User login
MDedge conference coverage features onsite reporting of the latest study results and expert perspectives from leading researchers.
Migraine clusters emerge from machine-learning analysis
AUSTIN, TEX. – The findings could point to new therapeutic strategies, according to study author Ali Ezzati, MD.
“A lot of diagnostic criteria that we have in the migraine world come from consensus groups of experts, and based on their experience and available data. They classify different types of headache and then on top of that different types of migraine. Unfortunately, this type of classification does not necessarily lead to having very homogeneous groups,” said Dr. Ezzati, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
Migraines are generally categorized as episodic (0-14 headache days per month) or chronic (15 or more per month), or as with or without aura. But these broad categories fail to capture the true diversity of migraine, according to Dr. Ezzati, and this may contribute to the fact that response to migraine therapy hovers around 60%. “We feel that the key to improving therapeutic efficacy is to identify individuals who are more homogeneous, more similar to each other, so that when we give a treatment, it is specifically targeting the underlying pathophysiology that those people have,” said Dr. Ezzati, who is an associate professor of neurology and director of the neuroinformatics program at University of California, Irvine.
The analysis revealed some clinically interesting results, said Dr. Ezzati. “For example, allodynia is a symptom that is not particularly used for classification of different types of migraine. There was a specific group that was very high in allodynia, and they were not very responsive to treatments, so that might be a [group] that people have to focus on. Also, we talk a lot about comorbidities in migraine, but we don’t talk about how these comorbidities affect the therapeutic strategies and treatment response to specific medications. We showed that people who have depression are actually less responsive than other groups to treatments, especially prescription medications,” he said.
Machine learning reveals clusters
The researchers analyzed data from 4,423 patients drawn from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention Study, which was conducted every year between 2005 and 2009. They included adult patients who filled out surveys in both 2006 and 2007. The study population was 83.7% female and had a mean age of 46.8 years, and 6.4% had chronic migraine. The researchers then used a machine-learning based self-organizing map to group patients into similar clusters.
The algorithm produced five such groups: Cluster 1 had the lowest symptom severity, and 0.6% had chronic migraine. Cluster 2 had mild symptom severity with no chronic migraine. Cluster 3 had moderate symptom severity and a high prevalence of allodynia (88.5%, vs. 63.4% overall, P < .001) and no chronic migraine. Cluster 4 had a high frequency of depressive symptoms (63.1% vs. 19.8% overall, P < .001) and 5.2% had chronic migraine. Cluster 5 had frequent and severe migraines, and most (83.0%) had chronic migraine (P < .001).
There were some other broader trends. Triptans were more commonly used in clusters 2 (25.6%), 3 (27.9%), and 5 (28.0%), but less so in cluster 4 (17.1%; P < .001). Pain freedom at 2 hours was most common in cluster 1 (53.1%), followed by cluster 2 (46.4%), but was significantly less frequent in clusters 3 (32.2%), 4 (32.2%), and 5 (34.7%; P < .001).
Therapeutic implications
Dr. Ezzati believes that machine learning and data analysis could point the way to a future of more tailored migraine therapies. “I think we have to in general go down the path of using more evidence and more data to inform us about individualized planning for patients. For that we need larger clinical studies and larger epidemiological studies to help us identify more homogeneous subtypes of patients that we can eventually target in clinical trials,” he said.
Catherine Chong, MD, who chaired the session where the research was presented, praised the study in an interview. “Episodic migraine and chronic migraine have been developed [as categories] by headache frequency per month, and it was basically based on consensus in committee. They made basically a determination that 15 and under migraine days would be episodic migraine and over would be chronic migraine. So they dichotomized migraine, in a way, based on what people thought in the field. Looking at the data freely, and letting the algorithm determine the different subtypes, and putting everybody with migraine in it, and having these groups naturally appear from the data, I think is fascinating,” Dr. Chong said.
She echoed Dr. Ezzati’s call for further research that could create even more subgroups. “Is it really truly the case that somebody with less than 15 migraine days [per month], that 14 migraines days would be so different than somebody with 15 or over, or 8? I think we need to look at it further to see whether there are additional subgroups within that data. I think there are probably more [groups identifiable] from different data that we have out there,” said Dr. Chong.
Dr. Ezzati has consulted for or been a reviewer or advisory board member for Corium, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Mint Research, and Health Care Horizon Scanning System. He has received research funding from Amgen. Dr. Chong has no relevant financial disclosures.
AUSTIN, TEX. – The findings could point to new therapeutic strategies, according to study author Ali Ezzati, MD.
“A lot of diagnostic criteria that we have in the migraine world come from consensus groups of experts, and based on their experience and available data. They classify different types of headache and then on top of that different types of migraine. Unfortunately, this type of classification does not necessarily lead to having very homogeneous groups,” said Dr. Ezzati, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
Migraines are generally categorized as episodic (0-14 headache days per month) or chronic (15 or more per month), or as with or without aura. But these broad categories fail to capture the true diversity of migraine, according to Dr. Ezzati, and this may contribute to the fact that response to migraine therapy hovers around 60%. “We feel that the key to improving therapeutic efficacy is to identify individuals who are more homogeneous, more similar to each other, so that when we give a treatment, it is specifically targeting the underlying pathophysiology that those people have,” said Dr. Ezzati, who is an associate professor of neurology and director of the neuroinformatics program at University of California, Irvine.
The analysis revealed some clinically interesting results, said Dr. Ezzati. “For example, allodynia is a symptom that is not particularly used for classification of different types of migraine. There was a specific group that was very high in allodynia, and they were not very responsive to treatments, so that might be a [group] that people have to focus on. Also, we talk a lot about comorbidities in migraine, but we don’t talk about how these comorbidities affect the therapeutic strategies and treatment response to specific medications. We showed that people who have depression are actually less responsive than other groups to treatments, especially prescription medications,” he said.
Machine learning reveals clusters
The researchers analyzed data from 4,423 patients drawn from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention Study, which was conducted every year between 2005 and 2009. They included adult patients who filled out surveys in both 2006 and 2007. The study population was 83.7% female and had a mean age of 46.8 years, and 6.4% had chronic migraine. The researchers then used a machine-learning based self-organizing map to group patients into similar clusters.
The algorithm produced five such groups: Cluster 1 had the lowest symptom severity, and 0.6% had chronic migraine. Cluster 2 had mild symptom severity with no chronic migraine. Cluster 3 had moderate symptom severity and a high prevalence of allodynia (88.5%, vs. 63.4% overall, P < .001) and no chronic migraine. Cluster 4 had a high frequency of depressive symptoms (63.1% vs. 19.8% overall, P < .001) and 5.2% had chronic migraine. Cluster 5 had frequent and severe migraines, and most (83.0%) had chronic migraine (P < .001).
There were some other broader trends. Triptans were more commonly used in clusters 2 (25.6%), 3 (27.9%), and 5 (28.0%), but less so in cluster 4 (17.1%; P < .001). Pain freedom at 2 hours was most common in cluster 1 (53.1%), followed by cluster 2 (46.4%), but was significantly less frequent in clusters 3 (32.2%), 4 (32.2%), and 5 (34.7%; P < .001).
Therapeutic implications
Dr. Ezzati believes that machine learning and data analysis could point the way to a future of more tailored migraine therapies. “I think we have to in general go down the path of using more evidence and more data to inform us about individualized planning for patients. For that we need larger clinical studies and larger epidemiological studies to help us identify more homogeneous subtypes of patients that we can eventually target in clinical trials,” he said.
Catherine Chong, MD, who chaired the session where the research was presented, praised the study in an interview. “Episodic migraine and chronic migraine have been developed [as categories] by headache frequency per month, and it was basically based on consensus in committee. They made basically a determination that 15 and under migraine days would be episodic migraine and over would be chronic migraine. So they dichotomized migraine, in a way, based on what people thought in the field. Looking at the data freely, and letting the algorithm determine the different subtypes, and putting everybody with migraine in it, and having these groups naturally appear from the data, I think is fascinating,” Dr. Chong said.
She echoed Dr. Ezzati’s call for further research that could create even more subgroups. “Is it really truly the case that somebody with less than 15 migraine days [per month], that 14 migraines days would be so different than somebody with 15 or over, or 8? I think we need to look at it further to see whether there are additional subgroups within that data. I think there are probably more [groups identifiable] from different data that we have out there,” said Dr. Chong.
Dr. Ezzati has consulted for or been a reviewer or advisory board member for Corium, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Mint Research, and Health Care Horizon Scanning System. He has received research funding from Amgen. Dr. Chong has no relevant financial disclosures.
AUSTIN, TEX. – The findings could point to new therapeutic strategies, according to study author Ali Ezzati, MD.
“A lot of diagnostic criteria that we have in the migraine world come from consensus groups of experts, and based on their experience and available data. They classify different types of headache and then on top of that different types of migraine. Unfortunately, this type of classification does not necessarily lead to having very homogeneous groups,” said Dr. Ezzati, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
Migraines are generally categorized as episodic (0-14 headache days per month) or chronic (15 or more per month), or as with or without aura. But these broad categories fail to capture the true diversity of migraine, according to Dr. Ezzati, and this may contribute to the fact that response to migraine therapy hovers around 60%. “We feel that the key to improving therapeutic efficacy is to identify individuals who are more homogeneous, more similar to each other, so that when we give a treatment, it is specifically targeting the underlying pathophysiology that those people have,” said Dr. Ezzati, who is an associate professor of neurology and director of the neuroinformatics program at University of California, Irvine.
The analysis revealed some clinically interesting results, said Dr. Ezzati. “For example, allodynia is a symptom that is not particularly used for classification of different types of migraine. There was a specific group that was very high in allodynia, and they were not very responsive to treatments, so that might be a [group] that people have to focus on. Also, we talk a lot about comorbidities in migraine, but we don’t talk about how these comorbidities affect the therapeutic strategies and treatment response to specific medications. We showed that people who have depression are actually less responsive than other groups to treatments, especially prescription medications,” he said.
Machine learning reveals clusters
The researchers analyzed data from 4,423 patients drawn from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention Study, which was conducted every year between 2005 and 2009. They included adult patients who filled out surveys in both 2006 and 2007. The study population was 83.7% female and had a mean age of 46.8 years, and 6.4% had chronic migraine. The researchers then used a machine-learning based self-organizing map to group patients into similar clusters.
The algorithm produced five such groups: Cluster 1 had the lowest symptom severity, and 0.6% had chronic migraine. Cluster 2 had mild symptom severity with no chronic migraine. Cluster 3 had moderate symptom severity and a high prevalence of allodynia (88.5%, vs. 63.4% overall, P < .001) and no chronic migraine. Cluster 4 had a high frequency of depressive symptoms (63.1% vs. 19.8% overall, P < .001) and 5.2% had chronic migraine. Cluster 5 had frequent and severe migraines, and most (83.0%) had chronic migraine (P < .001).
There were some other broader trends. Triptans were more commonly used in clusters 2 (25.6%), 3 (27.9%), and 5 (28.0%), but less so in cluster 4 (17.1%; P < .001). Pain freedom at 2 hours was most common in cluster 1 (53.1%), followed by cluster 2 (46.4%), but was significantly less frequent in clusters 3 (32.2%), 4 (32.2%), and 5 (34.7%; P < .001).
Therapeutic implications
Dr. Ezzati believes that machine learning and data analysis could point the way to a future of more tailored migraine therapies. “I think we have to in general go down the path of using more evidence and more data to inform us about individualized planning for patients. For that we need larger clinical studies and larger epidemiological studies to help us identify more homogeneous subtypes of patients that we can eventually target in clinical trials,” he said.
Catherine Chong, MD, who chaired the session where the research was presented, praised the study in an interview. “Episodic migraine and chronic migraine have been developed [as categories] by headache frequency per month, and it was basically based on consensus in committee. They made basically a determination that 15 and under migraine days would be episodic migraine and over would be chronic migraine. So they dichotomized migraine, in a way, based on what people thought in the field. Looking at the data freely, and letting the algorithm determine the different subtypes, and putting everybody with migraine in it, and having these groups naturally appear from the data, I think is fascinating,” Dr. Chong said.
She echoed Dr. Ezzati’s call for further research that could create even more subgroups. “Is it really truly the case that somebody with less than 15 migraine days [per month], that 14 migraines days would be so different than somebody with 15 or over, or 8? I think we need to look at it further to see whether there are additional subgroups within that data. I think there are probably more [groups identifiable] from different data that we have out there,” said Dr. Chong.
Dr. Ezzati has consulted for or been a reviewer or advisory board member for Corium, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Mint Research, and Health Care Horizon Scanning System. He has received research funding from Amgen. Dr. Chong has no relevant financial disclosures.
FROM AHS 2023
Reducing risk for thrombosis in patients with lung cancer
CHICAGO – Having cancer is a known risk factor for thrombosis. A patient with cancer has a fourfold risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE).
This risk may be increased by certain cancer drugs, which seems to be the case for the combination of innovative targeted therapies lazertinib-amivantamab, as shown in patients with advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer.
A study of this increased risk of VTE was presented by Nicolas Girard, MD, a respiratory medicine specialist at Curie-Montsouris Chest Center in Paris, during the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Combination therapies
Amivantamab is an EGFR and cMET bispecific antibody, and lazertinib is a third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Prescribed after osimertinib or after osimertinib plus chemotherapy, this combination of amivantamab and lazertinib has been evaluated in several cohorts of patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non–small cell lung cancer in whom targeted therapy and chemotherapy has failed.
The antitumor activity appears to be improved when both therapies are given in combination. The side effects generally are acceptable. It is these side effects, particularly the rate of VTEs, that Dr. Girard and his colleagues are interested in.
The researchers collated the data from the ongoing CHRYSALIS, CHRYSALIS-2, and LASER201 clinical trials, which assess the efficacy of these new agents as monotherapy or in combination. They initially investigated all reported thrombotic events and ruled out those that occurred during or after the 30 days before disease progression.
Increased thrombosis risk
The analysis included 560 patients who had been given amivantamab as monotherapy, 536 patients who had received amivantamab plus lazertinib in combination, and 252 who had taken lazertinib as monotherapy. The incidence of thromboembolic events was higher among patients who received amivantamab plus lazertinib in combination (21%) than in those who were given amivantamab (11%) or lazertinib (11%) as monotherapy.
The first thromboembolic event occurred an average of 84.5 days after starting treatment with amivantamab, 79 days after starting the combination therapy, and 170 days after starting treatment with lazertinib. For the amivantamab plus lazertinib combination, most VTEs developed in the first 4 months of treatment. The most common VTEs were pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis.
The incidence of severe thrombotic events (grade ≥ 3), which was relatively low (amivantamab, 5%; amivantamab plus lazertinib, 6%; lazertinib, 6%) was similar regardless of the treatment, and there were no grade 5 thrombotic events among patients treated with the combination of both targeted therapies.
The significant risk factors for VTEs identified in this study were being age 60 years or older, having a score of 1 on the ECOG Performance Status Scale, and response to treatment (P < .05).
At a press conference organized by the Institut Curie before the ASCO conference, Dr. Girard said, “There has been shown to be an increased risk of blood clots with the use of this combination of targeted therapies. Preventive measures should therefore also be put forward, such as adding anticoagulant medication. This is an important study for the further development of these therapies.”
In a press release, the respiratory medicine specialist noted, “Institut Curie is particularly alert to the issue of the risk of thrombosis arising in cancer patients.” The DASTO project, dedicated to this issue and headed by the Institut Curie, “aims to cross-reference data sourced from several French cancer centers with data from the social security system to understand the risk factors, improve patient treatment, make changes to the care pathway, and prevent this unwanted occurrence from arising.”
Dr. Girard has direct links with Amgen, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Ipsen, Janssen, Roche, Lilly, Medtronic, MSD, Novartis, OSE Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Sivan.
This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO – Having cancer is a known risk factor for thrombosis. A patient with cancer has a fourfold risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE).
This risk may be increased by certain cancer drugs, which seems to be the case for the combination of innovative targeted therapies lazertinib-amivantamab, as shown in patients with advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer.
A study of this increased risk of VTE was presented by Nicolas Girard, MD, a respiratory medicine specialist at Curie-Montsouris Chest Center in Paris, during the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Combination therapies
Amivantamab is an EGFR and cMET bispecific antibody, and lazertinib is a third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Prescribed after osimertinib or after osimertinib plus chemotherapy, this combination of amivantamab and lazertinib has been evaluated in several cohorts of patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non–small cell lung cancer in whom targeted therapy and chemotherapy has failed.
The antitumor activity appears to be improved when both therapies are given in combination. The side effects generally are acceptable. It is these side effects, particularly the rate of VTEs, that Dr. Girard and his colleagues are interested in.
The researchers collated the data from the ongoing CHRYSALIS, CHRYSALIS-2, and LASER201 clinical trials, which assess the efficacy of these new agents as monotherapy or in combination. They initially investigated all reported thrombotic events and ruled out those that occurred during or after the 30 days before disease progression.
