Pharmacology

ATLANTA – Dutch investigators at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology made a good case for 6 weeks of low-dose prednisolone to help people with hand osteoarthritis get over a particularly bad spell.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

A total of 42 patients randomized to prednisolone 10 mg/day fell a mean of 21.5 mm at 6 weeks from a baseline visual analog hand pain score of 54 mm (out of a possible 100 mm), versus a drop of 5.2 mm from a baseline score of 53 mm among 46 randomized to placebo; the mean group difference was 16.5 mm. Patients taking prednisolone did better on function, quality of life, and physician global assessments, too.

“This trial provides evidence that local inflammation is a suitable target for drug treatment in hand OA. We think this study provides clinicians with a short-term treatment option for patients who have a flare of their disease,” said lead investigator Féline Kroon, MD, a rheumatologist at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center.

“The large beneficial effect size exceeded that of all available therapeutic options for hand osteoarthritis,” including NSAIDs, she and her team noted in the study write-up, which was published to coincide with the meeting (Lancet. 2019 Nov 30;394[10213]:1993-2001).

Many physicians already use short-course prednisolone for hand OA, but there was no clinical evidence that it helped until now. The study also adds weight to the idea that OA has an inflammatory component – an idea that has been building for a while, Dr. Kroon said.

Leiden investigators and others have previously shown that synovial inflammation is often present in hand OA and a main determinant of pain and radiographic progression.

The 92 patients in the Low-Dose Prednisolone in Patients with Painful Hand Osteoarthritis (HOPE) trial had to have at least four interphalangeal joints (IPJs) with osteoarthritic nodes, at least one IPJ with soft swelling or erythema, and at least one with a positive power Doppler signal or grade 2 or higher synovitis on ultrasound. They also had to have flared at least 20 mm on the pain scale with NSAID washout.

There were more responders in the prednisolone group at 6 weeks (72% versus 33%), and significantly greater improvement in synovial thickening. There was no difference in power Doppler score or synovitis score per joint on MRI, but bone marrow lesions appeared less severe with prednisolone.

All the between-group differences disappeared when prednisolone was tapered after 6 weeks.

Four patients discontinued the study because of an adverse event: a myocardial infarction in the prednisolone group, and, in the control arm, a bowel surgery, an infected leg hematoma, and a case of Lyme arthritis of the knee. Adverse events were otherwise mild and similar in both arms.

The mean age in the study was 64 years, and 79% of the subjects were women. Exclusion criteria included chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases, psoriasis, use of immune-modulating drugs within 90 days of baseline, and predominantly thumb base pain instead of finger pain.

The approach “is for short course. Long-term steroids can have important side effects, like osteoporosis. We do not think this study should be used to encourage prolonged prescribing of glucocorticoids in patients with hand OA,” Dr. Kroon said.

Two previous trials of glucocorticoids for hand OA were inconclusive. A dose of prednisone 5 mg/day for 4 weeks did not separate from placebo in one, and the second showed pain improvements with a combination of prednisolone and dipyridamole versus placebo, but with more adverse events, particularly dipyridamole headaches.

The work was funded by the Dutch Arthritis Society. Dr. Kroon did not have any disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kroon F et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 1760.

ATLANTA – Dutch investigators at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology made a good case for 6 weeks of low-dose prednisolone to help people with hand osteoarthritis get over a particularly bad spell.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

A total of 42 patients randomized to prednisolone 10 mg/day fell a mean of 21.5 mm at 6 weeks from a baseline visual analog hand pain score of 54 mm (out of a possible 100 mm), versus a drop of 5.2 mm from a baseline score of 53 mm among 46 randomized to placebo; the mean group difference was 16.5 mm. Patients taking prednisolone did better on function, quality of life, and physician global assessments, too.

“This trial provides evidence that local inflammation is a suitable target for drug treatment in hand OA. We think this study provides clinicians with a short-term treatment option for patients who have a flare of their disease,” said lead investigator Féline Kroon, MD, a rheumatologist at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center.

“The large beneficial effect size exceeded that of all available therapeutic options for hand osteoarthritis,” including NSAIDs, she and her team noted in the study write-up, which was published to coincide with the meeting (Lancet. 2019 Nov 30;394[10213]:1993-2001).

Many physicians already use short-course prednisolone for hand OA, but there was no clinical evidence that it helped until now. The study also adds weight to the idea that OA has an inflammatory component – an idea that has been building for a while, Dr. Kroon said.

Leiden investigators and others have previously shown that synovial inflammation is often present in hand OA and a main determinant of pain and radiographic progression.

The 92 patients in the Low-Dose Prednisolone in Patients with Painful Hand Osteoarthritis (HOPE) trial had to have at least four interphalangeal joints (IPJs) with osteoarthritic nodes, at least one IPJ with soft swelling or erythema, and at least one with a positive power Doppler signal or grade 2 or higher synovitis on ultrasound. They also had to have flared at least 20 mm on the pain scale with NSAID washout.

There were more responders in the prednisolone group at 6 weeks (72% versus 33%), and significantly greater improvement in synovial thickening. There was no difference in power Doppler score or synovitis score per joint on MRI, but bone marrow lesions appeared less severe with prednisolone.

All the between-group differences disappeared when prednisolone was tapered after 6 weeks.

Four patients discontinued the study because of an adverse event: a myocardial infarction in the prednisolone group, and, in the control arm, a bowel surgery, an infected leg hematoma, and a case of Lyme arthritis of the knee. Adverse events were otherwise mild and similar in both arms.

The mean age in the study was 64 years, and 79% of the subjects were women. Exclusion criteria included chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases, psoriasis, use of immune-modulating drugs within 90 days of baseline, and predominantly thumb base pain instead of finger pain.

The approach “is for short course. Long-term steroids can have important side effects, like osteoporosis. We do not think this study should be used to encourage prolonged prescribing of glucocorticoids in patients with hand OA,” Dr. Kroon said.

Two previous trials of glucocorticoids for hand OA were inconclusive. A dose of prednisone 5 mg/day for 4 weeks did not separate from placebo in one, and the second showed pain improvements with a combination of prednisolone and dipyridamole versus placebo, but with more adverse events, particularly dipyridamole headaches.

The work was funded by the Dutch Arthritis Society. Dr. Kroon did not have any disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kroon F et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 1760.

ATLANTA – Dutch investigators at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology made a good case for 6 weeks of low-dose prednisolone to help people with hand osteoarthritis get over a particularly bad spell.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

A total of 42 patients randomized to prednisolone 10 mg/day fell a mean of 21.5 mm at 6 weeks from a baseline visual analog hand pain score of 54 mm (out of a possible 100 mm), versus a drop of 5.2 mm from a baseline score of 53 mm among 46 randomized to placebo; the mean group difference was 16.5 mm. Patients taking prednisolone did better on function, quality of life, and physician global assessments, too.

“This trial provides evidence that local inflammation is a suitable target for drug treatment in hand OA. We think this study provides clinicians with a short-term treatment option for patients who have a flare of their disease,” said lead investigator Féline Kroon, MD, a rheumatologist at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center.

“The large beneficial effect size exceeded that of all available therapeutic options for hand osteoarthritis,” including NSAIDs, she and her team noted in the study write-up, which was published to coincide with the meeting (Lancet. 2019 Nov 30;394[10213]:1993-2001).

Many physicians already use short-course prednisolone for hand OA, but there was no clinical evidence that it helped until now. The study also adds weight to the idea that OA has an inflammatory component – an idea that has been building for a while, Dr. Kroon said.

Leiden investigators and others have previously shown that synovial inflammation is often present in hand OA and a main determinant of pain and radiographic progression.

The 92 patients in the Low-Dose Prednisolone in Patients with Painful Hand Osteoarthritis (HOPE) trial had to have at least four interphalangeal joints (IPJs) with osteoarthritic nodes, at least one IPJ with soft swelling or erythema, and at least one with a positive power Doppler signal or grade 2 or higher synovitis on ultrasound. They also had to have flared at least 20 mm on the pain scale with NSAID washout.

There were more responders in the prednisolone group at 6 weeks (72% versus 33%), and significantly greater improvement in synovial thickening. There was no difference in power Doppler score or synovitis score per joint on MRI, but bone marrow lesions appeared less severe with prednisolone.

All the between-group differences disappeared when prednisolone was tapered after 6 weeks.

Four patients discontinued the study because of an adverse event: a myocardial infarction in the prednisolone group, and, in the control arm, a bowel surgery, an infected leg hematoma, and a case of Lyme arthritis of the knee. Adverse events were otherwise mild and similar in both arms.

The mean age in the study was 64 years, and 79% of the subjects were women. Exclusion criteria included chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases, psoriasis, use of immune-modulating drugs within 90 days of baseline, and predominantly thumb base pain instead of finger pain.

The approach “is for short course. Long-term steroids can have important side effects, like osteoporosis. We do not think this study should be used to encourage prolonged prescribing of glucocorticoids in patients with hand OA,” Dr. Kroon said.

Two previous trials of glucocorticoids for hand OA were inconclusive. A dose of prednisone 5 mg/day for 4 weeks did not separate from placebo in one, and the second showed pain improvements with a combination of prednisolone and dipyridamole versus placebo, but with more adverse events, particularly dipyridamole headaches.

The work was funded by the Dutch Arthritis Society. Dr. Kroon did not have any disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kroon F et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 1760.

The American College of Physicians has released new clinical guidelines providing practical recommendations for testosterone therapy in adult men with age-related low testosterone.

The evidence-based recommendations target all clinicians and were published online January 6, 2020, in Annals of Internal Medicine, highlighting data from a systematic review of evidence on the efficacy and safety of testosterone treatment in adult men with age-related low testosterone.

Serum testosterone levels drop as men age, starting in their mid-30s, and approximately 20% of American men older than 60 years have low testosterone.

However, no widely accepted testosterone threshold level exists that represents a measure below which symptoms of androgen deficiency and adverse health outcomes occur.

In addition, the role of testosterone therapy in managing this patient population is controversial.

“The purpose of this American College of Physicians guideline is to present recommendations based on the best available evidence on the benefits, harms, and costs of testosterone treatment in adult men with age-related low testosterone,” write Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, MHA, from the American College of Physicians, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

“This guideline does not address screening or diagnosis of hypogonadism or monitoring of testosterone levels,” the authors note.

In particular, the recommendations suggest that clinicians should initiate testosterone treatment in these patients only to help them improve their sexual function.

According to the authors, moderate-certainty evidence from seven trials involving testosterone treatment in adult men with age-related low testosterone showed a small improvement in global sexual function, whereas low-certainty evidence from seven trials showed a small improvement in erectile function.

By contrast, the guideline emphasizes that clinicians should avoid prescribing testosterone treatment for any other concern in this population. Available evidence demonstrates little to no improvement in physical function, depressive symptoms, energy and vitality, or cognition among these men after receiving testosterone treatment, the authors stress.

ACP recommends that clinicians should reassess men’s symptoms within 12 months of testosterone treatment initiation, with regular reevaluations during subsequent follow up. Clinicians should discontinue treatment in men if sexual function fails to improve.

The guideline also recommends using intramuscular formulations of testosterone treatment for this patient population instead of transdermal ones, because intramuscular formulations cost less and have similar clinical effectiveness and harms.

“The annual cost in 2016 per beneficiary for TRT [testosterone replacement therapy] was $2,135.32 for the transdermal and $156.24 for the intramuscular formulation, according to paid pharmaceutical claims provided in the 2016 Medicare Part D Drug Claims data,” the authors write.

In an accompanying editorial, E. Victor Adlin, MD, of Temple University, Philadelphia, notes that these new ACP guidelines mostly mirror those recently proposed by both the Endocrine Society and the American Urological Association.

However, he predicts that many clinicians will question the ACP’s recommendation to favor use of intramuscular over transdermal formulations of testosterone.

Although Dr. Adlin acknowledges the lower cost of intramuscular preparations as a major consideration, he explains that “the need for an intramuscular injection every 1-4 weeks is a potential barrier to adherence, and some patients require visits to a health care facility for the injections, which may add to the expense.”

Fluctuating blood testosterone levels after each injection may also result in irregular symptom relief and difficulty achieving the desired blood level, he adds. “Individual preference may vary widely in the choice of testosterone therapy.”

Overall, Dr. Adlin stresses that a patient-clinician discussion should serve as the foundation for starting testosterone therapy in men with age-related low testosterone, with the patient playing a central role in treatment decision making.

This guideline was developed with financial support from the American College of Physicians’ operating budget. Study author Carrie Horwitch reports serving as a fiduciary officer for the Washington State Medical Association. Jennifer S. Lin, a member of the ACP Clinical Guidelines Committee, reports being an employee of Kaiser Permanente. Robert McLean, another member of the committee, reports being an employee of Northeast Medical Group. The remaining authors and the editorialist have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this story appeared on Medscape.com.

The American College of Physicians has released new clinical guidelines providing practical recommendations for testosterone therapy in adult men with age-related low testosterone.

The evidence-based recommendations target all clinicians and were published online January 6, 2020, in Annals of Internal Medicine, highlighting data from a systematic review of evidence on the efficacy and safety of testosterone treatment in adult men with age-related low testosterone.

Serum testosterone levels drop as men age, starting in their mid-30s, and approximately 20% of American men older than 60 years have low testosterone.

However, no widely accepted testosterone threshold level exists that represents a measure below which symptoms of androgen deficiency and adverse health outcomes occur.

In addition, the role of testosterone therapy in managing this patient population is controversial.

“The purpose of this American College of Physicians guideline is to present recommendations based on the best available evidence on the benefits, harms, and costs of testosterone treatment in adult men with age-related low testosterone,” write Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, MHA, from the American College of Physicians, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

“This guideline does not address screening or diagnosis of hypogonadism or monitoring of testosterone levels,” the authors note.

In particular, the recommendations suggest that clinicians should initiate testosterone treatment in these patients only to help them improve their sexual function.

