Conference Coverage

SAN DIEGO — When should patients with advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer receive osimertinib plus platinum-based chemotherapy in the frontline setting and when is osimertinib enough on its own?

That is a question brewing among some oncologists now that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved osimertinib (Tagrisso, AstraZeneca) for both indications in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations.

An answer began to emerge in research presented at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

An exploratory analysis of the FLAURA2 trial found that, when patients have EGFR mutations on baseline circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing, the combination treatment can extend progression-free survival (PFS). In this patient group, those receiving osimertinib alongside pemetrexed plus cisplatin or carboplatin had a 9-month PFS advantage compared with those who received osimertinib alone.

Conversely, when patients do not have EGFR mutations following baseline ctDNA testing, osimertinib alone appears to offer similar PFS outcomes to the combination therapy, but with less toxicity.

“Baseline detection of plasma EGFR mutations may identify a subgroup of patients who derive most benefit from the addition of platinum-pemetrexed to osimertinib as first-line treatment of EGFR-mutated advance non–small cell lung cancer,” investigator Pasi A. Jänne, MD, PhD, a lung cancer oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said during his presentation.

The FLAURA2 trial randomized 557 patients equally to daily osimertinib either alone or with pemetrexed plus cisplatin or carboplatin every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by pemetrexed every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Patients were tested for Ex19del or L858R EGFR mutations at baseline and at 3 and 6 weeks; baseline mutations were found in 73% of evaluable patients.

In patients with baseline mutations, the median PFS was 24.8 months with the combination therapy vs 13.9 months with osimertinib alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60).

In patients without baseline mutations, the median PFS was similar in both groups — 33.3 months with the combination vs 30.3 months with monotherapy (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.51-1.72).

The investigators also found that having baseline mutations was associated with worse outcomes regardless of study arm, and mutation clearance was associated with improved outcomes. Clearance occurred more quickly among patients receiving the combination treatment, but almost 90% of patients in both arms cleared their mutations by week 6.

“As we move forward and think about which of our patients we would treat with the combination ... the presence of baseline EGFR mutations in ctDNA may be one of the features that goes into the conversation,” Dr. Jänne said.

Study discussant Marina Chiara Garassino, MD, a thoracic oncologist at the University of Chicago, agreed that this trial can help oncologists make this kind of treatment decision.

Patients with baseline EGFR mutations also tended to have larger tumors, more brain metastases, and worse performance scores; the combination therapy makes sense when such factors are present in patients with baseline EGFR mutations, Dr. Garassino said.

The wrinkle in the findings is that the study used digital droplet polymerase chain reaction (Biodesix) to test for EGFR mutations, which is not commonly used. Clinicians often use next-generation sequencing, which is less sensitive and can lead to false negatives.

It makes it difficult to know how to apply the findings to everyday practice, but Janne hopes a study will be done to correlate next-generation sequencing detection with outcomes.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca, maker of osimertinib, and researchers included AstraZeneca employees. Dr. Jänne is a consultant for and reported research funding from the company. He is a co-inventor on an EGFR mutations patent. Dr. Garassino is also an AstraZeneca consultant and reported institutional financial interests in the company.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — When should patients with advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer receive osimertinib plus platinum-based chemotherapy in the frontline setting and when is osimertinib enough on its own?

That is a question brewing among some oncologists now that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved osimertinib (Tagrisso, AstraZeneca) for both indications in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations.

An answer began to emerge in research presented at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

An exploratory analysis of the FLAURA2 trial found that, when patients have EGFR mutations on baseline circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing, the combination treatment can extend progression-free survival (PFS). In this patient group, those receiving osimertinib alongside pemetrexed plus cisplatin or carboplatin had a 9-month PFS advantage compared with those who received osimertinib alone.

Conversely, when patients do not have EGFR mutations following baseline ctDNA testing, osimertinib alone appears to offer similar PFS outcomes to the combination therapy, but with less toxicity.

“Baseline detection of plasma EGFR mutations may identify a subgroup of patients who derive most benefit from the addition of platinum-pemetrexed to osimertinib as first-line treatment of EGFR-mutated advance non–small cell lung cancer,” investigator Pasi A. Jänne, MD, PhD, a lung cancer oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said during his presentation.

The FLAURA2 trial randomized 557 patients equally to daily osimertinib either alone or with pemetrexed plus cisplatin or carboplatin every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by pemetrexed every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Patients were tested for Ex19del or L858R EGFR mutations at baseline and at 3 and 6 weeks; baseline mutations were found in 73% of evaluable patients.

In patients with baseline mutations, the median PFS was 24.8 months with the combination therapy vs 13.9 months with osimertinib alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60).

In patients without baseline mutations, the median PFS was similar in both groups — 33.3 months with the combination vs 30.3 months with monotherapy (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.51-1.72).

The investigators also found that having baseline mutations was associated with worse outcomes regardless of study arm, and mutation clearance was associated with improved outcomes. Clearance occurred more quickly among patients receiving the combination treatment, but almost 90% of patients in both arms cleared their mutations by week 6.

“As we move forward and think about which of our patients we would treat with the combination ... the presence of baseline EGFR mutations in ctDNA may be one of the features that goes into the conversation,” Dr. Jänne said.

Study discussant Marina Chiara Garassino, MD, a thoracic oncologist at the University of Chicago, agreed that this trial can help oncologists make this kind of treatment decision.

Patients with baseline EGFR mutations also tended to have larger tumors, more brain metastases, and worse performance scores; the combination therapy makes sense when such factors are present in patients with baseline EGFR mutations, Dr. Garassino said.

The wrinkle in the findings is that the study used digital droplet polymerase chain reaction (Biodesix) to test for EGFR mutations, which is not commonly used. Clinicians often use next-generation sequencing, which is less sensitive and can lead to false negatives.

It makes it difficult to know how to apply the findings to everyday practice, but Janne hopes a study will be done to correlate next-generation sequencing detection with outcomes.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca, maker of osimertinib, and researchers included AstraZeneca employees. Dr. Jänne is a consultant for and reported research funding from the company. He is a co-inventor on an EGFR mutations patent. Dr. Garassino is also an AstraZeneca consultant and reported institutional financial interests in the company.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — When should patients with advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer receive osimertinib plus platinum-based chemotherapy in the frontline setting and when is osimertinib enough on its own?

That is a question brewing among some oncologists now that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved osimertinib (Tagrisso, AstraZeneca) for both indications in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations.

An answer began to emerge in research presented at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

An exploratory analysis of the FLAURA2 trial found that, when patients have EGFR mutations on baseline circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing, the combination treatment can extend progression-free survival (PFS). In this patient group, those receiving osimertinib alongside pemetrexed plus cisplatin or carboplatin had a 9-month PFS advantage compared with those who received osimertinib alone.

Conversely, when patients do not have EGFR mutations following baseline ctDNA testing, osimertinib alone appears to offer similar PFS outcomes to the combination therapy, but with less toxicity.

“Baseline detection of plasma EGFR mutations may identify a subgroup of patients who derive most benefit from the addition of platinum-pemetrexed to osimertinib as first-line treatment of EGFR-mutated advance non–small cell lung cancer,” investigator Pasi A. Jänne, MD, PhD, a lung cancer oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said during his presentation.

The FLAURA2 trial randomized 557 patients equally to daily osimertinib either alone or with pemetrexed plus cisplatin or carboplatin every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by pemetrexed every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Patients were tested for Ex19del or L858R EGFR mutations at baseline and at 3 and 6 weeks; baseline mutations were found in 73% of evaluable patients.

In patients with baseline mutations, the median PFS was 24.8 months with the combination therapy vs 13.9 months with osimertinib alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60).

In patients without baseline mutations, the median PFS was similar in both groups — 33.3 months with the combination vs 30.3 months with monotherapy (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.51-1.72).

The investigators also found that having baseline mutations was associated with worse outcomes regardless of study arm, and mutation clearance was associated with improved outcomes. Clearance occurred more quickly among patients receiving the combination treatment, but almost 90% of patients in both arms cleared their mutations by week 6.

“As we move forward and think about which of our patients we would treat with the combination ... the presence of baseline EGFR mutations in ctDNA may be one of the features that goes into the conversation,” Dr. Jänne said.

Study discussant Marina Chiara Garassino, MD, a thoracic oncologist at the University of Chicago, agreed that this trial can help oncologists make this kind of treatment decision.

Patients with baseline EGFR mutations also tended to have larger tumors, more brain metastases, and worse performance scores; the combination therapy makes sense when such factors are present in patients with baseline EGFR mutations, Dr. Garassino said.

The wrinkle in the findings is that the study used digital droplet polymerase chain reaction (Biodesix) to test for EGFR mutations, which is not commonly used. Clinicians often use next-generation sequencing, which is less sensitive and can lead to false negatives.

It makes it difficult to know how to apply the findings to everyday practice, but Janne hopes a study will be done to correlate next-generation sequencing detection with outcomes.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca, maker of osimertinib, and researchers included AstraZeneca employees. Dr. Jänne is a consultant for and reported research funding from the company. He is a co-inventor on an EGFR mutations patent. Dr. Garassino is also an AstraZeneca consultant and reported institutional financial interests in the company.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

DENVER — Unlike a first trial of PB&TURSO, which led to regulatory approval of this combination therapy in 2022, a second larger and longer multicenter placebo-controlled study was unable to show any significant benefit on primary or secondary endpoints.

As a result, “PB&TURSO is no longer available for new patients in the United States of Canada,” reported Leonard H. van den Berg, MD, PhD, Direction of the Netherlands ALS Center, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Although the drug is now being withdrawn, patients on therapy as of April 4 who wish to stay on treatment “can be transitioned to a free drug program,” added Dr. van den Berg, who presented the results of this new trial, called PHOENIX, at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

PB&TURSO, marketed as Relyvrio (Amylyx), is a combination of sodium phenylbutyrate (PB) and taurursodiol (TAURO). Having shown promise for preventing neuronal death in experimental and early human studies, it was approved on the basis of the of the double-blind multicenter CENTAUR trial published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2022.
 

ALSFRS-R Served as Primary Endpoint in Both Trials

In CENTAUR, like the newly completed PHOENIX, the primary outcome was rate of decline in the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale–Revised (ALSFRS-R) over 24 weeks. On this endpoint, the rate of change for those randomized to PB&TAURO was –1.24 points per month versus –1.66 points per month on placebo, a difference of 0.42 points that met statistical significance (P = .02).

The CENTAUR trial, which enrolled 177 patients, also showed no differences between those in the experimental and placebo arms for any of the secondary endpoints, including time to tracheostomy, permanent ventilation, or death.

In the much larger and longer PHOENIX trial, 664 ALS patients were randomized in a 3:2 ratio to PB&TURSO or placebo. Fifty-seven percent in each group completed 48 weeks of follow-up. The proportions of patients who withdrew from the study were similar across the reasons, such as adverse events and disease progression.

For the ALSFRS-R primary endpoint at 48 weeks, the decline in both groups was essentially linear and almost completely overlapped with a final change from baseline of –14.98 points in the PB&TURSO group that was statistically indistinguishable from the –15.32 point-change (P = .667) in the placebo group, Dr. van den Berg reported.

Similarly, there were no clinically meaningful or statistically significant differences in the secondary endpoints of mean change in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Assessment Questionnaire (ALSAQ-40) scores or mean change in slow vital capacity (SVC) when compared to baseline or between arms.

As in CENTAUR, the most common side effects associated with PB&TURSO were gastrointestinal, particularly diarrhea (31% vs 10%), but serious adverse events were slightly less common on PT&TURSO (26% vs 28%), and Dr. van der Berg characterized the drug as “generally well tolerated.”
 

Differences Between Two Trials Were Evaluated

The entry criteria for PHOENIX trial differed modestly from those of the CENTAUR trial. Clinically definite or probable ALS was required in only two or more body regions versus three or more in the earlier trial. Patients were also allowed entry with SVC greater than 60% versus greater than 55% for CENTAUR and have had a longer period since symptom onset (< 24 vs < 18 months). Both studies permitted use of edaravone.

When stratified, patients who entered PHOENIX with CENTAUR-like entry criteria had a similar response to PB&TURSO relative to those who did not. Similarly, there were no meaningful differences between those enrolled in European study sites versus elsewhere. Background edaravone versus no edaravone also had no apparent effect on outcomes.

An ongoing open-label extension of the PHOENIX trial is still collecting data on survival, which was a prespecified endpoint. This endpoint, which requires 70% or more of patients to have died or have been followed for 3 or more years since the last patient was randomized, is not expected until February 2026.

Although “there are further biomarker and subgroup analyses planned,” Dr. van den Berg said that the neutral results of the PHOENIX trial, which he characterized as the largest controlled trial in ALS ever conducted, do not encourage further studies with this agent.
 

‘Unfortunate’ Results

Robert Bowser, PhD, chief scientific officer and chair of the department of translational neuroscience, Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, called the results “unfortunate.” Just last year, Dr. Bowser published a study showing a reduction in the concentration of biomarkers associated with ALS among patients in the CENTAUR study who were treated with PB&TURSO.

Moreover, the reduction in the serum concentrations of the biomarkers he studied, which included C-reactive protein and YKL-40, correlated with ALSFRS-R total score.

In that paper, he speculated that CRP and YKL-40 might emerge as treatment-sensitive biomarkers in ALS “pending further confirmatory studies, but Dr. Bowser indicated that the PHOENIX study has prompted the correct response from the manufacturers.

“Credit should be given to the leaders at Amylyx for following through with their promise to remove the drug from the market if the PHOENIX study did not confirm the results from the CENTAUR study,” he said.

However, he believes that the study will still have value for better understanding ALS.

“As we move forward, it will be interesting to see biomarker data generated from the biosamples collected during the PHOENIX trial to learn more about treatment impact on biomarkers within those that received the drug,” he said. “I am sure we will continue to learn more from the PHOENIX trial.”

Dr. van den Berg has financial relationships with approximately 10 pharmaceutical companies, including Amylyx, which provided funding for the PHOENIX trial. Dr. Bowser reported no potential conflicts of interest.

DENVER — Unlike a first trial of PB&TURSO, which led to regulatory approval of this combination therapy in 2022, a second larger and longer multicenter placebo-controlled study was unable to show any significant benefit on primary or secondary endpoints.

As a result, “PB&TURSO is no longer available for new patients in the United States of Canada,” reported Leonard H. van den Berg, MD, PhD, Direction of the Netherlands ALS Center, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Although the drug is now being withdrawn, patients on therapy as of April 4 who wish to stay on treatment “can be transitioned to a free drug program,” added Dr. van den Berg, who presented the results of this new trial, called PHOENIX, at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

PB&TURSO, marketed as Relyvrio (Amylyx), is a combination of sodium phenylbutyrate (PB) and taurursodiol (TAURO). Having shown promise for preventing neuronal death in experimental and early human studies, it was approved on the basis of the of the double-blind multicenter CENTAUR trial published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2022.
 

ALSFRS-R Served as Primary Endpoint in Both Trials

In CENTAUR, like the newly completed PHOENIX, the primary outcome was rate of decline in the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale–Revised (ALSFRS-R) over 24 weeks. On this endpoint, the rate of change for those randomized to PB&TAURO was –1.24 points per month versus –1.66 points per month on placebo, a difference of 0.42 points that met statistical significance (P = .02).

The CENTAUR trial, which enrolled 177 patients, also showed no differences between those in the experimental and placebo arms for any of the secondary endpoints, including time to tracheostomy, permanent ventilation, or death.

In the much larger and longer PHOENIX trial, 664 ALS patients were randomized in a 3:2 ratio to PB&TURSO or placebo. Fifty-seven percent in each group completed 48 weeks of follow-up. The proportions of patients who withdrew from the study were similar across the reasons, such as adverse events and disease progression.

For the ALSFRS-R primary endpoint at 48 weeks, the decline in both groups was essentially linear and almost completely overlapped with a final change from baseline of –14.98 points in the PB&TURSO group that was statistically indistinguishable from the –15.32 point-change (P = .667) in the placebo group, Dr. van den Berg reported.

Similarly, there were no clinically meaningful or statistically significant differences in the secondary endpoints of mean change in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Assessment Questionnaire (ALSAQ-40) scores or mean change in slow vital capacity (SVC) when compared to baseline or between arms.

As in CENTAUR, the most common side effects associated with PB&TURSO were gastrointestinal, particularly diarrhea (31% vs 10%), but serious adverse events were slightly less common on PT&TURSO (26% vs 28%), and Dr. van der Berg characterized the drug as “generally well tolerated.”
 

Differences Between Two Trials Were Evaluated

The entry criteria for PHOENIX trial differed modestly from those of the CENTAUR trial. Clinically definite or probable ALS was required in only two or more body regions versus three or more in the earlier trial. Patients were also allowed entry with SVC greater than 60% versus greater than 55% for CENTAUR and have had a longer period since symptom onset (< 24 vs < 18 months). Both studies permitted use of edaravone.

When stratified, patients who entered PHOENIX with CENTAUR-like entry criteria had a similar response to PB&TURSO relative to those who did not. Similarly, there were no meaningful differences between those enrolled in European study sites versus elsewhere. Background edaravone versus no edaravone also had no apparent effect on outcomes.

An ongoing open-label extension of the PHOENIX trial is still collecting data on survival, which was a prespecified endpoint. This endpoint, which requires 70% or more of patients to have died or have been followed for 3 or more years since the last patient was randomized, is not expected until February 2026.

Although “there are further biomarker and subgroup analyses planned,” Dr. van den Berg said that the neutral results of the PHOENIX trial, which he characterized as the largest controlled trial in ALS ever conducted, do not encourage further studies with this agent.
 

‘Unfortunate’ Results

Robert Bowser, PhD, chief scientific officer and chair of the department of translational neuroscience, Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, called the results “unfortunate.” Just last year, Dr. Bowser published a study showing a reduction in the concentration of biomarkers associated with ALS among patients in the CENTAUR study who were treated with PB&TURSO.

Moreover, the reduction in the serum concentrations of the biomarkers he studied, which included C-reactive protein and YKL-40, correlated with ALSFRS-R total score.