Increased thrombosis risk
The analysis included 560 patients who had been given amivantamab as monotherapy, 536 patients who had received amivantamab plus lazertinib in combination, and 252 who had taken lazertinib as monotherapy. The incidence of thromboembolic events was higher among patients who received amivantamab plus lazertinib in combination (21%) than in those who were given amivantamab (11%) or lazertinib (11%) as monotherapy.
The first thromboembolic event occurred an average of 84.5 days after starting treatment with amivantamab, 79 days after starting the combination therapy, and 170 days after starting treatment with lazertinib. For the amivantamab plus lazertinib combination, most VTEs developed in the first 4 months of treatment. The most common VTEs were pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis.
The incidence of severe thrombotic events (grade ≥ 3), which was relatively low (amivantamab, 5%; amivantamab plus lazertinib, 6%; lazertinib, 6%) was similar regardless of the treatment, and there were no grade 5 thrombotic events among patients treated with the combination of both targeted therapies.
The significant risk factors for VTEs identified in this study were being age 60 years or older, having a score of 1 on the ECOG Performance Status Scale, and response to treatment (P < .05).
At a press conference organized by the Institut Curie before the ASCO conference, Dr. Girard said, “There has been shown to be an increased risk of blood clots with the use of this combination of targeted therapies. Preventive measures should therefore also be put forward, such as adding anticoagulant medication. This is an important study for the further development of these therapies.”
In a press release, the respiratory medicine specialist noted, “Institut Curie is particularly alert to the issue of the risk of thrombosis arising in cancer patients.” The DASTO project, dedicated to this issue and headed by the Institut Curie, “aims to cross-reference data sourced from several French cancer centers with data from the social security system to understand the risk factors, improve patient treatment, make changes to the care pathway, and prevent this unwanted occurrence from arising.”
Dr. Girard has direct links with Amgen, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Ipsen, Janssen, Roche, Lilly, Medtronic, MSD, Novartis, OSE Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Sivan.
This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO – Having cancer is a known risk factor for thrombosis. A patient with cancer has a fourfold risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE).
This risk may be increased by certain cancer drugs, which seems to be the case for the combination of innovative targeted therapies lazertinib-amivantamab, as shown in patients with advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer.
A study of this increased risk of VTE was presented by Nicolas Girard, MD, a respiratory medicine specialist at Curie-Montsouris Chest Center in Paris, during the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Combination therapies
Amivantamab is an EGFR and cMET bispecific antibody, and lazertinib is a third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Prescribed after osimertinib or after osimertinib plus chemotherapy, this combination of amivantamab and lazertinib has been evaluated in several cohorts of patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non–small cell lung cancer in whom targeted therapy and chemotherapy has failed.
The antitumor activity appears to be improved when both therapies are given in combination. The side effects generally are acceptable. It is these side effects, particularly the rate of VTEs, that Dr. Girard and his colleagues are interested in.
The researchers collated the data from the ongoing CHRYSALIS, CHRYSALIS-2, and LASER201 clinical trials, which assess the efficacy of these new agents as monotherapy or in combination. They initially investigated all reported thrombotic events and ruled out those that occurred during or after the 30 days before disease progression.
Increased thrombosis risk
The analysis included 560 patients who had been given amivantamab as monotherapy, 536 patients who had received amivantamab plus lazertinib in combination, and 252 who had taken lazertinib as monotherapy. The incidence of thromboembolic events was higher among patients who received amivantamab plus lazertinib in combination (21%) than in those who were given amivantamab (11%) or lazertinib (11%) as monotherapy.
The first thromboembolic event occurred an average of 84.5 days after starting treatment with amivantamab, 79 days after starting the combination therapy, and 170 days after starting treatment with lazertinib. For the amivantamab plus lazertinib combination, most VTEs developed in the first 4 months of treatment. The most common VTEs were pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis.
The incidence of severe thrombotic events (grade ≥ 3), which was relatively low (amivantamab, 5%; amivantamab plus lazertinib, 6%; lazertinib, 6%) was similar regardless of the treatment, and there were no grade 5 thrombotic events among patients treated with the combination of both targeted therapies.
The significant risk factors for VTEs identified in this study were being age 60 years or older, having a score of 1 on the ECOG Performance Status Scale, and response to treatment (P < .05).
At a press conference organized by the Institut Curie before the ASCO conference, Dr. Girard said, “There has been shown to be an increased risk of blood clots with the use of this combination of targeted therapies. Preventive measures should therefore also be put forward, such as adding anticoagulant medication. This is an important study for the further development of these therapies.”
In a press release, the respiratory medicine specialist noted, “Institut Curie is particularly alert to the issue of the risk of thrombosis arising in cancer patients.” The DASTO project, dedicated to this issue and headed by the Institut Curie, “aims to cross-reference data sourced from several French cancer centers with data from the social security system to understand the risk factors, improve patient treatment, make changes to the care pathway, and prevent this unwanted occurrence from arising.”
Dr. Girard has direct links with Amgen, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Ipsen, Janssen, Roche, Lilly, Medtronic, MSD, Novartis, OSE Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Sivan.
This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ASCO 2023
Gilteritinib maintenance reduces relapse in MRD+ AML
The research was presented at the European Hematology Association Hybrid Congress 2023.
For the study, AML patients with the most common form of mutation in the proto-oncogene fms-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3), known as the internal tandem duplication (ITD), were randomized to 24 months of maintenance therapy with either the FLT3 inhibitor gilteritinib or placebo.
The trial did not meet its primary endpoint, as there was no significant difference in relapse-free survival (RFS) between those assigned to the active drug and those given placebo, and there was no difference in overall survival rates.
However, subgroup analysis revealed that FLT3/ITD AML patients who were MRD+ after transplant, which represented approximately half of the participants, experienced a significant 48% improvement in RFS with gilteritinib versus placebo, while no benefit was seen in MRD– patients.
While acknowledging that the trial did not meet its primary endpoint, presenter Mark J. Levis, MD, PhD, program leader, hematologic malignancies and bone marrow transplant program, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, said it was nevertheless “a successful study.”
“We learned how to use these drugs and in whom,” he continued, adding: “No, not everybody needs and should get a FLT3 inhibitor post-transplant, but we can use this [MRD] assay to identify who.”
Consequently, Dr. Levis believes that gilteritinib “should be a standard of care for those who are MRD positive,” although the decision to use it “should be balanced against the potential for toxicity,” compared with not adding an additional treatment after HCT.
He told a press conference that “we’re going to certainly make sure that patients who are MRD positive get [gilteritinib],” although the MRD negative patients “are going to be more questionable,” especially because the assay that they used in the study is not “perfect.”
Dr. Levis also suggested that the trial did not meet its endpoint because of regional differences in the clinical practice, such as in the number of treatment cycles prior to HCT, the time to transplant, and the previous use of a FLT3 inhibitor, all of which may have skewed the findings.
“Everybody in the world is convinced that they’re the best transplanter,” he said, and yet “they all do it differently, and the heterogeneity is astounding.”
He added: “If we’d restricted everybody [to a] pretransplant regimen, I suspect we would have had a different result than what we’re getting here, but this is releasing the drug into the world and saying: ‘Here, transplant however you want, however it’s practiced in the real world. Tell us how this works.’ ”
Approached for comment, Claudio Brunstein, MD, PhD, vice-chair of the department of hematology and oncology in the Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, said that while there was “some disappointment” with the results, he was “not surprised” that the trial did not meet its primary endpoint.
He said in an interview that the patient population was not of “high enough risk” to demonstrate an overall difference between gilteritinib and placebo, although he conceded that it is “hard to get to high-risk patients in a timely way” and so conduct a trial with them.
As to the notion that variations in clinical practice could have been responsible, Dr. Brunstein pointed out that it was a randomized trial, so the issue would have applied equally to both sides.
He nevertheless believes that it is “a very important study,” and “just the fact that it was done in the context of a number of drugs coming and being approved by the [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] in AML is quite remarkable.”
This is especially the case given that “many centers are already using [gilteritinib] as off-label maintenance therapy.”
Dr. Brunstein added that it is “good news” that the drug was effective in MRD+ patients, as it shows “you can overcome that with maintenance therapy rather than keeping giving more and more chemotherapy, especially as there are patients you’re worried about giving more intensive chemotherapy to make them MRD negative.”
He pointed out, however, that the assay used in the trial was “research grade” and very sensitive to MRD and “is not available everywhere, so there is an adjustment that the community will have to do to in order to apply this data.”
“But for those who are more obviously MRD positive with less sensitive assays, gilteritinib is already something that can be used,” Dr. Brunstein said.
Presenting the findings, Dr. Levis stated: “We all know that patients with FLT3/ITD AML have a high risk of relapse and are routinely referred for transplant. And we know that the detection of measurable residual disease pretransplant is highly predictive of outcome post-transplant.”
He continued that FLT3 inhibitors are “routinely given as post-transplant maintenance ... based on some prior trials, mostly with sorafenib.”
“But uncertainty exists as to the broad applicability of these trials,” Dr. Levis said. Moreover, the use of sorafenib in this context is “off label and can be difficult to tolerate,” and “we know that most patients are cured with allogeneic transplant alone.”
Gilteritinib is already known to be well tolerated as a monotherapy, and was approved by the FDA for the treatment of adult patients with FLT3 mutation–positive relapsed or refractory AML in 2018.
The investigators therefore examined whether it would be beneficial as a post-HCT maintenance therapy in FLT3-ITD AML. Patients were required to be in morphologic remission after one or two courses of induction therapy, with Dr. Levis underlining: “We did not allow patients who had been salvaged onto the study.”
They subsequently had a marrow aspirate sample taken for MRD analysis before undergoing allogeneic transplant, with any conditioning regimen, donor, or graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis allowed.
Between 30 and 90 days later, patients with successful engraftment who were able to take oral medication were then randomized to 24 months of maintenance therapy with either gilteritinib or placebo.
Dr. Levis showed that, among 620 patients screened at 110 centers in 16 countries, 356 were randomized between Aug. 15, 2017, and July 8, 2020. The median age was 53 years, and 49% of gilteritinib patients and 48% of those given placebo were female.
He noted that there was a “fairly even global distribution” of patients from North America, Europe, and the Asia/Pacific region, and that 60% of patients underwent a myeloablative conditioning regimen. Approximately the same proportion had received an FLT3 inhibitor prior to HCT.
MRD positivity, assessed at a cell count of ≥ 10-6, was observed pre-HCT in 47% of patients in both treatment groups, and in 50% of gilteritinib patients and 51% of placebo patients at both pre- and post-transplant assessments.
The treatment regimen was completed by 52.8% of patients assigned to gilteritinib and 53.9% in the placebo arm. Dr. Levis said that 18.5% and 20.3% of patients, respectively, experienced a grade 3/4 treatment emergent acute GVHD event, while 32.6% and 21.5%, respectively, had a grade ≥ 3 treatment emergent infection.
He noted that “adverse events were clearly more common in the gilteritinib arm and often led to either dose reduction or interruption, or withdrawal of treatment.”
The most common grade ≥ 3 treatment emergent adverse event was a decrease in neutrophil count, seen in 24.7% of gilteritinib patients and 7.9% of those given placebo, followed by reduced platelet count, in 15.2% and 5.6%, respectively, and anemia, in 6.2% and 1.7%, respectively.
Turning to the efficacy outcomes, Dr. Levis reported that the trial did not meet its primary endpoint, with no significant difference in RFS between the gilteritinib and placebo arms, at a hazard ratio of 0.679 (P = .0518). There was also no significant difference in the key secondary objective of overall survival, at a hazard ratio of 0.846 (P = .4394).
However, Dr. Levis noted that there was a “clear difference in the benefit of gilteritinib by region,” and, “at every level,” MRD predicted a benefit from gilteritinib, which he said was a “big surprise” and “really leapt out in the subgroup analysis.”
He explained that the researchers used a modified version of a two-step assay that has been used in previous studies, and was able to detect MRD at a sensitivity of approximately 1x10-6. “In our study, 98% of participants had samples pre- and post-[transplant].”
Regardless of treatment arm, MRD positivity measured at that sensitivity was associated with a significant reduction in overall survival, at a hazard ratio versus MRD– status of 0.514 (P = .0025).
When stratifying the patients by MRD status, the researchers found that, among MRD+ participants, gilteritinib was associated with a significant improvement in RFS, at a hazard ratio versus placebo of 0.515 (P = .0065), while there was no significant difference in MRD– patients.
Stratifying the patients by their conditioning regimen prior to HCT also revealed differences, with those undergoing myeloablative conditioning having significantly greater overall survival than those who underwent reduced-intensity conditioning, at a hazard ratio for death of 0.529 (P = .0027).
Dr. Levis said there is “no surprise there,” and the result could reflect the selection of fitter, younger patients to undergo the more intensive regimen.
He then showed that MRD+ patients who had undergone myeloablative conditioning had better overall survival with gilteritinib than placebo, at a hazard ratio for death of 0.418 (P = .0087). Again, the difference disappeared when looking at MRD– patients.
“So conditioning doesn’t help you in the setting of MRD,” Dr. Levis said.
Finally, he took a deeper dive into the regional differences in outcomes, noting that patients in the Asia/Pacific region, where gilteritinib showed no benefit over placebo, “were 10 years younger” than those in other regions, “tended to get myeloablative conditioning, and hardly ever used FLT3 inhibitors.”
In contrast, North American patients, who experienced a significant gilteritinib benefit in terms of RFS, underwent HCT an average of 26 days earlier than those elsewhere, and received fewer courses of chemotherapy pre-HCT. Moreover, 93.5% received an FLT3 inhibitor pretransplant.
The study was funded by Astellas Pharma Global Development. Dr. Levis declares relationships with Abbvie, Amgen, Astellas, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Jazz, Menarini, Pfizer, Sumitomo-Dainippon, Syndax, Takeda. Dr. Brunstein declares no relevant relationships.
The research was presented at the European Hematology Association Hybrid Congress 2023.
For the study, AML patients with the most common form of mutation in the proto-oncogene fms-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3), known as the internal tandem duplication (ITD), were randomized to 24 months of maintenance therapy with either the FLT3 inhibitor gilteritinib or placebo.
The trial did not meet its primary endpoint, as there was no significant difference in relapse-free survival (RFS) between those assigned to the active drug and those given placebo, and there was no difference in overall survival rates.
However, subgroup analysis revealed that FLT3/ITD AML patients who were MRD+ after transplant, which represented approximately half of the participants, experienced a significant 48% improvement in RFS with gilteritinib versus placebo, while no benefit was seen in MRD– patients.
While acknowledging that the trial did not meet its primary endpoint, presenter Mark J. Levis, MD, PhD, program leader, hematologic malignancies and bone marrow transplant program, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, said it was nevertheless “a successful study.”
“We learned how to use these drugs and in whom,” he continued, adding: “No, not everybody needs and should get a FLT3 inhibitor post-transplant, but we can use this [MRD] assay to identify who.”
Consequently, Dr. Levis believes that gilteritinib “should be a standard of care for those who are MRD positive,” although the decision to use it “should be balanced against the potential for toxicity,” compared with not adding an additional treatment after HCT.
He told a press conference that “we’re going to certainly make sure that patients who are MRD positive get [gilteritinib],” although the MRD negative patients “are going to be more questionable,” especially because the assay that they used in the study is not “perfect.”
Dr. Levis also suggested that the trial did not meet its endpoint because of regional differences in the clinical practice, such as in the number of treatment cycles prior to HCT, the time to transplant, and the previous use of a FLT3 inhibitor, all of which may have skewed the findings.
“Everybody in the world is convinced that they’re the best transplanter,” he said, and yet “they all do it differently, and the heterogeneity is astounding.”
He added: “If we’d restricted everybody [to a] pretransplant regimen, I suspect we would have had a different result than what we’re getting here, but this is releasing the drug into the world and saying: ‘Here, transplant however you want, however it’s practiced in the real world. Tell us how this works.’ ”
Approached for comment, Claudio Brunstein, MD, PhD, vice-chair of the department of hematology and oncology in the Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, said that while there was “some disappointment” with the results, he was “not surprised” that the trial did not meet its primary endpoint.
He said in an interview that the patient population was not of “high enough risk” to demonstrate an overall difference between gilteritinib and placebo, although he conceded that it is “hard to get to high-risk patients in a timely way” and so conduct a trial with them.
As to the notion that variations in clinical practice could have been responsible, Dr. Brunstein pointed out that it was a randomized trial, so the issue would have applied equally to both sides.
He nevertheless believes that it is “a very important study,” and “just the fact that it was done in the context of a number of drugs coming and being approved by the [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] in AML is quite remarkable.”
This is especially the case given that “many centers are already using [gilteritinib] as off-label maintenance therapy.”
Dr. Brunstein added that it is “good news” that the drug was effective in MRD+ patients, as it shows “you can overcome that with maintenance therapy rather than keeping giving more and more chemotherapy, especially as there are patients you’re worried about giving more intensive chemotherapy to make them MRD negative.”
He pointed out, however, that the assay used in the trial was “research grade” and very sensitive to MRD and “is not available everywhere, so there is an adjustment that the community will have to do to in order to apply this data.”
