User login
Phase 3 results: Ponatinib bests imatinib for Ph+ALL
The agents were evaluated in the randomized, open-label, phase 3 PhALLCON study, the first head-to-head comparison of ponatinib and imatinib in combination with reduced-intensity chemotherapy in the Ph+ALL population.
Overall, patients in the ponatinib arm experienced a significantly higher minimal residual disease (MRD)–negative complete response rate as well as deeper and more durable responses compared with those in the imatinib arm, the investigators reported.
The findings were presented during an American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual plenary session.
In adults with ALL, Ph+ disease is the most frequent genetic subtype, accounting for about one third of cases. The current standard of care for newly diagnosed Ph+ALL, also known as BCR-ABL-1–positive ALL, is BCR-ABL1 TKIs in combination with chemotherapy or steroids. However, when treated with first- or second-generation TKIs, patients eventually progress due to the emergence of treatment resistance.
Before the advent of TKI therapies, Ph+ALL had a very poor prognosis, but the development of imatinib in 2001 was transformative, said Marlise R. Luskin, MD, a senior physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, in the ASCO plenary session, exploring the state of the science.
Added to “backbone” chemotherapy regimens, imatinib improved complete response rates, increased eligibility for stem cell transplantation, and improved overall survival. Second-generation TKIs, including dasatinib and nilotinib further improved outcomes, said Dr. Luskin, also assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
More recently, ponatinib has emerged as a promising treatment given its unique action against the ABLA1 T315I KD mutation present in about 75% of cases that relapse as well as the findings of improved MRD-negative complete response rates and event-free survival in retrospective studies, Dr. Luskin said.
The PhALLCON study was designed to further investigate promising results seen in retrospective studies of ponatinib.
To assess ponatinib versus imatinib, patients were enrolled and randomized two to one to receive either a 30-mg once-daily starting dose of ponatinib or a once-daily 600 mg dose of imatinib plus reduced-intensity chemotherapy. After cycle 20, patients received single agent ponatinib or imatinib until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Of the 245 enrolled, 78 remained on treatment at the August 2022 data cutoff, including 42% of those in the ponatinib arm and 12% in the imatinib arm. The most common reasons for discontinuation included hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (31% for ponatinib and 37% for imatinib), adverse events (12% in both arms), and lack of efficacy (7% and 26%, respectively).
At median follow-up of 20 months among 164 patients in the ponatinib arm and 18 months among 81 patients in the imatinib arm, the MRD-negative complete response rates were 34.4% and 16.7%, respectively, said first author Elias J. Jabbour, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
A trend toward improved event-free survival was also observed in the ponatinib arm, but the data were not mature at the time of the analysis, Dr. Jabbour noted.
The two treatments showed comparable safety. Treatment-emergent adverse event rates of any grade and of grade 3 or higher were similar in the two study arms. Arterial occlusive events were infrequent and were also similar between the arms.
“Taken together, for this patient population, the efficacy and safety results demonstrate a favorable risk-benefit assessment for ponatinib, which should be considered a standard of care for frontline therapy in patents with newly diagnosed Ph+ALL,” Dr. Jabbour said.
Although the PhALLCON findings are encouraging, invited discussant Anjali S. Advani, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, noted some study “pitfalls and caveats,” including the generally younger age and low incidence of cardiovascular risk factors in the study population, which raises questions about the ability to extrapolate the findings to “the larger population, which may be older and have more comorbidities.”
Dr. Advani also said that the ponatinib versus imatinib comparison is a reasonable one, but that most clinicians are now using dasatinib, so “it would have been nice to have this comparison.”
Additionally, “the landscape is now changing with the use of blinatumomab plus TKIs – either dasatinib or ponatinib – in the up-front setting.”
“There is data now from various groups ... showing excellent results, although longer follow-up is needed on all of these,” she said.
One such study is the GIMEMA ALL2820 trial looking at ponatinib plus blinatumomab versus imatinib plus chemotherapy, said Nicolas Boissel, MD, PhD, of Hôpital Saint-Louis in Paris, an invited discussant who addressed the European perspective on the PhALLCON results.
“It is expected that access to ponatinib will be delayed in Europe, compared with the U.S., so meanwhile, clinical trials remain a good option to give access to ponatinib frontline,” he said.
Going forward, Dr. Boissel said it will be important to determine the role of second-generation TKIs in patients who are ineligible to receive ponatinib, the treatment duration needed to reduce long-term risk of relapse, and the potential for eliminating the need for postremission chemotherapy and stem cell transplantation in certain patients.
Dr. Advani added that when evaluating and comparing treatments, it will be important to look at genomic alterations and BCR-ABL mutation status, age and comorbidities, and patterns of disease relapse, including relapse sites and genomics. Longer follow-up results for event-free survival and overall survival are also needed.
“I think, particularly in younger patients with relatively few or no cardiovascular comorbidities, [ponatinib plus reduced-intensity chemotherapy] represents a really exciting option,” Dr. Advani said. “What’s difficult is that the landscape is changing quickly in this field, and so is the standard of care. I think what we struggle with is whether we should be using antibody-based therapies plus TKIs or look at an approach such as this, and further studies are going to be needed to answer that question.”
Dr. Jabbour disclosed ties with Pfizer, Takeda, Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Astellas Pharma, Genentech, and Ascentage Pharma. Dr. Luskin reported relationships with Pfizer, Novartis, and Abbvie. Dr. Advani disclosed ties with Novartis, Glycomimetics, Kite Pharma, Seattle Genetics, Amgen, Beam Therapeutics, Mkarta, Taiho Oncology, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and Kura Oncology. Dr. Boissel reported relationships with Amgen, ARIAD/Incyte, Novartis, SERVIER, and Astellas Pharma.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The agents were evaluated in the randomized, open-label, phase 3 PhALLCON study, the first head-to-head comparison of ponatinib and imatinib in combination with reduced-intensity chemotherapy in the Ph+ALL population.
Overall, patients in the ponatinib arm experienced a significantly higher minimal residual disease (MRD)–negative complete response rate as well as deeper and more durable responses compared with those in the imatinib arm, the investigators reported.
The findings were presented during an American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual plenary session.
In adults with ALL, Ph+ disease is the most frequent genetic subtype, accounting for about one third of cases. The current standard of care for newly diagnosed Ph+ALL, also known as BCR-ABL-1–positive ALL, is BCR-ABL1 TKIs in combination with chemotherapy or steroids. However, when treated with first- or second-generation TKIs, patients eventually progress due to the emergence of treatment resistance.
Before the advent of TKI therapies, Ph+ALL had a very poor prognosis, but the development of imatinib in 2001 was transformative, said Marlise R. Luskin, MD, a senior physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, in the ASCO plenary session, exploring the state of the science.
Added to “backbone” chemotherapy regimens, imatinib improved complete response rates, increased eligibility for stem cell transplantation, and improved overall survival. Second-generation TKIs, including dasatinib and nilotinib further improved outcomes, said Dr. Luskin, also assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
More recently, ponatinib has emerged as a promising treatment given its unique action against the ABLA1 T315I KD mutation present in about 75% of cases that relapse as well as the findings of improved MRD-negative complete response rates and event-free survival in retrospective studies, Dr. Luskin said.
The PhALLCON study was designed to further investigate promising results seen in retrospective studies of ponatinib.
To assess ponatinib versus imatinib, patients were enrolled and randomized two to one to receive either a 30-mg once-daily starting dose of ponatinib or a once-daily 600 mg dose of imatinib plus reduced-intensity chemotherapy. After cycle 20, patients received single agent ponatinib or imatinib until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Of the 245 enrolled, 78 remained on treatment at the August 2022 data cutoff, including 42% of those in the ponatinib arm and 12% in the imatinib arm. The most common reasons for discontinuation included hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (31% for ponatinib and 37% for imatinib), adverse events (12% in both arms), and lack of efficacy (7% and 26%, respectively).
At median follow-up of 20 months among 164 patients in the ponatinib arm and 18 months among 81 patients in the imatinib arm, the MRD-negative complete response rates were 34.4% and 16.7%, respectively, said first author Elias J. Jabbour, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
A trend toward improved event-free survival was also observed in the ponatinib arm, but the data were not mature at the time of the analysis, Dr. Jabbour noted.
The two treatments showed comparable safety. Treatment-emergent adverse event rates of any grade and of grade 3 or higher were similar in the two study arms. Arterial occlusive events were infrequent and were also similar between the arms.
“Taken together, for this patient population, the efficacy and safety results demonstrate a favorable risk-benefit assessment for ponatinib, which should be considered a standard of care for frontline therapy in patents with newly diagnosed Ph+ALL,” Dr. Jabbour said.
Although the PhALLCON findings are encouraging, invited discussant Anjali S. Advani, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, noted some study “pitfalls and caveats,” including the generally younger age and low incidence of cardiovascular risk factors in the study population, which raises questions about the ability to extrapolate the findings to “the larger population, which may be older and have more comorbidities.”
Dr. Advani also said that the ponatinib versus imatinib comparison is a reasonable one, but that most clinicians are now using dasatinib, so “it would have been nice to have this comparison.”
Additionally, “the landscape is now changing with the use of blinatumomab plus TKIs – either dasatinib or ponatinib – in the up-front setting.”
“There is data now from various groups ... showing excellent results, although longer follow-up is needed on all of these,” she said.
One such study is the GIMEMA ALL2820 trial looking at ponatinib plus blinatumomab versus imatinib plus chemotherapy, said Nicolas Boissel, MD, PhD, of Hôpital Saint-Louis in Paris, an invited discussant who addressed the European perspective on the PhALLCON results.
“It is expected that access to ponatinib will be delayed in Europe, compared with the U.S., so meanwhile, clinical trials remain a good option to give access to ponatinib frontline,” he said.
Going forward, Dr. Boissel said it will be important to determine the role of second-generation TKIs in patients who are ineligible to receive ponatinib, the treatment duration needed to reduce long-term risk of relapse, and the potential for eliminating the need for postremission chemotherapy and stem cell transplantation in certain patients.
Dr. Advani added that when evaluating and comparing treatments, it will be important to look at genomic alterations and BCR-ABL mutation status, age and comorbidities, and patterns of disease relapse, including relapse sites and genomics. Longer follow-up results for event-free survival and overall survival are also needed.
“I think, particularly in younger patients with relatively few or no cardiovascular comorbidities, [ponatinib plus reduced-intensity chemotherapy] represents a really exciting option,” Dr. Advani said. “What’s difficult is that the landscape is changing quickly in this field, and so is the standard of care. I think what we struggle with is whether we should be using antibody-based therapies plus TKIs or look at an approach such as this, and further studies are going to be needed to answer that question.”
Dr. Jabbour disclosed ties with Pfizer, Takeda, Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Astellas Pharma, Genentech, and Ascentage Pharma. Dr. Luskin reported relationships with Pfizer, Novartis, and Abbvie. Dr. Advani disclosed ties with Novartis, Glycomimetics, Kite Pharma, Seattle Genetics, Amgen, Beam Therapeutics, Mkarta, Taiho Oncology, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and Kura Oncology. Dr. Boissel reported relationships with Amgen, ARIAD/Incyte, Novartis, SERVIER, and Astellas Pharma.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The agents were evaluated in the randomized, open-label, phase 3 PhALLCON study, the first head-to-head comparison of ponatinib and imatinib in combination with reduced-intensity chemotherapy in the Ph+ALL population.