In that paper, he speculated that CRP and YKL-40 might emerge as treatment-sensitive biomarkers in ALS “pending further confirmatory studies, but Dr. Bowser indicated that the PHOENIX study has prompted the correct response from the manufacturers.

“Credit should be given to the leaders at Amylyx for following through with their promise to remove the drug from the market if the PHOENIX study did not confirm the results from the CENTAUR study,” he said.

However, he believes that the study will still have value for better understanding ALS.

“As we move forward, it will be interesting to see biomarker data generated from the biosamples collected during the PHOENIX trial to learn more about treatment impact on biomarkers within those that received the drug,” he said. “I am sure we will continue to learn more from the PHOENIX trial.”

Dr. van den Berg has financial relationships with approximately 10 pharmaceutical companies, including Amylyx, which provided funding for the PHOENIX trial. Dr. Bowser reported no potential conflicts of interest.

DENVER — Unlike a first trial of PB&TURSO, which led to regulatory approval of this combination therapy in 2022, a second larger and longer multicenter placebo-controlled study was unable to show any significant benefit on primary or secondary endpoints.

As a result, “PB&TURSO is no longer available for new patients in the United States of Canada,” reported Leonard H. van den Berg, MD, PhD, Direction of the Netherlands ALS Center, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Although the drug is now being withdrawn, patients on therapy as of April 4 who wish to stay on treatment “can be transitioned to a free drug program,” added Dr. van den Berg, who presented the results of this new trial, called PHOENIX, at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

PB&TURSO, marketed as Relyvrio (Amylyx), is a combination of sodium phenylbutyrate (PB) and taurursodiol (TAURO). Having shown promise for preventing neuronal death in experimental and early human studies, it was approved on the basis of the of the double-blind multicenter CENTAUR trial published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2022.
 

ALSFRS-R Served as Primary Endpoint in Both Trials

In CENTAUR, like the newly completed PHOENIX, the primary outcome was rate of decline in the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale–Revised (ALSFRS-R) over 24 weeks. On this endpoint, the rate of change for those randomized to PB&TAURO was –1.24 points per month versus –1.66 points per month on placebo, a difference of 0.42 points that met statistical significance (P = .02).

The CENTAUR trial, which enrolled 177 patients, also showed no differences between those in the experimental and placebo arms for any of the secondary endpoints, including time to tracheostomy, permanent ventilation, or death.

In the much larger and longer PHOENIX trial, 664 ALS patients were randomized in a 3:2 ratio to PB&TURSO or placebo. Fifty-seven percent in each group completed 48 weeks of follow-up. The proportions of patients who withdrew from the study were similar across the reasons, such as adverse events and disease progression.

For the ALSFRS-R primary endpoint at 48 weeks, the decline in both groups was essentially linear and almost completely overlapped with a final change from baseline of –14.98 points in the PB&TURSO group that was statistically indistinguishable from the –15.32 point-change (P = .667) in the placebo group, Dr. van den Berg reported.

Similarly, there were no clinically meaningful or statistically significant differences in the secondary endpoints of mean change in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Assessment Questionnaire (ALSAQ-40) scores or mean change in slow vital capacity (SVC) when compared to baseline or between arms.

As in CENTAUR, the most common side effects associated with PB&TURSO were gastrointestinal, particularly diarrhea (31% vs 10%), but serious adverse events were slightly less common on PT&TURSO (26% vs 28%), and Dr. van der Berg characterized the drug as “generally well tolerated.”
 

Differences Between Two Trials Were Evaluated

The entry criteria for PHOENIX trial differed modestly from those of the CENTAUR trial. Clinically definite or probable ALS was required in only two or more body regions versus three or more in the earlier trial. Patients were also allowed entry with SVC greater than 60% versus greater than 55% for CENTAUR and have had a longer period since symptom onset (< 24 vs < 18 months). Both studies permitted use of edaravone.

When stratified, patients who entered PHOENIX with CENTAUR-like entry criteria had a similar response to PB&TURSO relative to those who did not. Similarly, there were no meaningful differences between those enrolled in European study sites versus elsewhere. Background edaravone versus no edaravone also had no apparent effect on outcomes.

An ongoing open-label extension of the PHOENIX trial is still collecting data on survival, which was a prespecified endpoint. This endpoint, which requires 70% or more of patients to have died or have been followed for 3 or more years since the last patient was randomized, is not expected until February 2026.

Although “there are further biomarker and subgroup analyses planned,” Dr. van den Berg said that the neutral results of the PHOENIX trial, which he characterized as the largest controlled trial in ALS ever conducted, do not encourage further studies with this agent.
 

‘Unfortunate’ Results

Robert Bowser, PhD, chief scientific officer and chair of the department of translational neuroscience, Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, called the results “unfortunate.” Just last year, Dr. Bowser published a study showing a reduction in the concentration of biomarkers associated with ALS among patients in the CENTAUR study who were treated with PB&TURSO.

Moreover, the reduction in the serum concentrations of the biomarkers he studied, which included C-reactive protein and YKL-40, correlated with ALSFRS-R total score.

In that paper, he speculated that CRP and YKL-40 might emerge as treatment-sensitive biomarkers in ALS “pending further confirmatory studies, but Dr. Bowser indicated that the PHOENIX study has prompted the correct response from the manufacturers.

“Credit should be given to the leaders at Amylyx for following through with their promise to remove the drug from the market if the PHOENIX study did not confirm the results from the CENTAUR study,” he said.

However, he believes that the study will still have value for better understanding ALS.

“As we move forward, it will be interesting to see biomarker data generated from the biosamples collected during the PHOENIX trial to learn more about treatment impact on biomarkers within those that received the drug,” he said. “I am sure we will continue to learn more from the PHOENIX trial.”

Dr. van den Berg has financial relationships with approximately 10 pharmaceutical companies, including Amylyx, which provided funding for the PHOENIX trial. Dr. Bowser reported no potential conflicts of interest.

DENVER — When combined with rHuPh20, a recombinant DNA-derived human hyaluronidase, efgartigimod, promises a new treatment option for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), according to the results of a phase 2 multinational trial, which were reported at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

“Regardless of prior therapy for CIDP, efgartigimod PH20 was associated with a rapid clinical improvement, and clinical responses have been maintained out to 48 weeks,” said Jeffrey A. Allen, MD, an associate professor of neurology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Efgartigimod, which reduces circulating IgG immunoglobulin, has been available for the treatment of myasthenia gravis since 2021. In a new trial, called ADHERE, the combination of efgartigimod and rHuPH20 (E-PH20) was tested for CIDP, the most common of the chronic immune-mediated inflammatory polyneuropathies.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

ADHERE Called Largest CIDP Trial to Date

In this study, which Dr. Allen called the largest randomized controlled trial ever performed with a CIDP treatment, a run-in stage was required for those candidates who were already on treatment. When these patients went off treatment during this 12-week run-in, clinical deterioration was required to advance to the first of two stages of the trial. Patients with symptomatic CIDP but off treatment at the time of enrollment did not participate in the run-in.

After the run-in, patients who advanced to stage A received 1000 mg of E-PH20 open label for 12 weeks. Of those on treatment prior to the run-in, about half were receiving intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIg). Almost all the remainder had been receiving corticosteroids. About 30% had been off treatment and entered stage A without participating in the run in.

The primary endpoint of stage A was the percentage of patients with evidence of clinical improvement (ECI). Patients who participated in the run-in were allowed to resume their prior treatment for stage A and the subsequent blinded stage B. Stage A was event driven so that it was closed once 88 events were reached,

The ECI endpoint was met by 66.5% of the patients, who thereby met eligibility for the randomized stage B. As the study design excluded those who achieved clinical improvement after the 88-event limit was reached, they were not included among responders. Had they been included, Dr. Allen said that the primary endpoint of stage A would have been reached by 70.4%.

The patterns of improvement in stage A were similar across type of prior CIDP treatment, including no treatment, according to Dr. Allen, who noted that 39.8% of those enrolled in stage A met the primary endpoint within 4 weeks.

There were 322 patients in stage A. Of these, 211 enrolled in stage B. They were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 1000 mg of E-PH20 or placebo administered weekly by subcutaneous injection. Of those eligible for stage B, 40% had not participated in the run-in.
 

aINCAT Provided Primary Endpoint for CIDP Trial

For stage B, the primary endpoint was time from baseline to a clinically meaningful limitation of activity. This was evaluated with the adjusted inflammatory neuropathy cause and treatment (aINCAT) disability score.

By the end of 48 weeks of treatment, 27.9% had relapsed on E-PH20 according to the aiNCAT disability score versus 53.6% on those on placebo. By hazard ratio (HR 0.39), the active treatment arm was associated with a highly significant 61% (P = .000039) greater likelihood of avoiding relapse.

When stratified by a background of no therapy, IVIg, subcutaneous immunoglobulins (SCIg), or corticosteroids, all groups in the active treatment arm did better in stage B than any group in the placebo arm, according to Dr. Allen.

In the 48-week deterioration curves, sustained control was observed among responders out to the end of controlled study. Although there appeared to be numerical advantage for those on both E-PH20 and corticosteroids, E-PH20 arms with concomitant IVIg, SCIg, or no treatment also showed sustained control without significant differences between them.

On functional aINCAT scores, 80.9% achieved at least a 1-point improvement. The improvement was at least 2 points in 42.7%, at least 3 points in 28.2%, and at least 4 points in 11.8%.
 

E-PH20 Is Characterized as Well Tolerated

Injection site erythema (5.4% vs 0%) and injection site bruising (5.4% vs 0.9%) were more common on E-PH20 than placebo, but there was no difference in serious adverse events, and events possibly related to active treatment, such as headache (3.6% vs. 1.8%) were considered to be of mild to moderate severity.

“The safety profile of efgartigimod plus PH20 was consistent with the safety profile of efgartigimod in other autoimmune diseases,” Dr. Allen said.

The weekly subcutaneous injection can be administered within 90 seconds or less, Dr. Allen said. He called this drug a potential “new therapeutic option to reduce treatment burden in patients with CIDP” if it is approved.

There is a need for new options, according to Brett M. Morrison, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, and an expert in neuromuscular disorders. Dr. Morrison was not involved in the study.

“Although there are three currently approved treatments — steroids, IVIg, and plasmapheresis, at least 20% of CIDP patients have minimal or no response” to any of these, Dr. Morrison said. He added that many of those who do respond to standard therapies have a substantial side effect burden that has created a need for alternatives.

Based on the data presented so far, which suggest substantial efficacy and a favorable safety profile, efgartigimod, if and when it becomes available, “would be an important new treatment for CIDP,” according to Dr. Morrison.

Dr. Allen has financial relationships with more than 10 pharmaceutical companies, including Argenx, which provided funding for the ACHIEVE trial. Dr. Morrison reported no potential conflicts of interest.

DENVER — When combined with rHuPh20, a recombinant DNA-derived human hyaluronidase, efgartigimod, promises a new treatment option for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), according to the results of a phase 2 multinational trial, which were reported at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

“Regardless of prior therapy for CIDP, efgartigimod PH20 was associated with a rapid clinical improvement, and clinical responses have been maintained out to 48 weeks,” said Jeffrey A. Allen, MD, an associate professor of neurology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Efgartigimod, which reduces circulating IgG immunoglobulin, has been available for the treatment of myasthenia gravis since 2021. In a new trial, called ADHERE, the combination of efgartigimod and rHuPH20 (E-PH20) was tested for CIDP, the most common of the chronic immune-mediated inflammatory polyneuropathies.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

ADHERE Called Largest CIDP Trial to Date

In this study, which Dr. Allen called the largest randomized controlled trial ever performed with a CIDP treatment, a run-in stage was required for those candidates who were already on treatment. When these patients went off treatment during this 12-week run-in, clinical deterioration was required to advance to the first of two stages of the trial. Patients with symptomatic CIDP but off treatment at the time of enrollment did not participate in the run-in.

After the run-in, patients who advanced to stage A received 1000 mg of E-PH20 open label for 12 weeks. Of those on treatment prior to the run-in, about half were receiving intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIg). Almost all the remainder had been receiving corticosteroids. About 30% had been off treatment and entered stage A without participating in the run in.

The primary endpoint of stage A was the percentage of patients with evidence of clinical improvement (ECI). Patients who participated in the run-in were allowed to resume their prior treatment for stage A and the subsequent blinded stage B. Stage A was event driven so that it was closed once 88 events were reached,

The ECI endpoint was met by 66.5% of the patients, who thereby met eligibility for the randomized stage B. As the study design excluded those who achieved clinical improvement after the 88-event limit was reached, they were not included among responders. Had they been included, Dr. Allen said that the primary endpoint of stage A would have been reached by 70.4%.

The patterns of improvement in stage A were similar across type of prior CIDP treatment, including no treatment, according to Dr. Allen, who noted that 39.8% of those enrolled in stage A met the primary endpoint within 4 weeks.

There were 322 patients in stage A. Of these, 211 enrolled in stage B. They were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 1000 mg of E-PH20 or placebo administered weekly by subcutaneous injection. Of those eligible for stage B, 40% had not participated in the run-in.
 

aINCAT Provided Primary Endpoint for CIDP Trial

For stage B, the primary endpoint was time from baseline to a clinically meaningful limitation of activity. This was evaluated with the adjusted inflammatory neuropathy cause and treatment (aINCAT) disability score.

By the end of 48 weeks of treatment, 27.9% had relapsed on E-PH20 according to the aiNCAT disability score versus 53.6% on those on placebo. By hazard ratio (HR 0.39), the active treatment arm was associated with a highly significant 61% (P = .000039) greater likelihood of avoiding relapse.

When stratified by a background of no therapy, IVIg, subcutaneous immunoglobulins (SCIg), or corticosteroids, all groups in the active treatment arm did better in stage B than any group in the placebo arm, according to Dr. Allen.

In the 48-week deterioration curves, sustained control was observed among responders out to the end of controlled study. Although there appeared to be numerical advantage for those on both E-PH20 and corticosteroids, E-PH20 arms with concomitant IVIg, SCIg, or no treatment also showed sustained control without significant differences between them.

On functional aINCAT scores, 80.9% achieved at least a 1-point improvement. The improvement was at least 2 points in 42.7%, at least 3 points in 28.2%, and at least 4 points in 11.8%.
 

E-PH20 Is Characterized as Well Tolerated

Injection site erythema (5.4% vs 0%) and injection site bruising (5.4% vs 0.9%) were more common on E-PH20 than placebo, but there was no difference in serious adverse events, and events possibly related to active treatment, such as headache (3.6% vs. 1.8%) were considered to be of mild to moderate severity.

“The safety profile of efgartigimod plus PH20 was consistent with the safety profile of efgartigimod in other autoimmune diseases,” Dr. Allen said.

The weekly subcutaneous injection can be administered within 90 seconds or less, Dr. Allen said. He called this drug a potential “new therapeutic option to reduce treatment burden in patients with CIDP” if it is approved.

There is a need for new options, according to Brett M. Morrison, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, and an expert in neuromuscular disorders. Dr. Morrison was not involved in the study.

“Although there are three currently approved treatments — steroids, IVIg, and plasmapheresis, at least 20% of CIDP patients have minimal or no response” to any of these, Dr. Morrison said. He added that many of those who do respond to standard therapies have a substantial side effect burden that has created a need for alternatives.

Based on the data presented so far, which suggest substantial efficacy and a favorable safety profile, efgartigimod, if and when it becomes available, “would be an important new treatment for CIDP,” according to Dr. Morrison.

Dr. Allen has financial relationships with more than 10 pharmaceutical companies, including Argenx, which provided funding for the ACHIEVE trial. Dr. Morrison reported no potential conflicts of interest.

DENVER — When combined with rHuPh20, a recombinant DNA-derived human hyaluronidase, efgartigimod, promises a new treatment option for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), according to the results of a phase 2 multinational trial, which were reported at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

“Regardless of prior therapy for CIDP, efgartigimod PH20 was associated with a rapid clinical improvement, and clinical responses have been maintained out to 48 weeks,” said Jeffrey A. Allen, MD, an associate professor of neurology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Efgartigimod, which reduces circulating IgG immunoglobulin, has been available for the treatment of myasthenia gravis since 2021. In a new trial, called ADHERE, the combination of efgartigimod and rHuPH20 (E-PH20) was tested for CIDP, the most common of the chronic immune-mediated inflammatory polyneuropathies.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

ADHERE Called Largest CIDP Trial to Date

In this study, which Dr. Allen called the largest randomized controlled trial ever performed with a CIDP treatment, a run-in stage was required for those candidates who were already on treatment. When these patients went off treatment during this 12-week run-in, clinical deterioration was required to advance to the first of two stages of the trial. Patients with symptomatic CIDP but off treatment at the time of enrollment did not participate in the run-in.

After the run-in, patients who advanced to stage A received 1000 mg of E-PH20 open label for 12 weeks. Of those on treatment prior to the run-in, about half were receiving intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIg). Almost all the remainder had been receiving corticosteroids. About 30% had been off treatment and entered stage A without participating in the run in.

The primary endpoint of stage A was the percentage of patients with evidence of clinical improvement (ECI). Patients who participated in the run-in were allowed to resume their prior treatment for stage A and the subsequent blinded stage B. Stage A was event driven so that it was closed once 88 events were reached,

The ECI endpoint was met by 66.5% of the patients, who thereby met eligibility for the randomized stage B. As the study design excluded those who achieved clinical improvement after the 88-event limit was reached, they were not included among responders. Had they been included, Dr. Allen said that the primary endpoint of stage A would have been reached by 70.4%.

The patterns of improvement in stage A were similar across type of prior CIDP treatment, including no treatment, according to Dr. Allen, who noted that 39.8% of those enrolled in stage A met the primary endpoint within 4 weeks.

There were 322 patients in stage A. Of these, 211 enrolled in stage B. They were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 1000 mg of E-PH20 or placebo administered weekly by subcutaneous injection. Of those eligible for stage B, 40% had not participated in the run-in.
 

aINCAT Provided Primary Endpoint for CIDP Trial

For stage B, the primary endpoint was time from baseline to a clinically meaningful limitation of activity. This was evaluated with the adjusted inflammatory neuropathy cause and treatment (aINCAT) disability score.