“But for those who are more obviously MRD positive with less sensitive assays, gilteritinib is already something that can be used,” Dr. Brunstein said.
Presenting the findings, Dr. Levis stated: “We all know that patients with FLT3/ITD AML have a high risk of relapse and are routinely referred for transplant. And we know that the detection of measurable residual disease pretransplant is highly predictive of outcome post-transplant.”
He continued that FLT3 inhibitors are “routinely given as post-transplant maintenance ... based on some prior trials, mostly with sorafenib.”
“But uncertainty exists as to the broad applicability of these trials,” Dr. Levis said. Moreover, the use of sorafenib in this context is “off label and can be difficult to tolerate,” and “we know that most patients are cured with allogeneic transplant alone.”
Gilteritinib is already known to be well tolerated as a monotherapy, and was approved by the FDA for the treatment of adult patients with FLT3 mutation–positive relapsed or refractory AML in 2018.
The investigators therefore examined whether it would be beneficial as a post-HCT maintenance therapy in FLT3-ITD AML. Patients were required to be in morphologic remission after one or two courses of induction therapy, with Dr. Levis underlining: “We did not allow patients who had been salvaged onto the study.”
They subsequently had a marrow aspirate sample taken for MRD analysis before undergoing allogeneic transplant, with any conditioning regimen, donor, or graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis allowed.
Between 30 and 90 days later, patients with successful engraftment who were able to take oral medication were then randomized to 24 months of maintenance therapy with either gilteritinib or placebo.
Dr. Levis showed that, among 620 patients screened at 110 centers in 16 countries, 356 were randomized between Aug. 15, 2017, and July 8, 2020. The median age was 53 years, and 49% of gilteritinib patients and 48% of those given placebo were female.
He noted that there was a “fairly even global distribution” of patients from North America, Europe, and the Asia/Pacific region, and that 60% of patients underwent a myeloablative conditioning regimen. Approximately the same proportion had received an FLT3 inhibitor prior to HCT.
MRD positivity, assessed at a cell count of ≥ 10-6, was observed pre-HCT in 47% of patients in both treatment groups, and in 50% of gilteritinib patients and 51% of placebo patients at both pre- and post-transplant assessments.
The treatment regimen was completed by 52.8% of patients assigned to gilteritinib and 53.9% in the placebo arm. Dr. Levis said that 18.5% and 20.3% of patients, respectively, experienced a grade 3/4 treatment emergent acute GVHD event, while 32.6% and 21.5%, respectively, had a grade ≥ 3 treatment emergent infection.
He noted that “adverse events were clearly more common in the gilteritinib arm and often led to either dose reduction or interruption, or withdrawal of treatment.”
The most common grade ≥ 3 treatment emergent adverse event was a decrease in neutrophil count, seen in 24.7% of gilteritinib patients and 7.9% of those given placebo, followed by reduced platelet count, in 15.2% and 5.6%, respectively, and anemia, in 6.2% and 1.7%, respectively.
Turning to the efficacy outcomes, Dr. Levis reported that the trial did not meet its primary endpoint, with no significant difference in RFS between the gilteritinib and placebo arms, at a hazard ratio of 0.679 (P = .0518). There was also no significant difference in the key secondary objective of overall survival, at a hazard ratio of 0.846 (P = .4394).
However, Dr. Levis noted that there was a “clear difference in the benefit of gilteritinib by region,” and, “at every level,” MRD predicted a benefit from gilteritinib, which he said was a “big surprise” and “really leapt out in the subgroup analysis.”
He explained that the researchers used a modified version of a two-step assay that has been used in previous studies, and was able to detect MRD at a sensitivity of approximately 1x10-6. “In our study, 98% of participants had samples pre- and post-[transplant].”
Regardless of treatment arm, MRD positivity measured at that sensitivity was associated with a significant reduction in overall survival, at a hazard ratio versus MRD– status of 0.514 (P = .0025).
When stratifying the patients by MRD status, the researchers found that, among MRD+ participants, gilteritinib was associated with a significant improvement in RFS, at a hazard ratio versus placebo of 0.515 (P = .0065), while there was no significant difference in MRD– patients.
Stratifying the patients by their conditioning regimen prior to HCT also revealed differences, with those undergoing myeloablative conditioning having significantly greater overall survival than those who underwent reduced-intensity conditioning, at a hazard ratio for death of 0.529 (P = .0027).
Dr. Levis said there is “no surprise there,” and the result could reflect the selection of fitter, younger patients to undergo the more intensive regimen.
He then showed that MRD+ patients who had undergone myeloablative conditioning had better overall survival with gilteritinib than placebo, at a hazard ratio for death of 0.418 (P = .0087). Again, the difference disappeared when looking at MRD– patients.
“So conditioning doesn’t help you in the setting of MRD,” Dr. Levis said.
Finally, he took a deeper dive into the regional differences in outcomes, noting that patients in the Asia/Pacific region, where gilteritinib showed no benefit over placebo, “were 10 years younger” than those in other regions, “tended to get myeloablative conditioning, and hardly ever used FLT3 inhibitors.”
In contrast, North American patients, who experienced a significant gilteritinib benefit in terms of RFS, underwent HCT an average of 26 days earlier than those elsewhere, and received fewer courses of chemotherapy pre-HCT. Moreover, 93.5% received an FLT3 inhibitor pretransplant.
The study was funded by Astellas Pharma Global Development. Dr. Levis declares relationships with Abbvie, Amgen, Astellas, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Jazz, Menarini, Pfizer, Sumitomo-Dainippon, Syndax, Takeda. Dr. Brunstein declares no relevant relationships.
The research was presented at the European Hematology Association Hybrid Congress 2023.
For the study, AML patients with the most common form of mutation in the proto-oncogene fms-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3), known as the internal tandem duplication (ITD), were randomized to 24 months of maintenance therapy with either the FLT3 inhibitor gilteritinib or placebo.
The trial did not meet its primary endpoint, as there was no significant difference in relapse-free survival (RFS) between those assigned to the active drug and those given placebo, and there was no difference in overall survival rates.
However, subgroup analysis revealed that FLT3/ITD AML patients who were MRD+ after transplant, which represented approximately half of the participants, experienced a significant 48% improvement in RFS with gilteritinib versus placebo, while no benefit was seen in MRD– patients.
While acknowledging that the trial did not meet its primary endpoint, presenter Mark J. Levis, MD, PhD, program leader, hematologic malignancies and bone marrow transplant program, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, said it was nevertheless “a successful study.”
“We learned how to use these drugs and in whom,” he continued, adding: “No, not everybody needs and should get a FLT3 inhibitor post-transplant, but we can use this [MRD] assay to identify who.”
Consequently, Dr. Levis believes that gilteritinib “should be a standard of care for those who are MRD positive,” although the decision to use it “should be balanced against the potential for toxicity,” compared with not adding an additional treatment after HCT.
He told a press conference that “we’re going to certainly make sure that patients who are MRD positive get [gilteritinib],” although the MRD negative patients “are going to be more questionable,” especially because the assay that they used in the study is not “perfect.”
Dr. Levis also suggested that the trial did not meet its endpoint because of regional differences in the clinical practice, such as in the number of treatment cycles prior to HCT, the time to transplant, and the previous use of a FLT3 inhibitor, all of which may have skewed the findings.
“Everybody in the world is convinced that they’re the best transplanter,” he said, and yet “they all do it differently, and the heterogeneity is astounding.”
He added: “If we’d restricted everybody [to a] pretransplant regimen, I suspect we would have had a different result than what we’re getting here, but this is releasing the drug into the world and saying: ‘Here, transplant however you want, however it’s practiced in the real world. Tell us how this works.’ ”
Approached for comment, Claudio Brunstein, MD, PhD, vice-chair of the department of hematology and oncology in the Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, said that while there was “some disappointment” with the results, he was “not surprised” that the trial did not meet its primary endpoint.
He said in an interview that the patient population was not of “high enough risk” to demonstrate an overall difference between gilteritinib and placebo, although he conceded that it is “hard to get to high-risk patients in a timely way” and so conduct a trial with them.
As to the notion that variations in clinical practice could have been responsible, Dr. Brunstein pointed out that it was a randomized trial, so the issue would have applied equally to both sides.
He nevertheless believes that it is “a very important study,” and “just the fact that it was done in the context of a number of drugs coming and being approved by the [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] in AML is quite remarkable.”
This is especially the case given that “many centers are already using [gilteritinib] as off-label maintenance therapy.”
Dr. Brunstein added that it is “good news” that the drug was effective in MRD+ patients, as it shows “you can overcome that with maintenance therapy rather than keeping giving more and more chemotherapy, especially as there are patients you’re worried about giving more intensive chemotherapy to make them MRD negative.”
He pointed out, however, that the assay used in the trial was “research grade” and very sensitive to MRD and “is not available everywhere, so there is an adjustment that the community will have to do to in order to apply this data.”
“But for those who are more obviously MRD positive with less sensitive assays, gilteritinib is already something that can be used,” Dr. Brunstein said.
Presenting the findings, Dr. Levis stated: “We all know that patients with FLT3/ITD AML have a high risk of relapse and are routinely referred for transplant. And we know that the detection of measurable residual disease pretransplant is highly predictive of outcome post-transplant.”
He continued that FLT3 inhibitors are “routinely given as post-transplant maintenance ... based on some prior trials, mostly with sorafenib.”
“But uncertainty exists as to the broad applicability of these trials,” Dr. Levis said. Moreover, the use of sorafenib in this context is “off label and can be difficult to tolerate,” and “we know that most patients are cured with allogeneic transplant alone.”
Gilteritinib is already known to be well tolerated as a monotherapy, and was approved by the FDA for the treatment of adult patients with FLT3 mutation–positive relapsed or refractory AML in 2018.
The investigators therefore examined whether it would be beneficial as a post-HCT maintenance therapy in FLT3-ITD AML. Patients were required to be in morphologic remission after one or two courses of induction therapy, with Dr. Levis underlining: “We did not allow patients who had been salvaged onto the study.”
They subsequently had a marrow aspirate sample taken for MRD analysis before undergoing allogeneic transplant, with any conditioning regimen, donor, or graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis allowed.
Between 30 and 90 days later, patients with successful engraftment who were able to take oral medication were then randomized to 24 months of maintenance therapy with either gilteritinib or placebo.
Dr. Levis showed that, among 620 patients screened at 110 centers in 16 countries, 356 were randomized between Aug. 15, 2017, and July 8, 2020. The median age was 53 years, and 49% of gilteritinib patients and 48% of those given placebo were female.
He noted that there was a “fairly even global distribution” of patients from North America, Europe, and the Asia/Pacific region, and that 60% of patients underwent a myeloablative conditioning regimen. Approximately the same proportion had received an FLT3 inhibitor prior to HCT.
MRD positivity, assessed at a cell count of ≥ 10-6, was observed pre-HCT in 47% of patients in both treatment groups, and in 50% of gilteritinib patients and 51% of placebo patients at both pre- and post-transplant assessments.
The treatment regimen was completed by 52.8% of patients assigned to gilteritinib and 53.9% in the placebo arm. Dr. Levis said that 18.5% and 20.3% of patients, respectively, experienced a grade 3/4 treatment emergent acute GVHD event, while 32.6% and 21.5%, respectively, had a grade ≥ 3 treatment emergent infection.
He noted that “adverse events were clearly more common in the gilteritinib arm and often led to either dose reduction or interruption, or withdrawal of treatment.”
The most common grade ≥ 3 treatment emergent adverse event was a decrease in neutrophil count, seen in 24.7% of gilteritinib patients and 7.9% of those given placebo, followed by reduced platelet count, in 15.2% and 5.6%, respectively, and anemia, in 6.2% and 1.7%, respectively.
Turning to the efficacy outcomes, Dr. Levis reported that the trial did not meet its primary endpoint, with no significant difference in RFS between the gilteritinib and placebo arms, at a hazard ratio of 0.679 (P = .0518). There was also no significant difference in the key secondary objective of overall survival, at a hazard ratio of 0.846 (P = .4394).
However, Dr. Levis noted that there was a “clear difference in the benefit of gilteritinib by region,” and, “at every level,” MRD predicted a benefit from gilteritinib, which he said was a “big surprise” and “really leapt out in the subgroup analysis.”
He explained that the researchers used a modified version of a two-step assay that has been used in previous studies, and was able to detect MRD at a sensitivity of approximately 1x10-6. “In our study, 98% of participants had samples pre- and post-[transplant].”
Regardless of treatment arm, MRD positivity measured at that sensitivity was associated with a significant reduction in overall survival, at a hazard ratio versus MRD– status of 0.514 (P = .0025).
When stratifying the patients by MRD status, the researchers found that, among MRD+ participants, gilteritinib was associated with a significant improvement in RFS, at a hazard ratio versus placebo of 0.515 (P = .0065), while there was no significant difference in MRD– patients.
Stratifying the patients by their conditioning regimen prior to HCT also revealed differences, with those undergoing myeloablative conditioning having significantly greater overall survival than those who underwent reduced-intensity conditioning, at a hazard ratio for death of 0.529 (P = .0027).
Dr. Levis said there is “no surprise there,” and the result could reflect the selection of fitter, younger patients to undergo the more intensive regimen.
He then showed that MRD+ patients who had undergone myeloablative conditioning had better overall survival with gilteritinib than placebo, at a hazard ratio for death of 0.418 (P = .0087). Again, the difference disappeared when looking at MRD– patients.
“So conditioning doesn’t help you in the setting of MRD,” Dr. Levis said.
Finally, he took a deeper dive into the regional differences in outcomes, noting that patients in the Asia/Pacific region, where gilteritinib showed no benefit over placebo, “were 10 years younger” than those in other regions, “tended to get myeloablative conditioning, and hardly ever used FLT3 inhibitors.”
In contrast, North American patients, who experienced a significant gilteritinib benefit in terms of RFS, underwent HCT an average of 26 days earlier than those elsewhere, and received fewer courses of chemotherapy pre-HCT. Moreover, 93.5% received an FLT3 inhibitor pretransplant.
The study was funded by Astellas Pharma Global Development. Dr. Levis declares relationships with Abbvie, Amgen, Astellas, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Jazz, Menarini, Pfizer, Sumitomo-Dainippon, Syndax, Takeda. Dr. Brunstein declares no relevant relationships.
AT EHA 2023
CMML: GM-CSF inhibitor lenzilumab shows early promise
There is currently no international standard of care for patients with CMML, but given its overlap with other myelodysplastic and myeloproliferative syndromes, CMML is usually treated with the hypomethylating agent azacitidine (Vidaza, Onureg), which is associated with objective response rates of 40%-50% and a complete response rate of less than 20%. Alternatively, some patients are treated with the antimetabolite hydroxurea in the palliative setting.
CMML is “insidious, it’s rare, but we think the incidence is increasing because more patients are now getting sequencing done by their doctors, and therapy [related] cases, patients that have survived chemo in the last 10 years, can also develop this disease,” said Daniel Thomas, MD, PhD, from the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, in an interview.
Dr. Thomas is a co-investigator of the ongoing phase 2/3 PREACH-M trial, which is testing a novel strategy of treating CMML with mutations in the RAS pathway with a combination of azacitidine and the investigational antibody lenzilumab, which is a targeted inhibitor of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF).
Preliminary results from the trial, reported at the European Hematology Association (EHA) annual meeting, showed that among 10 patients with CMML bearing mutations in the RAS pathway, the combination was associated with durable decreases in monocyte counts, increases in platelet counts and hemoglobin levels, and reductions in both spleen size and C-reactive protein level.
Targeting GM-CSF
More than 90% of cases of CMML carry somatic mutations that are thought to be leukemogenic, with an estimated 46%-60% of cases having mutations in TET2, a tumor suppressor, and an estimated 40% having mutations in KRAS, NRAS, or CBL, all of which are involved in cellular proliferation, and which, research suggests, are sensitive to GM-CSF inhibition.
“I was very surprised that the RAS-mutant arm – so, patients that have KRAS, NRAS, or CBL mutations – are just responding beautifully to [lenzilumab], ” Dr. Thomas said.
“It’s [in the] early days, but if what we’re seeing is durable across the next 10 patients, then I think we’re looking at a game changer,” he added.
Cameron Durrant, MD, DRCOG, MRCGP, chairman and CEO of lenzilumab’s maker Humanigen, said in an interview that the development of the antibody for CMML was spurred in part by research from investigators at the Mayo Clinic, showing that patients with mutations that increased sensitivity to GM-CSF seemed to have better clinical outcomes when the growth factor was blocked.
In addition, Dr. Durrant said, preclinical research from investigators at the Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, found that myeloid and monocytic progenitors “fed” on GM-CSF and were sensitive to GM-CSF signal inhibition.
“The biological idea that’s being explored here in the clinic in this study is that by blocking, or starving, if you will, those cells of that food, then you can prevent this overgrowth of certain blood cells that lead to chronic myelomonocytic leukemia,” he said.