According to the authors, moderate-certainty evidence from seven trials involving testosterone treatment in adult men with age-related low testosterone showed a small improvement in global sexual function, whereas low-certainty evidence from seven trials showed a small improvement in erectile function.

By contrast, the guideline emphasizes that clinicians should avoid prescribing testosterone treatment for any other concern in this population. Available evidence demonstrates little to no improvement in physical function, depressive symptoms, energy and vitality, or cognition among these men after receiving testosterone treatment, the authors stress.

ACP recommends that clinicians should reassess men’s symptoms within 12 months of testosterone treatment initiation, with regular reevaluations during subsequent follow up. Clinicians should discontinue treatment in men if sexual function fails to improve.

The guideline also recommends using intramuscular formulations of testosterone treatment for this patient population instead of transdermal ones, because intramuscular formulations cost less and have similar clinical effectiveness and harms.

“The annual cost in 2016 per beneficiary for TRT [testosterone replacement therapy] was $2,135.32 for the transdermal and $156.24 for the intramuscular formulation, according to paid pharmaceutical claims provided in the 2016 Medicare Part D Drug Claims data,” the authors write.

In an accompanying editorial, E. Victor Adlin, MD, of Temple University, Philadelphia, notes that these new ACP guidelines mostly mirror those recently proposed by both the Endocrine Society and the American Urological Association.

However, he predicts that many clinicians will question the ACP’s recommendation to favor use of intramuscular over transdermal formulations of testosterone.

Although Dr. Adlin acknowledges the lower cost of intramuscular preparations as a major consideration, he explains that “the need for an intramuscular injection every 1-4 weeks is a potential barrier to adherence, and some patients require visits to a health care facility for the injections, which may add to the expense.”

Fluctuating blood testosterone levels after each injection may also result in irregular symptom relief and difficulty achieving the desired blood level, he adds. “Individual preference may vary widely in the choice of testosterone therapy.”

Overall, Dr. Adlin stresses that a patient-clinician discussion should serve as the foundation for starting testosterone therapy in men with age-related low testosterone, with the patient playing a central role in treatment decision making.

This guideline was developed with financial support from the American College of Physicians’ operating budget. Study author Carrie Horwitch reports serving as a fiduciary officer for the Washington State Medical Association. Jennifer S. Lin, a member of the ACP Clinical Guidelines Committee, reports being an employee of Kaiser Permanente. Robert McLean, another member of the committee, reports being an employee of Northeast Medical Group. The remaining authors and the editorialist have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this story appeared on Medscape.com.

The American College of Physicians has released new clinical guidelines providing practical recommendations for testosterone therapy in adult men with age-related low testosterone.

The evidence-based recommendations target all clinicians and were published online January 6, 2020, in Annals of Internal Medicine, highlighting data from a systematic review of evidence on the efficacy and safety of testosterone treatment in adult men with age-related low testosterone.

Serum testosterone levels drop as men age, starting in their mid-30s, and approximately 20% of American men older than 60 years have low testosterone.

However, no widely accepted testosterone threshold level exists that represents a measure below which symptoms of androgen deficiency and adverse health outcomes occur.

In addition, the role of testosterone therapy in managing this patient population is controversial.

“The purpose of this American College of Physicians guideline is to present recommendations based on the best available evidence on the benefits, harms, and costs of testosterone treatment in adult men with age-related low testosterone,” write Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, MHA, from the American College of Physicians, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

“This guideline does not address screening or diagnosis of hypogonadism or monitoring of testosterone levels,” the authors note.

In particular, the recommendations suggest that clinicians should initiate testosterone treatment in these patients only to help them improve their sexual function.

According to the authors, moderate-certainty evidence from seven trials involving testosterone treatment in adult men with age-related low testosterone showed a small improvement in global sexual function, whereas low-certainty evidence from seven trials showed a small improvement in erectile function.

By contrast, the guideline emphasizes that clinicians should avoid prescribing testosterone treatment for any other concern in this population. Available evidence demonstrates little to no improvement in physical function, depressive symptoms, energy and vitality, or cognition among these men after receiving testosterone treatment, the authors stress.

ACP recommends that clinicians should reassess men’s symptoms within 12 months of testosterone treatment initiation, with regular reevaluations during subsequent follow up. Clinicians should discontinue treatment in men if sexual function fails to improve.

The guideline also recommends using intramuscular formulations of testosterone treatment for this patient population instead of transdermal ones, because intramuscular formulations cost less and have similar clinical effectiveness and harms.

“The annual cost in 2016 per beneficiary for TRT [testosterone replacement therapy] was $2,135.32 for the transdermal and $156.24 for the intramuscular formulation, according to paid pharmaceutical claims provided in the 2016 Medicare Part D Drug Claims data,” the authors write.

In an accompanying editorial, E. Victor Adlin, MD, of Temple University, Philadelphia, notes that these new ACP guidelines mostly mirror those recently proposed by both the Endocrine Society and the American Urological Association.

However, he predicts that many clinicians will question the ACP’s recommendation to favor use of intramuscular over transdermal formulations of testosterone.

Although Dr. Adlin acknowledges the lower cost of intramuscular preparations as a major consideration, he explains that “the need for an intramuscular injection every 1-4 weeks is a potential barrier to adherence, and some patients require visits to a health care facility for the injections, which may add to the expense.”

Fluctuating blood testosterone levels after each injection may also result in irregular symptom relief and difficulty achieving the desired blood level, he adds. “Individual preference may vary widely in the choice of testosterone therapy.”

Overall, Dr. Adlin stresses that a patient-clinician discussion should serve as the foundation for starting testosterone therapy in men with age-related low testosterone, with the patient playing a central role in treatment decision making.

This guideline was developed with financial support from the American College of Physicians’ operating budget. Study author Carrie Horwitch reports serving as a fiduciary officer for the Washington State Medical Association. Jennifer S. Lin, a member of the ACP Clinical Guidelines Committee, reports being an employee of Kaiser Permanente. Robert McLean, another member of the committee, reports being an employee of Northeast Medical Group. The remaining authors and the editorialist have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this story appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO – Eluxadoline proved highly effective for alleviation of a multitude of symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea in patients for whom loperamide was ineffective in the phase 4 RELIEF trial, Darren M. Brenner, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

“From the totality of the clinical trials data we have now, we believe that eluxadoline can be effective both in patients who are naive to other treatments and in patients who have failed loperamide therapy,” concluded Dr. Brenner, a gastroenterologist at Northwestern University, Chicago.

Eluxadoline (Viberzi) is a novel mixed mu- and kappa-opioid receptor agonist and delta-opioid receptor antagonist approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treatment of irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea (IBS-D) in adults. In contrast, loperamide, a mu-opioid receptor agonist, is not approved for that indication. Yet loperamide is widely prescribed for this purpose, despite the fact that both the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and the ACG now recommend against this practice.

“There is a lack of conclusive evidence to support the use of loperamide for the relief of global IBS-D symptoms. It works on the stool symptoms – stool frequency and texture – but has never been shown to be beneficial for the abdominal pain symptoms or discomfort or bloating. That being said, as practitioners we continue to see loperamide used as a first-line agent,” Dr. Brenner noted.

RELIEF was a multicenter, prospective, double-blind study which randomized 346 patients with moderate to severe IBS-D to eluxadoline at 100 mg twice daily or placebo for 12 weeks. All participants were required to have an intact gallbladder as per the drug’s labeling guidance, and all had a self-reported recent inadequate response to loperamide.

The primary composite endpoint in the RELIEF trial was a 40% or greater improvement from baseline in the 11-point Daily Worst Abdominal Pain score plus a Bristol Stool Form score below 5 on the same day for at least 50% of study days. At baseline, participants had an average Worst Abdominal Pain score of 6.2 on the 0-10 scale and a Bristol score of 6.2. The primary endpoint was achieved at week 12 in 23% of the eluxadoline group, significantly better than the 10% rate in controls. The eluxadoline group also showed significantly greater improvement on the many secondary endpoints having to do with urgency-free days, stool consistency, bowel movement frequency, abdominal discomfort, bloating, and the experience of adequate relief of symptoms.

The safety profile of eluxadoline mirrored that of placebo, with no serious adverse events recorded in either study arm and a 2.9% study discontinuation rate because of treatment-emergent adverse events in the eluxadoline group. Asked why he thinks eluxadoline was effective in improving the full range of IBS-D symptoms when loperamide wasn’t, even though both drugs are mu-opioid receptor agonists, Dr. Brenner replied, “The problem is mu receptors line the entire GI tract, so you can actually push somebody from diarrhea to opioid-induced constipation – and that’s not the goal. What delta does is alleviate some of the adverse events by binding to the receptor, which results in increased transit time, reduced secretion, and increased absorption. Delta brings things back towards the center. We also believe antagonism of delta potentiates analgesic effects at the mu receptor, improves the pain component, gut symptoms, and stool symptoms.”

Dr. Brenner reported serving as a consultant to and member of a speaker’s bureau for Allergan, which markets eluxadoline and sponsored the RELIEF trial.

[email protected]

SAN ANTONIO – Eluxadoline proved highly effective for alleviation of a multitude of symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea in patients for whom loperamide was ineffective in the phase 4 RELIEF trial, Darren M. Brenner, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

“From the totality of the clinical trials data we have now, we believe that eluxadoline can be effective both in patients who are naive to other treatments and in patients who have failed loperamide therapy,” concluded Dr. Brenner, a gastroenterologist at Northwestern University, Chicago.

Eluxadoline (Viberzi) is a novel mixed mu- and kappa-opioid receptor agonist and delta-opioid receptor antagonist approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treatment of irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea (IBS-D) in adults. In contrast, loperamide, a mu-opioid receptor agonist, is not approved for that indication. Yet loperamide is widely prescribed for this purpose, despite the fact that both the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and the ACG now recommend against this practice.

“There is a lack of conclusive evidence to support the use of loperamide for the relief of global IBS-D symptoms. It works on the stool symptoms – stool frequency and texture – but has never been shown to be beneficial for the abdominal pain symptoms or discomfort or bloating. That being said, as practitioners we continue to see loperamide used as a first-line agent,” Dr. Brenner noted.

RELIEF was a multicenter, prospective, double-blind study which randomized 346 patients with moderate to severe IBS-D to eluxadoline at 100 mg twice daily or placebo for 12 weeks. All participants were required to have an intact gallbladder as per the drug’s labeling guidance, and all had a self-reported recent inadequate response to loperamide.

The primary composite endpoint in the RELIEF trial was a 40% or greater improvement from baseline in the 11-point Daily Worst Abdominal Pain score plus a Bristol Stool Form score below 5 on the same day for at least 50% of study days. At baseline, participants had an average Worst Abdominal Pain score of 6.2 on the 0-10 scale and a Bristol score of 6.2. The primary endpoint was achieved at week 12 in 23% of the eluxadoline group, significantly better than the 10% rate in controls. The eluxadoline group also showed significantly greater improvement on the many secondary endpoints having to do with urgency-free days, stool consistency, bowel movement frequency, abdominal discomfort, bloating, and the experience of adequate relief of symptoms.

The safety profile of eluxadoline mirrored that of placebo, with no serious adverse events recorded in either study arm and a 2.9% study discontinuation rate because of treatment-emergent adverse events in the eluxadoline group. Asked why he thinks eluxadoline was effective in improving the full range of IBS-D symptoms when loperamide wasn’t, even though both drugs are mu-opioid receptor agonists, Dr. Brenner replied, “The problem is mu receptors line the entire GI tract, so you can actually push somebody from diarrhea to opioid-induced constipation – and that’s not the goal. What delta does is alleviate some of the adverse events by binding to the receptor, which results in increased transit time, reduced secretion, and increased absorption. Delta brings things back towards the center. We also believe antagonism of delta potentiates analgesic effects at the mu receptor, improves the pain component, gut symptoms, and stool symptoms.”

Dr. Brenner reported serving as a consultant to and member of a speaker’s bureau for Allergan, which markets eluxadoline and sponsored the RELIEF trial.

[email protected]

SAN ANTONIO – Eluxadoline proved highly effective for alleviation of a multitude of symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea in patients for whom loperamide was ineffective in the phase 4 RELIEF trial, Darren M. Brenner, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

“From the totality of the clinical trials data we have now, we believe that eluxadoline can be effective both in patients who are naive to other treatments and in patients who have failed loperamide therapy,” concluded Dr. Brenner, a gastroenterologist at Northwestern University, Chicago.

Eluxadoline (Viberzi) is a novel mixed mu- and kappa-opioid receptor agonist and delta-opioid receptor antagonist approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treatment of irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea (IBS-D) in adults. In contrast, loperamide, a mu-opioid receptor agonist, is not approved for that indication. Yet loperamide is widely prescribed for this purpose, despite the fact that both the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and the ACG now recommend against this practice.

“There is a lack of conclusive evidence to support the use of loperamide for the relief of global IBS-D symptoms. It works on the stool symptoms – stool frequency and texture – but has never been shown to be beneficial for the abdominal pain symptoms or discomfort or bloating. That being said, as practitioners we continue to see loperamide used as a first-line agent,” Dr. Brenner noted.

RELIEF was a multicenter, prospective, double-blind study which randomized 346 patients with moderate to severe IBS-D to eluxadoline at 100 mg twice daily or placebo for 12 weeks. All participants were required to have an intact gallbladder as per the drug’s labeling guidance, and all had a self-reported recent inadequate response to loperamide.

The primary composite endpoint in the RELIEF trial was a 40% or greater improvement from baseline in the 11-point Daily Worst Abdominal Pain score plus a Bristol Stool Form score below 5 on the same day for at least 50% of study days. At baseline, participants had an average Worst Abdominal Pain score of 6.2 on the 0-10 scale and a Bristol score of 6.2. The primary endpoint was achieved at week 12 in 23% of the eluxadoline group, significantly better than the 10% rate in controls. The eluxadoline group also showed significantly greater improvement on the many secondary endpoints having to do with urgency-free days, stool consistency, bowel movement frequency, abdominal discomfort, bloating, and the experience of adequate relief of symptoms.