Overall, patients in the ponatinib arm experienced a significantly higher minimal residual disease (MRD)–negative complete response rate as well as deeper and more durable responses compared with those in the imatinib arm, the investigators reported.
The findings were presented during an American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual plenary session.
In adults with ALL, Ph+ disease is the most frequent genetic subtype, accounting for about one third of cases. The current standard of care for newly diagnosed Ph+ALL, also known as BCR-ABL-1–positive ALL, is BCR-ABL1 TKIs in combination with chemotherapy or steroids. However, when treated with first- or second-generation TKIs, patients eventually progress due to the emergence of treatment resistance.
Before the advent of TKI therapies, Ph+ALL had a very poor prognosis, but the development of imatinib in 2001 was transformative, said Marlise R. Luskin, MD, a senior physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, in the ASCO plenary session, exploring the state of the science.
Added to “backbone” chemotherapy regimens, imatinib improved complete response rates, increased eligibility for stem cell transplantation, and improved overall survival. Second-generation TKIs, including dasatinib and nilotinib further improved outcomes, said Dr. Luskin, also assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
More recently, ponatinib has emerged as a promising treatment given its unique action against the ABLA1 T315I KD mutation present in about 75% of cases that relapse as well as the findings of improved MRD-negative complete response rates and event-free survival in retrospective studies, Dr. Luskin said.
The PhALLCON study was designed to further investigate promising results seen in retrospective studies of ponatinib.
To assess ponatinib versus imatinib, patients were enrolled and randomized two to one to receive either a 30-mg once-daily starting dose of ponatinib or a once-daily 600 mg dose of imatinib plus reduced-intensity chemotherapy. After cycle 20, patients received single agent ponatinib or imatinib until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Of the 245 enrolled, 78 remained on treatment at the August 2022 data cutoff, including 42% of those in the ponatinib arm and 12% in the imatinib arm. The most common reasons for discontinuation included hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (31% for ponatinib and 37% for imatinib), adverse events (12% in both arms), and lack of efficacy (7% and 26%, respectively).
At median follow-up of 20 months among 164 patients in the ponatinib arm and 18 months among 81 patients in the imatinib arm, the MRD-negative complete response rates were 34.4% and 16.7%, respectively, said first author Elias J. Jabbour, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
A trend toward improved event-free survival was also observed in the ponatinib arm, but the data were not mature at the time of the analysis, Dr. Jabbour noted.
The two treatments showed comparable safety. Treatment-emergent adverse event rates of any grade and of grade 3 or higher were similar in the two study arms. Arterial occlusive events were infrequent and were also similar between the arms.
“Taken together, for this patient population, the efficacy and safety results demonstrate a favorable risk-benefit assessment for ponatinib, which should be considered a standard of care for frontline therapy in patents with newly diagnosed Ph+ALL,” Dr. Jabbour said.
Although the PhALLCON findings are encouraging, invited discussant Anjali S. Advani, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, noted some study “pitfalls and caveats,” including the generally younger age and low incidence of cardiovascular risk factors in the study population, which raises questions about the ability to extrapolate the findings to “the larger population, which may be older and have more comorbidities.”
Dr. Advani also said that the ponatinib versus imatinib comparison is a reasonable one, but that most clinicians are now using dasatinib, so “it would have been nice to have this comparison.”
Additionally, “the landscape is now changing with the use of blinatumomab plus TKIs – either dasatinib or ponatinib – in the up-front setting.”
“There is data now from various groups ... showing excellent results, although longer follow-up is needed on all of these,” she said.
One such study is the GIMEMA ALL2820 trial looking at ponatinib plus blinatumomab versus imatinib plus chemotherapy, said Nicolas Boissel, MD, PhD, of Hôpital Saint-Louis in Paris, an invited discussant who addressed the European perspective on the PhALLCON results.
“It is expected that access to ponatinib will be delayed in Europe, compared with the U.S., so meanwhile, clinical trials remain a good option to give access to ponatinib frontline,” he said.
Going forward, Dr. Boissel said it will be important to determine the role of second-generation TKIs in patients who are ineligible to receive ponatinib, the treatment duration needed to reduce long-term risk of relapse, and the potential for eliminating the need for postremission chemotherapy and stem cell transplantation in certain patients.
Dr. Advani added that when evaluating and comparing treatments, it will be important to look at genomic alterations and BCR-ABL mutation status, age and comorbidities, and patterns of disease relapse, including relapse sites and genomics. Longer follow-up results for event-free survival and overall survival are also needed.
“I think, particularly in younger patients with relatively few or no cardiovascular comorbidities, [ponatinib plus reduced-intensity chemotherapy] represents a really exciting option,” Dr. Advani said. “What’s difficult is that the landscape is changing quickly in this field, and so is the standard of care. I think what we struggle with is whether we should be using antibody-based therapies plus TKIs or look at an approach such as this, and further studies are going to be needed to answer that question.”
Dr. Jabbour disclosed ties with Pfizer, Takeda, Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Astellas Pharma, Genentech, and Ascentage Pharma. Dr. Luskin reported relationships with Pfizer, Novartis, and Abbvie. Dr. Advani disclosed ties with Novartis, Glycomimetics, Kite Pharma, Seattle Genetics, Amgen, Beam Therapeutics, Mkarta, Taiho Oncology, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and Kura Oncology. Dr. Boissel reported relationships with Amgen, ARIAD/Incyte, Novartis, SERVIER, and Astellas Pharma.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Two FDA clearances add diabetes technology options
Two diabetes management devices that aid in the precision of insulin delivery have been recently cleared by the Food and Drug Administration.
On March 2, the FDA cleared the Android version of Bigfoot Biomedical’s Unity Mobile App for use with its system of smart pen caps that are compatible with different disposable insulin pens for administering both long-acting and rapid-acting insulin.
The system, which has been compatible with iOS devices since May 2021, is “the first and only FDA-cleared smart injection system that turns CGM [continuous glucose monitoring] data into dosing recommendations displayed right on the pen cap for people using multiple daily [insulin] injection therapy,” according to a company statement.
The Bigfoot app allows users to input and review provider treatment recommendations, displays current glucose ranges, and delivers real-time alerts.
Once it is commercially launched, the Android phone application will be available via the Google Play Store. “Given that 41% of U.S. smartphone users choose Android devices, this clearance enables expanded access to a large group of people with diabetes,” the company said.
On March 6, the FDA cleared the Abbott FreeStyle Libre 2 and FreeStyle Libre 3 devices as “integrated” CGM sensors. This means that they can now be used as components in automated insulin delivery systems, along with insulin pumps and connectivity software.
Abbott is working with insulin pump manufacturers Insulet and Tandem in the United States for integration with the FreeStyle Libre versions 2 and 3. Outside the United States, the Libre 3 is already authorized to work with mylife Loop from Ypsomed and CamDiab in Germany. Further launches are expected in the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and the Netherlands later this year.
The modified FreeStyle Libre 2 and FreeStyle Libre 3 sensors have been cleared for use by patients as young as age 2 years and for up to 15 days, in contrast to the previous versions, which were available for patients as young as 4 years for use up to 14 days. The FDA has cleared all Libre sensors – 2 and 3, current and future versions – for use by pregnant women with any type of diabetes.
The modified sensors will be available in the United States later this year and will eventually replace the Libre sensors in current use, the company said in a statement.
“The FreeStyle Libre portfolio is still the most affordable CGM on the market,” an Abbott representative said in an interview.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Two diabetes management devices that aid in the precision of insulin delivery have been recently cleared by the Food and Drug Administration.
On March 2, the FDA cleared the Android version of Bigfoot Biomedical’s Unity Mobile App for use with its system of smart pen caps that are compatible with different disposable insulin pens for administering both long-acting and rapid-acting insulin.
The system, which has been compatible with iOS devices since May 2021, is “the first and only FDA-cleared smart injection system that turns CGM [continuous glucose monitoring] data into dosing recommendations displayed right on the pen cap for people using multiple daily [insulin] injection therapy,” according to a company statement.
The Bigfoot app allows users to input and review provider treatment recommendations, displays current glucose ranges, and delivers real-time alerts.
Once it is commercially launched, the Android phone application will be available via the Google Play Store. “Given that 41% of U.S. smartphone users choose Android devices, this clearance enables expanded access to a large group of people with diabetes,” the company said.
On March 6, the FDA cleared the Abbott FreeStyle Libre 2 and FreeStyle Libre 3 devices as “integrated” CGM sensors. This means that they can now be used as components in automated insulin delivery systems, along with insulin pumps and connectivity software.
Abbott is working with insulin pump manufacturers Insulet and Tandem in the United States for integration with the FreeStyle Libre versions 2 and 3. Outside the United States, the Libre 3 is already authorized to work with mylife Loop from Ypsomed and CamDiab in Germany. Further launches are expected in the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and the Netherlands later this year.
The modified FreeStyle Libre 2 and FreeStyle Libre 3 sensors have been cleared for use by patients as young as age 2 years and for up to 15 days, in contrast to the previous versions, which were available for patients as young as 4 years for use up to 14 days. The FDA has cleared all Libre sensors – 2 and 3, current and future versions – for use by pregnant women with any type of diabetes.
The modified sensors will be available in the United States later this year and will eventually replace the Libre sensors in current use, the company said in a statement.
“The FreeStyle Libre portfolio is still the most affordable CGM on the market,” an Abbott representative said in an interview.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Two diabetes management devices that aid in the precision of insulin delivery have been recently cleared by the Food and Drug Administration.
On March 2, the FDA cleared the Android version of Bigfoot Biomedical’s Unity Mobile App for use with its system of smart pen caps that are compatible with different disposable insulin pens for administering both long-acting and rapid-acting insulin.
The system, which has been compatible with iOS devices since May 2021, is “the first and only FDA-cleared smart injection system that turns CGM [continuous glucose monitoring] data into dosing recommendations displayed right on the pen cap for people using multiple daily [insulin] injection therapy,” according to a company statement.
The Bigfoot app allows users to input and review provider treatment recommendations, displays current glucose ranges, and delivers real-time alerts.
Once it is commercially launched, the Android phone application will be available via the Google Play Store. “Given that 41% of U.S. smartphone users choose Android devices, this clearance enables expanded access to a large group of people with diabetes,” the company said.
On March 6, the FDA cleared the Abbott FreeStyle Libre 2 and FreeStyle Libre 3 devices as “integrated” CGM sensors. This means that they can now be used as components in automated insulin delivery systems, along with insulin pumps and connectivity software.
Abbott is working with insulin pump manufacturers Insulet and Tandem in the United States for integration with the FreeStyle Libre versions 2 and 3. Outside the United States, the Libre 3 is already authorized to work with mylife Loop from Ypsomed and CamDiab in Germany. Further launches are expected in the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and the Netherlands later this year.
The modified FreeStyle Libre 2 and FreeStyle Libre 3 sensors have been cleared for use by patients as young as age 2 years and for up to 15 days, in contrast to the previous versions, which were available for patients as young as 4 years for use up to 14 days. The FDA has cleared all Libre sensors – 2 and 3, current and future versions – for use by pregnant women with any type of diabetes.
The modified sensors will be available in the United States later this year and will eventually replace the Libre sensors in current use, the company said in a statement.