PREACH-M details
Lenzilumab is an engineered human immunoglobulin G1-kappa monoclonal antibody with high affinity for human GM-CSF.
In the open label, nonrandomized PREACH-M trial, 72 patients with CMML were enrolled and were assigned to receive 24 monthly cycles of therapy depending on mutational status.
Patients with RAS pathway mutations were assigned to receive azacitidine delivered subcutaneously 75 mg/m2 for 7 days, plus intravenous lenzilumab 552 mg on days 1 and 15 of cycle 1 and on day 1 only of all subsequent cycles.
Patients with TET2 mutations only were assigned to receive azacitidine on the same schedule, plus IV sodium ascorbate 30 g for 7 days, with the first dose 15 g, and subsequent doses 30 g if there is no evidence of tumor lysis syndrome. Following IV administration, patients continue on oral sodium ascorbate 1.1 g on all other days.
The primary endpoint of complete and partial responses any time during the first 12 cycles is planned for reporting at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology in December, Dr. Thomas said.
At EHA 2023, the investigators reported available data on 10 patients enrolled in the lenzilumab arm and one enrolled in the azacitidine-sodium ascorbate arm.
Among patients in the lenzilumab arm there was a 5.1-fold decrease in monocyte counts (P = .03) and 2.4-fold decrease in blast counts (P = .04) at 12 months of follow-up.
In addition there was a trend toward increased platelet counts over baseline at 12 months, a significant increase in blood hemoglobin concentration (P = .024), a significant reduction in spleen size (P = .03) and a trend toward lower levels of the inflammatory marker C-reactive protein.
There were 21 grade 3 or 4 adverse events reported, of which 5 were deemed to be possibly related to lenzilumab.
Dr. Thomas told this news organization that the investigators have been “pleasantly surprised” at how well patients tolerated the monoclonal antibody.
“We haven’t had any infusion reactions, we haven’t had any pulmonary alveolar proteinosis, [and] we haven’t had any fevers from the infusion, from the antibody,” he said.
There were some instances of neutropenia and thrombocytopenia that the investigators think may have been related to azacitidine, he noted.
The study is sponsored by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Dr. Thomas reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Durrant is an employee and director of Humanigen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
There is currently no international standard of care for patients with CMML, but given its overlap with other myelodysplastic and myeloproliferative syndromes, CMML is usually treated with the hypomethylating agent azacitidine (Vidaza, Onureg), which is associated with objective response rates of 40%-50% and a complete response rate of less than 20%. Alternatively, some patients are treated with the antimetabolite hydroxurea in the palliative setting.
CMML is “insidious, it’s rare, but we think the incidence is increasing because more patients are now getting sequencing done by their doctors, and therapy [related] cases, patients that have survived chemo in the last 10 years, can also develop this disease,” said Daniel Thomas, MD, PhD, from the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, in an interview.
Dr. Thomas is a co-investigator of the ongoing phase 2/3 PREACH-M trial, which is testing a novel strategy of treating CMML with mutations in the RAS pathway with a combination of azacitidine and the investigational antibody lenzilumab, which is a targeted inhibitor of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF).
Preliminary results from the trial, reported at the European Hematology Association (EHA) annual meeting, showed that among 10 patients with CMML bearing mutations in the RAS pathway, the combination was associated with durable decreases in monocyte counts, increases in platelet counts and hemoglobin levels, and reductions in both spleen size and C-reactive protein level.
Targeting GM-CSF
More than 90% of cases of CMML carry somatic mutations that are thought to be leukemogenic, with an estimated 46%-60% of cases having mutations in TET2, a tumor suppressor, and an estimated 40% having mutations in KRAS, NRAS, or CBL, all of which are involved in cellular proliferation, and which, research suggests, are sensitive to GM-CSF inhibition.
“I was very surprised that the RAS-mutant arm – so, patients that have KRAS, NRAS, or CBL mutations – are just responding beautifully to [lenzilumab], ” Dr. Thomas said.
“It’s [in the] early days, but if what we’re seeing is durable across the next 10 patients, then I think we’re looking at a game changer,” he added.
Cameron Durrant, MD, DRCOG, MRCGP, chairman and CEO of lenzilumab’s maker Humanigen, said in an interview that the development of the antibody for CMML was spurred in part by research from investigators at the Mayo Clinic, showing that patients with mutations that increased sensitivity to GM-CSF seemed to have better clinical outcomes when the growth factor was blocked.
In addition, Dr. Durrant said, preclinical research from investigators at the Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, found that myeloid and monocytic progenitors “fed” on GM-CSF and were sensitive to GM-CSF signal inhibition.
“The biological idea that’s being explored here in the clinic in this study is that by blocking, or starving, if you will, those cells of that food, then you can prevent this overgrowth of certain blood cells that lead to chronic myelomonocytic leukemia,” he said.
PREACH-M details
Lenzilumab is an engineered human immunoglobulin G1-kappa monoclonal antibody with high affinity for human GM-CSF.
In the open label, nonrandomized PREACH-M trial, 72 patients with CMML were enrolled and were assigned to receive 24 monthly cycles of therapy depending on mutational status.
Patients with RAS pathway mutations were assigned to receive azacitidine delivered subcutaneously 75 mg/m2 for 7 days, plus intravenous lenzilumab 552 mg on days 1 and 15 of cycle 1 and on day 1 only of all subsequent cycles.
Patients with TET2 mutations only were assigned to receive azacitidine on the same schedule, plus IV sodium ascorbate 30 g for 7 days, with the first dose 15 g, and subsequent doses 30 g if there is no evidence of tumor lysis syndrome. Following IV administration, patients continue on oral sodium ascorbate 1.1 g on all other days.
The primary endpoint of complete and partial responses any time during the first 12 cycles is planned for reporting at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology in December, Dr. Thomas said.
At EHA 2023, the investigators reported available data on 10 patients enrolled in the lenzilumab arm and one enrolled in the azacitidine-sodium ascorbate arm.
Among patients in the lenzilumab arm there was a 5.1-fold decrease in monocyte counts (P = .03) and 2.4-fold decrease in blast counts (P = .04) at 12 months of follow-up.
In addition there was a trend toward increased platelet counts over baseline at 12 months, a significant increase in blood hemoglobin concentration (P = .024), a significant reduction in spleen size (P = .03) and a trend toward lower levels of the inflammatory marker C-reactive protein.
There were 21 grade 3 or 4 adverse events reported, of which 5 were deemed to be possibly related to lenzilumab.
Dr. Thomas told this news organization that the investigators have been “pleasantly surprised” at how well patients tolerated the monoclonal antibody.
“We haven’t had any infusion reactions, we haven’t had any pulmonary alveolar proteinosis, [and] we haven’t had any fevers from the infusion, from the antibody,” he said.
There were some instances of neutropenia and thrombocytopenia that the investigators think may have been related to azacitidine, he noted.
The study is sponsored by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Dr. Thomas reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Durrant is an employee and director of Humanigen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
There is currently no international standard of care for patients with CMML, but given its overlap with other myelodysplastic and myeloproliferative syndromes, CMML is usually treated with the hypomethylating agent azacitidine (Vidaza, Onureg), which is associated with objective response rates of 40%-50% and a complete response rate of less than 20%. Alternatively, some patients are treated with the antimetabolite hydroxurea in the palliative setting.
CMML is “insidious, it’s rare, but we think the incidence is increasing because more patients are now getting sequencing done by their doctors, and therapy [related] cases, patients that have survived chemo in the last 10 years, can also develop this disease,” said Daniel Thomas, MD, PhD, from the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, in an interview.
Dr. Thomas is a co-investigator of the ongoing phase 2/3 PREACH-M trial, which is testing a novel strategy of treating CMML with mutations in the RAS pathway with a combination of azacitidine and the investigational antibody lenzilumab, which is a targeted inhibitor of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF).
Preliminary results from the trial, reported at the European Hematology Association (EHA) annual meeting, showed that among 10 patients with CMML bearing mutations in the RAS pathway, the combination was associated with durable decreases in monocyte counts, increases in platelet counts and hemoglobin levels, and reductions in both spleen size and C-reactive protein level.
Targeting GM-CSF
More than 90% of cases of CMML carry somatic mutations that are thought to be leukemogenic, with an estimated 46%-60% of cases having mutations in TET2, a tumor suppressor, and an estimated 40% having mutations in KRAS, NRAS, or CBL, all of which are involved in cellular proliferation, and which, research suggests, are sensitive to GM-CSF inhibition.
“I was very surprised that the RAS-mutant arm – so, patients that have KRAS, NRAS, or CBL mutations – are just responding beautifully to [lenzilumab], ” Dr. Thomas said.
“It’s [in the] early days, but if what we’re seeing is durable across the next 10 patients, then I think we’re looking at a game changer,” he added.
Cameron Durrant, MD, DRCOG, MRCGP, chairman and CEO of lenzilumab’s maker Humanigen, said in an interview that the development of the antibody for CMML was spurred in part by research from investigators at the Mayo Clinic, showing that patients with mutations that increased sensitivity to GM-CSF seemed to have better clinical outcomes when the growth factor was blocked.
In addition, Dr. Durrant said, preclinical research from investigators at the Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, found that myeloid and monocytic progenitors “fed” on GM-CSF and were sensitive to GM-CSF signal inhibition.
“The biological idea that’s being explored here in the clinic in this study is that by blocking, or starving, if you will, those cells of that food, then you can prevent this overgrowth of certain blood cells that lead to chronic myelomonocytic leukemia,” he said.
PREACH-M details
Lenzilumab is an engineered human immunoglobulin G1-kappa monoclonal antibody with high affinity for human GM-CSF.
In the open label, nonrandomized PREACH-M trial, 72 patients with CMML were enrolled and were assigned to receive 24 monthly cycles of therapy depending on mutational status.
Patients with RAS pathway mutations were assigned to receive azacitidine delivered subcutaneously 75 mg/m2 for 7 days, plus intravenous lenzilumab 552 mg on days 1 and 15 of cycle 1 and on day 1 only of all subsequent cycles.
Patients with TET2 mutations only were assigned to receive azacitidine on the same schedule, plus IV sodium ascorbate 30 g for 7 days, with the first dose 15 g, and subsequent doses 30 g if there is no evidence of tumor lysis syndrome. Following IV administration, patients continue on oral sodium ascorbate 1.1 g on all other days.
The primary endpoint of complete and partial responses any time during the first 12 cycles is planned for reporting at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology in December, Dr. Thomas said.
At EHA 2023, the investigators reported available data on 10 patients enrolled in the lenzilumab arm and one enrolled in the azacitidine-sodium ascorbate arm.
Among patients in the lenzilumab arm there was a 5.1-fold decrease in monocyte counts (P = .03) and 2.4-fold decrease in blast counts (P = .04) at 12 months of follow-up.
In addition there was a trend toward increased platelet counts over baseline at 12 months, a significant increase in blood hemoglobin concentration (P = .024), a significant reduction in spleen size (P = .03) and a trend toward lower levels of the inflammatory marker C-reactive protein.
There were 21 grade 3 or 4 adverse events reported, of which 5 were deemed to be possibly related to lenzilumab.
Dr. Thomas told this news organization that the investigators have been “pleasantly surprised” at how well patients tolerated the monoclonal antibody.
“We haven’t had any infusion reactions, we haven’t had any pulmonary alveolar proteinosis, [and] we haven’t had any fevers from the infusion, from the antibody,” he said.
There were some instances of neutropenia and thrombocytopenia that the investigators think may have been related to azacitidine, he noted.
The study is sponsored by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Dr. Thomas reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Durrant is an employee and director of Humanigen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM EHA 2023
ChatGPT in medicine: The good, the bad, and the unknown
CHICAGO – , so like them or not, physicians might as well figure out how to optimize their role in medicine and health care. That’s the takeaway from a three-expert panel session about the technology held at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).
The chatbot can help doctors to a certain extent by suggesting differential diagnoses, assisting with clinical note-taking, and producing rapid and easy-to-understand patient communication and educational materials, they noted. However, it can also make mistakes. And, unlike a medical trainee who might give a clinical answer and express some doubt, ChatGPT (Open AI/Microsoft) clearly states its findings as fact, even when it’s wrong.
Known as “hallucinating,” this problem of AI inaccuracy was displayed at the packed DDW session.
When asked when Leonardo da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa, for example, ChatGPT replied 1815. That’s off by about 300 years; the masterpiece was created sometime between 1503 and 1519. Asked for a fact about George Washington, ChatGPT said he invented the cotton gin. Also not true. (Eli Whitney patented the cotton gin.)
In an example more suited for gastroenterologists at DDW, ChatGPT correctly stated that Barrett esophagus can lead to adenocarcinoma of the esophagus in some cases. However, the technology also said that the condition could lead to prostate cancer.
So, if someone asked ChatGPT for a list of possible risks for Barrett’s esophagus, it would include prostate cancer. A person without medical knowledge “could take it at face value that it causes prostate cancer,” said panelist Sravanthi Parasa, MD, a gastroenterologist at Swedish Medical Center, Seattle.
“That is a lot of misinformation that is going to come our way,” she added at the session, which was sponsored by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.
The potential for inaccuracy is a downside to ChatGPT, agreed panelist Prateek Sharma, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City, Kansas.
“There is no quality control. You have to double check its answers,” said Dr. Sharma, who is president-elect of ASGE.
ChatGPT is not going to replace physicians in general or gastroenterologists doing endoscopies, said Ian Gralnek, MD, chief of the Institute of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Emek Medical Center in Afula, Israel.
Even though the tool could play a role in medicine, “we need to be very careful as a society going forward ... and see where things are going,” Dr. Gralnek said.
How you ask makes a difference
Future iterations of ChatGPT are likely to produce fewer hallucinations, the experts said. In the meantime, users can lower the risk by paying attention to how they’re wording their queries, a practice known as “prompt engineering.”
It’s best to ask a question that has a firm answer to it. If you ask a vague question, you’ll likely get a vague answer, Dr. Sharma said.
ChatGPT is a large language model (LLM). GPT stands for “generative pretrained transformer” – specialized algorithms that find long-range patterns in sequences of data. LLMs can predict the next word in a sentence.
“That’s why this is also called generative AI,” Dr. Sharma said. “For example, if you put in ‘Where are we?’, it will predict for you that perhaps the next word is ‘going?’ ”
The current public version is ChatGPT 3.5, which was trained on open-source online information up until early 2022. It can gather information from open-access scientific journals and medical society guidelines, as well as from Twitter, Reddit, and other social media. It does not have access to private information, like electronic health records.
The use of ChatGPT has exploded in the past 6 months, Dr. Sharma said.
“ChatGPT has been the most-searched website or platform ever in history since it was launched in December of 2022,” he said.
What’s in it for doctors?
Although not specifically trained for health care–related tasks, the panelists noted that ChatGPT does have potential as a virtual medical assistant, chatbot, clinical decision-support tool, source of medical education, natural language processor for documentation, or medical note-taker.
ChatGPT can help physicians write a letter of support to a patient who, for example, was just diagnosed with stage IV colon cancer. It can do that in only 15 seconds, whereas it would take us much longer, Dr. Sharma said.
ChatGPT is the “next frontier” for generating patient education materials, Dr. Parasa said. It can help time-constrained health care providers, as long as the information is accurate.
ChatGPT 4.0, now available by subscription, can do “almost real-time note-taking during patient encounters,” she added.
Another reason to be familiar with the technology: “Many of your patients are using it, even if you don’t know about it,” Dr. Sharma said.
Questions abound
A conference attendee asked the panel what to do when a patient comes in with ChatGPT medical advice that does not align with official guidelines.
Dr. Gralnek said that he would explain to patients that medical information based on guidelines are not “black and white.” The panel likened it to how patients come to an appointment now armed with information from the Internet, which is not always correct, that must then be countered by doctors. The same would likely happen with ChatGPT.
Another attendee asked whether ChatGPT eventually will work in accordance with electronic health record systems.
“Open AI and Microsoft are already working with Epic,” Dr. Parasa said.
A question arose about the reading level of information provided by ChatGPT. Dr. Parasa noted that it’s not standard. However, a person can prompt ChatGPT to provide an answer either at an eighth-grade reading level or for a well-trained physician.
Dr. Sharma offered a final warning: The technology learns over time.
“It knows what your habits are. It will learn what you’re doing,” Dr. Sharma said. “Everything else on your browsers that are open, it’s learning from that also. So be careful what websites you visit before you go to ChatGPT.”
Dr. Sharma is a stock shareholder in Microsoft. Dr. Parasa and Dr. Gralneck reported no relevant financial relationships.
DDW is sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO – , so like them or not, physicians might as well figure out how to optimize their role in medicine and health care. That’s the takeaway from a three-expert panel session about the technology held at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).
The chatbot can help doctors to a certain extent by suggesting differential diagnoses, assisting with clinical note-taking, and producing rapid and easy-to-understand patient communication and educational materials, they noted. However, it can also make mistakes. And, unlike a medical trainee who might give a clinical answer and express some doubt, ChatGPT (Open AI/Microsoft) clearly states its findings as fact, even when it’s wrong.