The safety profile of eluxadoline mirrored that of placebo, with no serious adverse events recorded in either study arm and a 2.9% study discontinuation rate because of treatment-emergent adverse events in the eluxadoline group. Asked why he thinks eluxadoline was effective in improving the full range of IBS-D symptoms when loperamide wasn’t, even though both drugs are mu-opioid receptor agonists, Dr. Brenner replied, “The problem is mu receptors line the entire GI tract, so you can actually push somebody from diarrhea to opioid-induced constipation – and that’s not the goal. What delta does is alleviate some of the adverse events by binding to the receptor, which results in increased transit time, reduced secretion, and increased absorption. Delta brings things back towards the center. We also believe antagonism of delta potentiates analgesic effects at the mu receptor, improves the pain component, gut symptoms, and stool symptoms.”

Dr. Brenner reported serving as a consultant to and member of a speaker’s bureau for Allergan, which markets eluxadoline and sponsored the RELIEF trial.

[email protected]

ORLANDO – Anti-CD5 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells can produce complete responses (CRs) in patients with relapsed or refractory T-cell malignancies, according to findings from a phase 1 trial.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

Three of 11 patients achieved a CR after CAR T-cell therapy, and one patient achieved a mixed response that deepened to a CR after transplant. Three responders, all of whom had T-cell lymphoma, were still alive and in CR at last follow-up.

There were no cases of severe cytokine release syndrome (CRS) or severe neurotoxicity, no serious infectious complications, and no nonhematologic grade 4 adverse events in this trial.

LaQuisa C. Hill, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, presented these results at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

“While CD19 CAR T cells have revolutionized the treatment of relapsed/refractory B-cell malignancies, development of CAR T-cell platforms targeting T-cell-driven malignancies have been hindered by three main factors: CAR T-cell fratricide due to shared expression of target antigens leading to impaired expansion, ablation of normal T cells continuing to cause profound immunodeficiency, and the potential of transduced tumor cells providing a means of tumor escape,” Dr. Hill said.

Researchers have theorized that anti-CD5 CAR T cells can overcome these obstacles. In preclinical studies, anti-CD5 CAR T cells eliminated malignant blasts in vitro and in vivo and resulted in “limited and transient” fratricide (Blood. 2015 Aug 20;126[8]:983-92).

With this in mind, Dr. Hill and her colleagues tested CD5.28z CAR T cells in a phase 1 trial (NCT03081910). Eleven patients have been treated thus far – five with T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (T-ALL), three with peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL), two with angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), and one with Sézary syndrome.

The patients’ median age at baseline was 62 years (range, 21-71 years), and 63% were men. They had received a median of 5 prior therapies (range, 3-18). Two patients had relapsed after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), three had relapsed after autologous HSCT, and five were primary refractory.

Patients underwent lymphodepletion with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide, then received CAR T cells at doses of 1 x 10⁷ or 5 x 10⁷.
 

Response

Three lymphoma patients – two with AITL and one with PTCL – were still alive and in CR at last follow-up. The PTCL patient achieved a CR after CAR T-cell therapy and declined a subsequent HSCT. The patient has not received additional therapy and has retained the CR for 7 months.

One AITL patient achieved a CR and declined transplant as well. He relapsed after 7 months but received subsequent therapy and achieved another CR. The other AITL patient had a mixed response to CAR T-cell therapy but proceeded to allogeneic HSCT and achieved a CR that has lasted 9 months.

The remaining three lymphoma patients – two with PTCL and one with Sézary syndrome – progressed and died.

One T-ALL patient achieved a CR lasting 6 weeks, but the patient died while undergoing transplant workup. Two T-ALL patients did not respond to treatment and died. The remaining two patients progressed, and one of them died. The other patient who progressed is still alive and in CR after receiving subsequent therapy.

Factors associated with response

Dr. Hill said a shortened manufacturing process may be associated with enhanced response, as all responders received CAR T cells produced via a shorter manufacturing process. The shortened process involves freezing cells on day 4-5 post transduction, as opposed to day 7.

“While the numbers are too small to make any definitive conclusions, this seems to correlate with less terminal differentiation, which might improve potency,” Dr. Hill said. “However, additional analyses are ongoing.”

Dr. Hill also pointed out that CAR T-cell expansion was observed in all patients, with higher peak levels observed at the higher dose. In addition, CAR T-cell persistence was durable at both dose levels.

“We have been able to detect the CAR transgene at all follow-up time points, out to 9 months for some patients,” Dr. Hill said. “While limited persistence may play a role in nonresponders, it does not appear to be the only factor.”

Safety

“Surprisingly, no selective ablation of normal T cells has been observed,” Dr. Hill said. “As CAR T cells dwindled [after infusion], we were able to see recovery of normal T cells, all of which expressed normal levels of CD5. This was observed in all patients on study, except for one patient who had prolonged pancytopenia.”

Cytopenias were the most common grade 3/4 adverse events, including neutropenia (n = 8), anemia (n = 7), and thrombocytopenia (n = 5). Other grade 3/4 events included elevated aspartate aminotransferase (n = 2), hypoalbuminemia (n = 1), hyponatremia (n = 1), hypophosphatemia (n = 1), and elevated alanine aminotransferase (n = 1). There were no grade 5 adverse events.

Two patients developed grade 1 CRS, and two had grade 2 CRS. Both patients with grade 2 CRS were treated with tocilizumab, and their symptoms resolved.

One patient developed grade 2 immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, but this resolved with supportive care.

One patient had a central line–associated bloodstream infection (coagulase-negative staphylococci), and one had cytomegalovirus and BK virus reactivation. There were no fungal infections.

“We have demonstrated that CD5 CAR T cells can be manufactured from heavily pretreated patients with T-cell malignancies, and therapy is well tolerated,” Dr. Hill said. “We have seen strong and promising activity in T-cell lymphoma, which we hope to be able to translate to T-ALL as well.”

Dr. Hill said she and her colleagues hope to improve upon these results with a higher dose level of CD5 CAR T cells (1 x 10⁸), which the team plans to start testing soon. The researchers may also investigate other target antigens, such as CD7, as well as the use of donor-derived CAR T cells for patients who have relapsed after allogeneic HSCT.

Dr. Hill said she has no relevant disclosures. Baylor College of Medicine is sponsoring this trial.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hill L et al. ASH 2019. Abstract 199.

ORLANDO – Anti-CD5 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells can produce complete responses (CRs) in patients with relapsed or refractory T-cell malignancies, according to findings from a phase 1 trial.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

Three of 11 patients achieved a CR after CAR T-cell therapy, and one patient achieved a mixed response that deepened to a CR after transplant. Three responders, all of whom had T-cell lymphoma, were still alive and in CR at last follow-up.

There were no cases of severe cytokine release syndrome (CRS) or severe neurotoxicity, no serious infectious complications, and no nonhematologic grade 4 adverse events in this trial.

LaQuisa C. Hill, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, presented these results at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

“While CD19 CAR T cells have revolutionized the treatment of relapsed/refractory B-cell malignancies, development of CAR T-cell platforms targeting T-cell-driven malignancies have been hindered by three main factors: CAR T-cell fratricide due to shared expression of target antigens leading to impaired expansion, ablation of normal T cells continuing to cause profound immunodeficiency, and the potential of transduced tumor cells providing a means of tumor escape,” Dr. Hill said.

Researchers have theorized that anti-CD5 CAR T cells can overcome these obstacles. In preclinical studies, anti-CD5 CAR T cells eliminated malignant blasts in vitro and in vivo and resulted in “limited and transient” fratricide (Blood. 2015 Aug 20;126[8]:983-92).

With this in mind, Dr. Hill and her colleagues tested CD5.28z CAR T cells in a phase 1 trial (NCT03081910). Eleven patients have been treated thus far – five with T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (T-ALL), three with peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL), two with angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), and one with Sézary syndrome.

The patients’ median age at baseline was 62 years (range, 21-71 years), and 63% were men. They had received a median of 5 prior therapies (range, 3-18). Two patients had relapsed after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), three had relapsed after autologous HSCT, and five were primary refractory.

Patients underwent lymphodepletion with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide, then received CAR T cells at doses of 1 x 10⁷ or 5 x 10⁷.
 

Response

Three lymphoma patients – two with AITL and one with PTCL – were still alive and in CR at last follow-up. The PTCL patient achieved a CR after CAR T-cell therapy and declined a subsequent HSCT. The patient has not received additional therapy and has retained the CR for 7 months.

One AITL patient achieved a CR and declined transplant as well. He relapsed after 7 months but received subsequent therapy and achieved another CR. The other AITL patient had a mixed response to CAR T-cell therapy but proceeded to allogeneic HSCT and achieved a CR that has lasted 9 months.

The remaining three lymphoma patients – two with PTCL and one with Sézary syndrome – progressed and died.

One T-ALL patient achieved a CR lasting 6 weeks, but the patient died while undergoing transplant workup. Two T-ALL patients did not respond to treatment and died. The remaining two patients progressed, and one of them died. The other patient who progressed is still alive and in CR after receiving subsequent therapy.

Factors associated with response

Dr. Hill said a shortened manufacturing process may be associated with enhanced response, as all responders received CAR T cells produced via a shorter manufacturing process. The shortened process involves freezing cells on day 4-5 post transduction, as opposed to day 7.

“While the numbers are too small to make any definitive conclusions, this seems to correlate with less terminal differentiation, which might improve potency,” Dr. Hill said. “However, additional analyses are ongoing.”

Dr. Hill also pointed out that CAR T-cell expansion was observed in all patients, with higher peak levels observed at the higher dose. In addition, CAR T-cell persistence was durable at both dose levels.

“We have been able to detect the CAR transgene at all follow-up time points, out to 9 months for some patients,” Dr. Hill said. “While limited persistence may play a role in nonresponders, it does not appear to be the only factor.”

Safety

“Surprisingly, no selective ablation of normal T cells has been observed,” Dr. Hill said. “As CAR T cells dwindled [after infusion], we were able to see recovery of normal T cells, all of which expressed normal levels of CD5. This was observed in all patients on study, except for one patient who had prolonged pancytopenia.”

Cytopenias were the most common grade 3/4 adverse events, including neutropenia (n = 8), anemia (n = 7), and thrombocytopenia (n = 5). Other grade 3/4 events included elevated aspartate aminotransferase (n = 2), hypoalbuminemia (n = 1), hyponatremia (n = 1), hypophosphatemia (n = 1), and elevated alanine aminotransferase (n = 1). There were no grade 5 adverse events.

Two patients developed grade 1 CRS, and two had grade 2 CRS. Both patients with grade 2 CRS were treated with tocilizumab, and their symptoms resolved.

One patient developed grade 2 immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, but this resolved with supportive care.

One patient had a central line–associated bloodstream infection (coagulase-negative staphylococci), and one had cytomegalovirus and BK virus reactivation. There were no fungal infections.

“We have demonstrated that CD5 CAR T cells can be manufactured from heavily pretreated patients with T-cell malignancies, and therapy is well tolerated,” Dr. Hill said. “We have seen strong and promising activity in T-cell lymphoma, which we hope to be able to translate to T-ALL as well.”

Dr. Hill said she and her colleagues hope to improve upon these results with a higher dose level of CD5 CAR T cells (1 x 10⁸), which the team plans to start testing soon. The researchers may also investigate other target antigens, such as CD7, as well as the use of donor-derived CAR T cells for patients who have relapsed after allogeneic HSCT.

Dr. Hill said she has no relevant disclosures. Baylor College of Medicine is sponsoring this trial.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hill L et al. ASH 2019. Abstract 199.

ORLANDO – Anti-CD5 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells can produce complete responses (CRs) in patients with relapsed or refractory T-cell malignancies, according to findings from a phase 1 trial.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

Three of 11 patients achieved a CR after CAR T-cell therapy, and one patient achieved a mixed response that deepened to a CR after transplant. Three responders, all of whom had T-cell lymphoma, were still alive and in CR at last follow-up.

There were no cases of severe cytokine release syndrome (CRS) or severe neurotoxicity, no serious infectious complications, and no nonhematologic grade 4 adverse events in this trial.

LaQuisa C. Hill, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, presented these results at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

“While CD19 CAR T cells have revolutionized the treatment of relapsed/refractory B-cell malignancies, development of CAR T-cell platforms targeting T-cell-driven malignancies have been hindered by three main factors: CAR T-cell fratricide due to shared expression of target antigens leading to impaired expansion, ablation of normal T cells continuing to cause profound immunodeficiency, and the potential of transduced tumor cells providing a means of tumor escape,” Dr. Hill said.

Researchers have theorized that anti-CD5 CAR T cells can overcome these obstacles. In preclinical studies, anti-CD5 CAR T cells eliminated malignant blasts in vitro and in vivo and resulted in “limited and transient” fratricide (Blood. 2015 Aug 20;126[8]:983-92).

With this in mind, Dr. Hill and her colleagues tested CD5.28z CAR T cells in a phase 1 trial (NCT03081910). Eleven patients have been treated thus far – five with T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (T-ALL), three with peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL), two with angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), and one with Sézary syndrome.

The patients’ median age at baseline was 62 years (range, 21-71 years), and 63% were men. They had received a median of 5 prior therapies (range, 3-18). Two patients had relapsed after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), three had relapsed after autologous HSCT, and five were primary refractory.

Patients underwent lymphodepletion with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide, then received CAR T cells at doses of 1 x 10⁷ or 5 x 10⁷.
 

Response

Three lymphoma patients – two with AITL and one with PTCL – were still alive and in CR at last follow-up. The PTCL patient achieved a CR after CAR T-cell therapy and declined a subsequent HSCT. The patient has not received additional therapy and has retained the CR for 7 months.