By the end of 48 weeks of treatment, 27.9% had relapsed on E-PH20 according to the aiNCAT disability score versus 53.6% on those on placebo. By hazard ratio (HR 0.39), the active treatment arm was associated with a highly significant 61% (P = .000039) greater likelihood of avoiding relapse.

When stratified by a background of no therapy, IVIg, subcutaneous immunoglobulins (SCIg), or corticosteroids, all groups in the active treatment arm did better in stage B than any group in the placebo arm, according to Dr. Allen.

In the 48-week deterioration curves, sustained control was observed among responders out to the end of controlled study. Although there appeared to be numerical advantage for those on both E-PH20 and corticosteroids, E-PH20 arms with concomitant IVIg, SCIg, or no treatment also showed sustained control without significant differences between them.

On functional aINCAT scores, 80.9% achieved at least a 1-point improvement. The improvement was at least 2 points in 42.7%, at least 3 points in 28.2%, and at least 4 points in 11.8%.
 

E-PH20 Is Characterized as Well Tolerated

Injection site erythema (5.4% vs 0%) and injection site bruising (5.4% vs 0.9%) were more common on E-PH20 than placebo, but there was no difference in serious adverse events, and events possibly related to active treatment, such as headache (3.6% vs. 1.8%) were considered to be of mild to moderate severity.

“The safety profile of efgartigimod plus PH20 was consistent with the safety profile of efgartigimod in other autoimmune diseases,” Dr. Allen said.

The weekly subcutaneous injection can be administered within 90 seconds or less, Dr. Allen said. He called this drug a potential “new therapeutic option to reduce treatment burden in patients with CIDP” if it is approved.

There is a need for new options, according to Brett M. Morrison, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, and an expert in neuromuscular disorders. Dr. Morrison was not involved in the study.

“Although there are three currently approved treatments — steroids, IVIg, and plasmapheresis, at least 20% of CIDP patients have minimal or no response” to any of these, Dr. Morrison said. He added that many of those who do respond to standard therapies have a substantial side effect burden that has created a need for alternatives.

Based on the data presented so far, which suggest substantial efficacy and a favorable safety profile, efgartigimod, if and when it becomes available, “would be an important new treatment for CIDP,” according to Dr. Morrison.

Dr. Allen has financial relationships with more than 10 pharmaceutical companies, including Argenx, which provided funding for the ACHIEVE trial. Dr. Morrison reported no potential conflicts of interest.

VIENNA — The glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) not only induced weight loss but also improved knee pain in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) and obesity, according to results from the STEP 9 study reported at the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) 2024  World Congress.

From baseline to week 68, the mean change in knee pain assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score was a reduction of 41.7 points for semaglutide and a decrease of 27.5 points for a matching placebo. The estimated treatment difference of 14.1 points between the groups was statistically significant (P < .001).

As for weight loss, this also fell by a significantly greater amount in the people treated with semaglutide vs those given placebo, with respective reductions of 13.7% and 3.2% from baseline, with an estimated 10.5% greater weight loss with semaglutide.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

“The interesting thing is whether there’s a specific action of GLP-1 receptor agonists on the joint, not through the weight loss but by itself,” principal study investigator Henning Bliddal, MD, DMSc, told this news organization ahead of reporting the results at OARSI 2024.

Weight loss is “obviously good” because “the knees suffer from the weight. But whether it’s good for the knee or just for the health or the well-being of the person is another matter,” said Dr. Bliddal, who is director of the Parker Institute at Bispebjerg Frederiksberg Hospital in Copenhagen, Denmark.
 

Not Approved in OA

Semaglutide and other potentially weight loss-inducing drugs are not currently indicated for use specifically in OA, Tonia Vincent, MBBS, PhD, told this news organization, and so “I think we have to be very cautious,” she said.

“Weight loss is one of the few things that has been shown to be successful in clinical trials,” said Dr. Vincent, who is a professor of musculoskeletal biology and an honorary rheumatologist at the Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology at Oxford University in Oxford, England.

“People always feel better too when they lose weight, so that helps manage pain. So, I’d be very surprised if there isn’t a benefit,” she added.

“I just think we need to know more about the long-term use of these drugs, whether the healthcare system can afford them, and how we would ration them.”
 

Previous Work

The STEP 9 study is not the first time that Dr. Bliddal has investigated the effects of a GLP-1 receptor agonist in people with knee OA, but it is the first to have shown a significant effect on knee pain.

Previously, results from the LOSEIT trial with liraglutide demonstrated that, after an 8-week dietary intervention run-in phase, people who were treated with the GLP-1 receptor agonist lost an average of 2.8 kg in body weight over a period of 1 year, vs a 1.2 kg gain in the placebo group. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores, however, were largely unaffected.

“The study was more or less negative for knee pain because at that time we had to pretreat patients with some kind of weight loss before they were allowed to have the liraglutide,” Dr. Bliddal said.

“There’s so many different considerations with diets and the different ways that [dietary modification] is performed, that could be part of the explanation why some people didn’t find the pain relief,” Dr. Bliddal suggested.
 

STEP 9 Study Design

No pre-study dietary intervention was required in the STEP 9 trial, although a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical exercise were used alongside both semaglutide and placebo treatment.

STEP 9 was a multicenter, multinational phase 3 clinical trial that enrolled people if they had a body mass index (BMI) of > 30, had a clinical diagnosis of knee OA with moderate radiographic changes (Kellgren-Lawrence grade of 2-3), and were experiencing knee pain.

In addition to a baseline WOMAC pain score of at least 40 points (where 0 represents no and 100 the worst pain), the participants had to have a WOMAC numerical rating scale (NRS) score of ≥ 3.1.

A total of 407 participants were recruited and randomly allocated, 2:1, to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of either semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for a total of 68 weeks.

Dr. Bliddal presented demographic information only for the study population as a whole, showing that the mean was 56 years, 81.6% were women, 60.9% were White, 11.8% Native American, 7.6% Black, and 19.7% of other ethnic origin.

Moreover, the mean bodyweight at baseline was 108.6 kg, and the mean baseline BMI was 40.3, with 75% of participants having a BMI ≥ 35. The mean waist circumference was 118.7 cm. The mean baseline WOMAC pain score was 70.9.
 

Other Findings

In addition to the reductions seen in the coprimary endpoints of weight loss and knee pain, the WOMAC physical function score was also reduced from baseline to week 68 to a greater degree in the semaglutide than placebo arm, by a respective 41.5 vs 26.7 points, with a significant estimated treatment difference of -14.9 points.

“The use of pain medication went down as well; you can see the drop was faster in the semaglutide group than the placebo group, and it was maintained throughout the study,” Dr. Bliddal said during his presentation. He noted that patients had to temporarily stop taking pain relievers such as acetaminophen 3 days before their pain was assessed.

Additional findings reported in the abstract, but not presented at the meeting, were a significant estimated treatment difference of -1.0 in NRS pain intensity, more people treated with semaglutide than placebo achieving ≥ 5% (87.0% vs 29.2%) or ≥ 10% (70.4% vs 9.2%) weight loss.

“Safety and tolerability with semaglutide were consistent with the global STEP program and the GLP-1 receptor agonist class in general,” Dr. Bliddal reported.

Serious adverse events occurred in a respective 10.0% and 8.1% of participants, and adverse events leading to discontinuation were recorded in 6.7% and 3%. Around one third (2.2%) of those leading to discontinuation in the semaglutide arm were gastrointestinal adverse events.

The STEP 9 study was funded by Novo Nordisk. Henning is a principal investigator for the trial and acknowledged that research grants were received from Novo Nordisk to his institution, as well as consulting fees and honoraria. He has also received congress and travel support from Contura. Dr. Vincent was not involved in the study and had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — The glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) not only induced weight loss but also improved knee pain in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) and obesity, according to results from the STEP 9 study reported at the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) 2024  World Congress.

From baseline to week 68, the mean change in knee pain assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score was a reduction of 41.7 points for semaglutide and a decrease of 27.5 points for a matching placebo. The estimated treatment difference of 14.1 points between the groups was statistically significant (P < .001).

As for weight loss, this also fell by a significantly greater amount in the people treated with semaglutide vs those given placebo, with respective reductions of 13.7% and 3.2% from baseline, with an estimated 10.5% greater weight loss with semaglutide.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

“The interesting thing is whether there’s a specific action of GLP-1 receptor agonists on the joint, not through the weight loss but by itself,” principal study investigator Henning Bliddal, MD, DMSc, told this news organization ahead of reporting the results at OARSI 2024.

Weight loss is “obviously good” because “the knees suffer from the weight. But whether it’s good for the knee or just for the health or the well-being of the person is another matter,” said Dr. Bliddal, who is director of the Parker Institute at Bispebjerg Frederiksberg Hospital in Copenhagen, Denmark.
 

Not Approved in OA

Semaglutide and other potentially weight loss-inducing drugs are not currently indicated for use specifically in OA, Tonia Vincent, MBBS, PhD, told this news organization, and so “I think we have to be very cautious,” she said.

“Weight loss is one of the few things that has been shown to be successful in clinical trials,” said Dr. Vincent, who is a professor of musculoskeletal biology and an honorary rheumatologist at the Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology at Oxford University in Oxford, England.

“People always feel better too when they lose weight, so that helps manage pain. So, I’d be very surprised if there isn’t a benefit,” she added.

“I just think we need to know more about the long-term use of these drugs, whether the healthcare system can afford them, and how we would ration them.”
 

Previous Work

The STEP 9 study is not the first time that Dr. Bliddal has investigated the effects of a GLP-1 receptor agonist in people with knee OA, but it is the first to have shown a significant effect on knee pain.

Previously, results from the LOSEIT trial with liraglutide demonstrated that, after an 8-week dietary intervention run-in phase, people who were treated with the GLP-1 receptor agonist lost an average of 2.8 kg in body weight over a period of 1 year, vs a 1.2 kg gain in the placebo group. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores, however, were largely unaffected.

“The study was more or less negative for knee pain because at that time we had to pretreat patients with some kind of weight loss before they were allowed to have the liraglutide,” Dr. Bliddal said.

“There’s so many different considerations with diets and the different ways that [dietary modification] is performed, that could be part of the explanation why some people didn’t find the pain relief,” Dr. Bliddal suggested.
 

STEP 9 Study Design

No pre-study dietary intervention was required in the STEP 9 trial, although a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical exercise were used alongside both semaglutide and placebo treatment.

STEP 9 was a multicenter, multinational phase 3 clinical trial that enrolled people if they had a body mass index (BMI) of > 30, had a clinical diagnosis of knee OA with moderate radiographic changes (Kellgren-Lawrence grade of 2-3), and were experiencing knee pain.

In addition to a baseline WOMAC pain score of at least 40 points (where 0 represents no and 100 the worst pain), the participants had to have a WOMAC numerical rating scale (NRS) score of ≥ 3.1.

A total of 407 participants were recruited and randomly allocated, 2:1, to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of either semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for a total of 68 weeks.

Dr. Bliddal presented demographic information only for the study population as a whole, showing that the mean was 56 years, 81.6% were women, 60.9% were White, 11.8% Native American, 7.6% Black, and 19.7% of other ethnic origin.

Moreover, the mean bodyweight at baseline was 108.6 kg, and the mean baseline BMI was 40.3, with 75% of participants having a BMI ≥ 35. The mean waist circumference was 118.7 cm. The mean baseline WOMAC pain score was 70.9.
 

Other Findings

In addition to the reductions seen in the coprimary endpoints of weight loss and knee pain, the WOMAC physical function score was also reduced from baseline to week 68 to a greater degree in the semaglutide than placebo arm, by a respective 41.5 vs 26.7 points, with a significant estimated treatment difference of -14.9 points.

“The use of pain medication went down as well; you can see the drop was faster in the semaglutide group than the placebo group, and it was maintained throughout the study,” Dr. Bliddal said during his presentation. He noted that patients had to temporarily stop taking pain relievers such as acetaminophen 3 days before their pain was assessed.

Additional findings reported in the abstract, but not presented at the meeting, were a significant estimated treatment difference of -1.0 in NRS pain intensity, more people treated with semaglutide than placebo achieving ≥ 5% (87.0% vs 29.2%) or ≥ 10% (70.4% vs 9.2%) weight loss.

“Safety and tolerability with semaglutide were consistent with the global STEP program and the GLP-1 receptor agonist class in general,” Dr. Bliddal reported.

Serious adverse events occurred in a respective 10.0% and 8.1% of participants, and adverse events leading to discontinuation were recorded in 6.7% and 3%. Around one third (2.2%) of those leading to discontinuation in the semaglutide arm were gastrointestinal adverse events.

The STEP 9 study was funded by Novo Nordisk. Henning is a principal investigator for the trial and acknowledged that research grants were received from Novo Nordisk to his institution, as well as consulting fees and honoraria. He has also received congress and travel support from Contura. Dr. Vincent was not involved in the study and had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — The glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) not only induced weight loss but also improved knee pain in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) and obesity, according to results from the STEP 9 study reported at the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) 2024  World Congress.

From baseline to week 68, the mean change in knee pain assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score was a reduction of 41.7 points for semaglutide and a decrease of 27.5 points for a matching placebo. The estimated treatment difference of 14.1 points between the groups was statistically significant (P < .001).

As for weight loss, this also fell by a significantly greater amount in the people treated with semaglutide vs those given placebo, with respective reductions of 13.7% and 3.2% from baseline, with an estimated 10.5% greater weight loss with semaglutide.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

“The interesting thing is whether there’s a specific action of GLP-1 receptor agonists on the joint, not through the weight loss but by itself,” principal study investigator Henning Bliddal, MD, DMSc, told this news organization ahead of reporting the results at OARSI 2024.

Weight loss is “obviously good” because “the knees suffer from the weight. But whether it’s good for the knee or just for the health or the well-being of the person is another matter,” said Dr. Bliddal, who is director of the Parker Institute at Bispebjerg Frederiksberg Hospital in Copenhagen, Denmark.
 

Not Approved in OA

Semaglutide and other potentially weight loss-inducing drugs are not currently indicated for use specifically in OA, Tonia Vincent, MBBS, PhD, told this news organization, and so “I think we have to be very cautious,” she said.

“Weight loss is one of the few things that has been shown to be successful in clinical trials,” said Dr. Vincent, who is a professor of musculoskeletal biology and an honorary rheumatologist at the Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology at Oxford University in Oxford, England.

“People always feel better too when they lose weight, so that helps manage pain. So, I’d be very surprised if there isn’t a benefit,” she added.

“I just think we need to know more about the long-term use of these drugs, whether the healthcare system can afford them, and how we would ration them.”
 

Previous Work

The STEP 9 study is not the first time that Dr. Bliddal has investigated the effects of a GLP-1 receptor agonist in people with knee OA, but it is the first to have shown a significant effect on knee pain.

Previously, results from the LOSEIT trial with liraglutide demonstrated that, after an 8-week dietary intervention run-in phase, people who were treated with the GLP-1 receptor agonist lost an average of 2.8 kg in body weight over a period of 1 year, vs a 1.2 kg gain in the placebo group. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores, however, were largely unaffected.

“The study was more or less negative for knee pain because at that time we had to pretreat patients with some kind of weight loss before they were allowed to have the liraglutide,” Dr. Bliddal said.

“There’s so many different considerations with diets and the different ways that [dietary modification] is performed, that could be part of the explanation why some people didn’t find the pain relief,” Dr. Bliddal suggested.
 

STEP 9 Study Design

No pre-study dietary intervention was required in the STEP 9 trial, although a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical exercise were used alongside both semaglutide and placebo treatment.

STEP 9 was a multicenter, multinational phase 3 clinical trial that enrolled people if they had a body mass index (BMI) of > 30, had a clinical diagnosis of knee OA with moderate radiographic changes (Kellgren-Lawrence grade of 2-3), and were experiencing knee pain.

In addition to a baseline WOMAC pain score of at least 40 points (where 0 represents no and 100 the worst pain), the participants had to have a WOMAC numerical rating scale (NRS) score of ≥ 3.1.

A total of 407 participants were recruited and randomly allocated, 2:1, to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of either semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for a total of 68 weeks.

Dr. Bliddal presented demographic information only for the study population as a whole, showing that the mean was 56 years, 81.6% were women, 60.9% were White, 11.8% Native American, 7.6% Black, and 19.7% of other ethnic origin.

Moreover, the mean bodyweight at baseline was 108.6 kg, and the mean baseline BMI was 40.3, with 75% of participants having a BMI ≥ 35. The mean waist circumference was 118.7 cm. The mean baseline WOMAC pain score was 70.9.
 

Other Findings

In addition to the reductions seen in the coprimary endpoints of weight loss and knee pain, the WOMAC physical function score was also reduced from baseline to week 68 to a greater degree in the semaglutide than placebo arm, by a respective 41.5 vs 26.7 points, with a significant estimated treatment difference of -14.9 points.

“The use of pain medication went down as well; you can see the drop was faster in the semaglutide group than the placebo group, and it was maintained throughout the study,” Dr. Bliddal said during his presentation. He noted that patients had to temporarily stop taking pain relievers such as acetaminophen 3 days before their pain was assessed.

Additional findings reported in the abstract, but not presented at the meeting, were a significant estimated treatment difference of -1.0 in NRS pain intensity, more people treated with semaglutide than placebo achieving ≥ 5% (87.0% vs 29.2%) or ≥ 10% (70.4% vs 9.2%) weight loss.

“Safety and tolerability with semaglutide were consistent with the global STEP program and the GLP-1 receptor agonist class in general,” Dr. Bliddal reported.

Serious adverse events occurred in a respective 10.0% and 8.1% of participants, and adverse events leading to discontinuation were recorded in 6.7% and 3%. Around one third (2.2%) of those leading to discontinuation in the semaglutide arm were gastrointestinal adverse events.

The STEP 9 study was funded by Novo Nordisk. Henning is a principal investigator for the trial and acknowledged that research grants were received from Novo Nordisk to his institution, as well as consulting fees and honoraria. He has also received congress and travel support from Contura. Dr. Vincent was not involved in the study and had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

There have been many attempts to use immunotherapy to improve outcomes in pancreatic cancer, but they haven’t worked out.