Known as “hallucinating,” this problem of AI inaccuracy was displayed at the packed DDW session.
When asked when Leonardo da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa, for example, ChatGPT replied 1815. That’s off by about 300 years; the masterpiece was created sometime between 1503 and 1519. Asked for a fact about George Washington, ChatGPT said he invented the cotton gin. Also not true. (Eli Whitney patented the cotton gin.)
In an example more suited for gastroenterologists at DDW, ChatGPT correctly stated that Barrett esophagus can lead to adenocarcinoma of the esophagus in some cases. However, the technology also said that the condition could lead to prostate cancer.
So, if someone asked ChatGPT for a list of possible risks for Barrett’s esophagus, it would include prostate cancer. A person without medical knowledge “could take it at face value that it causes prostate cancer,” said panelist Sravanthi Parasa, MD, a gastroenterologist at Swedish Medical Center, Seattle.
“That is a lot of misinformation that is going to come our way,” she added at the session, which was sponsored by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.
The potential for inaccuracy is a downside to ChatGPT, agreed panelist Prateek Sharma, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City, Kansas.
“There is no quality control. You have to double check its answers,” said Dr. Sharma, who is president-elect of ASGE.
ChatGPT is not going to replace physicians in general or gastroenterologists doing endoscopies, said Ian Gralnek, MD, chief of the Institute of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Emek Medical Center in Afula, Israel.
Even though the tool could play a role in medicine, “we need to be very careful as a society going forward ... and see where things are going,” Dr. Gralnek said.
How you ask makes a difference
Future iterations of ChatGPT are likely to produce fewer hallucinations, the experts said. In the meantime, users can lower the risk by paying attention to how they’re wording their queries, a practice known as “prompt engineering.”
It’s best to ask a question that has a firm answer to it. If you ask a vague question, you’ll likely get a vague answer, Dr. Sharma said.
ChatGPT is a large language model (LLM). GPT stands for “generative pretrained transformer” – specialized algorithms that find long-range patterns in sequences of data. LLMs can predict the next word in a sentence.
“That’s why this is also called generative AI,” Dr. Sharma said. “For example, if you put in ‘Where are we?’, it will predict for you that perhaps the next word is ‘going?’ ”
The current public version is ChatGPT 3.5, which was trained on open-source online information up until early 2022. It can gather information from open-access scientific journals and medical society guidelines, as well as from Twitter, Reddit, and other social media. It does not have access to private information, like electronic health records.
The use of ChatGPT has exploded in the past 6 months, Dr. Sharma said.
“ChatGPT has been the most-searched website or platform ever in history since it was launched in December of 2022,” he said.
What’s in it for doctors?
Although not specifically trained for health care–related tasks, the panelists noted that ChatGPT does have potential as a virtual medical assistant, chatbot, clinical decision-support tool, source of medical education, natural language processor for documentation, or medical note-taker.
ChatGPT can help physicians write a letter of support to a patient who, for example, was just diagnosed with stage IV colon cancer. It can do that in only 15 seconds, whereas it would take us much longer, Dr. Sharma said.
ChatGPT is the “next frontier” for generating patient education materials, Dr. Parasa said. It can help time-constrained health care providers, as long as the information is accurate.
ChatGPT 4.0, now available by subscription, can do “almost real-time note-taking during patient encounters,” she added.
Another reason to be familiar with the technology: “Many of your patients are using it, even if you don’t know about it,” Dr. Sharma said.
Questions abound
A conference attendee asked the panel what to do when a patient comes in with ChatGPT medical advice that does not align with official guidelines.
Dr. Gralnek said that he would explain to patients that medical information based on guidelines are not “black and white.” The panel likened it to how patients come to an appointment now armed with information from the Internet, which is not always correct, that must then be countered by doctors. The same would likely happen with ChatGPT.
Another attendee asked whether ChatGPT eventually will work in accordance with electronic health record systems.
“Open AI and Microsoft are already working with Epic,” Dr. Parasa said.
A question arose about the reading level of information provided by ChatGPT. Dr. Parasa noted that it’s not standard. However, a person can prompt ChatGPT to provide an answer either at an eighth-grade reading level or for a well-trained physician.
Dr. Sharma offered a final warning: The technology learns over time.
“It knows what your habits are. It will learn what you’re doing,” Dr. Sharma said. “Everything else on your browsers that are open, it’s learning from that also. So be careful what websites you visit before you go to ChatGPT.”
Dr. Sharma is a stock shareholder in Microsoft. Dr. Parasa and Dr. Gralneck reported no relevant financial relationships.
DDW is sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO – , so like them or not, physicians might as well figure out how to optimize their role in medicine and health care. That’s the takeaway from a three-expert panel session about the technology held at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).
The chatbot can help doctors to a certain extent by suggesting differential diagnoses, assisting with clinical note-taking, and producing rapid and easy-to-understand patient communication and educational materials, they noted. However, it can also make mistakes. And, unlike a medical trainee who might give a clinical answer and express some doubt, ChatGPT (Open AI/Microsoft) clearly states its findings as fact, even when it’s wrong.
Known as “hallucinating,” this problem of AI inaccuracy was displayed at the packed DDW session.
When asked when Leonardo da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa, for example, ChatGPT replied 1815. That’s off by about 300 years; the masterpiece was created sometime between 1503 and 1519. Asked for a fact about George Washington, ChatGPT said he invented the cotton gin. Also not true. (Eli Whitney patented the cotton gin.)
In an example more suited for gastroenterologists at DDW, ChatGPT correctly stated that Barrett esophagus can lead to adenocarcinoma of the esophagus in some cases. However, the technology also said that the condition could lead to prostate cancer.
So, if someone asked ChatGPT for a list of possible risks for Barrett’s esophagus, it would include prostate cancer. A person without medical knowledge “could take it at face value that it causes prostate cancer,” said panelist Sravanthi Parasa, MD, a gastroenterologist at Swedish Medical Center, Seattle.
“That is a lot of misinformation that is going to come our way,” she added at the session, which was sponsored by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.
The potential for inaccuracy is a downside to ChatGPT, agreed panelist Prateek Sharma, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City, Kansas.
“There is no quality control. You have to double check its answers,” said Dr. Sharma, who is president-elect of ASGE.
ChatGPT is not going to replace physicians in general or gastroenterologists doing endoscopies, said Ian Gralnek, MD, chief of the Institute of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Emek Medical Center in Afula, Israel.
Even though the tool could play a role in medicine, “we need to be very careful as a society going forward ... and see where things are going,” Dr. Gralnek said.
How you ask makes a difference
Future iterations of ChatGPT are likely to produce fewer hallucinations, the experts said. In the meantime, users can lower the risk by paying attention to how they’re wording their queries, a practice known as “prompt engineering.”
It’s best to ask a question that has a firm answer to it. If you ask a vague question, you’ll likely get a vague answer, Dr. Sharma said.
ChatGPT is a large language model (LLM). GPT stands for “generative pretrained transformer” – specialized algorithms that find long-range patterns in sequences of data. LLMs can predict the next word in a sentence.
“That’s why this is also called generative AI,” Dr. Sharma said. “For example, if you put in ‘Where are we?’, it will predict for you that perhaps the next word is ‘going?’ ”
The current public version is ChatGPT 3.5, which was trained on open-source online information up until early 2022. It can gather information from open-access scientific journals and medical society guidelines, as well as from Twitter, Reddit, and other social media. It does not have access to private information, like electronic health records.
The use of ChatGPT has exploded in the past 6 months, Dr. Sharma said.
“ChatGPT has been the most-searched website or platform ever in history since it was launched in December of 2022,” he said.
What’s in it for doctors?
Although not specifically trained for health care–related tasks, the panelists noted that ChatGPT does have potential as a virtual medical assistant, chatbot, clinical decision-support tool, source of medical education, natural language processor for documentation, or medical note-taker.
ChatGPT can help physicians write a letter of support to a patient who, for example, was just diagnosed with stage IV colon cancer. It can do that in only 15 seconds, whereas it would take us much longer, Dr. Sharma said.
ChatGPT is the “next frontier” for generating patient education materials, Dr. Parasa said. It can help time-constrained health care providers, as long as the information is accurate.
ChatGPT 4.0, now available by subscription, can do “almost real-time note-taking during patient encounters,” she added.
Another reason to be familiar with the technology: “Many of your patients are using it, even if you don’t know about it,” Dr. Sharma said.
Questions abound
A conference attendee asked the panel what to do when a patient comes in with ChatGPT medical advice that does not align with official guidelines.
Dr. Gralnek said that he would explain to patients that medical information based on guidelines are not “black and white.” The panel likened it to how patients come to an appointment now armed with information from the Internet, which is not always correct, that must then be countered by doctors. The same would likely happen with ChatGPT.
Another attendee asked whether ChatGPT eventually will work in accordance with electronic health record systems.
“Open AI and Microsoft are already working with Epic,” Dr. Parasa said.
A question arose about the reading level of information provided by ChatGPT. Dr. Parasa noted that it’s not standard. However, a person can prompt ChatGPT to provide an answer either at an eighth-grade reading level or for a well-trained physician.
Dr. Sharma offered a final warning: The technology learns over time.
“It knows what your habits are. It will learn what you’re doing,” Dr. Sharma said. “Everything else on your browsers that are open, it’s learning from that also. So be careful what websites you visit before you go to ChatGPT.”
Dr. Sharma is a stock shareholder in Microsoft. Dr. Parasa and Dr. Gralneck reported no relevant financial relationships.
DDW is sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
AT DDW 2023
Etrasimod looks safe for ulcerative colitis out to 2.5 years
CHICAGO – new evidence reveals.
Etrasimod (Arena Pharma/Pfizer) is an oral sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) receptor that binds with high affinity to receptors 1, 4, and 5. If approved by the FDA, etrasimod could become the second agent in the S1P class approved for ulcerative colitis in the United States. The other agent, ozanimod (Zeposia), received FDA approval for treating moderately to severely active UC in May 2021.
The updated safety profile of etrasimod, presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW), is based on data from multiple clinical trials, including OASIS phase 2 and the ELEVATE phase 3, placebo-controlled trials, as well as an ongoing, open-label extension study.
“Etrasimod was well tolerated in patients with moderately to severely active UC and had an acceptable safety profile that did not appear to change with longer-term treatment up to 2.5 years,” said OASIS lead author Séverine Vermeire, MD, PhD, an expert on translational research in gastrointestinal disorders and professor of medicine at KU Leuven (Belgium), while presenting the findings at DDW.
Dr. Vermeire noted that data show an elevated risk for atrioventricular (AV) block or bradycardia in a minority of people treated with the agent during this time period. However, most of the heart-related risk was during induction, and the risks could be minimized by ordering an electrocardiogram before prescribing, she said.
Cumulative safety data
Researchers separated the trial participants into two cohorts. The all-UC cohort consisted of 956 patients who took at least one dose of etrasimod. The placebo-controlled cohort consisted of 629 patients taking etrasimod and 314 patients who took a placebo. Some patients participated in more than one study, the researchers noted.
In both cohorts, mean duration of disease was about 7 years, about 42% of all participants were female, and mean age was about 41 years.
The investigators looked at the frequency of adverse events and exposure-adjusted incidence rates from the OASIS phase 2 and the ELEVATE phase 3 placebo-controlled trials, as well as an ongoing, open-label extension study. They also assessed safety in placebo and 1 mg or 2 mg etrasimod in the phase 2 NCT02447302 or two phase 3 trials, NCT03945188 and NCT03996369, reported up until Jan. 31, 2022.
There were 770 patient-years of etrasimod exposure in the all-UC cohort, while exposure in the placebo-controlled cohort was 288 patient-years in the etrasimod group and 115 patient-years in the placebo group. Mean exposure to etrasimod was 42 weeks in the all-UC cohort. Mean exposure in the placebo-controlled cohort was 24 weeks in the etrasimod group and 19 weeks in the placebo group.
Because of the mechanism of action of etrasimod, Dr. Vermeire and colleagues focused on cardiovascular events, macular edema, severe or opportunistic infections, herpes zoster infections, and malignancies.
Eleven patients (1.8%) treated with etrasimod reported bradycardia or sinus bradycardia in the placebo-controlled research, and 9 of 11 were asymptomatic. No bradycardia was associated with taking a placebo. In the all-UC cohort, bradycardia or sinus bradycardia was reported in 14 patients (1.5%).
“Bradycardia is something you need to tell patients may occur,” Dr. Vermeire said. “Most of the bradycardia occurred on day one or day two, mostly on day one.”
Four people taking etrasimod in the placebo-controlled cohort and 7 people in the all-UC cohort had AV block of the first or second degree. No reports of AV block occurred in the placebo group.
“Other adverse events of special interest, including hypertension and macular edema, were all rare and similar between the treatment arms,” Dr. Vermeire said.
Herpes zoster infections were reported in two patients taking etrasimod and two taking placebo in the placebo-controlled cohort. Seven cases were reported in the all-UC cohort. Dr. Vermeire said she advocates vaccinating patients against herpes zoster soon after UC diagnosis, if possible.
In the placebo-controlled cohort, 11 patients taking etrasimod and two patients taking placebo experienced elevated ALT. This was fewer than 2% of patients. One patient taking etrasimod and one receiving placebo discontinued the study for this reason. In the all-UC cohort, 27 people experienced elevated ALT.
In the placebo-controlled cohort, 13 people treated with etrasimod and two taking placebo developed elevated gamma-glutamyltransferase. This adverse event was reported in 32 patients in the all-UC cohort.
There were no deaths reported in the placebo-controlled cohort of patients. One patient in the all-UC cohort developed a neuroendocrine tumor and died. The person received etrasimod 2 mg daily for about 6 months before the event’s onset. “This was assessed as unlikely related to the study treatment as judged by investigators,” Dr. Vermeire said.
Limitations of the study include a relatively short average duration of exposure to etrasimod.
“As the study continues, we will continue collecting and reporting the safety data,” Dr. Vermeire said.
A well-tolerated therapy
“The important take-home message is that patients tolerated therapy very well,” said session comoderator Jordan E. Axelrad, MD, MPH, when asked to comment.
There were very few adverse events, and of these, they were mostly minor, with patients being able to continue on therapy in large part, added Dr. Axelrad, a gastroenterologist at the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center at NYU Langone Health, New York.
Physicians will “need to get comfortable” with ordering an ECG to screen patients before prescribing etrasimod, he noted.
“Once we can get past that hurdle [of ordering an ECG], we should be integrating it into our practice,” Dr. Axelrad said.
The study was funded by Arena Pharmaceuticals, which was acquired by Pfizer; Pfizer completed the acquisition in March 2022. Dr. Vermeire reported receiving consulting and speaking fees from Arena Pharmaceuticals and grant and research support from Pfizer. Dr. Axelrad reported no relevant financial relationships.
DDW is sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO – new evidence reveals.
Etrasimod (Arena Pharma/Pfizer) is an oral sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) receptor that binds with high affinity to receptors 1, 4, and 5. If approved by the FDA, etrasimod could become the second agent in the S1P class approved for ulcerative colitis in the United States. The other agent, ozanimod (Zeposia), received FDA approval for treating moderately to severely active UC in May 2021.
The updated safety profile of etrasimod, presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW), is based on data from multiple clinical trials, including OASIS phase 2 and the ELEVATE phase 3, placebo-controlled trials, as well as an ongoing, open-label extension study.
“Etrasimod was well tolerated in patients with moderately to severely active UC and had an acceptable safety profile that did not appear to change with longer-term treatment up to 2.5 years,” said OASIS lead author Séverine Vermeire, MD, PhD, an expert on translational research in gastrointestinal disorders and professor of medicine at KU Leuven (Belgium), while presenting the findings at DDW.
Dr. Vermeire noted that data show an elevated risk for atrioventricular (AV) block or bradycardia in a minority of people treated with the agent during this time period. However, most of the heart-related risk was during induction, and the risks could be minimized by ordering an electrocardiogram before prescribing, she said.
Cumulative safety data
Researchers separated the trial participants into two cohorts. The all-UC cohort consisted of 956 patients who took at least one dose of etrasimod. The placebo-controlled cohort consisted of 629 patients taking etrasimod and 314 patients who took a placebo. Some patients participated in more than one study, the researchers noted.
In both cohorts, mean duration of disease was about 7 years, about 42% of all participants were female, and mean age was about 41 years.
The investigators looked at the frequency of adverse events and exposure-adjusted incidence rates from the OASIS phase 2 and the ELEVATE phase 3 placebo-controlled trials, as well as an ongoing, open-label extension study. They also assessed safety in placebo and 1 mg or 2 mg etrasimod in the phase 2 NCT02447302 or two phase 3 trials, NCT03945188 and NCT03996369, reported up until Jan. 31, 2022.
There were 770 patient-years of etrasimod exposure in the all-UC cohort, while exposure in the placebo-controlled cohort was 288 patient-years in the etrasimod group and 115 patient-years in the placebo group. Mean exposure to etrasimod was 42 weeks in the all-UC cohort. Mean exposure in the placebo-controlled cohort was 24 weeks in the etrasimod group and 19 weeks in the placebo group.