One AITL patient achieved a CR and declined transplant as well. He relapsed after 7 months but received subsequent therapy and achieved another CR. The other AITL patient had a mixed response to CAR T-cell therapy but proceeded to allogeneic HSCT and achieved a CR that has lasted 9 months.

The remaining three lymphoma patients – two with PTCL and one with Sézary syndrome – progressed and died.

One T-ALL patient achieved a CR lasting 6 weeks, but the patient died while undergoing transplant workup. Two T-ALL patients did not respond to treatment and died. The remaining two patients progressed, and one of them died. The other patient who progressed is still alive and in CR after receiving subsequent therapy.

Factors associated with response

Dr. Hill said a shortened manufacturing process may be associated with enhanced response, as all responders received CAR T cells produced via a shorter manufacturing process. The shortened process involves freezing cells on day 4-5 post transduction, as opposed to day 7.

“While the numbers are too small to make any definitive conclusions, this seems to correlate with less terminal differentiation, which might improve potency,” Dr. Hill said. “However, additional analyses are ongoing.”

Dr. Hill also pointed out that CAR T-cell expansion was observed in all patients, with higher peak levels observed at the higher dose. In addition, CAR T-cell persistence was durable at both dose levels.

“We have been able to detect the CAR transgene at all follow-up time points, out to 9 months for some patients,” Dr. Hill said. “While limited persistence may play a role in nonresponders, it does not appear to be the only factor.”

Safety

“Surprisingly, no selective ablation of normal T cells has been observed,” Dr. Hill said. “As CAR T cells dwindled [after infusion], we were able to see recovery of normal T cells, all of which expressed normal levels of CD5. This was observed in all patients on study, except for one patient who had prolonged pancytopenia.”

Cytopenias were the most common grade 3/4 adverse events, including neutropenia (n = 8), anemia (n = 7), and thrombocytopenia (n = 5). Other grade 3/4 events included elevated aspartate aminotransferase (n = 2), hypoalbuminemia (n = 1), hyponatremia (n = 1), hypophosphatemia (n = 1), and elevated alanine aminotransferase (n = 1). There were no grade 5 adverse events.

Two patients developed grade 1 CRS, and two had grade 2 CRS. Both patients with grade 2 CRS were treated with tocilizumab, and their symptoms resolved.

One patient developed grade 2 immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, but this resolved with supportive care.

One patient had a central line–associated bloodstream infection (coagulase-negative staphylococci), and one had cytomegalovirus and BK virus reactivation. There were no fungal infections.

“We have demonstrated that CD5 CAR T cells can be manufactured from heavily pretreated patients with T-cell malignancies, and therapy is well tolerated,” Dr. Hill said. “We have seen strong and promising activity in T-cell lymphoma, which we hope to be able to translate to T-ALL as well.”

Dr. Hill said she and her colleagues hope to improve upon these results with a higher dose level of CD5 CAR T cells (1 x 10⁸), which the team plans to start testing soon. The researchers may also investigate other target antigens, such as CD7, as well as the use of donor-derived CAR T cells for patients who have relapsed after allogeneic HSCT.

Dr. Hill said she has no relevant disclosures. Baylor College of Medicine is sponsoring this trial.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hill L et al. ASH 2019. Abstract 199.

ORLANDO – Updated results from the TRANSCEND NHL trial include survival data with lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel), an anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, in patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphomas.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.8 months, and the median overall survival was 21.1 months. PFS results were best among complete responders and among patients with primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma or transformed follicular lymphoma.

Jeremy S. Abramson, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, presented these results at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

“TRANSCEND NHL is the largest clinical study to date of CD19-directed CAR T cells in patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive B-cell lymphoma,” Dr. Abramson said.

The phase 1 trial (NCT02631044) includes 269 patients who received liso-cel. They were diagnosed with transformed follicular lymphoma (22%) or other indolent lymphoma (7%), high-grade B-cell lymphoma (13%), primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (6%), grade 3B follicular lymphoma (1%), or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma not otherwise specified (51%).

At baseline, patients had received a median of three prior systemic therapies (range, one to eight). Some patients had received autologous (33%) or allogeneic (3%) transplant. Many patients were chemotherapy refractory (67%) or had never achieved a complete response to prior therapy (44%).

More than half of patients (59%) received bridging therapy during liso-cel manufacturing. All patients received lymphodepletion with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide, followed by liso-cel at 50 x 10⁶ CAR T cells, 100 x 10⁶ CAR T cells, or 150 x 10⁶ CAR T cells.

Response and survival

The median follow-up was 12.0 months. The overall response rate was 73%, and the complete response rate was 53%.

“Remissions were rapid, with a median of 1 month from CAR T-cell infusion, and durable, with a median duration of response that has not been reached and 55% of patients remaining in response at 1 year,” Dr. Abramson said.

The median PFS was 6.8 months overall, not reached for patients who achieved a complete response, 2.8 months for patients with a partial response, and 1.1 months for patients with stable disease or progressive disease.

The median PFS was not reached for patients with primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma or transformed follicular lymphoma, 5.0 months for high-grade B-cell lymphoma, 3.0 months for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma not otherwise specified, and 2.9 months in transformed indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

The median overall survival was 21.1 months overall, not reached for patients who achieved a complete response, 9.0 months for patients who had a partial response, and 5.1 months for patients with stable disease or progressive disease.

Safety

Common treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (63%), anemia (48%), fatigue (44%), nausea (33%), thrombocytopenia (31%), headache (30%), decreased appetite (28%), and diarrhea (26%).

Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurred in 42% of patients, and neurologic events occurred in 30%. Grade 3-4 CRS occurred in 2% of patients, and grade 3-4 neurologic events occurred in 10%. There were no cases of grade 5 CRS or neurologic events.

The median time to CRS onset was 5 days, and the median time to onset of neurologic events was 9 days. The median time to resolution of CRS and neurologic events was 5 days and 11 days, respectively.

“The low incidence of severe CRS and neurologic events and their late time of onset support using this product in a large range of patients and in the outpatient setting,” Dr. Abramson said.

There were seven grade 5 treatment-related adverse events, including diffuse alveolar damage, pulmonary hemorrhage, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, cardiomyopathy, fludarabine leukoencephalopathy, septic shock, and progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy.

This trial is sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Abramson reported relationships with Juno Therapeutics and Celgene, now owned by Bristol-Myers Squibb, and a range of other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Abramson JS et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 241.

ORLANDO – Updated results from the TRANSCEND NHL trial include survival data with lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel), an anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, in patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphomas.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.8 months, and the median overall survival was 21.1 months. PFS results were best among complete responders and among patients with primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma or transformed follicular lymphoma.

Jeremy S. Abramson, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, presented these results at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

“TRANSCEND NHL is the largest clinical study to date of CD19-directed CAR T cells in patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive B-cell lymphoma,” Dr. Abramson said.

The phase 1 trial (NCT02631044) includes 269 patients who received liso-cel. They were diagnosed with transformed follicular lymphoma (22%) or other indolent lymphoma (7%), high-grade B-cell lymphoma (13%), primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (6%), grade 3B follicular lymphoma (1%), or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma not otherwise specified (51%).

At baseline, patients had received a median of three prior systemic therapies (range, one to eight). Some patients had received autologous (33%) or allogeneic (3%) transplant. Many patients were chemotherapy refractory (67%) or had never achieved a complete response to prior therapy (44%).

More than half of patients (59%) received bridging therapy during liso-cel manufacturing. All patients received lymphodepletion with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide, followed by liso-cel at 50 x 10⁶ CAR T cells, 100 x 10⁶ CAR T cells, or 150 x 10⁶ CAR T cells.

Response and survival

The median follow-up was 12.0 months. The overall response rate was 73%, and the complete response rate was 53%.

“Remissions were rapid, with a median of 1 month from CAR T-cell infusion, and durable, with a median duration of response that has not been reached and 55% of patients remaining in response at 1 year,” Dr. Abramson said.

The median PFS was 6.8 months overall, not reached for patients who achieved a complete response, 2.8 months for patients with a partial response, and 1.1 months for patients with stable disease or progressive disease.

The median PFS was not reached for patients with primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma or transformed follicular lymphoma, 5.0 months for high-grade B-cell lymphoma, 3.0 months for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma not otherwise specified, and 2.9 months in transformed indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

The median overall survival was 21.1 months overall, not reached for patients who achieved a complete response, 9.0 months for patients who had a partial response, and 5.1 months for patients with stable disease or progressive disease.

Safety

Common treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (63%), anemia (48%), fatigue (44%), nausea (33%), thrombocytopenia (31%), headache (30%), decreased appetite (28%), and diarrhea (26%).

Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurred in 42% of patients, and neurologic events occurred in 30%. Grade 3-4 CRS occurred in 2% of patients, and grade 3-4 neurologic events occurred in 10%. There were no cases of grade 5 CRS or neurologic events.

The median time to CRS onset was 5 days, and the median time to onset of neurologic events was 9 days. The median time to resolution of CRS and neurologic events was 5 days and 11 days, respectively.

“The low incidence of severe CRS and neurologic events and their late time of onset support using this product in a large range of patients and in the outpatient setting,” Dr. Abramson said.

There were seven grade 5 treatment-related adverse events, including diffuse alveolar damage, pulmonary hemorrhage, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, cardiomyopathy, fludarabine leukoencephalopathy, septic shock, and progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy.

This trial is sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Abramson reported relationships with Juno Therapeutics and Celgene, now owned by Bristol-Myers Squibb, and a range of other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Abramson JS et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 241.

ORLANDO – Updated results from the TRANSCEND NHL trial include survival data with lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel), an anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, in patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphomas.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.8 months, and the median overall survival was 21.1 months. PFS results were best among complete responders and among patients with primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma or transformed follicular lymphoma.

Jeremy S. Abramson, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, presented these results at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

“TRANSCEND NHL is the largest clinical study to date of CD19-directed CAR T cells in patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive B-cell lymphoma,” Dr. Abramson said.

The phase 1 trial (NCT02631044) includes 269 patients who received liso-cel. They were diagnosed with transformed follicular lymphoma (22%) or other indolent lymphoma (7%), high-grade B-cell lymphoma (13%), primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (6%), grade 3B follicular lymphoma (1%), or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma not otherwise specified (51%).

At baseline, patients had received a median of three prior systemic therapies (range, one to eight). Some patients had received autologous (33%) or allogeneic (3%) transplant. Many patients were chemotherapy refractory (67%) or had never achieved a complete response to prior therapy (44%).

More than half of patients (59%) received bridging therapy during liso-cel manufacturing. All patients received lymphodepletion with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide, followed by liso-cel at 50 x 10⁶ CAR T cells, 100 x 10⁶ CAR T cells, or 150 x 10⁶ CAR T cells.

Response and survival

The median follow-up was 12.0 months. The overall response rate was 73%, and the complete response rate was 53%.

“Remissions were rapid, with a median of 1 month from CAR T-cell infusion, and durable, with a median duration of response that has not been reached and 55% of patients remaining in response at 1 year,” Dr. Abramson said.

The median PFS was 6.8 months overall, not reached for patients who achieved a complete response, 2.8 months for patients with a partial response, and 1.1 months for patients with stable disease or progressive disease.

The median PFS was not reached for patients with primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma or transformed follicular lymphoma, 5.0 months for high-grade B-cell lymphoma, 3.0 months for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma not otherwise specified, and 2.9 months in transformed indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

The median overall survival was 21.1 months overall, not reached for patients who achieved a complete response, 9.0 months for patients who had a partial response, and 5.1 months for patients with stable disease or progressive disease.

Safety

Common treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (63%), anemia (48%), fatigue (44%), nausea (33%), thrombocytopenia (31%), headache (30%), decreased appetite (28%), and diarrhea (26%).

Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurred in 42% of patients, and neurologic events occurred in 30%. Grade 3-4 CRS occurred in 2% of patients, and grade 3-4 neurologic events occurred in 10%. There were no cases of grade 5 CRS or neurologic events.

The median time to CRS onset was 5 days, and the median time to onset of neurologic events was 9 days. The median time to resolution of CRS and neurologic events was 5 days and 11 days, respectively.

“The low incidence of severe CRS and neurologic events and their late time of onset support using this product in a large range of patients and in the outpatient setting,” Dr. Abramson said.

There were seven grade 5 treatment-related adverse events, including diffuse alveolar damage, pulmonary hemorrhage, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, cardiomyopathy, fludarabine leukoencephalopathy, septic shock, and progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy.

This trial is sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Abramson reported relationships with Juno Therapeutics and Celgene, now owned by Bristol-Myers Squibb, and a range of other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Abramson JS et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 241.

Vitamin D supplementation alone does not appear to reduce the risk of fracture, but a combination of vitamin D and calcium may, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis published in JAMA Network Open.

Pang Yao, PhD, from the Nuffield Department of Population Health at the University of Oxford (England) and coauthors wrote that, while randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of vitamin D supplements – either alone or in combination with calcium supplementation – have found conflicting results, most only had limited power to detect differences in the risk of fracture.

Dr. Yao and associates performed a meta-analysis of 11 observational studies with 39,141 participants, 11 RCTs of vitamin D supplementation alone in 34,243 participants, and 6 RCTs of calcium plus vitamin D involving 49,282 participants.

The analysis of the observational studies revealed that each 10.0-ng/mL increase in blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations was associated with a 7% lower risk of any fracture. However the authors noted significant heterogeneity between individual studies.

The meta-analysis of the 11 trials of vitamin D alone found that supplementation was not associated with significant change in the risk for any fracture or for hip fracture. Even subgroup analyses looking at age, residential status, location, study design, daily supplementation, or duration of supplementation failed to find any effect. However, there was a median difference in blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations of 8.4 ng/mL with vitamin D supplementation.