“The FreeStyle Libre portfolio is still the most affordable CGM on the market,” an Abbott representative said in an interview.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Taking a break from TKIs unlikely to shorten survival
That might soon change with the publication of a unique study. Lasting 10 years, the phase 3 STAR trial involved 920 patients across 60 cancer centers. These patients had advanced kidney cancer and were taking either sunitinib (Sutent) or pazopanib (Votrient).
The results showed that taking an occasional respite from TKI therapy had little impact on the patient’s survival.
The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology.
The study was funded by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Research because drug companies never run studies on how to reduce the use of their drug, commented lead author Janet Brown, MD, of the University of Sheffield (England).
“We rely on the NIHR to do these important trials that … companies wouldn’t do,” she commented to this news organization.
Commenting on the rationale for STAR, coauthor Jenny Hewison, PhD, of Leeds (England) University School of Medicine, explained that patients often find it difficult to tolerate TKIs. “Although these patients are getting the best treatment that we can offer them, it’s very demanding. … It could make them feel tired, quite unwell. And there can be a range of other effects including sickness and diarrhea.”
As an example, 77% of patients in the pivotal trial of sunitinib in kidney cancer experienced grade 3 or 4 adverse events such as hypertension (13%), fatigue (15%), diarrhea (10%) and hand-foot syndrome (8%).
Both sunitinib and pazopanib carry label warnings of severe and fatal hepatotoxicity.
Also, in contrast to conventional chemotherapy, which is usually given in a finite number of courses, treatment with TKIs carries on indefinitely.
“It feels like you’re taking [TKIs] for the whole of the rest of your life,” said Dr. Brown.
Study details
The STAR trial, an open-label, noninferiority, randomized controlled study, is the first phase 3 study of treatment breaks in renal cell carcinoma. The participants had inoperable locoregional or metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and had received no systemic therapy for advanced disease.
They were randomly assigned before TKI treatment to a conventional continuation strategy or a drug-free interval approach. The treating physician decided whether a patient would take sunitinib or pazopanib.
All participants took their drugs for four cycles (6 weeks each cycle). At the 24-week point, those with a complete response, partial response, or stable disease began their randomized assignment.
Individuals who took a break continued until their disease progressed, at which point therapy was resumed. They could take further treatment breaks once their disease was back under control. The group on continuous treatment kept going until disease progression or intolerable toxicities. Median follow up was 58 months.
In both the per-protocol and intent-to-treat (ITT) populations, overall survival was 28 months for the people who received continuous treatment vs. 27 months for those who took a break. Statistical noninferiority was established in the ITT population but not in the per-protocol population.
The median length of all treatment breaks was 87 days. Many people took two or more breaks; one patient took nine breaks overall. The breaks were popular: only 3% of participants who were meant to stop therapy withdrew from the study in order to continue their treatment.
Said Dr. Hewison: “In the very early days of planning the study there were some doubts as to whether it would succeed because of potential unwillingness of people to stop treatment for a while.”
Dr. Brown agreed: “People did worry about that initially, but it actually seemed to be more the other way around. By that time – 6 months – people were relieved to be there. …We actually had some people from the other arm asking, could they also have a break?”
To understand better the benefits of treatment breaks to patients, Janine Bestall, PhD, a senior research fellow in applied health research at the University of Leeds, conducted a qualitative study in parallel with the main trial.
Summing up the patients’ experiences, Dr. Bestall said the drug-free periods “gave them more time.”
Dr. Bestall quoted one patient who said: “I know that things can happen and it grows back, but you’ve always got the buffer there knowing that you can go back and get help. But you actually lead a normal life and the advantage is, yeah, you can go on holiday, you can actually do more things in the garden, cleaning up, painting, whatever needs doing, you do it.”
Dr. Brown said, “I had a lady who, when she was on the trial, had four breaks in total, one when her daughter got married, and [she said] that was really nice for her to do all the shopping and all the normal things that you do, and not be on something that was making her tired and causing sore hands and diarrhea.”
The drug-free interval strategy provided annual cost savings of 3,235 pounds sterling ($3,850) and a noninferior quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) benefit in both the ITT and per-protocol populations.
Serious adverse reactions occurred in 9% of patients in the treatment-break group versus 12% of the continuous-treatment group.
The authors of the study concluded, “Treatment breaks might be a feasible and cost-effective option with lifestyle benefits for patients during tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma.”
Changes in treatment strategies
The STAR trial started recruiting in January 2012.
Since that time, immunotherapy has taken over as first-line treatment for many patients with advanced ccRCC in both the United Kingdom and the United States.
However, TKIs still have a place. The NCCN Kidney Cancer 2022 Guidelines recommend both sunitinib and pazopanib as options for first-line therapy in advanced disease. The 2022 ASCO Metastatic ccRCC guidelines recommend either drug as first-line treatment in combination with an immune checkpoint inhibitor or in monotherapy if there are “coexisting medical problems.”
In the United States, intermittent sunitinib in metastatic RCC was tested in a small study in 2017 with little activity in the literature since then. The authors, led by Moshe Ornstein, MD, from the Cleveland Clinic, concluded at the time that sunitinib treatment breaks were feasible and “clinical efficacy does not seem to be compromised.” Dr. Ornstein was approached for comment on this latest U.K. study but declined.
Back in the United Kingdom, the results of STAR arrived just in time.
Said Dr. Brown: “This has … been really helpful in the U.K. in the pandemic when people said, can these patients have extra breaks? At the worst of the pandemic we were able to say, sure, if it’s stable, we can keep them off for 3-6 months. …And so that’s already had a powerful impact.”
Dr. Brown concluded, “I think what the trial does allow us to do, as individual oncologists, is to look at the patients that this might be suitable for – it won’t be everybody – and to say yes, it’s okay to personalize things.”
The study was funded by the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Care Research. Dr. Bestall reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hewison reported funding to her institution from the NIHR Health Technology Assessment. Dr. Brown reports having served as a consultant or adviser for Novartis, Ipsen, Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Bayer; honoraria from Novartis, Ipsen, Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Bayer; research funding paid to their institution from the National Institute for Health and Care Research; and travel expenses from Ipsen. Other coauthors reported numerous relationships with industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
That might soon change with the publication of a unique study. Lasting 10 years, the phase 3 STAR trial involved 920 patients across 60 cancer centers. These patients had advanced kidney cancer and were taking either sunitinib (Sutent) or pazopanib (Votrient).
The results showed that taking an occasional respite from TKI therapy had little impact on the patient’s survival.
The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology.
The study was funded by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Research because drug companies never run studies on how to reduce the use of their drug, commented lead author Janet Brown, MD, of the University of Sheffield (England).
“We rely on the NIHR to do these important trials that … companies wouldn’t do,” she commented to this news organization.
Commenting on the rationale for STAR, coauthor Jenny Hewison, PhD, of Leeds (England) University School of Medicine, explained that patients often find it difficult to tolerate TKIs. “Although these patients are getting the best treatment that we can offer them, it’s very demanding. … It could make them feel tired, quite unwell. And there can be a range of other effects including sickness and diarrhea.”
As an example, 77% of patients in the pivotal trial of sunitinib in kidney cancer experienced grade 3 or 4 adverse events such as hypertension (13%), fatigue (15%), diarrhea (10%) and hand-foot syndrome (8%).
Both sunitinib and pazopanib carry label warnings of severe and fatal hepatotoxicity.
Also, in contrast to conventional chemotherapy, which is usually given in a finite number of courses, treatment with TKIs carries on indefinitely.
“It feels like you’re taking [TKIs] for the whole of the rest of your life,” said Dr. Brown.
Study details
The STAR trial, an open-label, noninferiority, randomized controlled study, is the first phase 3 study of treatment breaks in renal cell carcinoma. The participants had inoperable locoregional or metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and had received no systemic therapy for advanced disease.
They were randomly assigned before TKI treatment to a conventional continuation strategy or a drug-free interval approach. The treating physician decided whether a patient would take sunitinib or pazopanib.
All participants took their drugs for four cycles (6 weeks each cycle). At the 24-week point, those with a complete response, partial response, or stable disease began their randomized assignment.
Individuals who took a break continued until their disease progressed, at which point therapy was resumed. They could take further treatment breaks once their disease was back under control. The group on continuous treatment kept going until disease progression or intolerable toxicities. Median follow up was 58 months.
In both the per-protocol and intent-to-treat (ITT) populations, overall survival was 28 months for the people who received continuous treatment vs. 27 months for those who took a break. Statistical noninferiority was established in the ITT population but not in the per-protocol population.
The median length of all treatment breaks was 87 days. Many people took two or more breaks; one patient took nine breaks overall. The breaks were popular: only 3% of participants who were meant to stop therapy withdrew from the study in order to continue their treatment.
Said Dr. Hewison: “In the very early days of planning the study there were some doubts as to whether it would succeed because of potential unwillingness of people to stop treatment for a while.”
Dr. Brown agreed: “People did worry about that initially, but it actually seemed to be more the other way around. By that time – 6 months – people were relieved to be there. …We actually had some people from the other arm asking, could they also have a break?”
To understand better the benefits of treatment breaks to patients, Janine Bestall, PhD, a senior research fellow in applied health research at the University of Leeds, conducted a qualitative study in parallel with the main trial.
Summing up the patients’ experiences, Dr. Bestall said the drug-free periods “gave them more time.”
Dr. Bestall quoted one patient who said: “I know that things can happen and it grows back, but you’ve always got the buffer there knowing that you can go back and get help. But you actually lead a normal life and the advantage is, yeah, you can go on holiday, you can actually do more things in the garden, cleaning up, painting, whatever needs doing, you do it.”
Dr. Brown said, “I had a lady who, when she was on the trial, had four breaks in total, one when her daughter got married, and [she said] that was really nice for her to do all the shopping and all the normal things that you do, and not be on something that was making her tired and causing sore hands and diarrhea.”
The drug-free interval strategy provided annual cost savings of 3,235 pounds sterling ($3,850) and a noninferior quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) benefit in both the ITT and per-protocol populations.
Serious adverse reactions occurred in 9% of patients in the treatment-break group versus 12% of the continuous-treatment group.
The authors of the study concluded, “Treatment breaks might be a feasible and cost-effective option with lifestyle benefits for patients during tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma.”
Changes in treatment strategies
The STAR trial started recruiting in January 2012.
Since that time, immunotherapy has taken over as first-line treatment for many patients with advanced ccRCC in both the United Kingdom and the United States.
However, TKIs still have a place. The NCCN Kidney Cancer 2022 Guidelines recommend both sunitinib and pazopanib as options for first-line therapy in advanced disease. The 2022 ASCO Metastatic ccRCC guidelines recommend either drug as first-line treatment in combination with an immune checkpoint inhibitor or in monotherapy if there are “coexisting medical problems.”
In the United States, intermittent sunitinib in metastatic RCC was tested in a small study in 2017 with little activity in the literature since then. The authors, led by Moshe Ornstein, MD, from the Cleveland Clinic, concluded at the time that sunitinib treatment breaks were feasible and “clinical efficacy does not seem to be compromised.” Dr. Ornstein was approached for comment on this latest U.K. study but declined.
Back in the United Kingdom, the results of STAR arrived just in time.
Said Dr. Brown: “This has … been really helpful in the U.K. in the pandemic when people said, can these patients have extra breaks? At the worst of the pandemic we were able to say, sure, if it’s stable, we can keep them off for 3-6 months. …And so that’s already had a powerful impact.”