The trials, however, have focused on adding immune checkpoint inhibitors to chemotherapy in metastatic disease, leaving open the question of whether immunotherapy might have a role in the neoadjuvant setting before surgery.

In the first study to test the hypothesis, Zev A. Wainberg, MD, a gastrointestinal medical oncologist at the University of California Los Angeles, reported promising results at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

The small, single arm pilot study included 28 patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, meaning that tumors had some degree of vascular involvement. About 20% of pancreatic tumors are borderline resectable, Dr. Wainberg said.

Patients received 480 mg of nivolumab intravenously every 4 weeks plus mFOLFIRINOX chemotherapy (oxaliplatin, irinotecan, leucovorin, and 5-fluorouracil) on days 1 and 15 of the 28-day cycle.

Patients who downstaged to resectable disease after three cycles went on to surgery; if not, treatment continued for another 3 months. The median number of cycles was 5.5, and almost all patients completed at least 3.

Overall, 19 of the 22 patients who proceeded to surgery (86%) had a pathologic response to neoadjuvant treatment with nivolumab: 2 complete responses, 2 near-complete responses, and 15 partial responses.

Among patients receiving surgery, 21 had R0 resections, meaning negative surgical margins with no tumor left behind. This is key because R0 resections predict longer survival, and “every effort should be made to achieve” this outcome, Dr. Wainberg said. The remaining patient had an R1 resection.

Median progression-free survival was 21.9 months among all patients and 27.3 months among the 22 patients who had resections.

Median overall survival was 34.6 months across the entire group and 44 months among those who had surgery. Overall, 82% of patients were alive at 12 months, and 77% were alive at 18 months.

The study outcomes, especially among the surgery cohort, stand in contrast to those observed in patients who receive the current standard neoadjuvant regimen for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, mFOLFIRINOX alone, with studies finding a median overall survival of 29.8 months.

Adding nivolumab to neoadjuvant treatment also did not increase side effects. More than half of patients had grade 3 or worse adverse events, but they were all related to mFOLFIRINOX. There were no significant surgical complications, including no grade 2 or higher fistulas.

“We are very pleased” with the outcomes, Dr. Wainberg said. “We need to be studying [immune checkpoint inhibitors] earlier on in both borderline and locally advanced disease. Pancreatic cancer needs all the help it can get to engage immunity.”

Moderator Alice Ho, MD, a radiation oncologist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, called the R0 resection rate “stunning” in a “field that very much needs improvements and advancements.”

Dr. Ho also noted that the trial raises “a lot of interesting questions.”

For instance, why exactly is the addition of nivolumab seemingly improving outcomes?

The combination neoadjuvant therapy appeared to increase tertiary lymphoid structures, plasma cells, and CD4+ T cells — all indications that immunotherapy is having a positive impact — but the treatment also seemed to upregulate pathways for adenosine, an immunosuppressant associated with worse responses to checkpoint blockade.

A larger study is already in the works. In addition to a PD-1 blocker and mFOLFIRINOX, patients will receive a CD73 inhibitor to block adenosine production, Dr. Wainberg said.

Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) provided the nivolumab used in the study. Dr. Wainberg is a consultant for and reported research funding from BMS and other companies. Dr. Ho had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

There have been many attempts to use immunotherapy to improve outcomes in pancreatic cancer, but they haven’t worked out.

The trials, however, have focused on adding immune checkpoint inhibitors to chemotherapy in metastatic disease, leaving open the question of whether immunotherapy might have a role in the neoadjuvant setting before surgery.

In the first study to test the hypothesis, Zev A. Wainberg, MD, a gastrointestinal medical oncologist at the University of California Los Angeles, reported promising results at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

The small, single arm pilot study included 28 patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, meaning that tumors had some degree of vascular involvement. About 20% of pancreatic tumors are borderline resectable, Dr. Wainberg said.

Patients received 480 mg of nivolumab intravenously every 4 weeks plus mFOLFIRINOX chemotherapy (oxaliplatin, irinotecan, leucovorin, and 5-fluorouracil) on days 1 and 15 of the 28-day cycle.

Patients who downstaged to resectable disease after three cycles went on to surgery; if not, treatment continued for another 3 months. The median number of cycles was 5.5, and almost all patients completed at least 3.

Overall, 19 of the 22 patients who proceeded to surgery (86%) had a pathologic response to neoadjuvant treatment with nivolumab: 2 complete responses, 2 near-complete responses, and 15 partial responses.

Among patients receiving surgery, 21 had R0 resections, meaning negative surgical margins with no tumor left behind. This is key because R0 resections predict longer survival, and “every effort should be made to achieve” this outcome, Dr. Wainberg said. The remaining patient had an R1 resection.

Median progression-free survival was 21.9 months among all patients and 27.3 months among the 22 patients who had resections.

Median overall survival was 34.6 months across the entire group and 44 months among those who had surgery. Overall, 82% of patients were alive at 12 months, and 77% were alive at 18 months.

The study outcomes, especially among the surgery cohort, stand in contrast to those observed in patients who receive the current standard neoadjuvant regimen for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, mFOLFIRINOX alone, with studies finding a median overall survival of 29.8 months.

Adding nivolumab to neoadjuvant treatment also did not increase side effects. More than half of patients had grade 3 or worse adverse events, but they were all related to mFOLFIRINOX. There were no significant surgical complications, including no grade 2 or higher fistulas.

“We are very pleased” with the outcomes, Dr. Wainberg said. “We need to be studying [immune checkpoint inhibitors] earlier on in both borderline and locally advanced disease. Pancreatic cancer needs all the help it can get to engage immunity.”

Moderator Alice Ho, MD, a radiation oncologist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, called the R0 resection rate “stunning” in a “field that very much needs improvements and advancements.”

Dr. Ho also noted that the trial raises “a lot of interesting questions.”

For instance, why exactly is the addition of nivolumab seemingly improving outcomes?

The combination neoadjuvant therapy appeared to increase tertiary lymphoid structures, plasma cells, and CD4+ T cells — all indications that immunotherapy is having a positive impact — but the treatment also seemed to upregulate pathways for adenosine, an immunosuppressant associated with worse responses to checkpoint blockade.

A larger study is already in the works. In addition to a PD-1 blocker and mFOLFIRINOX, patients will receive a CD73 inhibitor to block adenosine production, Dr. Wainberg said.

Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) provided the nivolumab used in the study. Dr. Wainberg is a consultant for and reported research funding from BMS and other companies. Dr. Ho had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

There have been many attempts to use immunotherapy to improve outcomes in pancreatic cancer, but they haven’t worked out.

The trials, however, have focused on adding immune checkpoint inhibitors to chemotherapy in metastatic disease, leaving open the question of whether immunotherapy might have a role in the neoadjuvant setting before surgery.

In the first study to test the hypothesis, Zev A. Wainberg, MD, a gastrointestinal medical oncologist at the University of California Los Angeles, reported promising results at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

The small, single arm pilot study included 28 patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, meaning that tumors had some degree of vascular involvement. About 20% of pancreatic tumors are borderline resectable, Dr. Wainberg said.

Patients received 480 mg of nivolumab intravenously every 4 weeks plus mFOLFIRINOX chemotherapy (oxaliplatin, irinotecan, leucovorin, and 5-fluorouracil) on days 1 and 15 of the 28-day cycle.

Patients who downstaged to resectable disease after three cycles went on to surgery; if not, treatment continued for another 3 months. The median number of cycles was 5.5, and almost all patients completed at least 3.

Overall, 19 of the 22 patients who proceeded to surgery (86%) had a pathologic response to neoadjuvant treatment with nivolumab: 2 complete responses, 2 near-complete responses, and 15 partial responses.

Among patients receiving surgery, 21 had R0 resections, meaning negative surgical margins with no tumor left behind. This is key because R0 resections predict longer survival, and “every effort should be made to achieve” this outcome, Dr. Wainberg said. The remaining patient had an R1 resection.

Median progression-free survival was 21.9 months among all patients and 27.3 months among the 22 patients who had resections.

Median overall survival was 34.6 months across the entire group and 44 months among those who had surgery. Overall, 82% of patients were alive at 12 months, and 77% were alive at 18 months.

The study outcomes, especially among the surgery cohort, stand in contrast to those observed in patients who receive the current standard neoadjuvant regimen for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, mFOLFIRINOX alone, with studies finding a median overall survival of 29.8 months.

Adding nivolumab to neoadjuvant treatment also did not increase side effects. More than half of patients had grade 3 or worse adverse events, but they were all related to mFOLFIRINOX. There were no significant surgical complications, including no grade 2 or higher fistulas.

“We are very pleased” with the outcomes, Dr. Wainberg said. “We need to be studying [immune checkpoint inhibitors] earlier on in both borderline and locally advanced disease. Pancreatic cancer needs all the help it can get to engage immunity.”

Moderator Alice Ho, MD, a radiation oncologist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, called the R0 resection rate “stunning” in a “field that very much needs improvements and advancements.”

Dr. Ho also noted that the trial raises “a lot of interesting questions.”

For instance, why exactly is the addition of nivolumab seemingly improving outcomes?

The combination neoadjuvant therapy appeared to increase tertiary lymphoid structures, plasma cells, and CD4+ T cells — all indications that immunotherapy is having a positive impact — but the treatment also seemed to upregulate pathways for adenosine, an immunosuppressant associated with worse responses to checkpoint blockade.

A larger study is already in the works. In addition to a PD-1 blocker and mFOLFIRINOX, patients will receive a CD73 inhibitor to block adenosine production, Dr. Wainberg said.

Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) provided the nivolumab used in the study. Dr. Wainberg is a consultant for and reported research funding from BMS and other companies. Dr. Ho had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A novel CD19 chimeric antigen responder (CAR) T-cell therapy administered in exceptionally low doses and designed to reinvigorate exhausted T-cells shows impressive early results in the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory (r/r) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL).

“Our study showed a manageable safety profile in r/r DLBCL/B-ALL, with promising breakthrough efficacy of a 100% complete remission in all dose groups,” said first author Jingjing Ren, MD, PhD, associate director of research and development with Leman Biotech in Shenzhen, China. Dr. Ren presented these findings at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting held in San Diego.

While CD19 CAR T-cell therapy has been transformative in the treatment of relapsed B -cell hematological malignancies in recent years, more than half of patients relapse within a year because of inadequate CAR T persistence.

To address the problem, Dr. Ren and her colleagues developed a metabolically armed, interleukin (IL)-10-expressing CAR T-cell product called Meta10-19 for the treatment patients with r/r DLBCL or r/r B-ALL.

According to the authors, the IL-10-expressing CAR T-cells trigger “stem-like memory responses” in various lymphoid organs, which prompt a “robust tumor eradication and durable protection,” and hence, better persistence.

Preclinical studies in mice showed the Meta10-19 CAR T-cells exhibited substantially higher expansion of approximately 100-fold compared with a control CD19 CAR-T product.

Therefore, “we dramatically reduced the dose to approximately 1% to 5% of commercial products for the IL-10-expressing CD19 CAR-T for patients,” coauthor Yugang Guo, PhD, cofounder and president of Leman Biotech said in an interview.

For the ongoing, open-label clinical trial, 12 adult patients with r/r DLBCL or r/r B-ALL and confirmed CD19 expression at a hospital center in China were enrolled between December 2022 and November 2023 and treated in three cohorts, receiving doses that corresponded to 1%, 2.5%, or 5% of the doses of other commercialized CAR-T infusion products.

All patients also underwent lympho-depleting chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide and fludarabine prior to the CAR T-cell infusion.

Six patients had r/r DLBCL and the other six had r/r B-ALL; their median age was 47 and their median time since diagnosis was 1 year.

In the single-arm, intent-to-treat analysis, the treatment induced a complete remission in all 12 patients, as evaluated by PET-CT scan, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy, or minimal residual disease assessment of bone marrow.

The median time to best response was 1 month (range 0.5 to 2.2 months).

There were no cases of severe cytokine storm syndrome or neurotoxicity, which are among key limitations with current commercial CAR-T products.

All of the patients continued to have a complete remission at 3 months. Two of the 12 patients, both with B-ALL, experienced relapses, one after 4.7 months and the other at 8 months.

The authors reported that the first treated patient had maintained continuous remission as of 9 months.

In comparison with the much higher full doses of commercial CD19 CAR-T products, only about 50% of patients with DLBCL and 70% of B-ALL patients have been shown to achieve CR at 3 months, the authors reported.

“Our IL-10 expressing CAR-T sustains CR at 3 months post infusion in the context of not following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant, which suggests IL-10 expressing CAR-T is more resistant to relapse,” Dr. Guo said.

In terms of safety, six patients with DLBCL and four with B-ALL experienced grade 1 cytokine release syndrome (CRS), and two patients with B-ALL developed grade 2 CRS. There were no grade 3 or 4 CRS cases.

One patient with B-ALL developed grade 3 ICANS.

Grade 3-4 cytopenias occurred in most patients, but all were limited to no later than 90 days.

“We observed reduced CRS, with no level 3 or 4, or ICANS,” Dr. Guo said. “There was increased cytopenia, but still manageable, compared with commercial products.”

Of note, the Meta10-19 cells showed efficacy in the extremely low infusion doses even among patients with bulky mass (≥ 7.5 cm) of DLBCL, which is associated with an increased risk of relapse.

One patient had primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL), a rare form of DLBCL that is known to have the worst prognosis of all non-Hodgkin lymphomas.

Due to the unique nature of CNS primary tumors, the CAR T-cell infusion dose was further reduced to 1% of the standard dose for the patient.

The patient maintained complete remission for more than 8 months before relapsing in periphery blood, but not in the CNS, Dr. Guo noted.

“Luckily, this relapse has been easily controlled by chemotherapy, and the patient is maintaining complete remission again now,” Dr. Guo said.
 

Mechanisms?

Dr. Guo noted that the mechanism believed to explain the improvements despite such low doses is that “IL-10-expressing CAR-T exhibits enhanced proliferation, cytotoxicity, and stem-like antitumor memory due to enhanced metabolic activities of oxidative phosphorylation.”

The authors noted that a key major factor limiting accessibility to CAR-T therapies is the lengthy production cycle and high costs; however, the “extremely low doses of 1% to 5% can significantly reduce the production cycle and cost of CAR T-cell therapies, increasing accessibility,” they wrote in a press statement.

Currently, more than 20 patients have achieved a CR overall, and studies with a larger cohort and longer follow-up are ongoing, Dr. Guo reported.

The research team plans to launch further clinical investigation this year into patients with solid tumors.

Commenting on the study, Hongbo Chi, PhD, the Robert G. Webster Endowed Chair in Immunology at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, noted that, based on the abstract, “the effects are quite remarkable, considering the therapeutic efficacy observed even at the low dose.

“Results from more patients are needed to fully validate these findings, but the results to date are very encouraging,” he said.

The study was sponsored by Leman Biotech. Dr. Chi had no disclosures to report.

A novel CD19 chimeric antigen responder (CAR) T-cell therapy administered in exceptionally low doses and designed to reinvigorate exhausted T-cells shows impressive early results in the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory (r/r) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL).

“Our study showed a manageable safety profile in r/r DLBCL/B-ALL, with promising breakthrough efficacy of a 100% complete remission in all dose groups,” said first author Jingjing Ren, MD, PhD, associate director of research and development with Leman Biotech in Shenzhen, China. Dr. Ren presented these findings at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting held in San Diego.

While CD19 CAR T-cell therapy has been transformative in the treatment of relapsed B -cell hematological malignancies in recent years, more than half of patients relapse within a year because of inadequate CAR T persistence.

To address the problem, Dr. Ren and her colleagues developed a metabolically armed, interleukin (IL)-10-expressing CAR T-cell product called Meta10-19 for the treatment patients with r/r DLBCL or r/r B-ALL.

According to the authors, the IL-10-expressing CAR T-cells trigger “stem-like memory responses” in various lymphoid organs, which prompt a “robust tumor eradication and durable protection,” and hence, better persistence.

Preclinical studies in mice showed the Meta10-19 CAR T-cells exhibited substantially higher expansion of approximately 100-fold compared with a control CD19 CAR-T product.

Therefore, “we dramatically reduced the dose to approximately 1% to 5% of commercial products for the IL-10-expressing CD19 CAR-T for patients,” coauthor Yugang Guo, PhD, cofounder and president of Leman Biotech said in an interview.

For the ongoing, open-label clinical trial, 12 adult patients with r/r DLBCL or r/r B-ALL and confirmed CD19 expression at a hospital center in China were enrolled between December 2022 and November 2023 and treated in three cohorts, receiving doses that corresponded to 1%, 2.5%, or 5% of the doses of other commercialized CAR-T infusion products.

All patients also underwent lympho-depleting chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide and fludarabine prior to the CAR T-cell infusion.

Six patients had r/r DLBCL and the other six had r/r B-ALL; their median age was 47 and their median time since diagnosis was 1 year.

In the single-arm, intent-to-treat analysis, the treatment induced a complete remission in all 12 patients, as evaluated by PET-CT scan, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy, or minimal residual disease assessment of bone marrow.

The median time to best response was 1 month (range 0.5 to 2.2 months).

There were no cases of severe cytokine storm syndrome or neurotoxicity, which are among key limitations with current commercial CAR-T products.

All of the patients continued to have a complete remission at 3 months. Two of the 12 patients, both with B-ALL, experienced relapses, one after 4.7 months and the other at 8 months.

The authors reported that the first treated patient had maintained continuous remission as of 9 months.

In comparison with the much higher full doses of commercial CD19 CAR-T products, only about 50% of patients with DLBCL and 70% of B-ALL patients have been shown to achieve CR at 3 months, the authors reported.

“Our IL-10 expressing CAR-T sustains CR at 3 months post infusion in the context of not following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant, which suggests IL-10 expressing CAR-T is more resistant to relapse,” Dr. Guo said.

In terms of safety, six patients with DLBCL and four with B-ALL experienced grade 1 cytokine release syndrome (CRS), and two patients with B-ALL developed grade 2 CRS. There were no grade 3 or 4 CRS cases.

One patient with B-ALL developed grade 3 ICANS.