In the meta-analysis of the six vitamin D plus calcium trials, there was a significant 6% reduction in the rate of any fracture and a 16% reduction in hip fracture rate with supplementation. Overall, there was a 1% reduction in the risk of any fracture for each 0.4-ng/mL difference in blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration and 2% reduction in the risk of hip fracture.

However, the authors judged five of those six vitamin D plus calcium trials to be at high risk of bias, with two having open-label designs, although there was little heterogeneity among the studies. All the trials used either 800 or 400 IU/day of vitamin D and 1,200 or 800 mg/day of calcium, and the mean duration of treatment was 5.9 years.

Participants aged 80 years or older living in institutions showed greater reductions in the risk of any fracture with calcium plus vitamin D supplementation, compared with those younger than 80 years who were living in the community.

“In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the available evidence from completed RCTs provided no support for the effects of vitamin D alone on prevention of fracture, but most of these RCTs were constrained by methodological problems,” they wrote. “Meta-analyses of ongoing RCTs assessing the effects of higher daily doses of vitamin D on fracture risk are needed before making recommendations on the use of vitamin D for prevention of fracture.”

One author was supported by a Sino-British Fellowship Trust scholarship, and another received grants from the U.K. Medical Research Council. No conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Yao P et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2019. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.17789.

Vitamin D supplementation alone does not appear to reduce the risk of fracture, but a combination of vitamin D and calcium may, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis published in JAMA Network Open.

Pang Yao, PhD, from the Nuffield Department of Population Health at the University of Oxford (England) and coauthors wrote that, while randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of vitamin D supplements – either alone or in combination with calcium supplementation – have found conflicting results, most only had limited power to detect differences in the risk of fracture.

Dr. Yao and associates performed a meta-analysis of 11 observational studies with 39,141 participants, 11 RCTs of vitamin D supplementation alone in 34,243 participants, and 6 RCTs of calcium plus vitamin D involving 49,282 participants.

The analysis of the observational studies revealed that each 10.0-ng/mL increase in blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations was associated with a 7% lower risk of any fracture. However the authors noted significant heterogeneity between individual studies.

The meta-analysis of the 11 trials of vitamin D alone found that supplementation was not associated with significant change in the risk for any fracture or for hip fracture. Even subgroup analyses looking at age, residential status, location, study design, daily supplementation, or duration of supplementation failed to find any effect. However, there was a median difference in blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations of 8.4 ng/mL with vitamin D supplementation.

In the meta-analysis of the six vitamin D plus calcium trials, there was a significant 6% reduction in the rate of any fracture and a 16% reduction in hip fracture rate with supplementation. Overall, there was a 1% reduction in the risk of any fracture for each 0.4-ng/mL difference in blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration and 2% reduction in the risk of hip fracture.

However, the authors judged five of those six vitamin D plus calcium trials to be at high risk of bias, with two having open-label designs, although there was little heterogeneity among the studies. All the trials used either 800 or 400 IU/day of vitamin D and 1,200 or 800 mg/day of calcium, and the mean duration of treatment was 5.9 years.

Participants aged 80 years or older living in institutions showed greater reductions in the risk of any fracture with calcium plus vitamin D supplementation, compared with those younger than 80 years who were living in the community.

“In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the available evidence from completed RCTs provided no support for the effects of vitamin D alone on prevention of fracture, but most of these RCTs were constrained by methodological problems,” they wrote. “Meta-analyses of ongoing RCTs assessing the effects of higher daily doses of vitamin D on fracture risk are needed before making recommendations on the use of vitamin D for prevention of fracture.”

One author was supported by a Sino-British Fellowship Trust scholarship, and another received grants from the U.K. Medical Research Council. No conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Yao P et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2019. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.17789.

Vitamin D supplementation alone does not appear to reduce the risk of fracture, but a combination of vitamin D and calcium may, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis published in JAMA Network Open.

Pang Yao, PhD, from the Nuffield Department of Population Health at the University of Oxford (England) and coauthors wrote that, while randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of vitamin D supplements – either alone or in combination with calcium supplementation – have found conflicting results, most only had limited power to detect differences in the risk of fracture.

Dr. Yao and associates performed a meta-analysis of 11 observational studies with 39,141 participants, 11 RCTs of vitamin D supplementation alone in 34,243 participants, and 6 RCTs of calcium plus vitamin D involving 49,282 participants.

The analysis of the observational studies revealed that each 10.0-ng/mL increase in blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations was associated with a 7% lower risk of any fracture. However the authors noted significant heterogeneity between individual studies.

The meta-analysis of the 11 trials of vitamin D alone found that supplementation was not associated with significant change in the risk for any fracture or for hip fracture. Even subgroup analyses looking at age, residential status, location, study design, daily supplementation, or duration of supplementation failed to find any effect. However, there was a median difference in blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations of 8.4 ng/mL with vitamin D supplementation.

In the meta-analysis of the six vitamin D plus calcium trials, there was a significant 6% reduction in the rate of any fracture and a 16% reduction in hip fracture rate with supplementation. Overall, there was a 1% reduction in the risk of any fracture for each 0.4-ng/mL difference in blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration and 2% reduction in the risk of hip fracture.

However, the authors judged five of those six vitamin D plus calcium trials to be at high risk of bias, with two having open-label designs, although there was little heterogeneity among the studies. All the trials used either 800 or 400 IU/day of vitamin D and 1,200 or 800 mg/day of calcium, and the mean duration of treatment was 5.9 years.

Participants aged 80 years or older living in institutions showed greater reductions in the risk of any fracture with calcium plus vitamin D supplementation, compared with those younger than 80 years who were living in the community.

“In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the available evidence from completed RCTs provided no support for the effects of vitamin D alone on prevention of fracture, but most of these RCTs were constrained by methodological problems,” they wrote. “Meta-analyses of ongoing RCTs assessing the effects of higher daily doses of vitamin D on fracture risk are needed before making recommendations on the use of vitamin D for prevention of fracture.”

One author was supported by a Sino-British Fellowship Trust scholarship, and another received grants from the U.K. Medical Research Council. No conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Yao P et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2019. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.17789.

SAN ANTONIO – Adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting increased the likelihood that women with stage III or early node-positive triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) would have a pathologic complete response and sustained clinical benefit, results of the phase 3 KEYNOTE-522 study showed.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Among 602 patients evaluable in a definitive pathological complete response (pCR) analysis, the pCR rate was 64.8% for those treated with chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab (Keytruda), compared with 51.2% for patients treated with chemotherapy plus placebo, reported Peter Schmid, MD, PhD, from Barts Cancer Institute in London.

“The addition of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab to chemotherapy provided a significant increase in the path CR rate in all patients, but also a larger magnitude of path CR benefit versus chemotherapy alone in patients with higher-risk disease, such as stage III disease or node-positive early triple-negative breast cancer,” he said at the annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

The overall pCR results were originally reported at the 2019 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology. At SABCS 2019, he reported pCR results for specific subgroups in KEYNOTE-522.

Investigators enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed TNBC of either stage T1cN1-2, or T2-4N0-2 and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients also had to have at least two separate tumor cores from the primary tumor for assessment of programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1).

After stratification for nodal status, tumor size, and carboplatin schedule (once weekly or every 3 weeks), patients were randomized to receive either pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks or placebo plus neoadjuvant carboplatin and paclitaxel for four 3-week cycles, followed by four cycles of chemotherapy with either doxorubicin or epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide (AC or EC). Patients went on to surgery, then received adjuvant therapy for nine cycles with either pembrolizumab at the neoadjuvant dose and schedule or placebo.

At the first preplanned interim analysis for event-free survival (EFS) based on 1,174 patients followed for a median of 15.5 months, events had occurred in 7.4% of patients on pembro/chemo, compared with 11.8% on placebo/chemo, but this difference did not meet the prespecified P value boundary of .000051 for significance, Dr. Schmid acknowledged.

When the investigators looked at pCR by disease stage, however, they saw the following benefits across all stages in the study:

• Stage IIA: 73.1% with pembrolizumab versus 62.1% with placebo, difference 11%.
• Stage IIB: 56.2% versus 48.4%, difference 7.8%.
• Stage IIIA: 66.7% versus 42.1%, difference 24.6%.
• Stage IIIB: 48.6% versus 23.1%, difference 25.6%.

The greatest benefit for the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy appeared to be in the higher disease stages, Dr. Schmid said.

There was also a benefit from pembrolizumab for patients with both node-negative disease (pCR, 64.9% vs. 58.6% in the placebo arm) and node-positive disease (64.8% vs. 44.1%, respectively).

pCR rates were also superior with pembrolizumab versus placebo in patients who were PD-L1 negative, defined as a combined positive score (CPS) less than 1 (45.3% vs. 30.3%), as well as PD-L1–positive patients at each of three cutoff values: CPS 1 or greater (68.9% vs. 54.9%), CPS 10 or greater (77.9% vs. 59.8%), and CPS 20 or greater (81.7% vs. 62.5%).

Interestingly, adding pembrolizumab boosted pCR rates both in patients with exposure to a full planned course of chemotherapy (69.7% vs. 55.3% with placebo) and in those who received less than the full course (51.1% vs. 35.7%).

The most common immune-mediated adverse events with the largest between-group differences involved the thyroid, including hypothyroidism (in 14.9% of patients on pembrolizumab and 5.7% of those on placebo), hyperthyroidism (5.1% vs. 1.8%), and thyroiditis (1.7% vs. 1.0%).

“Immune-mediated adverse events are consistent with the known profiles of each regimen, and there’s no new safety signal, no new safety concern at this point in time,” Dr. Schmid said.

Further follow-up will be needed to determine EFS benefit and long-term safety. Investigators plan to perform additional biomarker analyses, including tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and BRCA, he added.

“Will the KEYNOTE-522 regimen be the new standard of care if approved?” asked invited discussant Kevin Kalinsky, MD, MS, from Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York. “These are exciting data, both in pCR and early event-free survival. But there’s a risk: a risk of overtreatment, as well as potentially [serious] toxicity in patients with curable disease.”

“The take-home is that this regimen will likely be practice changing in some patients, and with the absence of having a predictor, the benefit may outweigh the risk most in patients with high clinical risk,” he added.

The study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Schmid reported advising/consulting for and receiving honoraria from Merck. Dr. Kalinsky disclosed has disclosed that he receives salary from Array Biopharma, has received fees from various companies (not including Merck), and has contracted research with multiple companies, not including Merck.

SOURCE: Schmid P et al. SABCS 2019, Abstract GS3-03.

SAN ANTONIO – Adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting increased the likelihood that women with stage III or early node-positive triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) would have a pathologic complete response and sustained clinical benefit, results of the phase 3 KEYNOTE-522 study showed.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Among 602 patients evaluable in a definitive pathological complete response (pCR) analysis, the pCR rate was 64.8% for those treated with chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab (Keytruda), compared with 51.2% for patients treated with chemotherapy plus placebo, reported Peter Schmid, MD, PhD, from Barts Cancer Institute in London.

“The addition of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab to chemotherapy provided a significant increase in the path CR rate in all patients, but also a larger magnitude of path CR benefit versus chemotherapy alone in patients with higher-risk disease, such as stage III disease or node-positive early triple-negative breast cancer,” he said at the annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

The overall pCR results were originally reported at the 2019 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology. At SABCS 2019, he reported pCR results for specific subgroups in KEYNOTE-522.

Investigators enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed TNBC of either stage T1cN1-2, or T2-4N0-2 and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients also had to have at least two separate tumor cores from the primary tumor for assessment of programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1).

After stratification for nodal status, tumor size, and carboplatin schedule (once weekly or every 3 weeks), patients were randomized to receive either pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks or placebo plus neoadjuvant carboplatin and paclitaxel for four 3-week cycles, followed by four cycles of chemotherapy with either doxorubicin or epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide (AC or EC). Patients went on to surgery, then received adjuvant therapy for nine cycles with either pembrolizumab at the neoadjuvant dose and schedule or placebo.

At the first preplanned interim analysis for event-free survival (EFS) based on 1,174 patients followed for a median of 15.5 months, events had occurred in 7.4% of patients on pembro/chemo, compared with 11.8% on placebo/chemo, but this difference did not meet the prespecified P value boundary of .000051 for significance, Dr. Schmid acknowledged.

When the investigators looked at pCR by disease stage, however, they saw the following benefits across all stages in the study:

• Stage IIA: 73.1% with pembrolizumab versus 62.1% with placebo, difference 11%.
• Stage IIB: 56.2% versus 48.4%, difference 7.8%.
• Stage IIIA: 66.7% versus 42.1%, difference 24.6%.
• Stage IIIB: 48.6% versus 23.1%, difference 25.6%.

The greatest benefit for the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy appeared to be in the higher disease stages, Dr. Schmid said.

There was also a benefit from pembrolizumab for patients with both node-negative disease (pCR, 64.9% vs. 58.6% in the placebo arm) and node-positive disease (64.8% vs. 44.1%, respectively).

pCR rates were also superior with pembrolizumab versus placebo in patients who were PD-L1 negative, defined as a combined positive score (CPS) less than 1 (45.3% vs. 30.3%), as well as PD-L1–positive patients at each of three cutoff values: CPS 1 or greater (68.9% vs. 54.9%), CPS 10 or greater (77.9% vs. 59.8%), and CPS 20 or greater (81.7% vs. 62.5%).

Interestingly, adding pembrolizumab boosted pCR rates both in patients with exposure to a full planned course of chemotherapy (69.7% vs. 55.3% with placebo) and in those who received less than the full course (51.1% vs. 35.7%).

The most common immune-mediated adverse events with the largest between-group differences involved the thyroid, including hypothyroidism (in 14.9% of patients on pembrolizumab and 5.7% of those on placebo), hyperthyroidism (5.1% vs. 1.8%), and thyroiditis (1.7% vs. 1.0%).

“Immune-mediated adverse events are consistent with the known profiles of each regimen, and there’s no new safety signal, no new safety concern at this point in time,” Dr. Schmid said.