Dr. Brown concluded, “I think what the trial does allow us to do, as individual oncologists, is to look at the patients that this might be suitable for – it won’t be everybody – and to say yes, it’s okay to personalize things.”
The study was funded by the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Care Research. Dr. Bestall reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hewison reported funding to her institution from the NIHR Health Technology Assessment. Dr. Brown reports having served as a consultant or adviser for Novartis, Ipsen, Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Bayer; honoraria from Novartis, Ipsen, Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Bayer; research funding paid to their institution from the National Institute for Health and Care Research; and travel expenses from Ipsen. Other coauthors reported numerous relationships with industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
That might soon change with the publication of a unique study. Lasting 10 years, the phase 3 STAR trial involved 920 patients across 60 cancer centers. These patients had advanced kidney cancer and were taking either sunitinib (Sutent) or pazopanib (Votrient).
The results showed that taking an occasional respite from TKI therapy had little impact on the patient’s survival.
The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology.
The study was funded by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Research because drug companies never run studies on how to reduce the use of their drug, commented lead author Janet Brown, MD, of the University of Sheffield (England).
“We rely on the NIHR to do these important trials that … companies wouldn’t do,” she commented to this news organization.
Commenting on the rationale for STAR, coauthor Jenny Hewison, PhD, of Leeds (England) University School of Medicine, explained that patients often find it difficult to tolerate TKIs. “Although these patients are getting the best treatment that we can offer them, it’s very demanding. … It could make them feel tired, quite unwell. And there can be a range of other effects including sickness and diarrhea.”
As an example, 77% of patients in the pivotal trial of sunitinib in kidney cancer experienced grade 3 or 4 adverse events such as hypertension (13%), fatigue (15%), diarrhea (10%) and hand-foot syndrome (8%).
Both sunitinib and pazopanib carry label warnings of severe and fatal hepatotoxicity.
Also, in contrast to conventional chemotherapy, which is usually given in a finite number of courses, treatment with TKIs carries on indefinitely.
“It feels like you’re taking [TKIs] for the whole of the rest of your life,” said Dr. Brown.
Study details
The STAR trial, an open-label, noninferiority, randomized controlled study, is the first phase 3 study of treatment breaks in renal cell carcinoma. The participants had inoperable locoregional or metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and had received no systemic therapy for advanced disease.
They were randomly assigned before TKI treatment to a conventional continuation strategy or a drug-free interval approach. The treating physician decided whether a patient would take sunitinib or pazopanib.
All participants took their drugs for four cycles (6 weeks each cycle). At the 24-week point, those with a complete response, partial response, or stable disease began their randomized assignment.
Individuals who took a break continued until their disease progressed, at which point therapy was resumed. They could take further treatment breaks once their disease was back under control. The group on continuous treatment kept going until disease progression or intolerable toxicities. Median follow up was 58 months.
In both the per-protocol and intent-to-treat (ITT) populations, overall survival was 28 months for the people who received continuous treatment vs. 27 months for those who took a break. Statistical noninferiority was established in the ITT population but not in the per-protocol population.
The median length of all treatment breaks was 87 days. Many people took two or more breaks; one patient took nine breaks overall. The breaks were popular: only 3% of participants who were meant to stop therapy withdrew from the study in order to continue their treatment.
Said Dr. Hewison: “In the very early days of planning the study there were some doubts as to whether it would succeed because of potential unwillingness of people to stop treatment for a while.”
Dr. Brown agreed: “People did worry about that initially, but it actually seemed to be more the other way around. By that time – 6 months – people were relieved to be there. …We actually had some people from the other arm asking, could they also have a break?”
To understand better the benefits of treatment breaks to patients, Janine Bestall, PhD, a senior research fellow in applied health research at the University of Leeds, conducted a qualitative study in parallel with the main trial.
Summing up the patients’ experiences, Dr. Bestall said the drug-free periods “gave them more time.”
Dr. Bestall quoted one patient who said: “I know that things can happen and it grows back, but you’ve always got the buffer there knowing that you can go back and get help. But you actually lead a normal life and the advantage is, yeah, you can go on holiday, you can actually do more things in the garden, cleaning up, painting, whatever needs doing, you do it.”
Dr. Brown said, “I had a lady who, when she was on the trial, had four breaks in total, one when her daughter got married, and [she said] that was really nice for her to do all the shopping and all the normal things that you do, and not be on something that was making her tired and causing sore hands and diarrhea.”
The drug-free interval strategy provided annual cost savings of 3,235 pounds sterling ($3,850) and a noninferior quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) benefit in both the ITT and per-protocol populations.
Serious adverse reactions occurred in 9% of patients in the treatment-break group versus 12% of the continuous-treatment group.
The authors of the study concluded, “Treatment breaks might be a feasible and cost-effective option with lifestyle benefits for patients during tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma.”
Changes in treatment strategies
The STAR trial started recruiting in January 2012.
Since that time, immunotherapy has taken over as first-line treatment for many patients with advanced ccRCC in both the United Kingdom and the United States.
However, TKIs still have a place. The NCCN Kidney Cancer 2022 Guidelines recommend both sunitinib and pazopanib as options for first-line therapy in advanced disease. The 2022 ASCO Metastatic ccRCC guidelines recommend either drug as first-line treatment in combination with an immune checkpoint inhibitor or in monotherapy if there are “coexisting medical problems.”
In the United States, intermittent sunitinib in metastatic RCC was tested in a small study in 2017 with little activity in the literature since then. The authors, led by Moshe Ornstein, MD, from the Cleveland Clinic, concluded at the time that sunitinib treatment breaks were feasible and “clinical efficacy does not seem to be compromised.” Dr. Ornstein was approached for comment on this latest U.K. study but declined.
Back in the United Kingdom, the results of STAR arrived just in time.
Said Dr. Brown: “This has … been really helpful in the U.K. in the pandemic when people said, can these patients have extra breaks? At the worst of the pandemic we were able to say, sure, if it’s stable, we can keep them off for 3-6 months. …And so that’s already had a powerful impact.”
Dr. Brown concluded, “I think what the trial does allow us to do, as individual oncologists, is to look at the patients that this might be suitable for – it won’t be everybody – and to say yes, it’s okay to personalize things.”
The study was funded by the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Care Research. Dr. Bestall reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hewison reported funding to her institution from the NIHR Health Technology Assessment. Dr. Brown reports having served as a consultant or adviser for Novartis, Ipsen, Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Bayer; honoraria from Novartis, Ipsen, Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Bayer; research funding paid to their institution from the National Institute for Health and Care Research; and travel expenses from Ipsen. Other coauthors reported numerous relationships with industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE LANCET ONCOLOGY
Experts share real-world experience prescribing voclosporin, belimumab for lupus nephritis
Although patients with lupus nephritis recently gained two new add-on treatment options in voclosporin (Lupkynis) and belimumab (Benlysta), there have been little data published with real-world experience in using these drugs.
Voclosporin, a calcineurin inhibitor, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in January 2021 to treat lupus nephritis in combination with immunosuppressive medication. Belimumab, a human monoclonal antibody and B-lymphocyte stimulator, was approved in December 2020 in the United States as an add-on treatment for lupus nephritis in adults and later in July 2022 for children who are already receiving standard therapy.
How the two drugs are prescribed for patients with lupus nephritis so far appears to be influenced by presence of extrarenal manifestations of lupus, proteinuria level, clinicians’ prior experience with belimumab, costs of the drugs, and patient preference, experts said.
Voclosporin’s approval was based on data from the phase 3 AURORA 1 trial and phase 2 AURA-LV trial. AURORA 1 evaluated 357 patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and lupus nephritis who were randomized to receive voclosporin or placebo with mycophenolate mofetil and tapered low-dose oral steroids. In the voclosporin group, the results showed a significantly higher complete renal response at 52 weeks, compared with the placebo group, while having a similar adverse event profile. The AURA-LV trial, evaluating efficacy and safety of 179 patients with lupus nephritis, showed adding low-dose voclosporin to induction therapy improved renal response, compared with placebo. AURORA 2, a continuation of the AURORA trial, showed patients with lupus nephritis receiving voclosporin have a stable estimated glomerular filtration rate and reductions in proteinuria up to 3 years of follow-up.
Results from the phase 3 BLISS-LN trial of 448 patients with confirmed lupus nephritis were the basis for belimumab’s approval and showed a significantly higher proportion of patients who received belimumab had a primary efficacy renal response, complete renal response, and significantly lower risk of a renal-related adverse event or death, compared with the placebo group.
Lack of real-world data
The lack of real-world data on either of these treatments can be attributed to lupus nephritis being a rare disease, and the approvals happening fairly recently, experts said.
“This is really due to the recency of the approvals for both of these medications for lupus nephritis,” Amit Saxena, MD, a rheumatologist and assistant professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at NYU Langone Health in New York, said in an interview.
“It’s too soon for any appreciable data to be collected.”
Ashira D. Blazer, MD, MSCI, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery and assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, both in New York, said that rheumatologists “are a little bit hesitant” to use newer agents rather than existing therapies, and have existing guidance from the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) on treating the condition.
“I think when someone has something like lupus nephritis that’s so serious, rheumatologists pull for the tried-and-true drugs that we know will affect the inflammation quickly and get that patient to remission,” she said.
Donald E. Thomas Jr., MD, of Arthritis and Pain Associates of P.G. County in Greenbelt, Md., said he was surprised there was a lack of case studies on voclosporin or belimumab for lupus nephritis, but pointed to the time and cost of publishing a case report and the rheumatologist shortage as potential reasons.
“Most community-based rheumatologists such as myself are too busy,” he said. “Why we are not getting case series from major medical centers, I am not sure.”
When this news organization asked GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) if the company tracked data on real-world use of belimumab, a spokesperson responded that the drug “has extensive clinical efficacy and safety data, and 12 years of postapproval experience, demonstrating its efficacy in SLE to reduce disease activity in multiple organ systems, reduce severe flares, and enabling some patients to taper steroid use over time.”
The spokesperson also referenced published data where belimumab “showed improvement in lupus nephritis when compared to standard therapy alone,” and that the drug “has an established safety profile that has shown to be consistent in diverse patient populations across multiple clinical trials.”
Aurinia Pharmaceuticals did not respond when sent an inquiry on whether the company tracked similar real-world data on voclosporin use.
Prescribing experience
Despite the lack of published data on real-world use, the drugs are being prescribed, Dr. Thomas said.
“I have quite a few patients on these drugs,” he said, citing one patient with severe membranoproliferative lupus nephritis not in remission who is receiving a combination of voclosporin, belimumab, and hydroxychloroquine.
“I have had absolutely no problems getting either drug. The indications for the medicines are crystal clear,” he said.
Irene Blanco, MD, MS, professor in the department of medicine-rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said that in her experience, both voclosporin and belimumab have been easy to get for patients.
However, she noted she was seeing mostly patients with government-based insurance in the Bronx, N.Y., prior to moving to Northwestern in September 2022. Belimumab had been available from the New York State Medicaid program for indications other than lupus nephritis for some time, and the program was quick to add voclosporin once it became available. “It wasn’t hard to get at all,” she said.