Grade 3-4 cytopenias occurred in most patients, but all were limited to no later than 90 days.

“We observed reduced CRS, with no level 3 or 4, or ICANS,” Dr. Guo said. “There was increased cytopenia, but still manageable, compared with commercial products.”

Of note, the Meta10-19 cells showed efficacy in the extremely low infusion doses even among patients with bulky mass (≥ 7.5 cm) of DLBCL, which is associated with an increased risk of relapse.

One patient had primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL), a rare form of DLBCL that is known to have the worst prognosis of all non-Hodgkin lymphomas.

Due to the unique nature of CNS primary tumors, the CAR T-cell infusion dose was further reduced to 1% of the standard dose for the patient.

The patient maintained complete remission for more than 8 months before relapsing in periphery blood, but not in the CNS, Dr. Guo noted.

“Luckily, this relapse has been easily controlled by chemotherapy, and the patient is maintaining complete remission again now,” Dr. Guo said.
 

Mechanisms?

Dr. Guo noted that the mechanism believed to explain the improvements despite such low doses is that “IL-10-expressing CAR-T exhibits enhanced proliferation, cytotoxicity, and stem-like antitumor memory due to enhanced metabolic activities of oxidative phosphorylation.”

The authors noted that a key major factor limiting accessibility to CAR-T therapies is the lengthy production cycle and high costs; however, the “extremely low doses of 1% to 5% can significantly reduce the production cycle and cost of CAR T-cell therapies, increasing accessibility,” they wrote in a press statement.

Currently, more than 20 patients have achieved a CR overall, and studies with a larger cohort and longer follow-up are ongoing, Dr. Guo reported.

The research team plans to launch further clinical investigation this year into patients with solid tumors.

Commenting on the study, Hongbo Chi, PhD, the Robert G. Webster Endowed Chair in Immunology at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, noted that, based on the abstract, “the effects are quite remarkable, considering the therapeutic efficacy observed even at the low dose.

“Results from more patients are needed to fully validate these findings, but the results to date are very encouraging,” he said.

The study was sponsored by Leman Biotech. Dr. Chi had no disclosures to report.

A novel CD19 chimeric antigen responder (CAR) T-cell therapy administered in exceptionally low doses and designed to reinvigorate exhausted T-cells shows impressive early results in the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory (r/r) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL).

“Our study showed a manageable safety profile in r/r DLBCL/B-ALL, with promising breakthrough efficacy of a 100% complete remission in all dose groups,” said first author Jingjing Ren, MD, PhD, associate director of research and development with Leman Biotech in Shenzhen, China. Dr. Ren presented these findings at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting held in San Diego.

While CD19 CAR T-cell therapy has been transformative in the treatment of relapsed B -cell hematological malignancies in recent years, more than half of patients relapse within a year because of inadequate CAR T persistence.

To address the problem, Dr. Ren and her colleagues developed a metabolically armed, interleukin (IL)-10-expressing CAR T-cell product called Meta10-19 for the treatment patients with r/r DLBCL or r/r B-ALL.

According to the authors, the IL-10-expressing CAR T-cells trigger “stem-like memory responses” in various lymphoid organs, which prompt a “robust tumor eradication and durable protection,” and hence, better persistence.

Preclinical studies in mice showed the Meta10-19 CAR T-cells exhibited substantially higher expansion of approximately 100-fold compared with a control CD19 CAR-T product.

Therefore, “we dramatically reduced the dose to approximately 1% to 5% of commercial products for the IL-10-expressing CD19 CAR-T for patients,” coauthor Yugang Guo, PhD, cofounder and president of Leman Biotech said in an interview.

For the ongoing, open-label clinical trial, 12 adult patients with r/r DLBCL or r/r B-ALL and confirmed CD19 expression at a hospital center in China were enrolled between December 2022 and November 2023 and treated in three cohorts, receiving doses that corresponded to 1%, 2.5%, or 5% of the doses of other commercialized CAR-T infusion products.

All patients also underwent lympho-depleting chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide and fludarabine prior to the CAR T-cell infusion.

Six patients had r/r DLBCL and the other six had r/r B-ALL; their median age was 47 and their median time since diagnosis was 1 year.

In the single-arm, intent-to-treat analysis, the treatment induced a complete remission in all 12 patients, as evaluated by PET-CT scan, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy, or minimal residual disease assessment of bone marrow.

The median time to best response was 1 month (range 0.5 to 2.2 months).

There were no cases of severe cytokine storm syndrome or neurotoxicity, which are among key limitations with current commercial CAR-T products.

All of the patients continued to have a complete remission at 3 months. Two of the 12 patients, both with B-ALL, experienced relapses, one after 4.7 months and the other at 8 months.

The authors reported that the first treated patient had maintained continuous remission as of 9 months.

In comparison with the much higher full doses of commercial CD19 CAR-T products, only about 50% of patients with DLBCL and 70% of B-ALL patients have been shown to achieve CR at 3 months, the authors reported.

“Our IL-10 expressing CAR-T sustains CR at 3 months post infusion in the context of not following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant, which suggests IL-10 expressing CAR-T is more resistant to relapse,” Dr. Guo said.

In terms of safety, six patients with DLBCL and four with B-ALL experienced grade 1 cytokine release syndrome (CRS), and two patients with B-ALL developed grade 2 CRS. There were no grade 3 or 4 CRS cases.

One patient with B-ALL developed grade 3 ICANS.

Grade 3-4 cytopenias occurred in most patients, but all were limited to no later than 90 days.

“We observed reduced CRS, with no level 3 or 4, or ICANS,” Dr. Guo said. “There was increased cytopenia, but still manageable, compared with commercial products.”

Of note, the Meta10-19 cells showed efficacy in the extremely low infusion doses even among patients with bulky mass (≥ 7.5 cm) of DLBCL, which is associated with an increased risk of relapse.

One patient had primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL), a rare form of DLBCL that is known to have the worst prognosis of all non-Hodgkin lymphomas.

Due to the unique nature of CNS primary tumors, the CAR T-cell infusion dose was further reduced to 1% of the standard dose for the patient.

The patient maintained complete remission for more than 8 months before relapsing in periphery blood, but not in the CNS, Dr. Guo noted.

“Luckily, this relapse has been easily controlled by chemotherapy, and the patient is maintaining complete remission again now,” Dr. Guo said.
 

Mechanisms?

Dr. Guo noted that the mechanism believed to explain the improvements despite such low doses is that “IL-10-expressing CAR-T exhibits enhanced proliferation, cytotoxicity, and stem-like antitumor memory due to enhanced metabolic activities of oxidative phosphorylation.”

The authors noted that a key major factor limiting accessibility to CAR-T therapies is the lengthy production cycle and high costs; however, the “extremely low doses of 1% to 5% can significantly reduce the production cycle and cost of CAR T-cell therapies, increasing accessibility,” they wrote in a press statement.

Currently, more than 20 patients have achieved a CR overall, and studies with a larger cohort and longer follow-up are ongoing, Dr. Guo reported.

The research team plans to launch further clinical investigation this year into patients with solid tumors.

Commenting on the study, Hongbo Chi, PhD, the Robert G. Webster Endowed Chair in Immunology at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, noted that, based on the abstract, “the effects are quite remarkable, considering the therapeutic efficacy observed even at the low dose.

“Results from more patients are needed to fully validate these findings, but the results to date are very encouraging,” he said.

The study was sponsored by Leman Biotech. Dr. Chi had no disclosures to report.

The latest research supports immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for clear cell and non–clear cell renal cell carcinoma, but patient selection is key to optimize outcomes, according to a medical oncologist from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

Michael Serzan, MD, who works in the Lank Center for Genitourinary Oncology at the institute, stated this at the 2024 National Comprehensive Cancer Network Annual Conference, during a presentation.

A systematic review and meta-analysis published in 2022 in European Urology Open Science summarized six randomized controlled trials with a total of 5121 adult patients. In the review, the researchers found that immune checkpoint inhibitors plus vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGF TKI) were associated with consistent improvements across all risk groups for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Additional newer research supports the use of immunotherapy combinations or other immunotherapy plus tyrosine kinase inhibitors as first-line or adjuvant treatments for renal cell carcinoma, Dr. Serzan said during an interview. However, more genomic and histology-directed therapies are needed, he noted.
 

Tips for Evaluating Risk When Treating Renal Cell Carcinoma?

For patients with localized clear cell renal cell carcinoma who have undergone partial or radical nephrectomy, there are several models that estimate the risk of recurrence based on pathologic tumor stage, grade, histology, invasion, and the extent of necrosis, Dr. Serzan said. These models can help guide selection of patients who may be at high risk of recurrence and, therefore, may benefit from adjuvant therapy.

For patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma, the IMDC and MSKCC prognostic models stratify patients to favorable, intermediate, and poor risk groups based on clinical and lab factors. The IMDC risk stratification model is used as a prognostic model to stratify patients diagnosed with metastatic kidney cancer, Dr. Serzan said.
 

What Research Supports Treatments for Clear Cell and Non–Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma?

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved pembrolizumab in 2021 for the adjuvant treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk of recurrence after nephrectomy or after nephrectomy and resection of metastatic lesions.

Pembrolizumab is the first adjuvant therapy shown to significantly improve overall survival in these patients, Dr. Serzan said. In the KEYNOTE-564 study, published in 2024 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, pembrolizumab demonstrated an improvement in disease free survival as well as overall survival when compared with placebo.

Several similar studies of adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors for renal cell carcinoma involving atezolizumab vs. placebo, nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. placebo, and nivolumab vs. observation have not shown significant benefits in terms of disease-free survival, Dr. Serzan noted.

The current NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Kidney Cancer (Version: 3.2024), which were updated this year, support the use of adjuvant pembrolizumab for patients with stage II, III, or IV clear cell renal cell carcinoma after partial or radical nephrectomy, he said.

Looking ahead, biomarkers are needed to understand the risk of recurrence, and which patients benefit from adjuvant pembrolizumab, Dr. Serzan added.
 

Where Do VEGF-TKIs Fit In?

VEGF is a treatment target for renal cancer, and angiogenesis inhibition with VEGF TKIs continues to be a subject for study, Dr. Serzan said. In the CABOSUN study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2017, patients were randomized to cabozantinib or sunitinib. Progression-free survival was significantly greater in the cabozantinib group, but overall survival was similar between the groups.

In another randomized trial, the CheckMate 214 study, patients received either sunitinib or a combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in four doses given every 3 weeks, followed by nivolumab alone every 2 weeks, and these patients were stratified by risk, Dr. Serzan noted.

The median progression-free survival was 12.4 months in the combination group vs. 8.5 months in the sunitinib group for patients at intermediate or poor risk of recurrence. The median progression-free survival was significantly greater in sunitinib patients with favorable risk vs. combination patients with favorable risk (28.9 months vs. 12.4 months).

Overall survival was higher for all patients with combination therapy vs. sunitinib regardless of risk stratification.

Dr. Serzan reviewed the pros of VEGF/PD1 (programmed death-ligand 1) combinations as including a high response rate (generally 52%-72%) and a low rate of primary progressive disease (5%-12%), as well as favorable progression-free and overall survival and low rates of immune-related adverse events.

However, cons of this treatment include lack of data on treatment-free survival as well as the decrease in progression-free survival and overall survival hazard ratios over time and potential chronic VEGF/TKI toxicities, he said.
 

What Treatments Are Recommended for Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Now?

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is the most prevalent histological subtype of kidney cancer, accounting for 70%-75% of cases, and these patients are prone to metastasis, recurrence, and resistance to radiotherapy and chemotherapy, according to authors of a recent review published in Frontiers in Oncology.

Dr. Serzan shared his preferred protocol for treatment-naive metastatic ccRCC patients, based on the NCCN guidelines for Kidney Cancer (Version: 3.2024) that had been updated in 2024.

For those with sarcomatoid features, he favors the use of nivolumab/ipilimumab combination, while those without sarcomatoid features, if highly symptomatic, may be treated with any of several combinations: nivolumab/ipilimumab, axitinib/pembrolizumab, cabozantinib/nivolumab, or lenvatinib/pembrolizumab.

For asymptomatic patients without sarcomatoid features, treatment depends on eligibility for immune checkpoint inhibitors or ipilimumab, Dr. Serzan said. His first choice for those eligible is nivolumab/ipilimumab; those not eligible for ipilimumab could receive nivolumab, pembrolizumab, axitinib/pembrolizumab, cabozantinib/nivolumab, or lenvatinib/pembrolizumab.

For patients not eligible for ICIs because of uncontrolled autoimmune disease, or high-dose glucocorticoids, Dr. Serzan recommended treatment with cabozantinib, lenvatinib/everolimus, pazopanib, or sunitinib.
 

What are Some Takeaway Points About Immunotherapy and Renal Cell Carcinoma?

“Immunotherapy has revolutionized treatment for renal cell carcinoma, with significant increases in overall survival, and a small but consistent cure fraction that was unimaginable 10 years ago,” Eric Jonasch, MD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and vice-chair of the NCCN Guidelines Panel for Kidney Cancer, said in an interview.

However, challenges to implementing new treatments in clinical practice are ongoing, he said. The major challenges facing clinicians, patients, and their families include the cost of therapy, logistics of treatment administration, and managing toxicities, Dr. Jonasch said.  

Patient selection is key to optimize outcomes with immunotherapy, and shared decision-making is essential to ensure that choice of therapy matches patient expectations and needs — and to maintain clear and open channels of communication while patients are on therapy, Dr. Jonasch said. “In my clinic, we empower patients to take treatment breaks to manage side effects, thereby optimizing quality of life while maintaining treatment efficacy,” he said.

Although significant progress has been made in managing renal cell carcinoma, more research is needed to increase the proportion of patients cured, said Dr. Jonasch. “A clearer understanding of the determinants of response and resistance, which will be driven by information rich clinical trials, will help move us in that direction,” he said.

Dr. Serzan had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Jonasch disclosed research support from AbbVie, Arrowhead, Aveo, BMS, Corvus, Merck, NiKang, ProfoundBio, and Telix, as well as honoraria from Aveo, Eisai, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, Ipsen, Merck, Novartis, NiKang, and Takeda.

The latest research supports immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for clear cell and non–clear cell renal cell carcinoma, but patient selection is key to optimize outcomes, according to a medical oncologist from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

Michael Serzan, MD, who works in the Lank Center for Genitourinary Oncology at the institute, stated this at the 2024 National Comprehensive Cancer Network Annual Conference, during a presentation.

A systematic review and meta-analysis published in 2022 in European Urology Open Science summarized six randomized controlled trials with a total of 5121 adult patients. In the review, the researchers found that immune checkpoint inhibitors plus vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGF TKI) were associated with consistent improvements across all risk groups for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Additional newer research supports the use of immunotherapy combinations or other immunotherapy plus tyrosine kinase inhibitors as first-line or adjuvant treatments for renal cell carcinoma, Dr. Serzan said during an interview. However, more genomic and histology-directed therapies are needed, he noted.
 

Tips for Evaluating Risk When Treating Renal Cell Carcinoma?

For patients with localized clear cell renal cell carcinoma who have undergone partial or radical nephrectomy, there are several models that estimate the risk of recurrence based on pathologic tumor stage, grade, histology, invasion, and the extent of necrosis, Dr. Serzan said. These models can help guide selection of patients who may be at high risk of recurrence and, therefore, may benefit from adjuvant therapy.

For patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma, the IMDC and MSKCC prognostic models stratify patients to favorable, intermediate, and poor risk groups based on clinical and lab factors. The IMDC risk stratification model is used as a prognostic model to stratify patients diagnosed with metastatic kidney cancer, Dr. Serzan said.
 

What Research Supports Treatments for Clear Cell and Non–Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma?

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved pembrolizumab in 2021 for the adjuvant treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk of recurrence after nephrectomy or after nephrectomy and resection of metastatic lesions.

Pembrolizumab is the first adjuvant therapy shown to significantly improve overall survival in these patients, Dr. Serzan said. In the KEYNOTE-564 study, published in 2024 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, pembrolizumab demonstrated an improvement in disease free survival as well as overall survival when compared with placebo.

Several similar studies of adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors for renal cell carcinoma involving atezolizumab vs. placebo, nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. placebo, and nivolumab vs. observation have not shown significant benefits in terms of disease-free survival, Dr. Serzan noted.

The current NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Kidney Cancer (Version: 3.2024), which were updated this year, support the use of adjuvant pembrolizumab for patients with stage II, III, or IV clear cell renal cell carcinoma after partial or radical nephrectomy, he said.

Looking ahead, biomarkers are needed to understand the risk of recurrence, and which patients benefit from adjuvant pembrolizumab, Dr. Serzan added.
 

Where Do VEGF-TKIs Fit In?

VEGF is a treatment target for renal cancer, and angiogenesis inhibition with VEGF TKIs continues to be a subject for study, Dr. Serzan said. In the CABOSUN study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2017, patients were randomized to cabozantinib or sunitinib. Progression-free survival was significantly greater in the cabozantinib group, but overall survival was similar between the groups.

In another randomized trial, the CheckMate 214 study, patients received either sunitinib or a combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in four doses given every 3 weeks, followed by nivolumab alone every 2 weeks, and these patients were stratified by risk, Dr. Serzan noted.

The median progression-free survival was 12.4 months in the combination group vs. 8.5 months in the sunitinib group for patients at intermediate or poor risk of recurrence. The median progression-free survival was significantly greater in sunitinib patients with favorable risk vs. combination patients with favorable risk (28.9 months vs. 12.4 months).

Overall survival was higher for all patients with combination therapy vs. sunitinib regardless of risk stratification.

Dr. Serzan reviewed the pros of VEGF/PD1 (programmed death-ligand 1) combinations as including a high response rate (generally 52%-72%) and a low rate of primary progressive disease (5%-12%), as well as favorable progression-free and overall survival and low rates of immune-related adverse events.

However, cons of this treatment include lack of data on treatment-free survival as well as the decrease in progression-free survival and overall survival hazard ratios over time and potential chronic VEGF/TKI toxicities, he said.
 

What Treatments Are Recommended for Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Now?