Further follow-up will be needed to determine EFS benefit and long-term safety. Investigators plan to perform additional biomarker analyses, including tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and BRCA, he added.

“Will the KEYNOTE-522 regimen be the new standard of care if approved?” asked invited discussant Kevin Kalinsky, MD, MS, from Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York. “These are exciting data, both in pCR and early event-free survival. But there’s a risk: a risk of overtreatment, as well as potentially [serious] toxicity in patients with curable disease.”

“The take-home is that this regimen will likely be practice changing in some patients, and with the absence of having a predictor, the benefit may outweigh the risk most in patients with high clinical risk,” he added.

The study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Schmid reported advising/consulting for and receiving honoraria from Merck. Dr. Kalinsky disclosed has disclosed that he receives salary from Array Biopharma, has received fees from various companies (not including Merck), and has contracted research with multiple companies, not including Merck.

SOURCE: Schmid P et al. SABCS 2019, Abstract GS3-03.

SAN ANTONIO – Adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting increased the likelihood that women with stage III or early node-positive triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) would have a pathologic complete response and sustained clinical benefit, results of the phase 3 KEYNOTE-522 study showed.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Among 602 patients evaluable in a definitive pathological complete response (pCR) analysis, the pCR rate was 64.8% for those treated with chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab (Keytruda), compared with 51.2% for patients treated with chemotherapy plus placebo, reported Peter Schmid, MD, PhD, from Barts Cancer Institute in London.

“The addition of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab to chemotherapy provided a significant increase in the path CR rate in all patients, but also a larger magnitude of path CR benefit versus chemotherapy alone in patients with higher-risk disease, such as stage III disease or node-positive early triple-negative breast cancer,” he said at the annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

The overall pCR results were originally reported at the 2019 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology. At SABCS 2019, he reported pCR results for specific subgroups in KEYNOTE-522.

Investigators enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed TNBC of either stage T1cN1-2, or T2-4N0-2 and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients also had to have at least two separate tumor cores from the primary tumor for assessment of programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1).

After stratification for nodal status, tumor size, and carboplatin schedule (once weekly or every 3 weeks), patients were randomized to receive either pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks or placebo plus neoadjuvant carboplatin and paclitaxel for four 3-week cycles, followed by four cycles of chemotherapy with either doxorubicin or epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide (AC or EC). Patients went on to surgery, then received adjuvant therapy for nine cycles with either pembrolizumab at the neoadjuvant dose and schedule or placebo.

At the first preplanned interim analysis for event-free survival (EFS) based on 1,174 patients followed for a median of 15.5 months, events had occurred in 7.4% of patients on pembro/chemo, compared with 11.8% on placebo/chemo, but this difference did not meet the prespecified P value boundary of .000051 for significance, Dr. Schmid acknowledged.

When the investigators looked at pCR by disease stage, however, they saw the following benefits across all stages in the study:

• Stage IIA: 73.1% with pembrolizumab versus 62.1% with placebo, difference 11%.
• Stage IIB: 56.2% versus 48.4%, difference 7.8%.
• Stage IIIA: 66.7% versus 42.1%, difference 24.6%.
• Stage IIIB: 48.6% versus 23.1%, difference 25.6%.

The greatest benefit for the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy appeared to be in the higher disease stages, Dr. Schmid said.

There was also a benefit from pembrolizumab for patients with both node-negative disease (pCR, 64.9% vs. 58.6% in the placebo arm) and node-positive disease (64.8% vs. 44.1%, respectively).

pCR rates were also superior with pembrolizumab versus placebo in patients who were PD-L1 negative, defined as a combined positive score (CPS) less than 1 (45.3% vs. 30.3%), as well as PD-L1–positive patients at each of three cutoff values: CPS 1 or greater (68.9% vs. 54.9%), CPS 10 or greater (77.9% vs. 59.8%), and CPS 20 or greater (81.7% vs. 62.5%).

Interestingly, adding pembrolizumab boosted pCR rates both in patients with exposure to a full planned course of chemotherapy (69.7% vs. 55.3% with placebo) and in those who received less than the full course (51.1% vs. 35.7%).

The most common immune-mediated adverse events with the largest between-group differences involved the thyroid, including hypothyroidism (in 14.9% of patients on pembrolizumab and 5.7% of those on placebo), hyperthyroidism (5.1% vs. 1.8%), and thyroiditis (1.7% vs. 1.0%).

“Immune-mediated adverse events are consistent with the known profiles of each regimen, and there’s no new safety signal, no new safety concern at this point in time,” Dr. Schmid said.

Further follow-up will be needed to determine EFS benefit and long-term safety. Investigators plan to perform additional biomarker analyses, including tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and BRCA, he added.

“Will the KEYNOTE-522 regimen be the new standard of care if approved?” asked invited discussant Kevin Kalinsky, MD, MS, from Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York. “These are exciting data, both in pCR and early event-free survival. But there’s a risk: a risk of overtreatment, as well as potentially [serious] toxicity in patients with curable disease.”

“The take-home is that this regimen will likely be practice changing in some patients, and with the absence of having a predictor, the benefit may outweigh the risk most in patients with high clinical risk,” he added.

The study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Schmid reported advising/consulting for and receiving honoraria from Merck. Dr. Kalinsky disclosed has disclosed that he receives salary from Array Biopharma, has received fees from various companies (not including Merck), and has contracted research with multiple companies, not including Merck.

SOURCE: Schmid P et al. SABCS 2019, Abstract GS3-03.

SAN DIEGO – Pimavanserin, a second-generation antipsychotic approved for hallucinations and delusions in patients with Parkinson’s disease, may also be helpful for psychotic symptoms in other dementia patients, Erin P. Foff, MD, said at the Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease conference.

Michele G. Sullivan/MDedge News

In fact, the phase 3 HARMONY trial was stopped early, after an interim efficacy analysis determined that treatment with pimavanserin (Nuplazid) had achieved its primary endpoint – a statistically significant threefold reduction in the risk of relapse (P less than .0033).

Importantly, pimavanserin didn’t significantly affect cognition nor, at least in this controlled setting, did it appear to increase falls or other adverse events often seen with antipsychotic use in elderly patients, said Dr. Foff, clinical lead for the dementia-related psychosis program at Acadia Pharmaceuticals, which makes the drug and sponsored the study.

Based on the positive results, Acadia intends to submit a supplemental new drug application for this indication, according to an investor presentation posted on the company website.

“There is a critical need for an intervention [for psychosis symptoms] in this population,” Dr. Foff said. “We saw a robust response that was well tolerated and well maintained with no negative impact on cognitive scores.”

The second-generation antipsychotic was approved in 2016 for treating hallucinations and delusions in patients with Parkinson’s disease.

The drug is a selective antagonist of 5-HT₂ receptors, with low affinity for dopamine receptors. This slightly differentiates it from other second-generation antipsychotics that affect dopamine receptors as well as 5-HT₂ receptors.

HARMONY was not a typical placebo-controlled, randomized efficacy trial. Rather, it employed a two-phase design: an open-label treatment response period followed by a placebo-controlled randomization limited to open-label responders. Overall, HARMONY involved 392 patients with mild to severe dementia of numerous etiologies, including Alzheimer’s disease (66.8%), Parkinson’s disease dementia (14.3%), frontotemporal dementia (1.8%), vascular dementia (9.7%), and dementia with Lewy bodies (7.4%). All patients entered a 12-week, open-label period during which they received pimavanserin 34 mg daily. The primary endpoint was a combination of least a 30% reduction on the total Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptom–Hallucinations and Delusions (SAPS-HD) scale plus a score of 1-2 on the Clinical Global Impressions–Improvement (CGI-I) scale, meaning better or very much better.

At 12 weeks, all responders were then randomized to placebo or continued therapy for 26 weeks. The primary endpoint was relapse, defined as at least a 30% worsening of the SAPS-HD relative to open-label baseline, plus a CGI-I score of 6-7 (worse or very much worse).

Patients were aged a mean of 74 years. Most (about 90%) were living at home. Visual hallucinations occurred in 80% and delusions in 83%. At baseline, the mean SAPS-HD score was 24.4, and the mean CGI-Severity score was 4.7. The mean Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE) score was 16.7.

In the open-label period, pimavanserin reduced the SAPS-HD score at 12 weeks by a mean of 75%. Symptoms began to decline in the first week of treatment, with continuing improvement throughout the treatment period. By week 4, 30% had hit the response target. This number increased steadily, with 51% responding by week 4, 75% by week 8, and 88% by week 12.

By probable diagnosis, response rates were 59.8% in Alzheimer’s patients, 45.5% for those with Lewy body dementia, 71.2% among patients with Parkinson’s disease, 71% in patients with vascular dementia, and 50% in patients with frontotemporal dementia. In the final analysis, 80% of patients overall were considered responders.

The randomized potion began immediately thereafter with no washout period. About 62% (194) of the entire cohort – all responders – entered into the placebo-controlled phase. The remaining patients were either not responders (20%), dropped out because of an adverse event (7.7%), or left the study for unspecified reasons (10%). There was one death, which was not related to the study medication. A total of 41 patients were still being treated when the study was discontinued, and they were excluded from the final analysis.

When the randomized study ended, relapses had occurred in 28.3% of those taking placebo and in 12.6% of those taking pimavanserin – a statistically significant difference (hazard ratio, 0.353). This translated to a 180% reduction in relapse.

The rate of adverse events was similar in both active and placebo groups (41% vs. 36.6%). Serious adverse events occurred in 4.8% and 3.6%, respectively. The most commonly reported adverse events were headache (9.5% vs. 4.5%) and urinary tract infection (6.7% vs. 3.6%). Asthenia occurred in 2.9% of treated patients and 0.9% of placebo patients, but no falls were reported. Anxiety and dizziness were also reported in three patients taking the study medication.

Three patients (2.9%) experienced a prolonged QT phase on ECG, with a mean delay of 5.4 milliseconds from baseline. “Pimavanserin is known to have this effect of QT prolongation,” Dr. Foff said. “This 5.4-ms change is exactly in line with what we already know about pimavanserin and is not clinically significant. We saw no effect on motor function, consistent with the mechanism of action, and very low levels of agitation or aggression.”

Pimavanserin didn’t significantly change cognition from baseline in the open-label period, and in the randomized period, MMSE never differed significantly between groups.

The company also conducted an exploratory subgroup analysis that looked at placebo versus pimavanserin relapse by probable clinical diagnosis. Among the types of dementia, relapse rates for placebo versus pimavanserin were 23% versus 13% among Alzheimer’s patients, 67% versus 0% in Lewy body dementia patients, 50% versus 7% in patients with Parkinson’s, and 17% each among vascular dementia patients. Only one patient in the randomized period had frontotemporal dementia, and that patient relapsed on treatment.

Whether pimavanserin is effective specifically for psychosis in Alzheimer’s disease patients, however, remains in question. In 2018, Acadia published a negative phase 2 trial in a targeted group of 181 Alzheimer’s patients. The primary outcome in each study was mean change on the Neuropsychiatric Inventory–Nursing Home Version psychosis score (NPI-NH-PS). Clive Ballard, MD, of the University of Exeter (England), was the primary investigator.

After 6 weeks, those taking pimavanserin had a 3.76-point change in the NPI-NH-PS, compared with a 1.93-point change in the placebo group. The mean 1.84-point difference was not statistically significant.

This Alzheimer’s-only cohort group also experienced more adverse events than the HARMONY mixed-diagnosis cohort did, although the differences between pimavanserin and placebo groups were not significant. Adverse events included falls (23% of each group) and agitation (21% with pimavanserin vs. 14% with placebo). Cognition was unaffected.

Later that year, Acadia published a subgroup analysis of the same cohort parsing response by symptom severity, again with Dr. Ballard as the lead investigator.

The analysis focused on 57 patients with a baseline NPI-NH-PS of at least 12, indicating severe symptoms of psychosis.

Treatment effects were more pronounced in this group, significantly favoring pimavanserin. On the NPI-NH-PS, 88.9% of the pimavanserin group and 43.3% of the placebo group had at least a 30% improvement; 77.8% and 43.3% experienced at least a 50% improvement. The rate of serious adverse events was similar (18% with pimavanserin and 17% with placebo) and cognition was unaffected. Falls occurred in 14% of the treated group and 20% of the placebo group.

“These findings coupled with the results from other studies of pimavanserin suggest a potential role for pimavanserin in treating psychosis in patients across a range of neuropsychiatric conditions,” Dr. Ballard wrote.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Foff EP et al. CTAD 2019, Late-breaker 1

SAN DIEGO – Pimavanserin, a second-generation antipsychotic approved for hallucinations and delusions in patients with Parkinson’s disease, may also be helpful for psychotic symptoms in other dementia patients, Erin P. Foff, MD, said at the Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease conference.

Michele G. Sullivan/MDedge News

In fact, the phase 3 HARMONY trial was stopped early, after an interim efficacy analysis determined that treatment with pimavanserin (Nuplazid) had achieved its primary endpoint – a statistically significant threefold reduction in the risk of relapse (P less than .0033).

Importantly, pimavanserin didn’t significantly affect cognition nor, at least in this controlled setting, did it appear to increase falls or other adverse events often seen with antipsychotic use in elderly patients, said Dr. Foff, clinical lead for the dementia-related psychosis program at Acadia Pharmaceuticals, which makes the drug and sponsored the study.

Based on the positive results, Acadia intends to submit a supplemental new drug application for this indication, according to an investor presentation posted on the company website.

“There is a critical need for an intervention [for psychosis symptoms] in this population,” Dr. Foff said. “We saw a robust response that was well tolerated and well maintained with no negative impact on cognitive scores.”

The second-generation antipsychotic was approved in 2016 for treating hallucinations and delusions in patients with Parkinson’s disease.