Because of the mechanism of action of etrasimod, Dr. Vermeire and colleagues focused on cardiovascular events, macular edema, severe or opportunistic infections, herpes zoster infections, and malignancies.
Eleven patients (1.8%) treated with etrasimod reported bradycardia or sinus bradycardia in the placebo-controlled research, and 9 of 11 were asymptomatic. No bradycardia was associated with taking a placebo. In the all-UC cohort, bradycardia or sinus bradycardia was reported in 14 patients (1.5%).
“Bradycardia is something you need to tell patients may occur,” Dr. Vermeire said. “Most of the bradycardia occurred on day one or day two, mostly on day one.”
Four people taking etrasimod in the placebo-controlled cohort and 7 people in the all-UC cohort had AV block of the first or second degree. No reports of AV block occurred in the placebo group.
“Other adverse events of special interest, including hypertension and macular edema, were all rare and similar between the treatment arms,” Dr. Vermeire said.
Herpes zoster infections were reported in two patients taking etrasimod and two taking placebo in the placebo-controlled cohort. Seven cases were reported in the all-UC cohort. Dr. Vermeire said she advocates vaccinating patients against herpes zoster soon after UC diagnosis, if possible.
In the placebo-controlled cohort, 11 patients taking etrasimod and two patients taking placebo experienced elevated ALT. This was fewer than 2% of patients. One patient taking etrasimod and one receiving placebo discontinued the study for this reason. In the all-UC cohort, 27 people experienced elevated ALT.
In the placebo-controlled cohort, 13 people treated with etrasimod and two taking placebo developed elevated gamma-glutamyltransferase. This adverse event was reported in 32 patients in the all-UC cohort.
There were no deaths reported in the placebo-controlled cohort of patients. One patient in the all-UC cohort developed a neuroendocrine tumor and died. The person received etrasimod 2 mg daily for about 6 months before the event’s onset. “This was assessed as unlikely related to the study treatment as judged by investigators,” Dr. Vermeire said.
Limitations of the study include a relatively short average duration of exposure to etrasimod.
“As the study continues, we will continue collecting and reporting the safety data,” Dr. Vermeire said.
A well-tolerated therapy
“The important take-home message is that patients tolerated therapy very well,” said session comoderator Jordan E. Axelrad, MD, MPH, when asked to comment.
There were very few adverse events, and of these, they were mostly minor, with patients being able to continue on therapy in large part, added Dr. Axelrad, a gastroenterologist at the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center at NYU Langone Health, New York.
Physicians will “need to get comfortable” with ordering an ECG to screen patients before prescribing etrasimod, he noted.
“Once we can get past that hurdle [of ordering an ECG], we should be integrating it into our practice,” Dr. Axelrad said.
The study was funded by Arena Pharmaceuticals, which was acquired by Pfizer; Pfizer completed the acquisition in March 2022. Dr. Vermeire reported receiving consulting and speaking fees from Arena Pharmaceuticals and grant and research support from Pfizer. Dr. Axelrad reported no relevant financial relationships.
DDW is sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO – new evidence reveals.
Etrasimod (Arena Pharma/Pfizer) is an oral sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) receptor that binds with high affinity to receptors 1, 4, and 5. If approved by the FDA, etrasimod could become the second agent in the S1P class approved for ulcerative colitis in the United States. The other agent, ozanimod (Zeposia), received FDA approval for treating moderately to severely active UC in May 2021.
The updated safety profile of etrasimod, presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW), is based on data from multiple clinical trials, including OASIS phase 2 and the ELEVATE phase 3, placebo-controlled trials, as well as an ongoing, open-label extension study.
“Etrasimod was well tolerated in patients with moderately to severely active UC and had an acceptable safety profile that did not appear to change with longer-term treatment up to 2.5 years,” said OASIS lead author Séverine Vermeire, MD, PhD, an expert on translational research in gastrointestinal disorders and professor of medicine at KU Leuven (Belgium), while presenting the findings at DDW.
Dr. Vermeire noted that data show an elevated risk for atrioventricular (AV) block or bradycardia in a minority of people treated with the agent during this time period. However, most of the heart-related risk was during induction, and the risks could be minimized by ordering an electrocardiogram before prescribing, she said.
Cumulative safety data
Researchers separated the trial participants into two cohorts. The all-UC cohort consisted of 956 patients who took at least one dose of etrasimod. The placebo-controlled cohort consisted of 629 patients taking etrasimod and 314 patients who took a placebo. Some patients participated in more than one study, the researchers noted.
In both cohorts, mean duration of disease was about 7 years, about 42% of all participants were female, and mean age was about 41 years.
The investigators looked at the frequency of adverse events and exposure-adjusted incidence rates from the OASIS phase 2 and the ELEVATE phase 3 placebo-controlled trials, as well as an ongoing, open-label extension study. They also assessed safety in placebo and 1 mg or 2 mg etrasimod in the phase 2 NCT02447302 or two phase 3 trials, NCT03945188 and NCT03996369, reported up until Jan. 31, 2022.
There were 770 patient-years of etrasimod exposure in the all-UC cohort, while exposure in the placebo-controlled cohort was 288 patient-years in the etrasimod group and 115 patient-years in the placebo group. Mean exposure to etrasimod was 42 weeks in the all-UC cohort. Mean exposure in the placebo-controlled cohort was 24 weeks in the etrasimod group and 19 weeks in the placebo group.
Because of the mechanism of action of etrasimod, Dr. Vermeire and colleagues focused on cardiovascular events, macular edema, severe or opportunistic infections, herpes zoster infections, and malignancies.
Eleven patients (1.8%) treated with etrasimod reported bradycardia or sinus bradycardia in the placebo-controlled research, and 9 of 11 were asymptomatic. No bradycardia was associated with taking a placebo. In the all-UC cohort, bradycardia or sinus bradycardia was reported in 14 patients (1.5%).
“Bradycardia is something you need to tell patients may occur,” Dr. Vermeire said. “Most of the bradycardia occurred on day one or day two, mostly on day one.”
Four people taking etrasimod in the placebo-controlled cohort and 7 people in the all-UC cohort had AV block of the first or second degree. No reports of AV block occurred in the placebo group.
“Other adverse events of special interest, including hypertension and macular edema, were all rare and similar between the treatment arms,” Dr. Vermeire said.
Herpes zoster infections were reported in two patients taking etrasimod and two taking placebo in the placebo-controlled cohort. Seven cases were reported in the all-UC cohort. Dr. Vermeire said she advocates vaccinating patients against herpes zoster soon after UC diagnosis, if possible.
In the placebo-controlled cohort, 11 patients taking etrasimod and two patients taking placebo experienced elevated ALT. This was fewer than 2% of patients. One patient taking etrasimod and one receiving placebo discontinued the study for this reason. In the all-UC cohort, 27 people experienced elevated ALT.
In the placebo-controlled cohort, 13 people treated with etrasimod and two taking placebo developed elevated gamma-glutamyltransferase. This adverse event was reported in 32 patients in the all-UC cohort.
There were no deaths reported in the placebo-controlled cohort of patients. One patient in the all-UC cohort developed a neuroendocrine tumor and died. The person received etrasimod 2 mg daily for about 6 months before the event’s onset. “This was assessed as unlikely related to the study treatment as judged by investigators,” Dr. Vermeire said.
Limitations of the study include a relatively short average duration of exposure to etrasimod.
“As the study continues, we will continue collecting and reporting the safety data,” Dr. Vermeire said.
A well-tolerated therapy
“The important take-home message is that patients tolerated therapy very well,” said session comoderator Jordan E. Axelrad, MD, MPH, when asked to comment.
There were very few adverse events, and of these, they were mostly minor, with patients being able to continue on therapy in large part, added Dr. Axelrad, a gastroenterologist at the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center at NYU Langone Health, New York.
Physicians will “need to get comfortable” with ordering an ECG to screen patients before prescribing etrasimod, he noted.
“Once we can get past that hurdle [of ordering an ECG], we should be integrating it into our practice,” Dr. Axelrad said.
The study was funded by Arena Pharmaceuticals, which was acquired by Pfizer; Pfizer completed the acquisition in March 2022. Dr. Vermeire reported receiving consulting and speaking fees from Arena Pharmaceuticals and grant and research support from Pfizer. Dr. Axelrad reported no relevant financial relationships.
DDW is sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
AT DDW 2023
Upping CO2 does not benefit OHCA patients: TAME
The Targeted Therapeutic Mild Hypercapnia After Resuscitated Cardiac Arrest (TAME) study showed that the intervention failed to improve neurologic or functional outcomes or quality of life at 6 months. However, the researchers also found that slightly elevated CO2 levels were not associated with worse outcomes.
“I think these results show that our hypothesis – that raising CO2 levels as applied in this trial may be beneficial for these patients – was not effective, even though previous work suggested that it would be,” co–lead investigator Alistair Nichol, MD, said in an interview.
“This was a rigorous trial; the intervention was well delivered, and the results are pretty clear. Unfortunately, we have proved a null hypothesis – that this approach doesn’t seem to work,” Dr. Nichol, who is professor of critical care medicine at University College Dublin, said.
“However, we did find that hypercapnia was safe. This is an important finding, as sometimes in very sick patients such as those who develop pneumonia, we have to drive the ventilator less hard to minimize injury to the lungs, and this can lead to higher CO2 levels,” he added. “Our results show that this practice should not be harmful, which is reassuring.”
The TAME study was presented at the Critical Care Reviews 2023 Meeting (CCR23) held in Belfast, Northern Ireland.
It was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The researchers explain that after the return of spontaneous circulation, brain hypoperfusion may contribute to cerebral hypoxia, exacerbate brain damage, and lead to poor neurologic outcomes. The partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide (PaCO2) is the major physiologic regulator of cerebrovascular tone, and increasing CO2 levels increases cerebral blood flow.
Two previous observational studies showed that exposure to hypercapnia was associated with an increase in the likelihood of being discharged home and better neurologic outcomes at 12 months, compared with hypocapnia or normocapnia.
In addition, a physiologic study showed that deliberate increases in PaCO2 induced higher cerebral oxygen saturations, compared with normocapnia. A phase 2 randomized trial showed that hypercapnia significantly attenuated the release of neuron-specific enolase, a biomarker of brain injury, and also suggested better 6-month neurologic recovery with hypercapnia compared with normocapnia.
The current TAME trial was conducted to try to confirm these results in a larger, more definitive study.
For the trial, 1,700 adults with coma who had been resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were randomly assigned to receive either 24 hours of mild hypercapnia (target PaCO2, 50-55 mm Hg) or normocapnia (target PaCO2, 35-45 mm Hg).
The primary outcome – a favorable neurologic outcome, defined as a score of 5 or higher on the Glasgow Outcome Scale–Extended at 6 months – occurred in 43.5% in the mild hypercapnia group and in 44.6% in the normocapnia group (relative risk, 0.98; P = .76).
By 6 months, 48.2% of those in the mild hypercapnia group and 45.9% in the normocapnia group had died (relative risk with mild hypercapnia, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.16). In the mild hypercapnia group, 53.4% had a poor functional outcome, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale score of 4-6, compared with 51.3% in the normocapnia group.
Health-related quality of life, as assessed by the EQ Visual Analogue Scale component of the EuroQol-5D-5L, was similar in the two groups.
In terms of safety, results showed that mild hypercapnia did not increase the incidence of prespecified adverse events.
The authors note that there is concern that mild hypercapnia may worsen cerebral edema and elevate intracranial pressure; however, elevated intracranial pressure is uncommon in the first 72 hours after the return of spontaneous circulation.
In the TAME trial, there was one case of cerebral edema in the hypercapnia group. “This is a very low rate and would be expected in a group this size, so this does not indicate a safety concern,” Dr. Nichol commented.
The researchers are planning further analyses of biological samples to look for possible prognostic markers.
“These out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients are a very diverse group, and it may be possible that some patients could have benefited from hypercapnia while others may have been harmed,” Dr. Nichol noted.
“Raising CO2 levels does improve overall delivery of oxygen to the brain, but this might not have occurred in the right areas. It may be possible that some patients benefited, and analysis of biological samples will help us look more closely at this.”
He added that other ongoing trials are investigating hypercapnia in patients with traumatic brain injury.
“These patients are managed differently and often have probes in their brain to measure the response to CO2, so more of a precision medicine approach is possible,” he explained.
He also noted that the TAME study, which was conducted in conjunction with the TTM-2 study investigating hypothermia in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients, has established a network of ICU teams around the world, providing an infrastructure for further trials to be performed in this patient population in the future.
The TAME trial was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Health Research Board of Ireland, and the Health Research Council of New Zealand.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The Targeted Therapeutic Mild Hypercapnia After Resuscitated Cardiac Arrest (TAME) study showed that the intervention failed to improve neurologic or functional outcomes or quality of life at 6 months. However, the researchers also found that slightly elevated CO2 levels were not associated with worse outcomes.
“I think these results show that our hypothesis – that raising CO2 levels as applied in this trial may be beneficial for these patients – was not effective, even though previous work suggested that it would be,” co–lead investigator Alistair Nichol, MD, said in an interview.
“This was a rigorous trial; the intervention was well delivered, and the results are pretty clear. Unfortunately, we have proved a null hypothesis – that this approach doesn’t seem to work,” Dr. Nichol, who is professor of critical care medicine at University College Dublin, said.
“However, we did find that hypercapnia was safe. This is an important finding, as sometimes in very sick patients such as those who develop pneumonia, we have to drive the ventilator less hard to minimize injury to the lungs, and this can lead to higher CO2 levels,” he added. “Our results show that this practice should not be harmful, which is reassuring.”
The TAME study was presented at the Critical Care Reviews 2023 Meeting (CCR23) held in Belfast, Northern Ireland.
It was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The researchers explain that after the return of spontaneous circulation, brain hypoperfusion may contribute to cerebral hypoxia, exacerbate brain damage, and lead to poor neurologic outcomes. The partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide (PaCO2) is the major physiologic regulator of cerebrovascular tone, and increasing CO2 levels increases cerebral blood flow.
Two previous observational studies showed that exposure to hypercapnia was associated with an increase in the likelihood of being discharged home and better neurologic outcomes at 12 months, compared with hypocapnia or normocapnia.
In addition, a physiologic study showed that deliberate increases in PaCO2 induced higher cerebral oxygen saturations, compared with normocapnia. A phase 2 randomized trial showed that hypercapnia significantly attenuated the release of neuron-specific enolase, a biomarker of brain injury, and also suggested better 6-month neurologic recovery with hypercapnia compared with normocapnia.
The current TAME trial was conducted to try to confirm these results in a larger, more definitive study.
For the trial, 1,700 adults with coma who had been resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were randomly assigned to receive either 24 hours of mild hypercapnia (target PaCO2, 50-55 mm Hg) or normocapnia (target PaCO2, 35-45 mm Hg).
The primary outcome – a favorable neurologic outcome, defined as a score of 5 or higher on the Glasgow Outcome Scale–Extended at 6 months – occurred in 43.5% in the mild hypercapnia group and in 44.6% in the normocapnia group (relative risk, 0.98; P = .76).
By 6 months, 48.2% of those in the mild hypercapnia group and 45.9% in the normocapnia group had died (relative risk with mild hypercapnia, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.16). In the mild hypercapnia group, 53.4% had a poor functional outcome, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale score of 4-6, compared with 51.3% in the normocapnia group.
Health-related quality of life, as assessed by the EQ Visual Analogue Scale component of the EuroQol-5D-5L, was similar in the two groups.
In terms of safety, results showed that mild hypercapnia did not increase the incidence of prespecified adverse events.
The authors note that there is concern that mild hypercapnia may worsen cerebral edema and elevate intracranial pressure; however, elevated intracranial pressure is uncommon in the first 72 hours after the return of spontaneous circulation.
In the TAME trial, there was one case of cerebral edema in the hypercapnia group. “This is a very low rate and would be expected in a group this size, so this does not indicate a safety concern,” Dr. Nichol commented.
The researchers are planning further analyses of biological samples to look for possible prognostic markers.
“These out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients are a very diverse group, and it may be possible that some patients could have benefited from hypercapnia while others may have been harmed,” Dr. Nichol noted.
“Raising CO2 levels does improve overall delivery of oxygen to the brain, but this might not have occurred in the right areas. It may be possible that some patients benefited, and analysis of biological samples will help us look more closely at this.”
He added that other ongoing trials are investigating hypercapnia in patients with traumatic brain injury.
“These patients are managed differently and often have probes in their brain to measure the response to CO2, so more of a precision medicine approach is possible,” he explained.
He also noted that the TAME study, which was conducted in conjunction with the TTM-2 study investigating hypothermia in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients, has established a network of ICU teams around the world, providing an infrastructure for further trials to be performed in this patient population in the future.