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is the most prevalent histological subtype of kidney cancer, accounting for 70%-75% of cases, and these patients are prone to metastasis, recurrence, and resistance to radiotherapy and chemotherapy, according to authors of a recent review published in Frontiers in Oncology.

Dr. Serzan shared his preferred protocol for treatment-naive metastatic ccRCC patients, based on the NCCN guidelines for Kidney Cancer (Version: 3.2024) that had been updated in 2024.

For those with sarcomatoid features, he favors the use of nivolumab/ipilimumab combination, while those without sarcomatoid features, if highly symptomatic, may be treated with any of several combinations: nivolumab/ipilimumab, axitinib/pembrolizumab, cabozantinib/nivolumab, or lenvatinib/pembrolizumab.

For asymptomatic patients without sarcomatoid features, treatment depends on eligibility for immune checkpoint inhibitors or ipilimumab, Dr. Serzan said. His first choice for those eligible is nivolumab/ipilimumab; those not eligible for ipilimumab could receive nivolumab, pembrolizumab, axitinib/pembrolizumab, cabozantinib/nivolumab, or lenvatinib/pembrolizumab.

For patients not eligible for ICIs because of uncontrolled autoimmune disease, or high-dose glucocorticoids, Dr. Serzan recommended treatment with cabozantinib, lenvatinib/everolimus, pazopanib, or sunitinib.
 

What are Some Takeaway Points About Immunotherapy and Renal Cell Carcinoma?

“Immunotherapy has revolutionized treatment for renal cell carcinoma, with significant increases in overall survival, and a small but consistent cure fraction that was unimaginable 10 years ago,” Eric Jonasch, MD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and vice-chair of the NCCN Guidelines Panel for Kidney Cancer, said in an interview.

However, challenges to implementing new treatments in clinical practice are ongoing, he said. The major challenges facing clinicians, patients, and their families include the cost of therapy, logistics of treatment administration, and managing toxicities, Dr. Jonasch said.  

Patient selection is key to optimize outcomes with immunotherapy, and shared decision-making is essential to ensure that choice of therapy matches patient expectations and needs — and to maintain clear and open channels of communication while patients are on therapy, Dr. Jonasch said. “In my clinic, we empower patients to take treatment breaks to manage side effects, thereby optimizing quality of life while maintaining treatment efficacy,” he said.

Although significant progress has been made in managing renal cell carcinoma, more research is needed to increase the proportion of patients cured, said Dr. Jonasch. “A clearer understanding of the determinants of response and resistance, which will be driven by information rich clinical trials, will help move us in that direction,” he said.

Dr. Serzan had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Jonasch disclosed research support from AbbVie, Arrowhead, Aveo, BMS, Corvus, Merck, NiKang, ProfoundBio, and Telix, as well as honoraria from Aveo, Eisai, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, Ipsen, Merck, Novartis, NiKang, and Takeda.

The latest research supports immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for clear cell and non–clear cell renal cell carcinoma, but patient selection is key to optimize outcomes, according to a medical oncologist from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

Michael Serzan, MD, who works in the Lank Center for Genitourinary Oncology at the institute, stated this at the 2024 National Comprehensive Cancer Network Annual Conference, during a presentation.

A systematic review and meta-analysis published in 2022 in European Urology Open Science summarized six randomized controlled trials with a total of 5121 adult patients. In the review, the researchers found that immune checkpoint inhibitors plus vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGF TKI) were associated with consistent improvements across all risk groups for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Additional newer research supports the use of immunotherapy combinations or other immunotherapy plus tyrosine kinase inhibitors as first-line or adjuvant treatments for renal cell carcinoma, Dr. Serzan said during an interview. However, more genomic and histology-directed therapies are needed, he noted.
 

Tips for Evaluating Risk When Treating Renal Cell Carcinoma?

For patients with localized clear cell renal cell carcinoma who have undergone partial or radical nephrectomy, there are several models that estimate the risk of recurrence based on pathologic tumor stage, grade, histology, invasion, and the extent of necrosis, Dr. Serzan said. These models can help guide selection of patients who may be at high risk of recurrence and, therefore, may benefit from adjuvant therapy.

For patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma, the IMDC and MSKCC prognostic models stratify patients to favorable, intermediate, and poor risk groups based on clinical and lab factors. The IMDC risk stratification model is used as a prognostic model to stratify patients diagnosed with metastatic kidney cancer, Dr. Serzan said.
 

What Research Supports Treatments for Clear Cell and Non–Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma?

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved pembrolizumab in 2021 for the adjuvant treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk of recurrence after nephrectomy or after nephrectomy and resection of metastatic lesions.

Pembrolizumab is the first adjuvant therapy shown to significantly improve overall survival in these patients, Dr. Serzan said. In the KEYNOTE-564 study, published in 2024 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, pembrolizumab demonstrated an improvement in disease free survival as well as overall survival when compared with placebo.

Several similar studies of adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors for renal cell carcinoma involving atezolizumab vs. placebo, nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. placebo, and nivolumab vs. observation have not shown significant benefits in terms of disease-free survival, Dr. Serzan noted.

The current NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Kidney Cancer (Version: 3.2024), which were updated this year, support the use of adjuvant pembrolizumab for patients with stage II, III, or IV clear cell renal cell carcinoma after partial or radical nephrectomy, he said.

Looking ahead, biomarkers are needed to understand the risk of recurrence, and which patients benefit from adjuvant pembrolizumab, Dr. Serzan added.
 

Where Do VEGF-TKIs Fit In?

VEGF is a treatment target for renal cancer, and angiogenesis inhibition with VEGF TKIs continues to be a subject for study, Dr. Serzan said. In the CABOSUN study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2017, patients were randomized to cabozantinib or sunitinib. Progression-free survival was significantly greater in the cabozantinib group, but overall survival was similar between the groups.

In another randomized trial, the CheckMate 214 study, patients received either sunitinib or a combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in four doses given every 3 weeks, followed by nivolumab alone every 2 weeks, and these patients were stratified by risk, Dr. Serzan noted.

The median progression-free survival was 12.4 months in the combination group vs. 8.5 months in the sunitinib group for patients at intermediate or poor risk of recurrence. The median progression-free survival was significantly greater in sunitinib patients with favorable risk vs. combination patients with favorable risk (28.9 months vs. 12.4 months).

Overall survival was higher for all patients with combination therapy vs. sunitinib regardless of risk stratification.

Dr. Serzan reviewed the pros of VEGF/PD1 (programmed death-ligand 1) combinations as including a high response rate (generally 52%-72%) and a low rate of primary progressive disease (5%-12%), as well as favorable progression-free and overall survival and low rates of immune-related adverse events.

However, cons of this treatment include lack of data on treatment-free survival as well as the decrease in progression-free survival and overall survival hazard ratios over time and potential chronic VEGF/TKI toxicities, he said.
 

What Treatments Are Recommended for Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Now?

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is the most prevalent histological subtype of kidney cancer, accounting for 70%-75% of cases, and these patients are prone to metastasis, recurrence, and resistance to radiotherapy and chemotherapy, according to authors of a recent review published in Frontiers in Oncology.

Dr. Serzan shared his preferred protocol for treatment-naive metastatic ccRCC patients, based on the NCCN guidelines for Kidney Cancer (Version: 3.2024) that had been updated in 2024.

For those with sarcomatoid features, he favors the use of nivolumab/ipilimumab combination, while those without sarcomatoid features, if highly symptomatic, may be treated with any of several combinations: nivolumab/ipilimumab, axitinib/pembrolizumab, cabozantinib/nivolumab, or lenvatinib/pembrolizumab.

For asymptomatic patients without sarcomatoid features, treatment depends on eligibility for immune checkpoint inhibitors or ipilimumab, Dr. Serzan said. His first choice for those eligible is nivolumab/ipilimumab; those not eligible for ipilimumab could receive nivolumab, pembrolizumab, axitinib/pembrolizumab, cabozantinib/nivolumab, or lenvatinib/pembrolizumab.

For patients not eligible for ICIs because of uncontrolled autoimmune disease, or high-dose glucocorticoids, Dr. Serzan recommended treatment with cabozantinib, lenvatinib/everolimus, pazopanib, or sunitinib.
 

What are Some Takeaway Points About Immunotherapy and Renal Cell Carcinoma?

“Immunotherapy has revolutionized treatment for renal cell carcinoma, with significant increases in overall survival, and a small but consistent cure fraction that was unimaginable 10 years ago,” Eric Jonasch, MD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and vice-chair of the NCCN Guidelines Panel for Kidney Cancer, said in an interview.

However, challenges to implementing new treatments in clinical practice are ongoing, he said. The major challenges facing clinicians, patients, and their families include the cost of therapy, logistics of treatment administration, and managing toxicities, Dr. Jonasch said.  

Patient selection is key to optimize outcomes with immunotherapy, and shared decision-making is essential to ensure that choice of therapy matches patient expectations and needs — and to maintain clear and open channels of communication while patients are on therapy, Dr. Jonasch said. “In my clinic, we empower patients to take treatment breaks to manage side effects, thereby optimizing quality of life while maintaining treatment efficacy,” he said.

Although significant progress has been made in managing renal cell carcinoma, more research is needed to increase the proportion of patients cured, said Dr. Jonasch. “A clearer understanding of the determinants of response and resistance, which will be driven by information rich clinical trials, will help move us in that direction,” he said.

Dr. Serzan had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Jonasch disclosed research support from AbbVie, Arrowhead, Aveo, BMS, Corvus, Merck, NiKang, ProfoundBio, and Telix, as well as honoraria from Aveo, Eisai, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, Ipsen, Merck, Novartis, NiKang, and Takeda.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in rheumatology are not just personal lists of physical complaints or so-called “organ recitals.” In fact, PROs can both guide treatment decisions in daily practice and serve as key endpoints for clinical trials.

That’s the informed opinion of Clifton O. Bingham III, MD, director of the Johns Arthritis Center in Baltimore, Maryland, who discussed clinical and research applications of PROs at the 2024 Rheumatoid Arthritis Research Summit presented by the Arthritis Foundation and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City.

Johns Hopkins Medicine, Johns Hopkins Division of Rheumatology

“Integrating PROs into practice settings can enhance the clinician’s ability to understand their patients and monitor disease impact, and they are increasingly available for clinical care and are being qualified for outcome measures for clinical trials,” Dr. Bingham said.

“I posit to you that some of this ability to better characterize things like anxiety and depression levels of patients more precisely may help us to identify those patients who are less likely to respond to therapy and may require different interventions than disease-modifying therapies for their disease,” he told the audience.
 

PRO Examples

The term PRO encompasses a broad range of measures that may include health-related quality of life measures, symptoms and their affects, patient satisfaction, and the patient’s experience with care.

PROs are important for rheumatology care and research because “we now have the capacity to make what we used to think were the subjective experiences of disease more objective. We now have ways that we can put numbers and measurements to the experiences that patients have about their illness and use that information as a way to understand more about the patients who are in front of us and also how their disease changes over time,” Dr. Bingham said.

Patients are the best — or in some cases, the only — judges of many aspects of their health, and they are best suited to report on certain events and outcomes, he said.

PROs that are currently included in core outcome measures used to guide care and in clinical trials in pain scores as reported by visual analog scales; functioning, as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI); and patient global assessment.

In international qualitative studies in which patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were asked what was most important to them, the usual suspects of pain, function, and fatigue were routinely cited across the studies. But patients in studies from these groups (RAPP-PI, RAID, and OMERACT) also said that other factors important to their well-being included good sleep, enjoyment of life, independence, ability to participate in valued activities, and freedom from emotional distress, Dr. Bingham noted.
 

The Promise of PROMIS

The science of clinical measurement has advanced dramatically during his career, as Dr. Bingham said.

“There have been significant changes in the science behind how you develop and validate outcomes measures. The fields of clinimetrics and psychometrics have evolved substantially. These are now grounded in what we call ‘modern measurement’ approaches, which focus on item-response theory, constructing interval scales of measurement in things that are very precise in their ability to detect change over time,” he said.

One such measurement instrument is the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS®), developed at the National Institutes of Health using advanced measurement science.

The system, administered through either computer or paper questionnaires, is designed to improve precision of health-related quality of life assessments in multiple domains, including most domains identified by patients with RA. It uses a T-score metric standardized to the US population.

“You can use this in a disease like rheumatoid arthritis, and you can find out how patients are doing in reference to the normative United States populations,” he said.

Dr. Bingham noted that his team has “very good data” to show that PROMIS system significantly outperforms existing instruments such as the HAQ.
 

How It Works

The system uses item banks, each with multiple items. For example, there are approximately 150 items for the physical function assessment portion. All the items are scored along a continuum, “from people who are completely disabled to those who can run marathons,” Dr. Bingham said.

Each item on the scale has a question and response component, ranging from “are you able to get in and out of bed?” to “are you able to walk from one room to another?” to “are you able to run 5 miles?”

To evaluate the PROMIS scale, Dr. Bingham and colleagues looked at the distribution of PROMIS T-scores for 1029 patients with RA at their center. The scales showed that patients with RA have higher levels of pain, fatigue, and sleep disturbances, as well as worse physical function, than population norms.

Dr. Bingham and colleagues also evaluated the performance of the system in patients with active RA who were starting on or switching to a different disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD). As they reported in 2019, among 106 participants who completed the 12-week study, all PROMIS scores improved after DMARD initiation (P ≤ .05). In addition, except for the depression domain, changes in all assessed PROMIS measures correlated with changes in Clinical Disease Activity Index scores.

To see whether integrating PROs into routine clinics could have an effect on care, Dr. Bingham and colleagues conducted a prospective cohort study, which showed that with the additional patient-reported data, clinicians changed or adjusted RA treatment in 16%-19% of visits, identified new symptoms in 27%-38%, and suggested nonpharmacologic interventions in 4%-11%.

“This is information that’s being used, and it’s going into changing medical decision making,” he said.

Summarizing his work, Dr. Bingham told the audience “I hope that I have convinced you that patients with RA prioritize domains that are impacted by their disease. PROMIS measures are really state-of-the-science methods to evaluate multiple aspects of health-related quality of life, and what I’ll note to you is that these have been translated into multiple languages internationally. There are Spanish-language versions, there are Chinese language versions, there are versions for every country in the [European Union] that have been validated and can be used.”
 

It’s a Start

In the Q & A following the presentation, Daniel H. Solomon, MD, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, commented that “the measurement issues and automating measurements seems like it’s a fundamental practice issue — how to manage the system and how to manage patients better, and I feel like we’re kind of scratching the surface.”

He said that artificial intelligence and PROs in clinic offer some promise for improving care but added that “we can do better than this. We can figure out better systems for measuring PROs: Having patients measure PROs, having patients tell us about their PROs so they don’t have to come in, or coming in only when they need to come in, when they’re really flaring. There are lots of innovative ways of thinking about these tools, and it feels like we’re kind of on the cusp of really taking advantage.”

Dr. Bingham’s work is supported by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Ira T. Fine Discovery Fund, Johns Hopkins Arthritis Center Discovery Fund, Camille J. Morgan Arthritis Research and Education Fund, and Scheer Family Foundation and Joanne and John Rogers. He disclosed consulting for AbbVie, Janssen, Lilly, and Sanofi and serving as a board member of the PROMIS health organization, co-chair of the Omeract Technical Advisory Group, and member of the C-PATH RA PRO working group. Dr. Solomon had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in rheumatology are not just personal lists of physical complaints or so-called “organ recitals.” In fact, PROs can both guide treatment decisions in daily practice and serve as key endpoints for clinical trials.

That’s the informed opinion of Clifton O. Bingham III, MD, director of the Johns Arthritis Center in Baltimore, Maryland, who discussed clinical and research applications of PROs at the 2024 Rheumatoid Arthritis Research Summit presented by the Arthritis Foundation and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City.

Johns Hopkins Medicine, Johns Hopkins Division of Rheumatology

“Integrating PROs into practice settings can enhance the clinician’s ability to understand their patients and monitor disease impact, and they are increasingly available for clinical care and are being qualified for outcome measures for clinical trials,” Dr. Bingham said.

“I posit to you that some of this ability to better characterize things like anxiety and depression levels of patients more precisely may help us to identify those patients who are less likely to respond to therapy and may require different interventions than disease-modifying therapies for their disease,” he told the audience.
 

PRO Examples

The term PRO encompasses a broad range of measures that may include health-related quality of life measures, symptoms and their affects, patient satisfaction, and the patient’s experience with care.

PROs are important for rheumatology care and research because “we now have the capacity to make what we used to think were the subjective experiences of disease more objective. We now have ways that we can put numbers and measurements to the experiences that patients have about their illness and use that information as a way to understand more about the patients who are in front of us and also how their disease changes over time,” Dr. Bingham said.

Patients are the best — or in some cases, the only — judges of many aspects of their health, and they are best suited to report on certain events and outcomes, he said.

PROs that are currently included in core outcome measures used to guide care and in clinical trials in pain scores as reported by visual analog scales; functioning, as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI); and patient global assessment.

In international qualitative studies in which patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were asked what was most important to them, the usual suspects of pain, function, and fatigue were routinely cited across the studies. But patients in studies from these groups (RAPP-PI, RAID, and OMERACT) also said that other factors important to their well-being included good sleep, enjoyment of life, independence, ability to participate in valued activities, and freedom from emotional distress, Dr. Bingham noted.
 

The Promise of PROMIS

The science of clinical measurement has advanced dramatically during his career, as Dr. Bingham said.

“There have been significant changes in the science behind how you develop and validate outcomes measures. The fields of clinimetrics and psychometrics have evolved substantially. These are now grounded in what we call ‘modern measurement’ approaches, which focus on item-response theory, constructing interval scales of measurement in things that are very precise in their ability to detect change over time,” he said.

One such measurement instrument is the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS®), developed at the National Institutes of Health using advanced measurement science.

The system, administered through either computer or paper questionnaires, is designed to improve precision of health-related quality of life assessments in multiple domains, including most domains identified by patients with RA. It uses a T-score metric standardized to the US population.

“You can use this in a disease like rheumatoid arthritis, and you can find out how patients are doing in reference to the normative United States populations,” he said.