The drug is a selective antagonist of 5-HT₂ receptors, with low affinity for dopamine receptors. This slightly differentiates it from other second-generation antipsychotics that affect dopamine receptors as well as 5-HT₂ receptors.

HARMONY was not a typical placebo-controlled, randomized efficacy trial. Rather, it employed a two-phase design: an open-label treatment response period followed by a placebo-controlled randomization limited to open-label responders. Overall, HARMONY involved 392 patients with mild to severe dementia of numerous etiologies, including Alzheimer’s disease (66.8%), Parkinson’s disease dementia (14.3%), frontotemporal dementia (1.8%), vascular dementia (9.7%), and dementia with Lewy bodies (7.4%). All patients entered a 12-week, open-label period during which they received pimavanserin 34 mg daily. The primary endpoint was a combination of least a 30% reduction on the total Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptom–Hallucinations and Delusions (SAPS-HD) scale plus a score of 1-2 on the Clinical Global Impressions–Improvement (CGI-I) scale, meaning better or very much better.

At 12 weeks, all responders were then randomized to placebo or continued therapy for 26 weeks. The primary endpoint was relapse, defined as at least a 30% worsening of the SAPS-HD relative to open-label baseline, plus a CGI-I score of 6-7 (worse or very much worse).

Patients were aged a mean of 74 years. Most (about 90%) were living at home. Visual hallucinations occurred in 80% and delusions in 83%. At baseline, the mean SAPS-HD score was 24.4, and the mean CGI-Severity score was 4.7. The mean Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE) score was 16.7.

In the open-label period, pimavanserin reduced the SAPS-HD score at 12 weeks by a mean of 75%. Symptoms began to decline in the first week of treatment, with continuing improvement throughout the treatment period. By week 4, 30% had hit the response target. This number increased steadily, with 51% responding by week 4, 75% by week 8, and 88% by week 12.

By probable diagnosis, response rates were 59.8% in Alzheimer’s patients, 45.5% for those with Lewy body dementia, 71.2% among patients with Parkinson’s disease, 71% in patients with vascular dementia, and 50% in patients with frontotemporal dementia. In the final analysis, 80% of patients overall were considered responders.

The randomized potion began immediately thereafter with no washout period. About 62% (194) of the entire cohort – all responders – entered into the placebo-controlled phase. The remaining patients were either not responders (20%), dropped out because of an adverse event (7.7%), or left the study for unspecified reasons (10%). There was one death, which was not related to the study medication. A total of 41 patients were still being treated when the study was discontinued, and they were excluded from the final analysis.

When the randomized study ended, relapses had occurred in 28.3% of those taking placebo and in 12.6% of those taking pimavanserin – a statistically significant difference (hazard ratio, 0.353). This translated to a 180% reduction in relapse.

The rate of adverse events was similar in both active and placebo groups (41% vs. 36.6%). Serious adverse events occurred in 4.8% and 3.6%, respectively. The most commonly reported adverse events were headache (9.5% vs. 4.5%) and urinary tract infection (6.7% vs. 3.6%). Asthenia occurred in 2.9% of treated patients and 0.9% of placebo patients, but no falls were reported. Anxiety and dizziness were also reported in three patients taking the study medication.

Three patients (2.9%) experienced a prolonged QT phase on ECG, with a mean delay of 5.4 milliseconds from baseline. “Pimavanserin is known to have this effect of QT prolongation,” Dr. Foff said. “This 5.4-ms change is exactly in line with what we already know about pimavanserin and is not clinically significant. We saw no effect on motor function, consistent with the mechanism of action, and very low levels of agitation or aggression.”

Pimavanserin didn’t significantly change cognition from baseline in the open-label period, and in the randomized period, MMSE never differed significantly between groups.

The company also conducted an exploratory subgroup analysis that looked at placebo versus pimavanserin relapse by probable clinical diagnosis. Among the types of dementia, relapse rates for placebo versus pimavanserin were 23% versus 13% among Alzheimer’s patients, 67% versus 0% in Lewy body dementia patients, 50% versus 7% in patients with Parkinson’s, and 17% each among vascular dementia patients. Only one patient in the randomized period had frontotemporal dementia, and that patient relapsed on treatment.

Whether pimavanserin is effective specifically for psychosis in Alzheimer’s disease patients, however, remains in question. In 2018, Acadia published a negative phase 2 trial in a targeted group of 181 Alzheimer’s patients. The primary outcome in each study was mean change on the Neuropsychiatric Inventory–Nursing Home Version psychosis score (NPI-NH-PS). Clive Ballard, MD, of the University of Exeter (England), was the primary investigator.

After 6 weeks, those taking pimavanserin had a 3.76-point change in the NPI-NH-PS, compared with a 1.93-point change in the placebo group. The mean 1.84-point difference was not statistically significant.

This Alzheimer’s-only cohort group also experienced more adverse events than the HARMONY mixed-diagnosis cohort did, although the differences between pimavanserin and placebo groups were not significant. Adverse events included falls (23% of each group) and agitation (21% with pimavanserin vs. 14% with placebo). Cognition was unaffected.

Later that year, Acadia published a subgroup analysis of the same cohort parsing response by symptom severity, again with Dr. Ballard as the lead investigator.

The analysis focused on 57 patients with a baseline NPI-NH-PS of at least 12, indicating severe symptoms of psychosis.

Treatment effects were more pronounced in this group, significantly favoring pimavanserin. On the NPI-NH-PS, 88.9% of the pimavanserin group and 43.3% of the placebo group had at least a 30% improvement; 77.8% and 43.3% experienced at least a 50% improvement. The rate of serious adverse events was similar (18% with pimavanserin and 17% with placebo) and cognition was unaffected. Falls occurred in 14% of the treated group and 20% of the placebo group.

“These findings coupled with the results from other studies of pimavanserin suggest a potential role for pimavanserin in treating psychosis in patients across a range of neuropsychiatric conditions,” Dr. Ballard wrote.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Foff EP et al. CTAD 2019, Late-breaker 1

SAN DIEGO – Pimavanserin, a second-generation antipsychotic approved for hallucinations and delusions in patients with Parkinson’s disease, may also be helpful for psychotic symptoms in other dementia patients, Erin P. Foff, MD, said at the Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease conference.

Michele G. Sullivan/MDedge News

In fact, the phase 3 HARMONY trial was stopped early, after an interim efficacy analysis determined that treatment with pimavanserin (Nuplazid) had achieved its primary endpoint – a statistically significant threefold reduction in the risk of relapse (P less than .0033).

Importantly, pimavanserin didn’t significantly affect cognition nor, at least in this controlled setting, did it appear to increase falls or other adverse events often seen with antipsychotic use in elderly patients, said Dr. Foff, clinical lead for the dementia-related psychosis program at Acadia Pharmaceuticals, which makes the drug and sponsored the study.

Based on the positive results, Acadia intends to submit a supplemental new drug application for this indication, according to an investor presentation posted on the company website.

“There is a critical need for an intervention [for psychosis symptoms] in this population,” Dr. Foff said. “We saw a robust response that was well tolerated and well maintained with no negative impact on cognitive scores.”

The second-generation antipsychotic was approved in 2016 for treating hallucinations and delusions in patients with Parkinson’s disease.

The drug is a selective antagonist of 5-HT₂ receptors, with low affinity for dopamine receptors. This slightly differentiates it from other second-generation antipsychotics that affect dopamine receptors as well as 5-HT₂ receptors.

HARMONY was not a typical placebo-controlled, randomized efficacy trial. Rather, it employed a two-phase design: an open-label treatment response period followed by a placebo-controlled randomization limited to open-label responders. Overall, HARMONY involved 392 patients with mild to severe dementia of numerous etiologies, including Alzheimer’s disease (66.8%), Parkinson’s disease dementia (14.3%), frontotemporal dementia (1.8%), vascular dementia (9.7%), and dementia with Lewy bodies (7.4%). All patients entered a 12-week, open-label period during which they received pimavanserin 34 mg daily. The primary endpoint was a combination of least a 30% reduction on the total Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptom–Hallucinations and Delusions (SAPS-HD) scale plus a score of 1-2 on the Clinical Global Impressions–Improvement (CGI-I) scale, meaning better or very much better.

At 12 weeks, all responders were then randomized to placebo or continued therapy for 26 weeks. The primary endpoint was relapse, defined as at least a 30% worsening of the SAPS-HD relative to open-label baseline, plus a CGI-I score of 6-7 (worse or very much worse).

Patients were aged a mean of 74 years. Most (about 90%) were living at home. Visual hallucinations occurred in 80% and delusions in 83%. At baseline, the mean SAPS-HD score was 24.4, and the mean CGI-Severity score was 4.7. The mean Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE) score was 16.7.

In the open-label period, pimavanserin reduced the SAPS-HD score at 12 weeks by a mean of 75%. Symptoms began to decline in the first week of treatment, with continuing improvement throughout the treatment period. By week 4, 30% had hit the response target. This number increased steadily, with 51% responding by week 4, 75% by week 8, and 88% by week 12.

By probable diagnosis, response rates were 59.8% in Alzheimer’s patients, 45.5% for those with Lewy body dementia, 71.2% among patients with Parkinson’s disease, 71% in patients with vascular dementia, and 50% in patients with frontotemporal dementia. In the final analysis, 80% of patients overall were considered responders.

The randomized potion began immediately thereafter with no washout period. About 62% (194) of the entire cohort – all responders – entered into the placebo-controlled phase. The remaining patients were either not responders (20%), dropped out because of an adverse event (7.7%), or left the study for unspecified reasons (10%). There was one death, which was not related to the study medication. A total of 41 patients were still being treated when the study was discontinued, and they were excluded from the final analysis.

When the randomized study ended, relapses had occurred in 28.3% of those taking placebo and in 12.6% of those taking pimavanserin – a statistically significant difference (hazard ratio, 0.353). This translated to a 180% reduction in relapse.

The rate of adverse events was similar in both active and placebo groups (41% vs. 36.6%). Serious adverse events occurred in 4.8% and 3.6%, respectively. The most commonly reported adverse events were headache (9.5% vs. 4.5%) and urinary tract infection (6.7% vs. 3.6%). Asthenia occurred in 2.9% of treated patients and 0.9% of placebo patients, but no falls were reported. Anxiety and dizziness were also reported in three patients taking the study medication.

Three patients (2.9%) experienced a prolonged QT phase on ECG, with a mean delay of 5.4 milliseconds from baseline. “Pimavanserin is known to have this effect of QT prolongation,” Dr. Foff said. “This 5.4-ms change is exactly in line with what we already know about pimavanserin and is not clinically significant. We saw no effect on motor function, consistent with the mechanism of action, and very low levels of agitation or aggression.”

Pimavanserin didn’t significantly change cognition from baseline in the open-label period, and in the randomized period, MMSE never differed significantly between groups.

The company also conducted an exploratory subgroup analysis that looked at placebo versus pimavanserin relapse by probable clinical diagnosis. Among the types of dementia, relapse rates for placebo versus pimavanserin were 23% versus 13% among Alzheimer’s patients, 67% versus 0% in Lewy body dementia patients, 50% versus 7% in patients with Parkinson’s, and 17% each among vascular dementia patients. Only one patient in the randomized period had frontotemporal dementia, and that patient relapsed on treatment.

Whether pimavanserin is effective specifically for psychosis in Alzheimer’s disease patients, however, remains in question. In 2018, Acadia published a negative phase 2 trial in a targeted group of 181 Alzheimer’s patients. The primary outcome in each study was mean change on the Neuropsychiatric Inventory–Nursing Home Version psychosis score (NPI-NH-PS). Clive Ballard, MD, of the University of Exeter (England), was the primary investigator.

After 6 weeks, those taking pimavanserin had a 3.76-point change in the NPI-NH-PS, compared with a 1.93-point change in the placebo group. The mean 1.84-point difference was not statistically significant.

This Alzheimer’s-only cohort group also experienced more adverse events than the HARMONY mixed-diagnosis cohort did, although the differences between pimavanserin and placebo groups were not significant. Adverse events included falls (23% of each group) and agitation (21% with pimavanserin vs. 14% with placebo). Cognition was unaffected.

Later that year, Acadia published a subgroup analysis of the same cohort parsing response by symptom severity, again with Dr. Ballard as the lead investigator.

The analysis focused on 57 patients with a baseline NPI-NH-PS of at least 12, indicating severe symptoms of psychosis.

Treatment effects were more pronounced in this group, significantly favoring pimavanserin. On the NPI-NH-PS, 88.9% of the pimavanserin group and 43.3% of the placebo group had at least a 30% improvement; 77.8% and 43.3% experienced at least a 50% improvement. The rate of serious adverse events was similar (18% with pimavanserin and 17% with placebo) and cognition was unaffected. Falls occurred in 14% of the treated group and 20% of the placebo group.

“These findings coupled with the results from other studies of pimavanserin suggest a potential role for pimavanserin in treating psychosis in patients across a range of neuropsychiatric conditions,” Dr. Ballard wrote.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Foff EP et al. CTAD 2019, Late-breaker 1

SAN DIEGO – Emergency physicians can be persuaded to follow a recommended strategy to prescribe buprenorphine to patients with opioid addictions and to refer them to follow-up care, Kathryn F. Hawk, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry.

“People are willing to change their practices and evolve as long as they have the support to do so,” Dr. Hawk, assistant professor of emergency medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said at the meeting.

Dr. Hawk highlighted a landmark 2015 study led by Yale colleagues that compared three strategies to treating patients with opioid use disorder in the emergency department. Researchers randomly assigned 329 patients to 1) referral to treatment; 2) brief intervention and facilitated referral to community-based treatment services; and 3) emergency department-initiated treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone (Suboxone) plus referral to primary care for 10-week follow-up.

At 30 days, 78% of patients in the third group were in addiction treatment vs. 37% in the first group and 45% in the second group. (P less than .001). However, the percentage of patients in the groups who had negative urine screens for opioids were not statistically different (JAMA. 2015. Apr 28;313[16]:1636-44).