Dr. Saxena noted the respective pharmaceutical companies have provided help in prescribing voclosporin and belimumab through offering patient assistance programs and navigating insurers’ prior authorization hurdles. As belimumab has been available for many years, its availability hasn’t changed, he noted. “Voclosporin has seen more formulary restrictions, but in my experience, I have been able to get the drug utilizing authorization procedures,” he said.
One issue Dr. Blazer said that she encounters is cost. According to prices obtained from drugs.com in March 2023, belimumab has an estimated annual price of $58.389.96 per patient, and voclosporin has an estimated annual price of $86,506.20 per patient.
“I tend to treat patients who can have some socioeconomic challenges, and so I think very long and hard before prescribing either of them,” she explained. “[C]ertainly in the case of voclosporin, when there are older, cheaper calcineurin inhibitors and I think I need one, I’m more likely to reach for one of the others.”
While GSK offers a patient assistance program for belimumab, which Dr. Blazer said she has used, physicians may not be aware of the program or have the resources in their offices to provide social work support for their patients.
“I have had patients who started it and ... continued to have a flare and needed to go on disability or leave their jobs, and they were just too concerned with the ongoing cost burden, and so I ended up taking them off the medication for that reason at their request,” she said.
The fact that Black patients have lupus nephritis more often than White patients do, as well as greater socioeconomic barriers, points to access to care and cost as major factors in why new drugs are not being used, Dr. Blazer said. “I think that understanding how we can improve access is going to be extremely important in getting more real-world data and getting more patients treated,” she said.
Treatment preference
A chart audit recently released by market research firm Spherix Global Insights highlighted a potential treatment preference for lupus nephritis. Use of voclosporin increased among rheumatologists and nephrologists, but patients with lupus nephritis under the care of rheumatologists were more likely to be treated with belimumab than voclosporin.
Dr. Saxena said he has experience with both and doesn’t have a preference, instead using factors other than experience when deciding the best treatment for patients. “For example, if there are nonrenal manifestations such as arthritis or rashes, I may lean towards belimumab, but if a more rapid reduction in proteinuria is important, I may lean towards voclosporin,” he said.
Dr. Thomas weighs the pros and cons of voclosporin and belimumab with the patient. “With many lupus nephritis scenarios, either drug may be a good choice and it comes down to patient preference. The main scenario where I would choose [voclosporin] over [belimumab] is in patients with [proteinuria of] 3 g protein/day or more,” he said, while belimumab would be the choice for a patient with “nonrenal manifestations of SLE in addition to their nephritis.”
For other rheumatologists, comfort level with belimumab may play a role. “We always had [belimumab] and we were always using [belimumab], and so it would make sense that like we would go for a med, again, that we’re really familiar with and we use,” Dr. Blanco said.
Dr. Blanco has prescribed belimumab, but had been using tacrolimus until recently. “I’ve been using tacrolimus since 2016. I’m probably going to lean on the [tacrolimus] rather than going to [belimumab], which works, but maybe it’s not the end-all, be-all in terms of lupus,” she said.
Although she hasn’t yet prescribed voclosporin, Dr. Blazer said she had “much more experience with belimumab.
“I’ve prescribed other calcineurin inhibitors in the past, and usually for a patient who’s very proteinuric and as an adjunct to that standard of care to try to bring down the proteinuria,” she said.
With belimumab, she would consider adding it to a patient with severe disease who has failed treatment with mycophenolate mofetil or cyclophosphamide and has a recurrent lupus nephritis flare. “It’s something I can use as an adjunct, and I think that I can get some extra benefit from it, and it also tends to be well tolerated,” Dr. Blazer said.
How patients are responding
Dr. Thomas’ patients have been responding well on voclosporin and belimumab. “I was an early adopter of [belimumab] and had patients with lupus nephritis do great on it, way before the FDA approval,” he said.
For voclosporin, Dr. Thomas highlighted the “incredibly rapid” proteinuria response. “I had a patient have marked reduction in proteinuria in just 2 weeks. Proteinuria reduction is the number one predictor of long-term better outcomes,” he said.
Many patients receiving mycophenolate and cyclophosphamide do not go into complete remission, while the clinical trials for voclosporin and belimumab had significantly higher rates of complete response and faster response rates, compared with older therapies. “That is what we need,” he said.
“These drugs are game changers in the treatment of lupus nephritis. In my mind, belimumab and voclosporin should be considered the standard of medical care treating lupus nephritis patients,” he added.
Dr. Blanco said her patients appear to like and are tolerating voclosporin and belimumab well, but because there are no pregnancy data on voclosporin, she may choose belimumab or tacrolimus for patients of reproductive age who are considering starting a family.
Patients with extrarenal symptoms tend to do particularly well with belimumab, such as those with arthritis and skin rash, Dr. Blazer said. “In my experience, as an adjunct with those standard of care medications, I have been able to maintain remission in my patients,” she said.
Dr. Saxena said both medications are “important options” for lupus nephritis in patients who don’t respond to standard therapy. “As more doctors utilize each medication and additional data is published, I’d expect an increase uptake in both medications in the future,” he said.
Dr. Blazer reported being a contributor to GSK’s SLE Educators’ Network and has been a consultant for Aurinia. Dr. Saxena reported being a consultant for GSK and Aurinia. Dr. Thomas reported being on the speakers bureau for GSK and Aurinia. Dr. Blanco reported having no relevant financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.
Although patients with lupus nephritis recently gained two new add-on treatment options in voclosporin (Lupkynis) and belimumab (Benlysta), there have been little data published with real-world experience in using these drugs.
Voclosporin, a calcineurin inhibitor, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in January 2021 to treat lupus nephritis in combination with immunosuppressive medication. Belimumab, a human monoclonal antibody and B-lymphocyte stimulator, was approved in December 2020 in the United States as an add-on treatment for lupus nephritis in adults and later in July 2022 for children who are already receiving standard therapy.
How the two drugs are prescribed for patients with lupus nephritis so far appears to be influenced by presence of extrarenal manifestations of lupus, proteinuria level, clinicians’ prior experience with belimumab, costs of the drugs, and patient preference, experts said.
Voclosporin’s approval was based on data from the phase 3 AURORA 1 trial and phase 2 AURA-LV trial. AURORA 1 evaluated 357 patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and lupus nephritis who were randomized to receive voclosporin or placebo with mycophenolate mofetil and tapered low-dose oral steroids. In the voclosporin group, the results showed a significantly higher complete renal response at 52 weeks, compared with the placebo group, while having a similar adverse event profile. The AURA-LV trial, evaluating efficacy and safety of 179 patients with lupus nephritis, showed adding low-dose voclosporin to induction therapy improved renal response, compared with placebo. AURORA 2, a continuation of the AURORA trial, showed patients with lupus nephritis receiving voclosporin have a stable estimated glomerular filtration rate and reductions in proteinuria up to 3 years of follow-up.
Results from the phase 3 BLISS-LN trial of 448 patients with confirmed lupus nephritis were the basis for belimumab’s approval and showed a significantly higher proportion of patients who received belimumab had a primary efficacy renal response, complete renal response, and significantly lower risk of a renal-related adverse event or death, compared with the placebo group.
Lack of real-world data
The lack of real-world data on either of these treatments can be attributed to lupus nephritis being a rare disease, and the approvals happening fairly recently, experts said.
“This is really due to the recency of the approvals for both of these medications for lupus nephritis,” Amit Saxena, MD, a rheumatologist and assistant professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at NYU Langone Health in New York, said in an interview.
“It’s too soon for any appreciable data to be collected.”
Ashira D. Blazer, MD, MSCI, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery and assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, both in New York, said that rheumatologists “are a little bit hesitant” to use newer agents rather than existing therapies, and have existing guidance from the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) on treating the condition.
“I think when someone has something like lupus nephritis that’s so serious, rheumatologists pull for the tried-and-true drugs that we know will affect the inflammation quickly and get that patient to remission,” she said.
Donald E. Thomas Jr., MD, of Arthritis and Pain Associates of P.G. County in Greenbelt, Md., said he was surprised there was a lack of case studies on voclosporin or belimumab for lupus nephritis, but pointed to the time and cost of publishing a case report and the rheumatologist shortage as potential reasons.
“Most community-based rheumatologists such as myself are too busy,” he said. “Why we are not getting case series from major medical centers, I am not sure.”
When this news organization asked GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) if the company tracked data on real-world use of belimumab, a spokesperson responded that the drug “has extensive clinical efficacy and safety data, and 12 years of postapproval experience, demonstrating its efficacy in SLE to reduce disease activity in multiple organ systems, reduce severe flares, and enabling some patients to taper steroid use over time.”
The spokesperson also referenced published data where belimumab “showed improvement in lupus nephritis when compared to standard therapy alone,” and that the drug “has an established safety profile that has shown to be consistent in diverse patient populations across multiple clinical trials.”
Aurinia Pharmaceuticals did not respond when sent an inquiry on whether the company tracked similar real-world data on voclosporin use.
Prescribing experience
Despite the lack of published data on real-world use, the drugs are being prescribed, Dr. Thomas said.
“I have quite a few patients on these drugs,” he said, citing one patient with severe membranoproliferative lupus nephritis not in remission who is receiving a combination of voclosporin, belimumab, and hydroxychloroquine.
“I have had absolutely no problems getting either drug. The indications for the medicines are crystal clear,” he said.
Irene Blanco, MD, MS, professor in the department of medicine-rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said that in her experience, both voclosporin and belimumab have been easy to get for patients.
However, she noted she was seeing mostly patients with government-based insurance in the Bronx, N.Y., prior to moving to Northwestern in September 2022. Belimumab had been available from the New York State Medicaid program for indications other than lupus nephritis for some time, and the program was quick to add voclosporin once it became available. “It wasn’t hard to get at all,” she said.
Dr. Saxena noted the respective pharmaceutical companies have provided help in prescribing voclosporin and belimumab through offering patient assistance programs and navigating insurers’ prior authorization hurdles. As belimumab has been available for many years, its availability hasn’t changed, he noted. “Voclosporin has seen more formulary restrictions, but in my experience, I have been able to get the drug utilizing authorization procedures,” he said.
One issue Dr. Blazer said that she encounters is cost. According to prices obtained from drugs.com in March 2023, belimumab has an estimated annual price of $58.389.96 per patient, and voclosporin has an estimated annual price of $86,506.20 per patient.
“I tend to treat patients who can have some socioeconomic challenges, and so I think very long and hard before prescribing either of them,” she explained. “[C]ertainly in the case of voclosporin, when there are older, cheaper calcineurin inhibitors and I think I need one, I’m more likely to reach for one of the others.”
While GSK offers a patient assistance program for belimumab, which Dr. Blazer said she has used, physicians may not be aware of the program or have the resources in their offices to provide social work support for their patients.
“I have had patients who started it and ... continued to have a flare and needed to go on disability or leave their jobs, and they were just too concerned with the ongoing cost burden, and so I ended up taking them off the medication for that reason at their request,” she said.
The fact that Black patients have lupus nephritis more often than White patients do, as well as greater socioeconomic barriers, points to access to care and cost as major factors in why new drugs are not being used, Dr. Blazer said. “I think that understanding how we can improve access is going to be extremely important in getting more real-world data and getting more patients treated,” she said.
