in a setting where cardiopulmonary resuscitation medication and equipment are available.

Based on its mechanism of action, naxitamab can cause severe pain, according to Y-mAbs Therapeutics. The company recommends premedication with gabapentin and, for example, oral oxycodone, and recommends treating break-through pain with intravenous hydromorphone or an equivalent intervention.

In addition, naxitamab may cause severe hypertension. The onset of hypertension may be delayed, so blood pressure should be monitored both during and after infusion.

The product insert also notes that one case of transverse myelitis (grade 3) and two cases of posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome have been reported.

The most common adverse reactions (incidence ≥ 25% in either trial) were infusion-related reactions, pain, tachycardia, vomiting, cough, nausea, diarrhea, decreased appetite, hypertension, fatigue, erythema multiforme, peripheral neuropathy, urticaria, pyrexia, headache, injection site reaction, edema, anxiety, localized edema, and irritability.

The most common grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities (≥ 5% in either trial) were decreased lymphocytes, decreased neutrophils, decreased hemoglobin, decreased platelet count, decreased potassium, increased alanine aminotransferase, decreased glucose, decreased calcium, decreased albumin, decreased sodium, and decreased phosphate.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval for naxitamab (Danyelza) to treat certain patients with neuroblastoma, based on response rates in two small trials.

Naxitamab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that targets GD2, a disialoganglioside highly expressed on neuroblastomas.

The FDA approved naxitamab for use in combination with granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) in adults and children aged 1 year and older who have relapsed or refractory, high-risk neuroblastoma in the bone or bone marrow that demonstrated a partial response, minor response, or stable disease to prior therapy.

Naxitamab was originally developed at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, and licensed exclusively to Y-mAbs Therapeutics. As a result of the licensing arrangement, MSKCC has institutional financial interests in the product, the company noted.
 

Study results

The accelerated approval of naxitamab was based on the overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response in two single-arm, open-label trials: Study 201 (NCT03363373) in 22 patients and Study 12-230 (NCT01757626) in 38 patients.

In both studies, patients received naxitamab at 3 mg/kg administered as an intravenous infusion on days 1, 3, and 5 of each 4-week cycle in combination with GM-CSF subcutaneously at 250 mcg/m²/day on days -4 to 0 and at 500 mcg/m²/day on days 1-5.

Some patients also received radiotherapy. At the investigator’s discretion, patients were permitted to receive preplanned radiation to the primary disease site in Study 201 and radiation to nontarget bony lesions or soft tissue disease in Study 12-230.

The ORR was 45% in Study 201 and 34% in Study 12-230. Responses were observed in the bone and/or bone marrow, the FDA noted.

Less than a third of patients had a duration of response that lasted 6 months or more – 30% of responders in Study 201 and 23% of responders in Study 12-230.

The FDA noted that continued approval of naxitamab may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.

The agency also noted that naxitamab was granted priority review, breakthrough therapy, and orphan drug designation. In addition, a priority review voucher was issued for the rare pediatric disease product application.
 

Boxed warning and adverse events

Naxitamab has a boxed warning about serious infusion-related reactions and neurotoxicity.

The product information notes that, in clinical studies, naxitamab has been shown to cause serious infusion reactions, including anaphylaxis, cardiac arrest, bronchospasm, stridor, and hypotension. Infusion reactions generally occurred within 24 hours of completing an infusion, most often within 30 minutes of initiation. Infusion reactions were most frequent during the first infusion in each cycle.

To mitigate these risks, Y-mAbs Therapeutics recommends premedication with an antihistamine, acetaminophen, an H2 antagonist, and corticosteroid, as well as close monitoring of patients during and for at least 2 hours after each infusion in a setting where cardiopulmonary resuscitation medication and equipment are available.

Based on its mechanism of action, naxitamab can cause severe pain, according to Y-mAbs Therapeutics. The company recommends premedication with gabapentin and, for example, oral oxycodone, and recommends treating break-through pain with intravenous hydromorphone or an equivalent intervention.

In addition, naxitamab may cause severe hypertension. The onset of hypertension may be delayed, so blood pressure should be monitored both during and after infusion.

The product insert also notes that one case of transverse myelitis (grade 3) and two cases of posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome have been reported.