Both the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and the American College of Medical Toxicology have endorsed the use of buprenorphine in the ED “as a bridge to long-term addiction treatment,” said Dr. Hawk, who also is affiliated with Yale New Haven Hospital.

Emergency department physicians, however, have been reluctant to start prescribing buprenorphine and get more deeply involved in referrals to care, said E. Jennifer Edelman, MD, associate professor of general internal medicine at Yale. She described the results of a 2017-2019 survey of 268 medical professionals at urban emergency departments in Seattle, Cincinnati, New York City, and Baltimore. Only 20% of the survey respondents said they were “ready” to initiate the buprenorphine treatment protocol.

Researchers also held focus groups with 74 clinicians who offered insight into their hesitation. “That’s not something that we’re even really taught in medical school and certainly not in our training as emergency physicians,” one faculty member said. “It is this detox black box across the street, and that’s how it is in many places.”

Another faculty member expressed regret about the current system: “I feel like this is particularly vulnerable patient population [and] we’re just saying, ‘Here’s a sheet. Call some numbers. Good luck.’ That’s the way it feels when I discharge these folks.” And a resident said: “We can’t provide all of that care up front. It’s just too time-consuming, and there are other patients to see.”

But not all of the findings were grim.

“There was broad recognition that the status quo was unacceptable, and emergency medicine physicians were excited about an opportunity to do more,” Dr. Edelman said.

According to her, strategies aimed at boosting the Suboxone approach include establishing protocols, and providing leadership support and resources. Addiction psychiatrists also can be helpful, she said.

“Let’s think about partnering together to bridge that gap,” she said. One idea: Invite emergency physicians to observe a treatment initiation.

“Showing how you counsel patients to start medication at home would be really a wonderful way to facilitate practices in the emergency department,” she said.

Another idea, she said, is to “give them feedback on their patients.” If an emergency physician refers a patient and they walk in the door, “let them know how they did. That’s going to be really, really powerful.”

ACEP and the American Society of Addiction Medicine have created a tool aimed at helping facilitate the use of buprenorphine and naloxone in the emergency department.

Dr. Hawk and Dr. Edelman reported no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – Emergency physicians can be persuaded to follow a recommended strategy to prescribe buprenorphine to patients with opioid addictions and to refer them to follow-up care, Kathryn F. Hawk, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry.

“People are willing to change their practices and evolve as long as they have the support to do so,” Dr. Hawk, assistant professor of emergency medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said at the meeting.

Dr. Hawk highlighted a landmark 2015 study led by Yale colleagues that compared three strategies to treating patients with opioid use disorder in the emergency department. Researchers randomly assigned 329 patients to 1) referral to treatment; 2) brief intervention and facilitated referral to community-based treatment services; and 3) emergency department-initiated treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone (Suboxone) plus referral to primary care for 10-week follow-up.

At 30 days, 78% of patients in the third group were in addiction treatment vs. 37% in the first group and 45% in the second group. (P less than .001). However, the percentage of patients in the groups who had negative urine screens for opioids were not statistically different (JAMA. 2015. Apr 28;313[16]:1636-44).

Both the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and the American College of Medical Toxicology have endorsed the use of buprenorphine in the ED “as a bridge to long-term addiction treatment,” said Dr. Hawk, who also is affiliated with Yale New Haven Hospital.

Emergency department physicians, however, have been reluctant to start prescribing buprenorphine and get more deeply involved in referrals to care, said E. Jennifer Edelman, MD, associate professor of general internal medicine at Yale. She described the results of a 2017-2019 survey of 268 medical professionals at urban emergency departments in Seattle, Cincinnati, New York City, and Baltimore. Only 20% of the survey respondents said they were “ready” to initiate the buprenorphine treatment protocol.

Researchers also held focus groups with 74 clinicians who offered insight into their hesitation. “That’s not something that we’re even really taught in medical school and certainly not in our training as emergency physicians,” one faculty member said. “It is this detox black box across the street, and that’s how it is in many places.”

Another faculty member expressed regret about the current system: “I feel like this is particularly vulnerable patient population [and] we’re just saying, ‘Here’s a sheet. Call some numbers. Good luck.’ That’s the way it feels when I discharge these folks.” And a resident said: “We can’t provide all of that care up front. It’s just too time-consuming, and there are other patients to see.”

But not all of the findings were grim.

“There was broad recognition that the status quo was unacceptable, and emergency medicine physicians were excited about an opportunity to do more,” Dr. Edelman said.

According to her, strategies aimed at boosting the Suboxone approach include establishing protocols, and providing leadership support and resources. Addiction psychiatrists also can be helpful, she said.

“Let’s think about partnering together to bridge that gap,” she said. One idea: Invite emergency physicians to observe a treatment initiation.

“Showing how you counsel patients to start medication at home would be really a wonderful way to facilitate practices in the emergency department,” she said.

Another idea, she said, is to “give them feedback on their patients.” If an emergency physician refers a patient and they walk in the door, “let them know how they did. That’s going to be really, really powerful.”

ACEP and the American Society of Addiction Medicine have created a tool aimed at helping facilitate the use of buprenorphine and naloxone in the emergency department.

Dr. Hawk and Dr. Edelman reported no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – Emergency physicians can be persuaded to follow a recommended strategy to prescribe buprenorphine to patients with opioid addictions and to refer them to follow-up care, Kathryn F. Hawk, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry.

“People are willing to change their practices and evolve as long as they have the support to do so,” Dr. Hawk, assistant professor of emergency medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said at the meeting.

Dr. Hawk highlighted a landmark 2015 study led by Yale colleagues that compared three strategies to treating patients with opioid use disorder in the emergency department. Researchers randomly assigned 329 patients to 1) referral to treatment; 2) brief intervention and facilitated referral to community-based treatment services; and 3) emergency department-initiated treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone (Suboxone) plus referral to primary care for 10-week follow-up.

At 30 days, 78% of patients in the third group were in addiction treatment vs. 37% in the first group and 45% in the second group. (P less than .001). However, the percentage of patients in the groups who had negative urine screens for opioids were not statistically different (JAMA. 2015. Apr 28;313[16]:1636-44).

Both the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and the American College of Medical Toxicology have endorsed the use of buprenorphine in the ED “as a bridge to long-term addiction treatment,” said Dr. Hawk, who also is affiliated with Yale New Haven Hospital.

Emergency department physicians, however, have been reluctant to start prescribing buprenorphine and get more deeply involved in referrals to care, said E. Jennifer Edelman, MD, associate professor of general internal medicine at Yale. She described the results of a 2017-2019 survey of 268 medical professionals at urban emergency departments in Seattle, Cincinnati, New York City, and Baltimore. Only 20% of the survey respondents said they were “ready” to initiate the buprenorphine treatment protocol.

Researchers also held focus groups with 74 clinicians who offered insight into their hesitation. “That’s not something that we’re even really taught in medical school and certainly not in our training as emergency physicians,” one faculty member said. “It is this detox black box across the street, and that’s how it is in many places.”

Another faculty member expressed regret about the current system: “I feel like this is particularly vulnerable patient population [and] we’re just saying, ‘Here’s a sheet. Call some numbers. Good luck.’ That’s the way it feels when I discharge these folks.” And a resident said: “We can’t provide all of that care up front. It’s just too time-consuming, and there are other patients to see.”

But not all of the findings were grim.

“There was broad recognition that the status quo was unacceptable, and emergency medicine physicians were excited about an opportunity to do more,” Dr. Edelman said.

According to her, strategies aimed at boosting the Suboxone approach include establishing protocols, and providing leadership support and resources. Addiction psychiatrists also can be helpful, she said.

“Let’s think about partnering together to bridge that gap,” she said. One idea: Invite emergency physicians to observe a treatment initiation.

“Showing how you counsel patients to start medication at home would be really a wonderful way to facilitate practices in the emergency department,” she said.

Another idea, she said, is to “give them feedback on their patients.” If an emergency physician refers a patient and they walk in the door, “let them know how they did. That’s going to be really, really powerful.”

ACEP and the American Society of Addiction Medicine have created a tool aimed at helping facilitate the use of buprenorphine and naloxone in the emergency department.

Dr. Hawk and Dr. Edelman reported no relevant disclosures.

The Food and Drug Administration is investigating whether forms of the type 2 diabetes drug metformin that are available in the United States contain the genotoxic nitrosamine, N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA).

This follows reports of low-level NDMA contamination of metformin in other countries and of a few regulatory agencies issuing recalls for the drug, according to a statement from Janet Woodcock, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“There are no metformin recalls affecting the U.S. market at this time,” the agency emphasized in the statement. It said NDMA levels in affected medication have been low, at or even below the acceptable intake limit, and there is currently no evidence indicating that metformin drugs within the United States or European Union have been contaminated.

The FDA advised that patients should continue taking metformin alone or in combination with other drugs to control their diabetes and that it would be dangerous for them to stop taking the medication without first discussing it with their providers. It also recommended that providers continue to use metformin when “clinically appropriate” while the investigation is underway as there are no alternative therapies to treat the disease in the same way.

NDMA is a common contaminant that is found in water and some foods and has probable carcinogenic effects when exposure is too high. The acceptable daily intake for NDMA in the United States is 96 ng/day, according to the statement, though people who take in that amount or less every day for 70 years are not expected to have an increased risk of cancer.

Both the FDA and its counterpart, the European Medicines Agency, have recently investigated the presence of NDMA impurities in ranitidine, a drug used to reduce production of stomach acid, which led to several manufacturers issuing recalls for it.

The agencies have also investigated angiotensin II receptor blockers, which are used to treat hypertension, heart failure, and high blood pressure.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The presence of NDMA “can be related to the drug’s manufacturing process or its chemical structure or even the conditions in which they are stored or packaged. As food and drugs are processed in the body, nitrosamines, including NDMA, can be formed,” Dr. Woodcock noted in the statement.

“We are monitoring this issue closely to assess any potential impact on patients with diabetes,” said Robert W. Lash, MD, chief professional and clinical affairs officer of the Endocrine Society. “We have members around the world and are concerned about the possibility of carcinogenic impurities in medications, both in the United States and elsewhere.”

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration is investigating whether forms of the type 2 diabetes drug metformin that are available in the United States contain the genotoxic nitrosamine, N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA).

This follows reports of low-level NDMA contamination of metformin in other countries and of a few regulatory agencies issuing recalls for the drug, according to a statement from Janet Woodcock, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“There are no metformin recalls affecting the U.S. market at this time,” the agency emphasized in the statement. It said NDMA levels in affected medication have been low, at or even below the acceptable intake limit, and there is currently no evidence indicating that metformin drugs within the United States or European Union have been contaminated.

The FDA advised that patients should continue taking metformin alone or in combination with other drugs to control their diabetes and that it would be dangerous for them to stop taking the medication without first discussing it with their providers. It also recommended that providers continue to use metformin when “clinically appropriate” while the investigation is underway as there are no alternative therapies to treat the disease in the same way.

NDMA is a common contaminant that is found in water and some foods and has probable carcinogenic effects when exposure is too high. The acceptable daily intake for NDMA in the United States is 96 ng/day, according to the statement, though people who take in that amount or less every day for 70 years are not expected to have an increased risk of cancer.

Both the FDA and its counterpart, the European Medicines Agency, have recently investigated the presence of NDMA impurities in ranitidine, a drug used to reduce production of stomach acid, which led to several manufacturers issuing recalls for it.

The agencies have also investigated angiotensin II receptor blockers, which are used to treat hypertension, heart failure, and high blood pressure.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The presence of NDMA “can be related to the drug’s manufacturing process or its chemical structure or even the conditions in which they are stored or packaged. As food and drugs are processed in the body, nitrosamines, including NDMA, can be formed,” Dr. Woodcock noted in the statement.

“We are monitoring this issue closely to assess any potential impact on patients with diabetes,” said Robert W. Lash, MD, chief professional and clinical affairs officer of the Endocrine Society. “We have members around the world and are concerned about the possibility of carcinogenic impurities in medications, both in the United States and elsewhere.”

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration is investigating whether forms of the type 2 diabetes drug metformin that are available in the United States contain the genotoxic nitrosamine, N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA).

This follows reports of low-level NDMA contamination of metformin in other countries and of a few regulatory agencies issuing recalls for the drug, according to a statement from Janet Woodcock, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“There are no metformin recalls affecting the U.S. market at this time,” the agency emphasized in the statement. It said NDMA levels in affected medication have been low, at or even below the acceptable intake limit, and there is currently no evidence indicating that metformin drugs within the United States or European Union have been contaminated.

The FDA advised that patients should continue taking metformin alone or in combination with other drugs to control their diabetes and that it would be dangerous for them to stop taking the medication without first discussing it with their providers. It also recommended that providers continue to use metformin when “clinically appropriate” while the investigation is underway as there are no alternative therapies to treat the disease in the same way.

NDMA is a common contaminant that is found in water and some foods and has probable carcinogenic effects when exposure is too high. The acceptable daily intake for NDMA in the United States is 96 ng/day, according to the statement, though people who take in that amount or less every day for 70 years are not expected to have an increased risk of cancer.

Both the FDA and its counterpart, the European Medicines Agency, have recently investigated the presence of NDMA impurities in ranitidine, a drug used to reduce production of stomach acid, which led to several manufacturers issuing recalls for it.

The agencies have also investigated angiotensin II receptor blockers, which are used to treat hypertension, heart failure, and high blood pressure.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The presence of NDMA “can be related to the drug’s manufacturing process or its chemical structure or even the conditions in which they are stored or packaged. As food and drugs are processed in the body, nitrosamines, including NDMA, can be formed,” Dr. Woodcock noted in the statement.

“We are monitoring this issue closely to assess any potential impact on patients with diabetes,” said Robert W. Lash, MD, chief professional and clinical affairs officer of the Endocrine Society. “We have members around the world and are concerned about the possibility of carcinogenic impurities in medications, both in the United States and elsewhere.”

[email protected]