Treatment preference
A chart audit recently released by market research firm Spherix Global Insights highlighted a potential treatment preference for lupus nephritis. Use of voclosporin increased among rheumatologists and nephrologists, but patients with lupus nephritis under the care of rheumatologists were more likely to be treated with belimumab than voclosporin.
Dr. Saxena said he has experience with both and doesn’t have a preference, instead using factors other than experience when deciding the best treatment for patients. “For example, if there are nonrenal manifestations such as arthritis or rashes, I may lean towards belimumab, but if a more rapid reduction in proteinuria is important, I may lean towards voclosporin,” he said.
Dr. Thomas weighs the pros and cons of voclosporin and belimumab with the patient. “With many lupus nephritis scenarios, either drug may be a good choice and it comes down to patient preference. The main scenario where I would choose [voclosporin] over [belimumab] is in patients with [proteinuria of] 3 g protein/day or more,” he said, while belimumab would be the choice for a patient with “nonrenal manifestations of SLE in addition to their nephritis.”
For other rheumatologists, comfort level with belimumab may play a role. “We always had [belimumab] and we were always using [belimumab], and so it would make sense that like we would go for a med, again, that we’re really familiar with and we use,” Dr. Blanco said.
Dr. Blanco has prescribed belimumab, but had been using tacrolimus until recently. “I’ve been using tacrolimus since 2016. I’m probably going to lean on the [tacrolimus] rather than going to [belimumab], which works, but maybe it’s not the end-all, be-all in terms of lupus,” she said.
Although she hasn’t yet prescribed voclosporin, Dr. Blazer said she had “much more experience with belimumab.
“I’ve prescribed other calcineurin inhibitors in the past, and usually for a patient who’s very proteinuric and as an adjunct to that standard of care to try to bring down the proteinuria,” she said.
With belimumab, she would consider adding it to a patient with severe disease who has failed treatment with mycophenolate mofetil or cyclophosphamide and has a recurrent lupus nephritis flare. “It’s something I can use as an adjunct, and I think that I can get some extra benefit from it, and it also tends to be well tolerated,” Dr. Blazer said.
How patients are responding
Dr. Thomas’ patients have been responding well on voclosporin and belimumab. “I was an early adopter of [belimumab] and had patients with lupus nephritis do great on it, way before the FDA approval,” he said.
For voclosporin, Dr. Thomas highlighted the “incredibly rapid” proteinuria response. “I had a patient have marked reduction in proteinuria in just 2 weeks. Proteinuria reduction is the number one predictor of long-term better outcomes,” he said.
Many patients receiving mycophenolate and cyclophosphamide do not go into complete remission, while the clinical trials for voclosporin and belimumab had significantly higher rates of complete response and faster response rates, compared with older therapies. “That is what we need,” he said.
“These drugs are game changers in the treatment of lupus nephritis. In my mind, belimumab and voclosporin should be considered the standard of medical care treating lupus nephritis patients,” he added.
Dr. Blanco said her patients appear to like and are tolerating voclosporin and belimumab well, but because there are no pregnancy data on voclosporin, she may choose belimumab or tacrolimus for patients of reproductive age who are considering starting a family.
Patients with extrarenal symptoms tend to do particularly well with belimumab, such as those with arthritis and skin rash, Dr. Blazer said. “In my experience, as an adjunct with those standard of care medications, I have been able to maintain remission in my patients,” she said.
Dr. Saxena said both medications are “important options” for lupus nephritis in patients who don’t respond to standard therapy. “As more doctors utilize each medication and additional data is published, I’d expect an increase uptake in both medications in the future,” he said.
Dr. Blazer reported being a contributor to GSK’s SLE Educators’ Network and has been a consultant for Aurinia. Dr. Saxena reported being a consultant for GSK and Aurinia. Dr. Thomas reported being on the speakers bureau for GSK and Aurinia. Dr. Blanco reported having no relevant financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.
Although patients with lupus nephritis recently gained two new add-on treatment options in voclosporin (Lupkynis) and belimumab (Benlysta), there have been little data published with real-world experience in using these drugs.
Voclosporin, a calcineurin inhibitor, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in January 2021 to treat lupus nephritis in combination with immunosuppressive medication. Belimumab, a human monoclonal antibody and B-lymphocyte stimulator, was approved in December 2020 in the United States as an add-on treatment for lupus nephritis in adults and later in July 2022 for children who are already receiving standard therapy.
How the two drugs are prescribed for patients with lupus nephritis so far appears to be influenced by presence of extrarenal manifestations of lupus, proteinuria level, clinicians’ prior experience with belimumab, costs of the drugs, and patient preference, experts said.
Voclosporin’s approval was based on data from the phase 3 AURORA 1 trial and phase 2 AURA-LV trial. AURORA 1 evaluated 357 patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and lupus nephritis who were randomized to receive voclosporin or placebo with mycophenolate mofetil and tapered low-dose oral steroids. In the voclosporin group, the results showed a significantly higher complete renal response at 52 weeks, compared with the placebo group, while having a similar adverse event profile. The AURA-LV trial, evaluating efficacy and safety of 179 patients with lupus nephritis, showed adding low-dose voclosporin to induction therapy improved renal response, compared with placebo. AURORA 2, a continuation of the AURORA trial, showed patients with lupus nephritis receiving voclosporin have a stable estimated glomerular filtration rate and reductions in proteinuria up to 3 years of follow-up.
Results from the phase 3 BLISS-LN trial of 448 patients with confirmed lupus nephritis were the basis for belimumab’s approval and showed a significantly higher proportion of patients who received belimumab had a primary efficacy renal response, complete renal response, and significantly lower risk of a renal-related adverse event or death, compared with the placebo group.
Lack of real-world data
The lack of real-world data on either of these treatments can be attributed to lupus nephritis being a rare disease, and the approvals happening fairly recently, experts said.
“This is really due to the recency of the approvals for both of these medications for lupus nephritis,” Amit Saxena, MD, a rheumatologist and assistant professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at NYU Langone Health in New York, said in an interview.
“It’s too soon for any appreciable data to be collected.”
Ashira D. Blazer, MD, MSCI, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery and assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, both in New York, said that rheumatologists “are a little bit hesitant” to use newer agents rather than existing therapies, and have existing guidance from the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) on treating the condition.
“I think when someone has something like lupus nephritis that’s so serious, rheumatologists pull for the tried-and-true drugs that we know will affect the inflammation quickly and get that patient to remission,” she said.
Donald E. Thomas Jr., MD, of Arthritis and Pain Associates of P.G. County in Greenbelt, Md., said he was surprised there was a lack of case studies on voclosporin or belimumab for lupus nephritis, but pointed to the time and cost of publishing a case report and the rheumatologist shortage as potential reasons.
“Most community-based rheumatologists such as myself are too busy,” he said. “Why we are not getting case series from major medical centers, I am not sure.”
When this news organization asked GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) if the company tracked data on real-world use of belimumab, a spokesperson responded that the drug “has extensive clinical efficacy and safety data, and 12 years of postapproval experience, demonstrating its efficacy in SLE to reduce disease activity in multiple organ systems, reduce severe flares, and enabling some patients to taper steroid use over time.”
The spokesperson also referenced published data where belimumab “showed improvement in lupus nephritis when compared to standard therapy alone,” and that the drug “has an established safety profile that has shown to be consistent in diverse patient populations across multiple clinical trials.”
Aurinia Pharmaceuticals did not respond when sent an inquiry on whether the company tracked similar real-world data on voclosporin use.
Prescribing experience
Despite the lack of published data on real-world use, the drugs are being prescribed, Dr. Thomas said.
“I have quite a few patients on these drugs,” he said, citing one patient with severe membranoproliferative lupus nephritis not in remission who is receiving a combination of voclosporin, belimumab, and hydroxychloroquine.
“I have had absolutely no problems getting either drug. The indications for the medicines are crystal clear,” he said.
Irene Blanco, MD, MS, professor in the department of medicine-rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said that in her experience, both voclosporin and belimumab have been easy to get for patients.
However, she noted she was seeing mostly patients with government-based insurance in the Bronx, N.Y., prior to moving to Northwestern in September 2022. Belimumab had been available from the New York State Medicaid program for indications other than lupus nephritis for some time, and the program was quick to add voclosporin once it became available. “It wasn’t hard to get at all,” she said.
Dr. Saxena noted the respective pharmaceutical companies have provided help in prescribing voclosporin and belimumab through offering patient assistance programs and navigating insurers’ prior authorization hurdles. As belimumab has been available for many years, its availability hasn’t changed, he noted. “Voclosporin has seen more formulary restrictions, but in my experience, I have been able to get the drug utilizing authorization procedures,” he said.
One issue Dr. Blazer said that she encounters is cost. According to prices obtained from drugs.com in March 2023, belimumab has an estimated annual price of $58.389.96 per patient, and voclosporin has an estimated annual price of $86,506.20 per patient.
“I tend to treat patients who can have some socioeconomic challenges, and so I think very long and hard before prescribing either of them,” she explained. “[C]ertainly in the case of voclosporin, when there are older, cheaper calcineurin inhibitors and I think I need one, I’m more likely to reach for one of the others.”
While GSK offers a patient assistance program for belimumab, which Dr. Blazer said she has used, physicians may not be aware of the program or have the resources in their offices to provide social work support for their patients.
“I have had patients who started it and ... continued to have a flare and needed to go on disability or leave their jobs, and they were just too concerned with the ongoing cost burden, and so I ended up taking them off the medication for that reason at their request,” she said.
The fact that Black patients have lupus nephritis more often than White patients do, as well as greater socioeconomic barriers, points to access to care and cost as major factors in why new drugs are not being used, Dr. Blazer said. “I think that understanding how we can improve access is going to be extremely important in getting more real-world data and getting more patients treated,” she said.
Treatment preference
A chart audit recently released by market research firm Spherix Global Insights highlighted a potential treatment preference for lupus nephritis. Use of voclosporin increased among rheumatologists and nephrologists, but patients with lupus nephritis under the care of rheumatologists were more likely to be treated with belimumab than voclosporin.
Dr. Saxena said he has experience with both and doesn’t have a preference, instead using factors other than experience when deciding the best treatment for patients. “For example, if there are nonrenal manifestations such as arthritis or rashes, I may lean towards belimumab, but if a more rapid reduction in proteinuria is important, I may lean towards voclosporin,” he said.
Dr. Thomas weighs the pros and cons of voclosporin and belimumab with the patient. “With many lupus nephritis scenarios, either drug may be a good choice and it comes down to patient preference. The main scenario where I would choose [voclosporin] over [belimumab] is in patients with [proteinuria of] 3 g protein/day or more,” he said, while belimumab would be the choice for a patient with “nonrenal manifestations of SLE in addition to their nephritis.”
For other rheumatologists, comfort level with belimumab may play a role. “We always had [belimumab] and we were always using [belimumab], and so it would make sense that like we would go for a med, again, that we’re really familiar with and we use,” Dr. Blanco said.
Dr. Blanco has prescribed belimumab, but had been using tacrolimus until recently. “I’ve been using tacrolimus since 2016. I’m probably going to lean on the [tacrolimus] rather than going to [belimumab], which works, but maybe it’s not the end-all, be-all in terms of lupus,” she said.
Although she hasn’t yet prescribed voclosporin, Dr. Blazer said she had “much more experience with belimumab.
“I’ve prescribed other calcineurin inhibitors in the past, and usually for a patient who’s very proteinuric and as an adjunct to that standard of care to try to bring down the proteinuria,” she said.