The most common adverse reactions (incidence ≥ 25% in either trial) were infusion-related reactions, pain, tachycardia, vomiting, cough, nausea, diarrhea, decreased appetite, hypertension, fatigue, erythema multiforme, peripheral neuropathy, urticaria, pyrexia, headache, injection site reaction, edema, anxiety, localized edema, and irritability.

The most common grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities (≥ 5% in either trial) were decreased lymphocytes, decreased neutrophils, decreased hemoglobin, decreased platelet count, decreased potassium, increased alanine aminotransferase, decreased glucose, decreased calcium, decreased albumin, decreased sodium, and decreased phosphate.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval for naxitamab (Danyelza) to treat certain patients with neuroblastoma, based on response rates in two small trials.

Naxitamab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that targets GD2, a disialoganglioside highly expressed on neuroblastomas.

The FDA approved naxitamab for use in combination with granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) in adults and children aged 1 year and older who have relapsed or refractory, high-risk neuroblastoma in the bone or bone marrow that demonstrated a partial response, minor response, or stable disease to prior therapy.

Naxitamab was originally developed at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, and licensed exclusively to Y-mAbs Therapeutics. As a result of the licensing arrangement, MSKCC has institutional financial interests in the product, the company noted.
 

Study results

The accelerated approval of naxitamab was based on the overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response in two single-arm, open-label trials: Study 201 (NCT03363373) in 22 patients and Study 12-230 (NCT01757626) in 38 patients.

In both studies, patients received naxitamab at 3 mg/kg administered as an intravenous infusion on days 1, 3, and 5 of each 4-week cycle in combination with GM-CSF subcutaneously at 250 mcg/m²/day on days -4 to 0 and at 500 mcg/m²/day on days 1-5.

Some patients also received radiotherapy. At the investigator’s discretion, patients were permitted to receive preplanned radiation to the primary disease site in Study 201 and radiation to nontarget bony lesions or soft tissue disease in Study 12-230.

The ORR was 45% in Study 201 and 34% in Study 12-230. Responses were observed in the bone and/or bone marrow, the FDA noted.

Less than a third of patients had a duration of response that lasted 6 months or more – 30% of responders in Study 201 and 23% of responders in Study 12-230.

The FDA noted that continued approval of naxitamab may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.

The agency also noted that naxitamab was granted priority review, breakthrough therapy, and orphan drug designation. In addition, a priority review voucher was issued for the rare pediatric disease product application.
 

Boxed warning and adverse events

Naxitamab has a boxed warning about serious infusion-related reactions and neurotoxicity.

The product information notes that, in clinical studies, naxitamab has been shown to cause serious infusion reactions, including anaphylaxis, cardiac arrest, bronchospasm, stridor, and hypotension. Infusion reactions generally occurred within 24 hours of completing an infusion, most often within 30 minutes of initiation. Infusion reactions were most frequent during the first infusion in each cycle.

To mitigate these risks, Y-mAbs Therapeutics recommends premedication with an antihistamine, acetaminophen, an H2 antagonist, and corticosteroid, as well as close monitoring of patients during and for at least 2 hours after each infusion in a setting where cardiopulmonary resuscitation medication and equipment are available.

Based on its mechanism of action, naxitamab can cause severe pain, according to Y-mAbs Therapeutics. The company recommends premedication with gabapentin and, for example, oral oxycodone, and recommends treating break-through pain with intravenous hydromorphone or an equivalent intervention.

In addition, naxitamab may cause severe hypertension. The onset of hypertension may be delayed, so blood pressure should be monitored both during and after infusion.

The product insert also notes that one case of transverse myelitis (grade 3) and two cases of posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome have been reported.

The most common adverse reactions (incidence ≥ 25% in either trial) were infusion-related reactions, pain, tachycardia, vomiting, cough, nausea, diarrhea, decreased appetite, hypertension, fatigue, erythema multiforme, peripheral neuropathy, urticaria, pyrexia, headache, injection site reaction, edema, anxiety, localized edema, and irritability.

The most common grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities (≥ 5% in either trial) were decreased lymphocytes, decreased neutrophils, decreased hemoglobin, decreased platelet count, decreased potassium, increased alanine aminotransferase, decreased glucose, decreased calcium, decreased albumin, decreased sodium, and decreased phosphate.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.