Dr. Bingham noted that his team has “very good data” to show that PROMIS system significantly outperforms existing instruments such as the HAQ.
 

How It Works

The system uses item banks, each with multiple items. For example, there are approximately 150 items for the physical function assessment portion. All the items are scored along a continuum, “from people who are completely disabled to those who can run marathons,” Dr. Bingham said.

Each item on the scale has a question and response component, ranging from “are you able to get in and out of bed?” to “are you able to walk from one room to another?” to “are you able to run 5 miles?”

To evaluate the PROMIS scale, Dr. Bingham and colleagues looked at the distribution of PROMIS T-scores for 1029 patients with RA at their center. The scales showed that patients with RA have higher levels of pain, fatigue, and sleep disturbances, as well as worse physical function, than population norms.

Dr. Bingham and colleagues also evaluated the performance of the system in patients with active RA who were starting on or switching to a different disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD). As they reported in 2019, among 106 participants who completed the 12-week study, all PROMIS scores improved after DMARD initiation (P ≤ .05). In addition, except for the depression domain, changes in all assessed PROMIS measures correlated with changes in Clinical Disease Activity Index scores.

To see whether integrating PROs into routine clinics could have an effect on care, Dr. Bingham and colleagues conducted a prospective cohort study, which showed that with the additional patient-reported data, clinicians changed or adjusted RA treatment in 16%-19% of visits, identified new symptoms in 27%-38%, and suggested nonpharmacologic interventions in 4%-11%.

“This is information that’s being used, and it’s going into changing medical decision making,” he said.

Summarizing his work, Dr. Bingham told the audience “I hope that I have convinced you that patients with RA prioritize domains that are impacted by their disease. PROMIS measures are really state-of-the-science methods to evaluate multiple aspects of health-related quality of life, and what I’ll note to you is that these have been translated into multiple languages internationally. There are Spanish-language versions, there are Chinese language versions, there are versions for every country in the [European Union] that have been validated and can be used.”
 

It’s a Start

In the Q & A following the presentation, Daniel H. Solomon, MD, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, commented that “the measurement issues and automating measurements seems like it’s a fundamental practice issue — how to manage the system and how to manage patients better, and I feel like we’re kind of scratching the surface.”

He said that artificial intelligence and PROs in clinic offer some promise for improving care but added that “we can do better than this. We can figure out better systems for measuring PROs: Having patients measure PROs, having patients tell us about their PROs so they don’t have to come in, or coming in only when they need to come in, when they’re really flaring. There are lots of innovative ways of thinking about these tools, and it feels like we’re kind of on the cusp of really taking advantage.”

Dr. Bingham’s work is supported by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Ira T. Fine Discovery Fund, Johns Hopkins Arthritis Center Discovery Fund, Camille J. Morgan Arthritis Research and Education Fund, and Scheer Family Foundation and Joanne and John Rogers. He disclosed consulting for AbbVie, Janssen, Lilly, and Sanofi and serving as a board member of the PROMIS health organization, co-chair of the Omeract Technical Advisory Group, and member of the C-PATH RA PRO working group. Dr. Solomon had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in rheumatology are not just personal lists of physical complaints or so-called “organ recitals.” In fact, PROs can both guide treatment decisions in daily practice and serve as key endpoints for clinical trials.

That’s the informed opinion of Clifton O. Bingham III, MD, director of the Johns Arthritis Center in Baltimore, Maryland, who discussed clinical and research applications of PROs at the 2024 Rheumatoid Arthritis Research Summit presented by the Arthritis Foundation and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City.

Johns Hopkins Medicine, Johns Hopkins Division of Rheumatology

“Integrating PROs into practice settings can enhance the clinician’s ability to understand their patients and monitor disease impact, and they are increasingly available for clinical care and are being qualified for outcome measures for clinical trials,” Dr. Bingham said.

“I posit to you that some of this ability to better characterize things like anxiety and depression levels of patients more precisely may help us to identify those patients who are less likely to respond to therapy and may require different interventions than disease-modifying therapies for their disease,” he told the audience.
 

PRO Examples

The term PRO encompasses a broad range of measures that may include health-related quality of life measures, symptoms and their affects, patient satisfaction, and the patient’s experience with care.

PROs are important for rheumatology care and research because “we now have the capacity to make what we used to think were the subjective experiences of disease more objective. We now have ways that we can put numbers and measurements to the experiences that patients have about their illness and use that information as a way to understand more about the patients who are in front of us and also how their disease changes over time,” Dr. Bingham said.

Patients are the best — or in some cases, the only — judges of many aspects of their health, and they are best suited to report on certain events and outcomes, he said.

PROs that are currently included in core outcome measures used to guide care and in clinical trials in pain scores as reported by visual analog scales; functioning, as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI); and patient global assessment.

In international qualitative studies in which patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were asked what was most important to them, the usual suspects of pain, function, and fatigue were routinely cited across the studies. But patients in studies from these groups (RAPP-PI, RAID, and OMERACT) also said that other factors important to their well-being included good sleep, enjoyment of life, independence, ability to participate in valued activities, and freedom from emotional distress, Dr. Bingham noted.
 

The Promise of PROMIS

The science of clinical measurement has advanced dramatically during his career, as Dr. Bingham said.

“There have been significant changes in the science behind how you develop and validate outcomes measures. The fields of clinimetrics and psychometrics have evolved substantially. These are now grounded in what we call ‘modern measurement’ approaches, which focus on item-response theory, constructing interval scales of measurement in things that are very precise in their ability to detect change over time,” he said.

One such measurement instrument is the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS®), developed at the National Institutes of Health using advanced measurement science.

The system, administered through either computer or paper questionnaires, is designed to improve precision of health-related quality of life assessments in multiple domains, including most domains identified by patients with RA. It uses a T-score metric standardized to the US population.

“You can use this in a disease like rheumatoid arthritis, and you can find out how patients are doing in reference to the normative United States populations,” he said.

Dr. Bingham noted that his team has “very good data” to show that PROMIS system significantly outperforms existing instruments such as the HAQ.
 

How It Works

The system uses item banks, each with multiple items. For example, there are approximately 150 items for the physical function assessment portion. All the items are scored along a continuum, “from people who are completely disabled to those who can run marathons,” Dr. Bingham said.

Each item on the scale has a question and response component, ranging from “are you able to get in and out of bed?” to “are you able to walk from one room to another?” to “are you able to run 5 miles?”

To evaluate the PROMIS scale, Dr. Bingham and colleagues looked at the distribution of PROMIS T-scores for 1029 patients with RA at their center. The scales showed that patients with RA have higher levels of pain, fatigue, and sleep disturbances, as well as worse physical function, than population norms.

Dr. Bingham and colleagues also evaluated the performance of the system in patients with active RA who were starting on or switching to a different disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD). As they reported in 2019, among 106 participants who completed the 12-week study, all PROMIS scores improved after DMARD initiation (P ≤ .05). In addition, except for the depression domain, changes in all assessed PROMIS measures correlated with changes in Clinical Disease Activity Index scores.

To see whether integrating PROs into routine clinics could have an effect on care, Dr. Bingham and colleagues conducted a prospective cohort study, which showed that with the additional patient-reported data, clinicians changed or adjusted RA treatment in 16%-19% of visits, identified new symptoms in 27%-38%, and suggested nonpharmacologic interventions in 4%-11%.

“This is information that’s being used, and it’s going into changing medical decision making,” he said.

Summarizing his work, Dr. Bingham told the audience “I hope that I have convinced you that patients with RA prioritize domains that are impacted by their disease. PROMIS measures are really state-of-the-science methods to evaluate multiple aspects of health-related quality of life, and what I’ll note to you is that these have been translated into multiple languages internationally. There are Spanish-language versions, there are Chinese language versions, there are versions for every country in the [European Union] that have been validated and can be used.”
 

It’s a Start

In the Q & A following the presentation, Daniel H. Solomon, MD, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, commented that “the measurement issues and automating measurements seems like it’s a fundamental practice issue — how to manage the system and how to manage patients better, and I feel like we’re kind of scratching the surface.”

He said that artificial intelligence and PROs in clinic offer some promise for improving care but added that “we can do better than this. We can figure out better systems for measuring PROs: Having patients measure PROs, having patients tell us about their PROs so they don’t have to come in, or coming in only when they need to come in, when they’re really flaring. There are lots of innovative ways of thinking about these tools, and it feels like we’re kind of on the cusp of really taking advantage.”

Dr. Bingham’s work is supported by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Ira T. Fine Discovery Fund, Johns Hopkins Arthritis Center Discovery Fund, Camille J. Morgan Arthritis Research and Education Fund, and Scheer Family Foundation and Joanne and John Rogers. He disclosed consulting for AbbVie, Janssen, Lilly, and Sanofi and serving as a board member of the PROMIS health organization, co-chair of the Omeract Technical Advisory Group, and member of the C-PATH RA PRO working group. Dr. Solomon had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LONDON — Weight loss, glycemic control, fatty liver, and the need for insulin all showed improvement in patients with both refractory type 2 diabetes and obesity after a gut liner known as EndoBarrier (RESET, Morphic Medical, United States) was implanted for 1 year, showed data.

Two years after the liner’s removal, 80% of patients continued to show significant improvement, while 20% returned to baseline.

Presenting results at the Diabetes UK Professional Conference (DUKPC) 2024, the researchers, led by Bob Ryder, MD, FRCP, from the Department of Diabetes, Birmingham City Hospital, Birmingham, England, aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of EndoBarrier, as well as maintenance of efficacy 24 months after the device removal.

“We think EndoBarrier finds its place between the end of all the earlier measures and the possible option of bariatric surgery, and these data show that it can lead to tremendous weight loss and improvement in A1c,” Dr. Ryder said in an interview.

Commenting on how most patients had responded to use of the device, Dr. Ryder said, “People with obesity are often very unhappy and have tried everything over many years to no effect; however, this gut liner provided the opportunity to shift out of this state, and they often become so happy with the result they were determined to stick with it and continue with a healthier lifestyle including much more exercise.”
 

Convenient, Reversible Procedure

Ninety consecutive patients from Birmingham, all with longstanding, poorly controlled, type 2 diabetes and obesity, underwent the implantation procedure, and 60 of these attended follow-up visits 2 years post implantation.

Unlike permanent and more invasive weight loss surgeries, the EndoBarrier device is reversible and fitted with a straightforward procedure.

The thin impermeable sleeve is inserted via an approximate 1-hour endoscopy, enabling the patient to return home the same day. It lines the first 60 cm of the small intestine. Digested food passes through it without absorption and then makes contact with pancreatic and bile juices at the other end. This triggers a change in the metabolism of glucose and nutrients through modulating gut hormones and gut bacteria, as well as disrupting bile flow.

“Because the food bypasses the small intestine, the first time the food is encountered is in an area where it is not normally found, and this causes a reaction where signals are sent to the brain to stop eating,” explained Dr. Ryder.

Due to a license for 1 year of use, the gut liner was removed after a year via a 30-minute endoscopy procedure.
 

Over Half Maintained Full Improvement 2 Years Post Removal

A total of 60/90 (66%) attended follow-up visits and comprised the data presented. Mean age was 51.2 years, 47% were men, 50% were White, mean body mass index (BMI) was 41.5 kg/m², and mean A1c was 9.3%. Duration of type 2 diabetes was a median of 11 years, and 60% were taking insulin.

Patients followed dietary requirements for the initial phase after implantation. “During the first week, they followed a liquid diet, then during week 2 — mushy food, and then they were told to chew it really well to avoid blockage,” said Dr. Ryder.

Mean weight loss on removal of the liner (at 12 months post implantation) was 16.7 kg (P < .001), while BMI dropped by mean 6 kg/m², A1c dropped by a mean of 1.8%, and mean systolic blood pressure by 10.9 mm Hg.

Just over half (32/60, 53%) showed maintenance of fully sustained improvement 2 years after removal of the liner — defined as no significant difference after 2 years between weight loss (mean, 96-97 kg) and similarly for A1c improvement (7.6%-7.4%).

Sixteen of 60 (27%) showed partially sustained improvement over the 2 years of follow-up, with BMI increasing from a mean of 116.8 kg to 128.6 kg and A1c increasing from 7.5% to 8.4%. While 20% (12/60) returned to baseline.

Of the 36/60 people using insulin prior to EndoBarrier treatment, 10 (27.8%) were no longer using insulin at 2 years post removal.

Thirteen of 90 (14%) had early removal of the gut liner due to gastrointestinal hemorrhage (five), liver abscess (two), other abscess (one), and gastrointestinal symptoms (five), but they all made a full recovery; after removal, most experienced benefit despite the adverse event, reported Dr. Ryder.

Sarah Davies, MBBCh, a GP at Woodlands Medical Centre, Cardiff, Wales, agreed that EndoBarrier might be a viable option for patients struggling with obesity. “As GPs, we are the first port of call for these patients. It’s very novel, I hadn’t heard of it before. I like how it’s a noninvasive way for my patients to lose weight and maintain that even after EndoBarrier has been removed.”

Outcomes are being monitored in an ongoing global registry to help determine if EndoBarrier is a safe and effective treatment for individuals with type 2 diabetes and obesity. Dr. Ryder noted that a similar study with 3 years of follow-up showed similar results. Further results will be presented by Dr. Ryder at the upcoming meeting of the American Diabetes Association.

EndoBarrier is currently not approved in the United States. It is awaiting United Kingdom and European CE mark, which the manufacturer hope will be granted this summer. The license will be for patients with BMI of 35-50 kg/m².
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LONDON — Weight loss, glycemic control, fatty liver, and the need for insulin all showed improvement in patients with both refractory type 2 diabetes and obesity after a gut liner known as EndoBarrier (RESET, Morphic Medical, United States) was implanted for 1 year, showed data.

Two years after the liner’s removal, 80% of patients continued to show significant improvement, while 20% returned to baseline.

Presenting results at the Diabetes UK Professional Conference (DUKPC) 2024, the researchers, led by Bob Ryder, MD, FRCP, from the Department of Diabetes, Birmingham City Hospital, Birmingham, England, aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of EndoBarrier, as well as maintenance of efficacy 24 months after the device removal.

“We think EndoBarrier finds its place between the end of all the earlier measures and the possible option of bariatric surgery, and these data show that it can lead to tremendous weight loss and improvement in A1c,” Dr. Ryder said in an interview.

Commenting on how most patients had responded to use of the device, Dr. Ryder said, “People with obesity are often very unhappy and have tried everything over many years to no effect; however, this gut liner provided the opportunity to shift out of this state, and they often become so happy with the result they were determined to stick with it and continue with a healthier lifestyle including much more exercise.”
 

Convenient, Reversible Procedure

Ninety consecutive patients from Birmingham, all with longstanding, poorly controlled, type 2 diabetes and obesity, underwent the implantation procedure, and 60 of these attended follow-up visits 2 years post implantation.

Unlike permanent and more invasive weight loss surgeries, the EndoBarrier device is reversible and fitted with a straightforward procedure.

The thin impermeable sleeve is inserted via an approximate 1-hour endoscopy, enabling the patient to return home the same day. It lines the first 60 cm of the small intestine. Digested food passes through it without absorption and then makes contact with pancreatic and bile juices at the other end. This triggers a change in the metabolism of glucose and nutrients through modulating gut hormones and gut bacteria, as well as disrupting bile flow.

“Because the food bypasses the small intestine, the first time the food is encountered is in an area where it is not normally found, and this causes a reaction where signals are sent to the brain to stop eating,” explained Dr. Ryder.

Due to a license for 1 year of use, the gut liner was removed after a year via a 30-minute endoscopy procedure.
 

Over Half Maintained Full Improvement 2 Years Post Removal

A total of 60/90 (66%) attended follow-up visits and comprised the data presented. Mean age was 51.2 years, 47% were men, 50% were White, mean body mass index (BMI) was 41.5 kg/m², and mean A1c was 9.3%. Duration of type 2 diabetes was a median of 11 years, and 60% were taking insulin.

Patients followed dietary requirements for the initial phase after implantation. “During the first week, they followed a liquid diet, then during week 2 — mushy food, and then they were told to chew it really well to avoid blockage,” said Dr. Ryder.

Mean weight loss on removal of the liner (at 12 months post implantation) was 16.7 kg (P < .001), while BMI dropped by mean 6 kg/m², A1c dropped by a mean of 1.8%, and mean systolic blood pressure by 10.9 mm Hg.

Just over half (32/60, 53%) showed maintenance of fully sustained improvement 2 years after removal of the liner — defined as no significant difference after 2 years between weight loss (mean, 96-97 kg) and similarly for A1c improvement (7.6%-7.4%).

Sixteen of 60 (27%) showed partially sustained improvement over the 2 years of follow-up, with BMI increasing from a mean of 116.8 kg to 128.6 kg and A1c increasing from 7.5% to 8.4%. While 20% (12/60) returned to baseline.

Of the 36/60 people using insulin prior to EndoBarrier treatment, 10 (27.8%) were no longer using insulin at 2 years post removal.

Thirteen of 90 (14%) had early removal of the gut liner due to gastrointestinal hemorrhage (five), liver abscess (two), other abscess (one), and gastrointestinal symptoms (five), but they all made a full recovery; after removal, most experienced benefit despite the adverse event, reported Dr. Ryder.

Sarah Davies, MBBCh, a GP at Woodlands Medical Centre, Cardiff, Wales, agreed that EndoBarrier might be a viable option for patients struggling with obesity. “As GPs, we are the first port of call for these patients. It’s very novel, I hadn’t heard of it before. I like how it’s a noninvasive way for my patients to lose weight and maintain that even after EndoBarrier has been removed.”

Outcomes are being monitored in an ongoing global registry to help determine if EndoBarrier is a safe and effective treatment for individuals with type 2 diabetes and obesity. Dr. Ryder noted that a similar study with 3 years of follow-up showed similar results. Further results will be presented by Dr. Ryder at the upcoming meeting of the American Diabetes Association.

EndoBarrier is currently not approved in the United States. It is awaiting United Kingdom and European CE mark, which the manufacturer hope will be granted this summer. The license will be for patients with BMI of 35-50 kg/m².
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LONDON — Weight loss, glycemic control, fatty liver, and the need for insulin all showed improvement in patients with both refractory type 2 diabetes and obesity after a gut liner known as EndoBarrier (RESET, Morphic Medical, United States) was implanted for 1 year, showed data.