The TAME trial was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Health Research Board of Ireland, and the Health Research Council of New Zealand.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The Targeted Therapeutic Mild Hypercapnia After Resuscitated Cardiac Arrest (TAME) study showed that the intervention failed to improve neurologic or functional outcomes or quality of life at 6 months. However, the researchers also found that slightly elevated CO2 levels were not associated with worse outcomes.
“I think these results show that our hypothesis – that raising CO2 levels as applied in this trial may be beneficial for these patients – was not effective, even though previous work suggested that it would be,” co–lead investigator Alistair Nichol, MD, said in an interview.
“This was a rigorous trial; the intervention was well delivered, and the results are pretty clear. Unfortunately, we have proved a null hypothesis – that this approach doesn’t seem to work,” Dr. Nichol, who is professor of critical care medicine at University College Dublin, said.
“However, we did find that hypercapnia was safe. This is an important finding, as sometimes in very sick patients such as those who develop pneumonia, we have to drive the ventilator less hard to minimize injury to the lungs, and this can lead to higher CO2 levels,” he added. “Our results show that this practice should not be harmful, which is reassuring.”
The TAME study was presented at the Critical Care Reviews 2023 Meeting (CCR23) held in Belfast, Northern Ireland.
It was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The researchers explain that after the return of spontaneous circulation, brain hypoperfusion may contribute to cerebral hypoxia, exacerbate brain damage, and lead to poor neurologic outcomes. The partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide (PaCO2) is the major physiologic regulator of cerebrovascular tone, and increasing CO2 levels increases cerebral blood flow.
Two previous observational studies showed that exposure to hypercapnia was associated with an increase in the likelihood of being discharged home and better neurologic outcomes at 12 months, compared with hypocapnia or normocapnia.
In addition, a physiologic study showed that deliberate increases in PaCO2 induced higher cerebral oxygen saturations, compared with normocapnia. A phase 2 randomized trial showed that hypercapnia significantly attenuated the release of neuron-specific enolase, a biomarker of brain injury, and also suggested better 6-month neurologic recovery with hypercapnia compared with normocapnia.
The current TAME trial was conducted to try to confirm these results in a larger, more definitive study.
For the trial, 1,700 adults with coma who had been resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were randomly assigned to receive either 24 hours of mild hypercapnia (target PaCO2, 50-55 mm Hg) or normocapnia (target PaCO2, 35-45 mm Hg).
The primary outcome – a favorable neurologic outcome, defined as a score of 5 or higher on the Glasgow Outcome Scale–Extended at 6 months – occurred in 43.5% in the mild hypercapnia group and in 44.6% in the normocapnia group (relative risk, 0.98; P = .76).
By 6 months, 48.2% of those in the mild hypercapnia group and 45.9% in the normocapnia group had died (relative risk with mild hypercapnia, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.16). In the mild hypercapnia group, 53.4% had a poor functional outcome, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale score of 4-6, compared with 51.3% in the normocapnia group.
Health-related quality of life, as assessed by the EQ Visual Analogue Scale component of the EuroQol-5D-5L, was similar in the two groups.
In terms of safety, results showed that mild hypercapnia did not increase the incidence of prespecified adverse events.
The authors note that there is concern that mild hypercapnia may worsen cerebral edema and elevate intracranial pressure; however, elevated intracranial pressure is uncommon in the first 72 hours after the return of spontaneous circulation.
In the TAME trial, there was one case of cerebral edema in the hypercapnia group. “This is a very low rate and would be expected in a group this size, so this does not indicate a safety concern,” Dr. Nichol commented.
The researchers are planning further analyses of biological samples to look for possible prognostic markers.
“These out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients are a very diverse group, and it may be possible that some patients could have benefited from hypercapnia while others may have been harmed,” Dr. Nichol noted.
“Raising CO2 levels does improve overall delivery of oxygen to the brain, but this might not have occurred in the right areas. It may be possible that some patients benefited, and analysis of biological samples will help us look more closely at this.”
He added that other ongoing trials are investigating hypercapnia in patients with traumatic brain injury.
“These patients are managed differently and often have probes in their brain to measure the response to CO2, so more of a precision medicine approach is possible,” he explained.
He also noted that the TAME study, which was conducted in conjunction with the TTM-2 study investigating hypothermia in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients, has established a network of ICU teams around the world, providing an infrastructure for further trials to be performed in this patient population in the future.
The TAME trial was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Health Research Board of Ireland, and the Health Research Council of New Zealand.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CCR23
A ‘one-stop shop’: New guidance on hormones and aging
The idea of the statement “is to be complete, but also to clarify some misunderstandings. ...We tried to be very clear in the language about what we know, where we can go, where we shouldn’t go, and what we still need to learn,” statement coauthor Cynthia A. Stuenkel, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.
The document is divided into nine parts or axes: growth hormone, adrenal, ovarian, testicular, thyroid, osteoporosis, vitamin D deficiency, type 2 diabetes, and water metabolism. Each section covers natural history and observational data in older individuals, available therapies, clinical trial data on efficacy and safety in older individuals, bulleted “key points,” and research gaps.
“Hormones and Aging: An Endocrine Society Scientific Statement” was presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society and published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.
During a press briefing, writing group chair Anne R. Cappola, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the goal is to “provide a really concise summary across each of these areas. ... There are multiple hormonal changes that occur with age, so we really couldn’t limit ourselves to just one gland or the few that we commonly think about. We wanted to cover all the axes.”
The statement tackles several controversial areas, including hormone therapy for menopausal symptoms in women and hypogonadal symptoms in men, diabetes treatment goals in older adults, distinguishing between age-associated changes in thyroid function and early hypothyroidism, and vitamin D supplementation in older adults.
“Hormones have these almost mythical qualities to some people. ... ‘If I just had my hormones back the way they were, it would all work out.’ What we want to do is make sure that patients are being treated appropriately and that their symptoms are being heard and managed and ascribed to the appropriate problems and not necessarily to hormonal problems when they are not. ... Part of what we need to do is [provide] the evidence that we have, which includes evidence of when not to prescribe as well as [when] to prescribe,” Dr. Cappola said.
Not designed to be read all at once
In the menopause section, for example, one “key point” is that menopausal symptoms are common, vary in degree and bother, and can be effectively treated with a variety of therapies proven effective in randomized clinical trials. Another key point is that menopausal hormone therapy is safest for women who are younger than 60 years and less than 10 years since starting menopause.
“It’s almost 20 years since the original Women’s Health Initiative, and that led to an incredible falloff of prescribing hormone therapy and a falloff in teaching of our students, residents, fellows, and practitioners about [menopausal] hormone therapy. ... Hopefully, by issuing this kind of aging statement it gets people to read, think, and learn more. And, hopefully, we can improve the education of physicians. ... Menopause is a universal experience. Clinicians should know about it,” noted Dr. Stuenkel, who chaired the menopause section writing panel.
In the type 2 diabetes section, in the bullet points it is noted that oral glucose tolerance testing may reveal abnormal glucose status in older adults that are not picked up with hemoglobin A1c or fasting glucose levels and that glycemic targets should be individualized.
Asked to comment on the statement, Michele Bellantoni, MD, said: “This was a huge undertaking because there are so many areas of expertise here. I thought they did a very good job of reviewing the literature and showing each of the different hormonal axes. ... It’s a good go-to review.”
“I thought it was a very good attempt to catalog and provide opportunities for policy, and particularly at [the National Institutes of Health], as they look at funding to show where are these gaps and to support appropriate research. I think the most important aspect to come of this is identifying research gaps for funding opportunities. I very much support that,” noted Dr. Bellantoni, who is clinical director of the division of geriatric medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
However, she also said that the 40-page document might be a bit much for busy clinicians, despite the bullet points at the end of each section.
“I would love to see an editorial that puts into perspective the take-home messages or a subsequent article that distills this into every day practice of care of older adults, both preventative and treatment care. ... I think that would be so useful.”
During the briefing, Dr. Cappola noted that the document need not be read all at once.
“It ended up being a large document, but you should not be intimidated by it because each section is only about 2,000 words. So, it’s really a kind of one-stop shop to be able to look across all these axes at once. We also wanted people to think about the common themes that occur across all these axes when considering what’s going on right now and for future research,” she said.
Dr. Stuenkel, Dr. Cappola, and Dr. Bellantoni reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The idea of the statement “is to be complete, but also to clarify some misunderstandings. ...We tried to be very clear in the language about what we know, where we can go, where we shouldn’t go, and what we still need to learn,” statement coauthor Cynthia A. Stuenkel, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.
The document is divided into nine parts or axes: growth hormone, adrenal, ovarian, testicular, thyroid, osteoporosis, vitamin D deficiency, type 2 diabetes, and water metabolism. Each section covers natural history and observational data in older individuals, available therapies, clinical trial data on efficacy and safety in older individuals, bulleted “key points,” and research gaps.
“Hormones and Aging: An Endocrine Society Scientific Statement” was presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society and published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.
During a press briefing, writing group chair Anne R. Cappola, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the goal is to “provide a really concise summary across each of these areas. ... There are multiple hormonal changes that occur with age, so we really couldn’t limit ourselves to just one gland or the few that we commonly think about. We wanted to cover all the axes.”
The statement tackles several controversial areas, including hormone therapy for menopausal symptoms in women and hypogonadal symptoms in men, diabetes treatment goals in older adults, distinguishing between age-associated changes in thyroid function and early hypothyroidism, and vitamin D supplementation in older adults.
“Hormones have these almost mythical qualities to some people. ... ‘If I just had my hormones back the way they were, it would all work out.’ What we want to do is make sure that patients are being treated appropriately and that their symptoms are being heard and managed and ascribed to the appropriate problems and not necessarily to hormonal problems when they are not. ... Part of what we need to do is [provide] the evidence that we have, which includes evidence of when not to prescribe as well as [when] to prescribe,” Dr. Cappola said.
Not designed to be read all at once
In the menopause section, for example, one “key point” is that menopausal symptoms are common, vary in degree and bother, and can be effectively treated with a variety of therapies proven effective in randomized clinical trials. Another key point is that menopausal hormone therapy is safest for women who are younger than 60 years and less than 10 years since starting menopause.
“It’s almost 20 years since the original Women’s Health Initiative, and that led to an incredible falloff of prescribing hormone therapy and a falloff in teaching of our students, residents, fellows, and practitioners about [menopausal] hormone therapy. ... Hopefully, by issuing this kind of aging statement it gets people to read, think, and learn more. And, hopefully, we can improve the education of physicians. ... Menopause is a universal experience. Clinicians should know about it,” noted Dr. Stuenkel, who chaired the menopause section writing panel.
In the type 2 diabetes section, in the bullet points it is noted that oral glucose tolerance testing may reveal abnormal glucose status in older adults that are not picked up with hemoglobin A1c or fasting glucose levels and that glycemic targets should be individualized.
Asked to comment on the statement, Michele Bellantoni, MD, said: “This was a huge undertaking because there are so many areas of expertise here. I thought they did a very good job of reviewing the literature and showing each of the different hormonal axes. ... It’s a good go-to review.”
“I thought it was a very good attempt to catalog and provide opportunities for policy, and particularly at [the National Institutes of Health], as they look at funding to show where are these gaps and to support appropriate research. I think the most important aspect to come of this is identifying research gaps for funding opportunities. I very much support that,” noted Dr. Bellantoni, who is clinical director of the division of geriatric medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
However, she also said that the 40-page document might be a bit much for busy clinicians, despite the bullet points at the end of each section.
“I would love to see an editorial that puts into perspective the take-home messages or a subsequent article that distills this into every day practice of care of older adults, both preventative and treatment care. ... I think that would be so useful.”
During the briefing, Dr. Cappola noted that the document need not be read all at once.
“It ended up being a large document, but you should not be intimidated by it because each section is only about 2,000 words. So, it’s really a kind of one-stop shop to be able to look across all these axes at once. We also wanted people to think about the common themes that occur across all these axes when considering what’s going on right now and for future research,” she said.
Dr. Stuenkel, Dr. Cappola, and Dr. Bellantoni reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The idea of the statement “is to be complete, but also to clarify some misunderstandings. ...We tried to be very clear in the language about what we know, where we can go, where we shouldn’t go, and what we still need to learn,” statement coauthor Cynthia A. Stuenkel, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.
The document is divided into nine parts or axes: growth hormone, adrenal, ovarian, testicular, thyroid, osteoporosis, vitamin D deficiency, type 2 diabetes, and water metabolism. Each section covers natural history and observational data in older individuals, available therapies, clinical trial data on efficacy and safety in older individuals, bulleted “key points,” and research gaps.
“Hormones and Aging: An Endocrine Society Scientific Statement” was presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society and published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.
During a press briefing, writing group chair Anne R. Cappola, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the goal is to “provide a really concise summary across each of these areas. ... There are multiple hormonal changes that occur with age, so we really couldn’t limit ourselves to just one gland or the few that we commonly think about. We wanted to cover all the axes.”
The statement tackles several controversial areas, including hormone therapy for menopausal symptoms in women and hypogonadal symptoms in men, diabetes treatment goals in older adults, distinguishing between age-associated changes in thyroid function and early hypothyroidism, and vitamin D supplementation in older adults.
“Hormones have these almost mythical qualities to some people. ... ‘If I just had my hormones back the way they were, it would all work out.’ What we want to do is make sure that patients are being treated appropriately and that their symptoms are being heard and managed and ascribed to the appropriate problems and not necessarily to hormonal problems when they are not. ... Part of what we need to do is [provide] the evidence that we have, which includes evidence of when not to prescribe as well as [when] to prescribe,” Dr. Cappola said.
Not designed to be read all at once
In the menopause section, for example, one “key point” is that menopausal symptoms are common, vary in degree and bother, and can be effectively treated with a variety of therapies proven effective in randomized clinical trials. Another key point is that menopausal hormone therapy is safest for women who are younger than 60 years and less than 10 years since starting menopause.
“It’s almost 20 years since the original Women’s Health Initiative, and that led to an incredible falloff of prescribing hormone therapy and a falloff in teaching of our students, residents, fellows, and practitioners about [menopausal] hormone therapy. ... Hopefully, by issuing this kind of aging statement it gets people to read, think, and learn more. And, hopefully, we can improve the education of physicians. ... Menopause is a universal experience. Clinicians should know about it,” noted Dr. Stuenkel, who chaired the menopause section writing panel.
In the type 2 diabetes section, in the bullet points it is noted that oral glucose tolerance testing may reveal abnormal glucose status in older adults that are not picked up with hemoglobin A1c or fasting glucose levels and that glycemic targets should be individualized.
Asked to comment on the statement, Michele Bellantoni, MD, said: “This was a huge undertaking because there are so many areas of expertise here. I thought they did a very good job of reviewing the literature and showing each of the different hormonal axes. ... It’s a good go-to review.”
“I thought it was a very good attempt to catalog and provide opportunities for policy, and particularly at [the National Institutes of Health], as they look at funding to show where are these gaps and to support appropriate research. I think the most important aspect to come of this is identifying research gaps for funding opportunities. I very much support that,” noted Dr. Bellantoni, who is clinical director of the division of geriatric medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
However, she also said that the 40-page document might be a bit much for busy clinicians, despite the bullet points at the end of each section.
“I would love to see an editorial that puts into perspective the take-home messages or a subsequent article that distills this into every day practice of care of older adults, both preventative and treatment care. ... I think that would be so useful.”
During the briefing, Dr. Cappola noted that the document need not be read all at once.
“It ended up being a large document, but you should not be intimidated by it because each section is only about 2,000 words. So, it’s really a kind of one-stop shop to be able to look across all these axes at once. We also wanted people to think about the common themes that occur across all these axes when considering what’s going on right now and for future research,” she said.
Dr. Stuenkel, Dr. Cappola, and Dr. Bellantoni reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ENDO 2023
BMI ‘vastly underestimates’ true obesity
CHICAGO – , a finding that highlights the shortcomings of BMI and adds to the growing case that BMI alone should not be the default gauge for obesity.
“BMI vastly underestimates true obesity,” Aayush Visaria, MD, said at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
His findings highlight that “BMI should be supplemented with other measures of obesity” for the management of individual patients, with assessments that could include a bioelectrical impedance scale or waist circumference, said Dr. Visaria, a researcher at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, N.J.
Dr. Visaria cited a new policy issued by the American Medical Association a couple of days before his presentation, which advises that BMI “be used in conjunction with other valid measures of risk such as, but not limited to, measurements of visceral fat, body adiposity index, body composition, relative fat mass, waist circumference, and genetic/metabolic factors.”
“We’re at the start of the end of BMI,” Dr. Visaria declared during a press briefing at the meeting.
He said DEXA is not practical or cost-effective for obesity screening in routine practice. Therefore, he predicts that waist circumference, often expressed as waist-to-height ratio, will be measured more often, although he acknowledged that waist measurement can be difficult. However, better physician training on the measure should help it become the norm.
Another useful tool for obesity measurement he foresees quickly becoming widespread is bathroom scales that record both weight and body fat percentage using a small electric current to make a bioelectrical impedance measure of adiposity.
Bioimpedance scales will provide more standardized measurements than waist circumference and “revolutionize how we measure obesity,” Dr. Visaria predicted. They are “very accessible and cheap,” he noted, with many models sold for less than $100.