With belimumab, she would consider adding it to a patient with severe disease who has failed treatment with mycophenolate mofetil or cyclophosphamide and has a recurrent lupus nephritis flare. “It’s something I can use as an adjunct, and I think that I can get some extra benefit from it, and it also tends to be well tolerated,” Dr. Blazer said.
How patients are responding
Dr. Thomas’ patients have been responding well on voclosporin and belimumab. “I was an early adopter of [belimumab] and had patients with lupus nephritis do great on it, way before the FDA approval,” he said.
For voclosporin, Dr. Thomas highlighted the “incredibly rapid” proteinuria response. “I had a patient have marked reduction in proteinuria in just 2 weeks. Proteinuria reduction is the number one predictor of long-term better outcomes,” he said.
Many patients receiving mycophenolate and cyclophosphamide do not go into complete remission, while the clinical trials for voclosporin and belimumab had significantly higher rates of complete response and faster response rates, compared with older therapies. “That is what we need,” he said.
“These drugs are game changers in the treatment of lupus nephritis. In my mind, belimumab and voclosporin should be considered the standard of medical care treating lupus nephritis patients,” he added.
Dr. Blanco said her patients appear to like and are tolerating voclosporin and belimumab well, but because there are no pregnancy data on voclosporin, she may choose belimumab or tacrolimus for patients of reproductive age who are considering starting a family.
Patients with extrarenal symptoms tend to do particularly well with belimumab, such as those with arthritis and skin rash, Dr. Blazer said. “In my experience, as an adjunct with those standard of care medications, I have been able to maintain remission in my patients,” she said.
Dr. Saxena said both medications are “important options” for lupus nephritis in patients who don’t respond to standard therapy. “As more doctors utilize each medication and additional data is published, I’d expect an increase uptake in both medications in the future,” he said.
Dr. Blazer reported being a contributor to GSK’s SLE Educators’ Network and has been a consultant for Aurinia. Dr. Saxena reported being a consultant for GSK and Aurinia. Dr. Thomas reported being on the speakers bureau for GSK and Aurinia. Dr. Blanco reported having no relevant financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.
FDA accepts application for topical molluscum treatment
If approved, berdazimer gel would be the first FDA-approved prescription product for molluscum contagiosum in the United States, according to the company, Novan. The active ingredient in berdazimer gel 10.3% is berdazimer sodium, a novel nitric oxide–releasing agent.
Molluscum contagiosum is a benign but contagious skin infection characterized by red papules on the face, trunk, limbs, and axillae that may persist for years if left untreated.
The treatment was evaluated in the B-SIMPLE4 study, a phase 3 clinical trial including 891 individuals with molluscum contagiosum aged 6 months and older, with 3-70 raised lesions The mean age of the patients was approximately 7 years (range, 0.9-47.5 years) and 85.5% were White (4.7% were Black, 21.2% were Hispanic, and 1.4% were Asian). Study participants were randomized to berdazimer gel 10.3% or a vehicle gel applied as a thin layer to all lesions once daily for 12 weeks.
The full results of the B-SIMPLE4 study were published in JAMA Dermatology in July 2022. After 12 weeks of treatment, 32.4% of patients in the berdazimer group met the primary outcome of complete clearance of all lesions, versus 19.7% of those on the vehicle (P < .001). The rates of adverse events were similar and low in both groups. The most common adverse events in both groups were application-site pain and erythema, and most cases were mild or moderate. A total of 4.1% of berdazimer patients and 0.7% of placebo patients experienced adverse events that prompted treatment discontinuation.
The Prescription Drug User Fee goal date for the approval of berdazimer 10.3% for molluscum contagiosum is set for Jan. 5, 2024, according to Novan.
If approved, berdazimer gel would be the first FDA-approved prescription product for molluscum contagiosum in the United States, according to the company, Novan. The active ingredient in berdazimer gel 10.3% is berdazimer sodium, a novel nitric oxide–releasing agent.
Molluscum contagiosum is a benign but contagious skin infection characterized by red papules on the face, trunk, limbs, and axillae that may persist for years if left untreated.
The treatment was evaluated in the B-SIMPLE4 study, a phase 3 clinical trial including 891 individuals with molluscum contagiosum aged 6 months and older, with 3-70 raised lesions The mean age of the patients was approximately 7 years (range, 0.9-47.5 years) and 85.5% were White (4.7% were Black, 21.2% were Hispanic, and 1.4% were Asian). Study participants were randomized to berdazimer gel 10.3% or a vehicle gel applied as a thin layer to all lesions once daily for 12 weeks.
The full results of the B-SIMPLE4 study were published in JAMA Dermatology in July 2022. After 12 weeks of treatment, 32.4% of patients in the berdazimer group met the primary outcome of complete clearance of all lesions, versus 19.7% of those on the vehicle (P < .001). The rates of adverse events were similar and low in both groups. The most common adverse events in both groups were application-site pain and erythema, and most cases were mild or moderate. A total of 4.1% of berdazimer patients and 0.7% of placebo patients experienced adverse events that prompted treatment discontinuation.
The Prescription Drug User Fee goal date for the approval of berdazimer 10.3% for molluscum contagiosum is set for Jan. 5, 2024, according to Novan.
If approved, berdazimer gel would be the first FDA-approved prescription product for molluscum contagiosum in the United States, according to the company, Novan. The active ingredient in berdazimer gel 10.3% is berdazimer sodium, a novel nitric oxide–releasing agent.
Molluscum contagiosum is a benign but contagious skin infection characterized by red papules on the face, trunk, limbs, and axillae that may persist for years if left untreated.
The treatment was evaluated in the B-SIMPLE4 study, a phase 3 clinical trial including 891 individuals with molluscum contagiosum aged 6 months and older, with 3-70 raised lesions The mean age of the patients was approximately 7 years (range, 0.9-47.5 years) and 85.5% were White (4.7% were Black, 21.2% were Hispanic, and 1.4% were Asian). Study participants were randomized to berdazimer gel 10.3% or a vehicle gel applied as a thin layer to all lesions once daily for 12 weeks.
The full results of the B-SIMPLE4 study were published in JAMA Dermatology in July 2022. After 12 weeks of treatment, 32.4% of patients in the berdazimer group met the primary outcome of complete clearance of all lesions, versus 19.7% of those on the vehicle (P < .001). The rates of adverse events were similar and low in both groups. The most common adverse events in both groups were application-site pain and erythema, and most cases were mild or moderate. A total of 4.1% of berdazimer patients and 0.7% of placebo patients experienced adverse events that prompted treatment discontinuation.
The Prescription Drug User Fee goal date for the approval of berdazimer 10.3% for molluscum contagiosum is set for Jan. 5, 2024, according to Novan.
FDA expands abemaciclib use in high-risk early breast cancer
Abemaciclib was previously approved for this group of high-risk patients with the requirement that they have a Ki-67 score of at least 20%. The new expansion removes the Ki-67 testing requirement, meaning more patients are now eligible to receive this drug. High-risk patients eligible for the CDK4/6 inhibitor can now be identified solely on the basis of nodal status, tumor size, and tumor grade.
The FDA’s decision to expand the approval was based on 4-year data from the phase 3 monarchE trial of adjuvant abemaciclib, which showed benefit in invasive disease-free survival beyond the 2-year treatment course.
At 4 years, 85.5% of patients remained recurrence free with abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy, compared with 78.6% who received endocrine therapy alone, an absolute difference in invasive disease-free survival of 6.9%.
“The initial Verzenio FDA approval in early breast cancer was practice changing and now, through this indication expansion, we have the potential to reduce the risk of breast cancer recurrence for many more patients, relying solely on commonly utilized clinicopathologic features to identify them,” Erika P. Hamilton, MD, an investigator on the monarchE clinical trial, said in a press release.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Abemaciclib was previously approved for this group of high-risk patients with the requirement that they have a Ki-67 score of at least 20%. The new expansion removes the Ki-67 testing requirement, meaning more patients are now eligible to receive this drug. High-risk patients eligible for the CDK4/6 inhibitor can now be identified solely on the basis of nodal status, tumor size, and tumor grade.
The FDA’s decision to expand the approval was based on 4-year data from the phase 3 monarchE trial of adjuvant abemaciclib, which showed benefit in invasive disease-free survival beyond the 2-year treatment course.
At 4 years, 85.5% of patients remained recurrence free with abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy, compared with 78.6% who received endocrine therapy alone, an absolute difference in invasive disease-free survival of 6.9%.
“The initial Verzenio FDA approval in early breast cancer was practice changing and now, through this indication expansion, we have the potential to reduce the risk of breast cancer recurrence for many more patients, relying solely on commonly utilized clinicopathologic features to identify them,” Erika P. Hamilton, MD, an investigator on the monarchE clinical trial, said in a press release.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Abemaciclib was previously approved for this group of high-risk patients with the requirement that they have a Ki-67 score of at least 20%. The new expansion removes the Ki-67 testing requirement, meaning more patients are now eligible to receive this drug. High-risk patients eligible for the CDK4/6 inhibitor can now be identified solely on the basis of nodal status, tumor size, and tumor grade.
The FDA’s decision to expand the approval was based on 4-year data from the phase 3 monarchE trial of adjuvant abemaciclib, which showed benefit in invasive disease-free survival beyond the 2-year treatment course.
At 4 years, 85.5% of patients remained recurrence free with abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy, compared with 78.6% who received endocrine therapy alone, an absolute difference in invasive disease-free survival of 6.9%.
“The initial Verzenio FDA approval in early breast cancer was practice changing and now, through this indication expansion, we have the potential to reduce the risk of breast cancer recurrence for many more patients, relying solely on commonly utilized clinicopathologic features to identify them,” Erika P. Hamilton, MD, an investigator on the monarchE clinical trial, said in a press release.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Celiac disease appears to double COVID-19 hospitalization risk
, a single-center U.S. study shows.
Vaccination against COVID-19 reduced the risk for hospitalization by almost half for both groups, however, the study finds.
“To our knowledge this is the first study that demonstrated a vaccination effect on mitigation of the risk of hospitalization in celiac disease patients with COVID-19 infection,” write Alberto Rubio-Tapia, MD, director, Celiac Disease Program, Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, and colleagues.
Despite the increased risk for hospitalization among patients with celiac disease, there were no significant differences between those with and without the condition with respect to intensive care unit requirement, mortality, or thrombosis, the researchers found.
The findings suggest that celiac disease patients with COVID-19 are “not inherently at greater risk for more severe outcomes,” they wrote.
The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
Comparing outcomes
Although it has been shown that patients with celiac disease have increased susceptibility to viral illnesses, research to date has found similar COVID-19 incidence and outcomes, including hospitalization, between patients with celiac disease and the general population, the researchers wrote.
However, the impact of COVID-19 vaccination is less clear, so the researchers set out to compare the frequency of COVID-19–related outcomes between patients with and without celiac disease before and after vaccination.
Through an analysis of patient medical records, researchers found 171,763 patients diagnosed and treated for COVID-19 at their institution between March 1, 2020, and Jan 1, 2022. Of them, 110 adults had biopsy-proven celiac disease.
The median time from biopsy diagnosis of celiac disease to COVID-19 was 217 months, 66.3% of patients were documented to be following a gluten-free diet, and tissue transglutaminase IgA was positive in 46.2% at the time of COVID-19.