Two years after the liner’s removal, 80% of patients continued to show significant improvement, while 20% returned to baseline.

Presenting results at the Diabetes UK Professional Conference (DUKPC) 2024, the researchers, led by Bob Ryder, MD, FRCP, from the Department of Diabetes, Birmingham City Hospital, Birmingham, England, aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of EndoBarrier, as well as maintenance of efficacy 24 months after the device removal.

“We think EndoBarrier finds its place between the end of all the earlier measures and the possible option of bariatric surgery, and these data show that it can lead to tremendous weight loss and improvement in A1c,” Dr. Ryder said in an interview.

Commenting on how most patients had responded to use of the device, Dr. Ryder said, “People with obesity are often very unhappy and have tried everything over many years to no effect; however, this gut liner provided the opportunity to shift out of this state, and they often become so happy with the result they were determined to stick with it and continue with a healthier lifestyle including much more exercise.”
 

Convenient, Reversible Procedure

Ninety consecutive patients from Birmingham, all with longstanding, poorly controlled, type 2 diabetes and obesity, underwent the implantation procedure, and 60 of these attended follow-up visits 2 years post implantation.

Unlike permanent and more invasive weight loss surgeries, the EndoBarrier device is reversible and fitted with a straightforward procedure.

The thin impermeable sleeve is inserted via an approximate 1-hour endoscopy, enabling the patient to return home the same day. It lines the first 60 cm of the small intestine. Digested food passes through it without absorption and then makes contact with pancreatic and bile juices at the other end. This triggers a change in the metabolism of glucose and nutrients through modulating gut hormones and gut bacteria, as well as disrupting bile flow.

“Because the food bypasses the small intestine, the first time the food is encountered is in an area where it is not normally found, and this causes a reaction where signals are sent to the brain to stop eating,” explained Dr. Ryder.

Due to a license for 1 year of use, the gut liner was removed after a year via a 30-minute endoscopy procedure.
 

Over Half Maintained Full Improvement 2 Years Post Removal

A total of 60/90 (66%) attended follow-up visits and comprised the data presented. Mean age was 51.2 years, 47% were men, 50% were White, mean body mass index (BMI) was 41.5 kg/m², and mean A1c was 9.3%. Duration of type 2 diabetes was a median of 11 years, and 60% were taking insulin.

Patients followed dietary requirements for the initial phase after implantation. “During the first week, they followed a liquid diet, then during week 2 — mushy food, and then they were told to chew it really well to avoid blockage,” said Dr. Ryder.

Mean weight loss on removal of the liner (at 12 months post implantation) was 16.7 kg (P < .001), while BMI dropped by mean 6 kg/m², A1c dropped by a mean of 1.8%, and mean systolic blood pressure by 10.9 mm Hg.

Just over half (32/60, 53%) showed maintenance of fully sustained improvement 2 years after removal of the liner — defined as no significant difference after 2 years between weight loss (mean, 96-97 kg) and similarly for A1c improvement (7.6%-7.4%).

Sixteen of 60 (27%) showed partially sustained improvement over the 2 years of follow-up, with BMI increasing from a mean of 116.8 kg to 128.6 kg and A1c increasing from 7.5% to 8.4%. While 20% (12/60) returned to baseline.

Of the 36/60 people using insulin prior to EndoBarrier treatment, 10 (27.8%) were no longer using insulin at 2 years post removal.

Thirteen of 90 (14%) had early removal of the gut liner due to gastrointestinal hemorrhage (five), liver abscess (two), other abscess (one), and gastrointestinal symptoms (five), but they all made a full recovery; after removal, most experienced benefit despite the adverse event, reported Dr. Ryder.

Sarah Davies, MBBCh, a GP at Woodlands Medical Centre, Cardiff, Wales, agreed that EndoBarrier might be a viable option for patients struggling with obesity. “As GPs, we are the first port of call for these patients. It’s very novel, I hadn’t heard of it before. I like how it’s a noninvasive way for my patients to lose weight and maintain that even after EndoBarrier has been removed.”

Outcomes are being monitored in an ongoing global registry to help determine if EndoBarrier is a safe and effective treatment for individuals with type 2 diabetes and obesity. Dr. Ryder noted that a similar study with 3 years of follow-up showed similar results. Further results will be presented by Dr. Ryder at the upcoming meeting of the American Diabetes Association.

EndoBarrier is currently not approved in the United States. It is awaiting United Kingdom and European CE mark, which the manufacturer hope will be granted this summer. The license will be for patients with BMI of 35-50 kg/m².
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

DENVER — Patients with pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis (POMS) are often prescribed low-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), but a new retrospective analysis suggests that, like adults, this patient population may benefit from early treatment with high-efficacy DMTs.

“I think it’s very important to highlight that we are seeing that traditionally, kids are just started on lower-efficacy treatments and they keep relapsing. If we can show that when they get transitioned to high-efficacy treatments, the relapses are lessening, I’m hoping that can then push for better clinical trials with pediatric patients included,” said Frederick Bassal, DO, who presented the study during a poster session at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. He is a pediatric neurologist at University of California, Davis.

The first line for POMS is generally low-efficacy DMTs like interferon-beta and glatiramer acetate, but these medications may not effectively control disease progression, according to the study authors, and this could lead to pediatric patients being changed to more potent therapies. That can include moderate-efficacy drugs like S1P inhibitors and fumarates, or high-efficacy DMTS such as B cell depletors and alpha 4 integrin receptor antibodies.
 

Treatment Strategies

“Right now what we’re seeing is the conservative approach — starting low and working up with the younger and adolescent patients. I’m speculating, and I want to look more into it. Is [it maybe] because of insurance approval?” said study coauthor Amara Miller, a medical student at the University of Arizona College of Medicine in Phoenix.

The findings aren’t surprising, according to Barbara Giesser, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. “It is in line with what we think we know about people with adult MS — that if you start early on with a more effective therapy, you tend to have better outcomes,” said Dr. Giesser, director of the MS program at the Pacific Neuroscience Institute.

Another reason to consider higher-efficacy DMTs is that children with MS can have cognitive problems and delays. “There’s a suggestion that if you treat with highly-effective DMT that you might be able to abrogate some of that,” said Dr. Giesser.

Among the approximately two dozen FDA-approved disease-modifying therapies for MS, only fingolimod (Gilenya, Novartis) is approved for children and adolescents. “All of the others are used off label, but I think perhaps, if you have more studies that [show] that children do better if you treat with more effective therapies early on, perhaps we might see more on-label indications for use in a pediatric population,” said Dr. Giesser.

The finding that obesity was associated with a higher likelihood of having multiple therapies is also interesting, she said. “We’re beginning to see that obesity in adults as well seems to portend less favorable neurologic outcomes.”
 

Study Methodology

The researchers analyzed data from 135 POMS patients between 2012 and 2023.

The mean age of participants was 15 years, 60% were female, and 120 of 135 were White, while 76 were of Hispanic ethnicity. Overweight and obesity were common, with 36 and 43 participants in each category. The initial therapy was a low-efficacy DMT in 23.0% of participants, moderate-efficacy in 37.0%, and high-efficacy in 24.4%, while 1.5% received some other kind of medication and 14.1% received no medication. The annualized relapse rate was 0.932, and the mean EDSS score was 0.88.

Patients who underwent three or medication changes had lower EDSS scores than those who underwent zero to 2 (P = .00607).

Over the course of the study, the percentage of patients who received high-efficacy DMTs rose from 25.9% to 48.9%, largely due to changes in medication. Of those initially prescribed low-efficacy DMTs, 77.4% were eventually switched to high-efficacy DMTs.

Every patient who underwent three or more medication changes was initially prescribed a low-efficacy DMT.

Patients started on low-efficacy drugs had a mean of 1.42 medication changes, compared with 0.94 in the moderate-efficacy group and 0.51 in the high-efficacy group. The reasons for changing from the first medication included relapse (36), side effects (11), patient choice or compliance (8), and pregnancy (2).

Patients 10 years or younger were more likely to be initially prescribed a low-efficacy therapy (odds ratio [OR], 5.72; P = .0366), while older patients were more likely to be prescribed moderate- or high-efficacy therapies (OR, 14.44; P = .0012).

There were more total medication changes in the low-efficacy group than the high initial DMT group (P = .000305).

Asked what advice they would give to physicians treating POMS patients, Ms. Miller suggested a top-down approach. “We want to look at if maybe we can start with higher efficacy DMT’s and maybe titering it down. That may be an option,” said Ms. Miller.

Dr. Bassal highlighted the importance of shared decision-making. “We want to go over the options, that we recommend higher-efficacy [DMTs] for these reasons. But every individual is different. And there may be fears that are very reasonable that families have. I think in those cases, it’s also reasonable to make a shared decision. And if that means going with something like an oral, moderate- to lower-efficacy [therapy], that’s okay, because compliance is key, and if you start something where the family is afraid of side effects, or there are side effects, then you kind of lost that opportunity,” he said.

Dr. Bassal, Dr. Giesser, and Ms. Miller have no relevant financial disclosures.

DENVER — Patients with pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis (POMS) are often prescribed low-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), but a new retrospective analysis suggests that, like adults, this patient population may benefit from early treatment with high-efficacy DMTs.

“I think it’s very important to highlight that we are seeing that traditionally, kids are just started on lower-efficacy treatments and they keep relapsing. If we can show that when they get transitioned to high-efficacy treatments, the relapses are lessening, I’m hoping that can then push for better clinical trials with pediatric patients included,” said Frederick Bassal, DO, who presented the study during a poster session at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. He is a pediatric neurologist at University of California, Davis.

The first line for POMS is generally low-efficacy DMTs like interferon-beta and glatiramer acetate, but these medications may not effectively control disease progression, according to the study authors, and this could lead to pediatric patients being changed to more potent therapies. That can include moderate-efficacy drugs like S1P inhibitors and fumarates, or high-efficacy DMTS such as B cell depletors and alpha 4 integrin receptor antibodies.
 

Treatment Strategies

“Right now what we’re seeing is the conservative approach — starting low and working up with the younger and adolescent patients. I’m speculating, and I want to look more into it. Is [it maybe] because of insurance approval?” said study coauthor Amara Miller, a medical student at the University of Arizona College of Medicine in Phoenix.

The findings aren’t surprising, according to Barbara Giesser, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. “It is in line with what we think we know about people with adult MS — that if you start early on with a more effective therapy, you tend to have better outcomes,” said Dr. Giesser, director of the MS program at the Pacific Neuroscience Institute.

Another reason to consider higher-efficacy DMTs is that children with MS can have cognitive problems and delays. “There’s a suggestion that if you treat with highly-effective DMT that you might be able to abrogate some of that,” said Dr. Giesser.

Among the approximately two dozen FDA-approved disease-modifying therapies for MS, only fingolimod (Gilenya, Novartis) is approved for children and adolescents. “All of the others are used off label, but I think perhaps, if you have more studies that [show] that children do better if you treat with more effective therapies early on, perhaps we might see more on-label indications for use in a pediatric population,” said Dr. Giesser.

The finding that obesity was associated with a higher likelihood of having multiple therapies is also interesting, she said. “We’re beginning to see that obesity in adults as well seems to portend less favorable neurologic outcomes.”
 

Study Methodology

The researchers analyzed data from 135 POMS patients between 2012 and 2023.

The mean age of participants was 15 years, 60% were female, and 120 of 135 were White, while 76 were of Hispanic ethnicity. Overweight and obesity were common, with 36 and 43 participants in each category. The initial therapy was a low-efficacy DMT in 23.0% of participants, moderate-efficacy in 37.0%, and high-efficacy in 24.4%, while 1.5% received some other kind of medication and 14.1% received no medication. The annualized relapse rate was 0.932, and the mean EDSS score was 0.88.

Patients who underwent three or medication changes had lower EDSS scores than those who underwent zero to 2 (P = .00607).

Over the course of the study, the percentage of patients who received high-efficacy DMTs rose from 25.9% to 48.9%, largely due to changes in medication. Of those initially prescribed low-efficacy DMTs, 77.4% were eventually switched to high-efficacy DMTs.

Every patient who underwent three or more medication changes was initially prescribed a low-efficacy DMT.

Patients started on low-efficacy drugs had a mean of 1.42 medication changes, compared with 0.94 in the moderate-efficacy group and 0.51 in the high-efficacy group. The reasons for changing from the first medication included relapse (36), side effects (11), patient choice or compliance (8), and pregnancy (2).

Patients 10 years or younger were more likely to be initially prescribed a low-efficacy therapy (odds ratio [OR], 5.72; P = .0366), while older patients were more likely to be prescribed moderate- or high-efficacy therapies (OR, 14.44; P = .0012).

There were more total medication changes in the low-efficacy group than the high initial DMT group (P = .000305).

Asked what advice they would give to physicians treating POMS patients, Ms. Miller suggested a top-down approach. “We want to look at if maybe we can start with higher efficacy DMT’s and maybe titering it down. That may be an option,” said Ms. Miller.

Dr. Bassal highlighted the importance of shared decision-making. “We want to go over the options, that we recommend higher-efficacy [DMTs] for these reasons. But every individual is different. And there may be fears that are very reasonable that families have. I think in those cases, it’s also reasonable to make a shared decision. And if that means going with something like an oral, moderate- to lower-efficacy [therapy], that’s okay, because compliance is key, and if you start something where the family is afraid of side effects, or there are side effects, then you kind of lost that opportunity,” he said.

Dr. Bassal, Dr. Giesser, and Ms. Miller have no relevant financial disclosures.

DENVER — Patients with pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis (POMS) are often prescribed low-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), but a new retrospective analysis suggests that, like adults, this patient population may benefit from early treatment with high-efficacy DMTs.

“I think it’s very important to highlight that we are seeing that traditionally, kids are just started on lower-efficacy treatments and they keep relapsing. If we can show that when they get transitioned to high-efficacy treatments, the relapses are lessening, I’m hoping that can then push for better clinical trials with pediatric patients included,” said Frederick Bassal, DO, who presented the study during a poster session at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. He is a pediatric neurologist at University of California, Davis.

The first line for POMS is generally low-efficacy DMTs like interferon-beta and glatiramer acetate, but these medications may not effectively control disease progression, according to the study authors, and this could lead to pediatric patients being changed to more potent therapies. That can include moderate-efficacy drugs like S1P inhibitors and fumarates, or high-efficacy DMTS such as B cell depletors and alpha 4 integrin receptor antibodies.
 

Treatment Strategies

“Right now what we’re seeing is the conservative approach — starting low and working up with the younger and adolescent patients. I’m speculating, and I want to look more into it. Is [it maybe] because of insurance approval?” said study coauthor Amara Miller, a medical student at the University of Arizona College of Medicine in Phoenix.

The findings aren’t surprising, according to Barbara Giesser, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. “It is in line with what we think we know about people with adult MS — that if you start early on with a more effective therapy, you tend to have better outcomes,” said Dr. Giesser, director of the MS program at the Pacific Neuroscience Institute.

Another reason to consider higher-efficacy DMTs is that children with MS can have cognitive problems and delays. “There’s a suggestion that if you treat with highly-effective DMT that you might be able to abrogate some of that,” said Dr. Giesser.

Among the approximately two dozen FDA-approved disease-modifying therapies for MS, only fingolimod (Gilenya, Novartis) is approved for children and adolescents. “All of the others are used off label, but I think perhaps, if you have more studies that [show] that children do better if you treat with more effective therapies early on, perhaps we might see more on-label indications for use in a pediatric population,” said Dr. Giesser.

The finding that obesity was associated with a higher likelihood of having multiple therapies is also interesting, she said. “We’re beginning to see that obesity in adults as well seems to portend less favorable neurologic outcomes.”
 

Study Methodology

The researchers analyzed data from 135 POMS patients between 2012 and 2023.

The mean age of participants was 15 years, 60% were female, and 120 of 135 were White, while 76 were of Hispanic ethnicity. Overweight and obesity were common, with 36 and 43 participants in each category. The initial therapy was a low-efficacy DMT in 23.0% of participants, moderate-efficacy in 37.0%, and high-efficacy in 24.4%, while 1.5% received some other kind of medication and 14.1% received no medication. The annualized relapse rate was 0.932, and the mean EDSS score was 0.88.

Patients who underwent three or medication changes had lower EDSS scores than those who underwent zero to 2 (P = .00607).

Over the course of the study, the percentage of patients who received high-efficacy DMTs rose from 25.9% to 48.9%, largely due to changes in medication. Of those initially prescribed low-efficacy DMTs, 77.4% were eventually switched to high-efficacy DMTs.

Every patient who underwent three or more medication changes was initially prescribed a low-efficacy DMT.

Patients started on low-efficacy drugs had a mean of 1.42 medication changes, compared with 0.94 in the moderate-efficacy group and 0.51 in the high-efficacy group. The reasons for changing from the first medication included relapse (36), side effects (11), patient choice or compliance (8), and pregnancy (2).

Patients 10 years or younger were more likely to be initially prescribed a low-efficacy therapy (odds ratio [OR], 5.72; P = .0366), while older patients were more likely to be prescribed moderate- or high-efficacy therapies (OR, 14.44; P = .0012).

There were more total medication changes in the low-efficacy group than the high initial DMT group (P = .000305).

Asked what advice they would give to physicians treating POMS patients, Ms. Miller suggested a top-down approach. “We want to look at if maybe we can start with higher efficacy DMT’s and maybe titering it down. That may be an option,” said Ms. Miller.

Dr. Bassal highlighted the importance of shared decision-making. “We want to go over the options, that we recommend higher-efficacy [DMTs] for these reasons. But every individual is different. And there may be fears that are very reasonable that families have. I think in those cases, it’s also reasonable to make a shared decision. And if that means going with something like an oral, moderate- to lower-efficacy [therapy], that’s okay, because compliance is key, and if you start something where the family is afraid of side effects, or there are side effects, then you kind of lost that opportunity,” he said.

Dr. Bassal, Dr. Giesser, and Ms. Miller have no relevant financial disclosures.