Obesity prevalence of 74%
The study by Dr. Visaria and colleagues used data from 9,784 U.S. adults aged 20-59 years (average age, 39 years) collected in several National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys during 2011-2018. All these participants underwent DEXA assessment of their total body fat as well as a BMI calculation.
Using standard obesity cutoffs for both BMI and total body fat, Dr. Visaria found that DEXA rated 74% of participants as having obesity based on body fat compared with 36% based on BMI.
Among the 64% of the study group who were not obese by BMI, DEXA scans showed 53% of this subgroup did have obesity based on body fat content. Among those with a normal BMI, 43% had obesity by DEXA result.
Further analysis showed that when Dr. Visaria added waist circumference to BMI to enlarge the diagnostic net for obesity it cut the percentage of adults missed as having obesity by BMI alone nearly in half.
Additional analyses showed that the rate of missed diagnoses of obesity by BMI was most common only among people of Hispanic or Asian ethnicity, with both groups showing a 49% rate of obesity by DEXA among those with normal-range BMIs.
The rate of missed obesity diagnoses was highest among all women, with a 59% prevalence of obesity by DEXA among women with a normal-range BMI.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Visaria has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO – , a finding that highlights the shortcomings of BMI and adds to the growing case that BMI alone should not be the default gauge for obesity.
“BMI vastly underestimates true obesity,” Aayush Visaria, MD, said at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
His findings highlight that “BMI should be supplemented with other measures of obesity” for the management of individual patients, with assessments that could include a bioelectrical impedance scale or waist circumference, said Dr. Visaria, a researcher at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, N.J.
Dr. Visaria cited a new policy issued by the American Medical Association a couple of days before his presentation, which advises that BMI “be used in conjunction with other valid measures of risk such as, but not limited to, measurements of visceral fat, body adiposity index, body composition, relative fat mass, waist circumference, and genetic/metabolic factors.”
“We’re at the start of the end of BMI,” Dr. Visaria declared during a press briefing at the meeting.
He said DEXA is not practical or cost-effective for obesity screening in routine practice. Therefore, he predicts that waist circumference, often expressed as waist-to-height ratio, will be measured more often, although he acknowledged that waist measurement can be difficult. However, better physician training on the measure should help it become the norm.
Another useful tool for obesity measurement he foresees quickly becoming widespread is bathroom scales that record both weight and body fat percentage using a small electric current to make a bioelectrical impedance measure of adiposity.
Bioimpedance scales will provide more standardized measurements than waist circumference and “revolutionize how we measure obesity,” Dr. Visaria predicted. They are “very accessible and cheap,” he noted, with many models sold for less than $100.
Obesity prevalence of 74%
The study by Dr. Visaria and colleagues used data from 9,784 U.S. adults aged 20-59 years (average age, 39 years) collected in several National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys during 2011-2018. All these participants underwent DEXA assessment of their total body fat as well as a BMI calculation.
Using standard obesity cutoffs for both BMI and total body fat, Dr. Visaria found that DEXA rated 74% of participants as having obesity based on body fat compared with 36% based on BMI.
Among the 64% of the study group who were not obese by BMI, DEXA scans showed 53% of this subgroup did have obesity based on body fat content. Among those with a normal BMI, 43% had obesity by DEXA result.
Further analysis showed that when Dr. Visaria added waist circumference to BMI to enlarge the diagnostic net for obesity it cut the percentage of adults missed as having obesity by BMI alone nearly in half.
Additional analyses showed that the rate of missed diagnoses of obesity by BMI was most common only among people of Hispanic or Asian ethnicity, with both groups showing a 49% rate of obesity by DEXA among those with normal-range BMIs.
The rate of missed obesity diagnoses was highest among all women, with a 59% prevalence of obesity by DEXA among women with a normal-range BMI.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Visaria has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO – , a finding that highlights the shortcomings of BMI and adds to the growing case that BMI alone should not be the default gauge for obesity.
“BMI vastly underestimates true obesity,” Aayush Visaria, MD, said at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
His findings highlight that “BMI should be supplemented with other measures of obesity” for the management of individual patients, with assessments that could include a bioelectrical impedance scale or waist circumference, said Dr. Visaria, a researcher at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, N.J.
Dr. Visaria cited a new policy issued by the American Medical Association a couple of days before his presentation, which advises that BMI “be used in conjunction with other valid measures of risk such as, but not limited to, measurements of visceral fat, body adiposity index, body composition, relative fat mass, waist circumference, and genetic/metabolic factors.”
“We’re at the start of the end of BMI,” Dr. Visaria declared during a press briefing at the meeting.
He said DEXA is not practical or cost-effective for obesity screening in routine practice. Therefore, he predicts that waist circumference, often expressed as waist-to-height ratio, will be measured more often, although he acknowledged that waist measurement can be difficult. However, better physician training on the measure should help it become the norm.
Another useful tool for obesity measurement he foresees quickly becoming widespread is bathroom scales that record both weight and body fat percentage using a small electric current to make a bioelectrical impedance measure of adiposity.
Bioimpedance scales will provide more standardized measurements than waist circumference and “revolutionize how we measure obesity,” Dr. Visaria predicted. They are “very accessible and cheap,” he noted, with many models sold for less than $100.
Obesity prevalence of 74%
The study by Dr. Visaria and colleagues used data from 9,784 U.S. adults aged 20-59 years (average age, 39 years) collected in several National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys during 2011-2018. All these participants underwent DEXA assessment of their total body fat as well as a BMI calculation.
Using standard obesity cutoffs for both BMI and total body fat, Dr. Visaria found that DEXA rated 74% of participants as having obesity based on body fat compared with 36% based on BMI.
Among the 64% of the study group who were not obese by BMI, DEXA scans showed 53% of this subgroup did have obesity based on body fat content. Among those with a normal BMI, 43% had obesity by DEXA result.
Further analysis showed that when Dr. Visaria added waist circumference to BMI to enlarge the diagnostic net for obesity it cut the percentage of adults missed as having obesity by BMI alone nearly in half.
Additional analyses showed that the rate of missed diagnoses of obesity by BMI was most common only among people of Hispanic or Asian ethnicity, with both groups showing a 49% rate of obesity by DEXA among those with normal-range BMIs.
The rate of missed obesity diagnoses was highest among all women, with a 59% prevalence of obesity by DEXA among women with a normal-range BMI.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Visaria has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ENDO 2023
Anabolic-steroid withdrawal regimens show promise in men
Men who illicitly used anabolic-androgenic steroids to bulk up and then turned to illegal, web-based regimens for treating their steroid withdrawal complications have provided important clues for new approaches to treating a growing worldwide population of men who abuse steroids.
A retrospective, observational study at one steroid addiction center in Glasgow examined 641 men who had stopped using steroids within the prior 3 years in 2015-2022 and who had self-administered certain agents, collectively known as post-cycle therapy (PCT) – within 3 months of stopping steroids.
They had a significant 3.8-fold increased rate of normalization of their levels of testosterone, luteinizing hormone (LH), and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), compared with men who either never used PCT or began it more than 3 months after stopping steroids, Channa N. Jayasena, PhD, MRCP, FRCPath, reported at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
These testosterone, LH, and FSH levels served as a “surrogate marker of biochemical recovery from hypogonadism,” he explained. Normalization also occurred “slightly sooner” in men who began using PCT early after steroid cessation, added Dr. Jayasena, a reproductive endocrinologist at Imperial College, London.
When men recovered their endogenous testosterone-producing capacity, it occurred after an average of about 13 weeks on PCT and after an average of about 19 weeks without PCT, a significant difference.
“There is a vacuum of medical advice on what to do” when men stop taking steroids, said Dr. Jayasena during a press briefing at the meeting. “We can’t recommend anything yet because [our studies] have not proven causality” between the post-cycle therapy that many men start after stopping steroids and any symptom improvement they experience.”
The next step is to test the PCT agents in a prospective, controlled study, an investigation Dr. Jayasena and colleagues are eager to launch. The goal is to determine whether PCT is truly effective, the optimal doses, and whether the treatments are safe.
‘Incredibly sophisticated’ online community
The agents that constitute PCT include human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG, the “pregnancy hormone”), selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs), and aromatase inhibitors (AIs). SERMs and AIs are licensed only for use in women, the former for osteoporosis and breast cancer and the latter for breast cancer.
All of these agents, as well as others, are advertised by various illegal websites as treatments that can restore endogenous testosterone production in men whose native testosterone shut down during their steroid self-medication.
Restored testosterone resolves many of the adverse effects of steroid withdrawal such as diminished libido and erections, and depressed mood and energy.
Men buy PCT agents illegally from various websites. “There is an enormous, incredibly sophisticated community online that influences” PCT, and an “incredibly refined worldwide distribution network,” Dr. Jayasena explained.
His study included 410 men who turned to PCT after steroid cessation and 170 who did not.
Largest study of hormone recovery when men stop taking steroids
In a further multivariate analysis of the observational data, men who had used four or more different steroid treatments fared worse – with a significant 75% reduced rate of testosterone normalization with PCT – compared with men who had used a single steroid agent.
And men who had been on a steroid regimen for more than 6 months also fared badly – with a significant 66% reduced rate of testosterone normalization with PCT, compared with men on a steroid regimen for 3 months or less.
“This is the largest study of hormone recovery when men stop taking steroids,” Dr. Jayasena noted.
And the data “require corroboration within an interventional study to determine causality.”
“We need further studies to help doctors and other health care professionals advise men about the risks of anabolic steroid use and support those who are motivated to stop,” Dr. Jayasena said.
He cautioned that the study has several limitations: biases were potentially introduced based on recruitment and on recall by participants; clinicians drew blood specimens used to measure hormone levels at random times; and participants may have engaged in concealed drug use and used steroid and PCT agents that did not contain the substances advertised.
Nevertheless,, and they “may have important therapeutic implications for the future treatment of men who are motivated to stop” steroids.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Jayasena has received research funding from Logixx Pharma.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Men who illicitly used anabolic-androgenic steroids to bulk up and then turned to illegal, web-based regimens for treating their steroid withdrawal complications have provided important clues for new approaches to treating a growing worldwide population of men who abuse steroids.
A retrospective, observational study at one steroid addiction center in Glasgow examined 641 men who had stopped using steroids within the prior 3 years in 2015-2022 and who had self-administered certain agents, collectively known as post-cycle therapy (PCT) – within 3 months of stopping steroids.
They had a significant 3.8-fold increased rate of normalization of their levels of testosterone, luteinizing hormone (LH), and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), compared with men who either never used PCT or began it more than 3 months after stopping steroids, Channa N. Jayasena, PhD, MRCP, FRCPath, reported at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
These testosterone, LH, and FSH levels served as a “surrogate marker of biochemical recovery from hypogonadism,” he explained. Normalization also occurred “slightly sooner” in men who began using PCT early after steroid cessation, added Dr. Jayasena, a reproductive endocrinologist at Imperial College, London.
When men recovered their endogenous testosterone-producing capacity, it occurred after an average of about 13 weeks on PCT and after an average of about 19 weeks without PCT, a significant difference.
“There is a vacuum of medical advice on what to do” when men stop taking steroids, said Dr. Jayasena during a press briefing at the meeting. “We can’t recommend anything yet because [our studies] have not proven causality” between the post-cycle therapy that many men start after stopping steroids and any symptom improvement they experience.”
The next step is to test the PCT agents in a prospective, controlled study, an investigation Dr. Jayasena and colleagues are eager to launch. The goal is to determine whether PCT is truly effective, the optimal doses, and whether the treatments are safe.
‘Incredibly sophisticated’ online community
The agents that constitute PCT include human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG, the “pregnancy hormone”), selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs), and aromatase inhibitors (AIs). SERMs and AIs are licensed only for use in women, the former for osteoporosis and breast cancer and the latter for breast cancer.
All of these agents, as well as others, are advertised by various illegal websites as treatments that can restore endogenous testosterone production in men whose native testosterone shut down during their steroid self-medication.
Restored testosterone resolves many of the adverse effects of steroid withdrawal such as diminished libido and erections, and depressed mood and energy.
Men buy PCT agents illegally from various websites. “There is an enormous, incredibly sophisticated community online that influences” PCT, and an “incredibly refined worldwide distribution network,” Dr. Jayasena explained.
His study included 410 men who turned to PCT after steroid cessation and 170 who did not.
Largest study of hormone recovery when men stop taking steroids
In a further multivariate analysis of the observational data, men who had used four or more different steroid treatments fared worse – with a significant 75% reduced rate of testosterone normalization with PCT – compared with men who had used a single steroid agent.
And men who had been on a steroid regimen for more than 6 months also fared badly – with a significant 66% reduced rate of testosterone normalization with PCT, compared with men on a steroid regimen for 3 months or less.
“This is the largest study of hormone recovery when men stop taking steroids,” Dr. Jayasena noted.
And the data “require corroboration within an interventional study to determine causality.”
“We need further studies to help doctors and other health care professionals advise men about the risks of anabolic steroid use and support those who are motivated to stop,” Dr. Jayasena said.
He cautioned that the study has several limitations: biases were potentially introduced based on recruitment and on recall by participants; clinicians drew blood specimens used to measure hormone levels at random times; and participants may have engaged in concealed drug use and used steroid and PCT agents that did not contain the substances advertised.
Nevertheless,, and they “may have important therapeutic implications for the future treatment of men who are motivated to stop” steroids.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Jayasena has received research funding from Logixx Pharma.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Men who illicitly used anabolic-androgenic steroids to bulk up and then turned to illegal, web-based regimens for treating their steroid withdrawal complications have provided important clues for new approaches to treating a growing worldwide population of men who abuse steroids.
A retrospective, observational study at one steroid addiction center in Glasgow examined 641 men who had stopped using steroids within the prior 3 years in 2015-2022 and who had self-administered certain agents, collectively known as post-cycle therapy (PCT) – within 3 months of stopping steroids.
They had a significant 3.8-fold increased rate of normalization of their levels of testosterone, luteinizing hormone (LH), and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), compared with men who either never used PCT or began it more than 3 months after stopping steroids, Channa N. Jayasena, PhD, MRCP, FRCPath, reported at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
These testosterone, LH, and FSH levels served as a “surrogate marker of biochemical recovery from hypogonadism,” he explained. Normalization also occurred “slightly sooner” in men who began using PCT early after steroid cessation, added Dr. Jayasena, a reproductive endocrinologist at Imperial College, London.
When men recovered their endogenous testosterone-producing capacity, it occurred after an average of about 13 weeks on PCT and after an average of about 19 weeks without PCT, a significant difference.
“There is a vacuum of medical advice on what to do” when men stop taking steroids, said Dr. Jayasena during a press briefing at the meeting. “We can’t recommend anything yet because [our studies] have not proven causality” between the post-cycle therapy that many men start after stopping steroids and any symptom improvement they experience.”
The next step is to test the PCT agents in a prospective, controlled study, an investigation Dr. Jayasena and colleagues are eager to launch. The goal is to determine whether PCT is truly effective, the optimal doses, and whether the treatments are safe.
‘Incredibly sophisticated’ online community
The agents that constitute PCT include human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG, the “pregnancy hormone”), selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs), and aromatase inhibitors (AIs). SERMs and AIs are licensed only for use in women, the former for osteoporosis and breast cancer and the latter for breast cancer.
All of these agents, as well as others, are advertised by various illegal websites as treatments that can restore endogenous testosterone production in men whose native testosterone shut down during their steroid self-medication.
Restored testosterone resolves many of the adverse effects of steroid withdrawal such as diminished libido and erections, and depressed mood and energy.
Men buy PCT agents illegally from various websites. “There is an enormous, incredibly sophisticated community online that influences” PCT, and an “incredibly refined worldwide distribution network,” Dr. Jayasena explained.
His study included 410 men who turned to PCT after steroid cessation and 170 who did not.
Largest study of hormone recovery when men stop taking steroids
In a further multivariate analysis of the observational data, men who had used four or more different steroid treatments fared worse – with a significant 75% reduced rate of testosterone normalization with PCT – compared with men who had used a single steroid agent.
And men who had been on a steroid regimen for more than 6 months also fared badly – with a significant 66% reduced rate of testosterone normalization with PCT, compared with men on a steroid regimen for 3 months or less.
“This is the largest study of hormone recovery when men stop taking steroids,” Dr. Jayasena noted.
And the data “require corroboration within an interventional study to determine causality.”
“We need further studies to help doctors and other health care professionals advise men about the risks of anabolic steroid use and support those who are motivated to stop,” Dr. Jayasena said.
He cautioned that the study has several limitations: biases were potentially introduced based on recruitment and on recall by participants; clinicians drew blood specimens used to measure hormone levels at random times; and participants may have engaged in concealed drug use and used steroid and PCT agents that did not contain the substances advertised.
Nevertheless,, and they “may have important therapeutic implications for the future treatment of men who are motivated to stop” steroids.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Jayasena has received research funding from Logixx Pharma.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ENDO 2023