The celiac group was matched by age, ethnicity, sex, and date of COVID-19 diagnosis with a control group of 220 adults without a clinical diagnosis of celiac disease. The two cohorts had similar rates of comorbid obesity, type 2 diabetes, preexisting lung disease, and tobacco use.
Patients with celiac disease were significantly more likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19 than were the control participants, at 24% vs. 11% (hazard ratio, 2.1; P = .009), the researchers wrote.
However, hospitalized patients with celiac disease were less likely to require supplementary oxygen than were the control participants, at 63% vs. 84%.
Vaccination rates for COVID-19 were similar between the two groups, at 64.5% among patients with celiac disease and 70% in the control group. Vaccination was associated with a lower risk for hospitalization on multivariate analysis (HR, 0.53; P = .026).
There was no significant difference in hospitalization rates between vaccinated patients with celiac disease and vaccinated patients in the control group (odds ratio, 1.12; P = .79), the team reported.
The secondary outcomes of ICU requirement, mortality, and thrombosis were minimal in both groups, the researchers wrote.
Vaccination’s importance
The different findings regarding hospitalization risk among patients with celiac disease between this study and previous research are likely due to earlier studies not accounting for vaccination status, the researchers wrote.
“This study shows significantly different rates of hospitalization among patients with [celiac disease] depending on their vaccination status, with strong evidence for mitigation of hospitalization risk through vaccination,” they added.
“Vaccination against COVID-19 should be strongly recommended in patients with celiac disease,” the researchers concluded.
No funding was declared. Dr. Rubio-Tapia reported a relationship with Takeda. No other financial relationships were declared.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AGA offers guidance on celiac disease to help patients maintain a gluten-free diet in the AGA GI Patient Center: www.gastro.org/celiac .
, a single-center U.S. study shows.
Vaccination against COVID-19 reduced the risk for hospitalization by almost half for both groups, however, the study finds.
“To our knowledge this is the first study that demonstrated a vaccination effect on mitigation of the risk of hospitalization in celiac disease patients with COVID-19 infection,” write Alberto Rubio-Tapia, MD, director, Celiac Disease Program, Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, and colleagues.
Despite the increased risk for hospitalization among patients with celiac disease, there were no significant differences between those with and without the condition with respect to intensive care unit requirement, mortality, or thrombosis, the researchers found.
The findings suggest that celiac disease patients with COVID-19 are “not inherently at greater risk for more severe outcomes,” they wrote.
The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
Comparing outcomes
Although it has been shown that patients with celiac disease have increased susceptibility to viral illnesses, research to date has found similar COVID-19 incidence and outcomes, including hospitalization, between patients with celiac disease and the general population, the researchers wrote.
However, the impact of COVID-19 vaccination is less clear, so the researchers set out to compare the frequency of COVID-19–related outcomes between patients with and without celiac disease before and after vaccination.
Through an analysis of patient medical records, researchers found 171,763 patients diagnosed and treated for COVID-19 at their institution between March 1, 2020, and Jan 1, 2022. Of them, 110 adults had biopsy-proven celiac disease.
The median time from biopsy diagnosis of celiac disease to COVID-19 was 217 months, 66.3% of patients were documented to be following a gluten-free diet, and tissue transglutaminase IgA was positive in 46.2% at the time of COVID-19.
The celiac group was matched by age, ethnicity, sex, and date of COVID-19 diagnosis with a control group of 220 adults without a clinical diagnosis of celiac disease. The two cohorts had similar rates of comorbid obesity, type 2 diabetes, preexisting lung disease, and tobacco use.
Patients with celiac disease were significantly more likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19 than were the control participants, at 24% vs. 11% (hazard ratio, 2.1; P = .009), the researchers wrote.
However, hospitalized patients with celiac disease were less likely to require supplementary oxygen than were the control participants, at 63% vs. 84%.
Vaccination rates for COVID-19 were similar between the two groups, at 64.5% among patients with celiac disease and 70% in the control group. Vaccination was associated with a lower risk for hospitalization on multivariate analysis (HR, 0.53; P = .026).
There was no significant difference in hospitalization rates between vaccinated patients with celiac disease and vaccinated patients in the control group (odds ratio, 1.12; P = .79), the team reported.
The secondary outcomes of ICU requirement, mortality, and thrombosis were minimal in both groups, the researchers wrote.
Vaccination’s importance
The different findings regarding hospitalization risk among patients with celiac disease between this study and previous research are likely due to earlier studies not accounting for vaccination status, the researchers wrote.
“This study shows significantly different rates of hospitalization among patients with [celiac disease] depending on their vaccination status, with strong evidence for mitigation of hospitalization risk through vaccination,” they added.
“Vaccination against COVID-19 should be strongly recommended in patients with celiac disease,” the researchers concluded.
No funding was declared. Dr. Rubio-Tapia reported a relationship with Takeda. No other financial relationships were declared.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AGA offers guidance on celiac disease to help patients maintain a gluten-free diet in the AGA GI Patient Center: www.gastro.org/celiac .
, a single-center U.S. study shows.
Vaccination against COVID-19 reduced the risk for hospitalization by almost half for both groups, however, the study finds.
“To our knowledge this is the first study that demonstrated a vaccination effect on mitigation of the risk of hospitalization in celiac disease patients with COVID-19 infection,” write Alberto Rubio-Tapia, MD, director, Celiac Disease Program, Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, and colleagues.
Despite the increased risk for hospitalization among patients with celiac disease, there were no significant differences between those with and without the condition with respect to intensive care unit requirement, mortality, or thrombosis, the researchers found.
The findings suggest that celiac disease patients with COVID-19 are “not inherently at greater risk for more severe outcomes,” they wrote.
The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
Comparing outcomes
Although it has been shown that patients with celiac disease have increased susceptibility to viral illnesses, research to date has found similar COVID-19 incidence and outcomes, including hospitalization, between patients with celiac disease and the general population, the researchers wrote.
However, the impact of COVID-19 vaccination is less clear, so the researchers set out to compare the frequency of COVID-19–related outcomes between patients with and without celiac disease before and after vaccination.
Through an analysis of patient medical records, researchers found 171,763 patients diagnosed and treated for COVID-19 at their institution between March 1, 2020, and Jan 1, 2022. Of them, 110 adults had biopsy-proven celiac disease.
The median time from biopsy diagnosis of celiac disease to COVID-19 was 217 months, 66.3% of patients were documented to be following a gluten-free diet, and tissue transglutaminase IgA was positive in 46.2% at the time of COVID-19.
The celiac group was matched by age, ethnicity, sex, and date of COVID-19 diagnosis with a control group of 220 adults without a clinical diagnosis of celiac disease. The two cohorts had similar rates of comorbid obesity, type 2 diabetes, preexisting lung disease, and tobacco use.
Patients with celiac disease were significantly more likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19 than were the control participants, at 24% vs. 11% (hazard ratio, 2.1; P = .009), the researchers wrote.
However, hospitalized patients with celiac disease were less likely to require supplementary oxygen than were the control participants, at 63% vs. 84%.
Vaccination rates for COVID-19 were similar between the two groups, at 64.5% among patients with celiac disease and 70% in the control group. Vaccination was associated with a lower risk for hospitalization on multivariate analysis (HR, 0.53; P = .026).
There was no significant difference in hospitalization rates between vaccinated patients with celiac disease and vaccinated patients in the control group (odds ratio, 1.12; P = .79), the team reported.
The secondary outcomes of ICU requirement, mortality, and thrombosis were minimal in both groups, the researchers wrote.
Vaccination’s importance
The different findings regarding hospitalization risk among patients with celiac disease between this study and previous research are likely due to earlier studies not accounting for vaccination status, the researchers wrote.
“This study shows significantly different rates of hospitalization among patients with [celiac disease] depending on their vaccination status, with strong evidence for mitigation of hospitalization risk through vaccination,” they added.
“Vaccination against COVID-19 should be strongly recommended in patients with celiac disease,” the researchers concluded.
No funding was declared. Dr. Rubio-Tapia reported a relationship with Takeda. No other financial relationships were declared.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AGA offers guidance on celiac disease to help patients maintain a gluten-free diet in the AGA GI Patient Center: www.gastro.org/celiac .
FROM CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
OTC budesonide-formoterol for asthma could save lives, money
, according to a computer modeling study presented at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology 2023 annual meeting in San Antonio.
Asthma affects 25 million people, about 1 in 13, in the United States. About 28% are uninsured or underinsured, and 70% have mild asthma. Many are using a $30 inhaled epinephrine product (Primatene Mist) – the only FDA-approved asthma inhaler available without a prescription, said Marcus Shaker, MD, MS, professor of pediatrics and medicine at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, and clinician at Dartmouth Health Children’s, N.H.
A new version of Primatene Mist was reintroduced on the market in 2018 after the product was pulled for containing chlorofluorocarbons in 2011, but it is not recommended by professional medical societies because of safety concerns over epinephrine’s adverse effects, such as increased heart rate and blood pressure.
Drugs in its class (bronchodilators) have long been associated with a higher risk for death or near-death.
Meanwhile, research more than 2 decades ago linked regular use of low-dose inhaled corticosteroids with reduced risk for asthma death.
More recently, two large studies (SYGMA 1 and SYGMA 2) compared maintenance therapy with a low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (budesonide) vs. on-demand treatment with an inhaler containing both a corticosteroid (budesonide) and a long-acting bronchodilator (formoterol).
“Using as-needed budesonide-formoterol led to outcomes that are almost as good as taking a maintenance budesonide dose every day,” said Dr. Shaker.
The Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines now recommend this approach – as-needed inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) plus long-acting bronchodilators – for adults with mild asthma. In the United States, however, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute still suggests daily ICS plus quick-relief therapy as needed.
Dr. Shaker and colleagues used computer modeling to compare the cost-effectiveness of as-needed budesonide-formoterol vs. over-the-counter inhaled epinephrine in underinsured U.S. adults who were self-managing their mild asthma. The study randomly assigned these individuals into three groups: OTC inhaled epinephrine (current reality), OTC budesonide-formoterol (not yet available), or no OTC option. The model assumed that patients treated for an exacerbation were referred to a health care provider and started a regimen of ICS plus as-needed rescue therapy.
In this analysis, which has been submitted for publication, the OTC budesonide-formoterol strategy was associated with 12,495 fewer deaths, prevented nearly 14 million severe asthma exacerbations, and saved more than $68 billion. And “when we looked at OTC budesonide-formoterol vs. having no OTC option at all, budesonide-formoterol was similarly cost-effective,” said Dr. Shaker, who presented the results at an AAAAI oral abstract session.
The cost savings emerged even though in the United States asthma controller therapies (for example, fluticasone) cost about 10 times more than rescue therapies (for instance, salbutamol, OTC epinephrine).
Nevertheless, the results make sense. “If you’re using Primatene Mist, your health costs are predicted to be much greater because you’re going to be in the hospital more. Your asthma is not going to be well-controlled,” Thanai Pongdee, MD, an allergist-immunologist with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told this news organization. “It’s not only the cost of your ER visit but also the cost of loss of work or school, and loss of daily productivity. There are all these associated costs.”
The analysis “is certainly something policy makers could take a look at,” he said.
He noted that current use of budesonide-formoterol is stymied by difficulties with insurance coverage. The difficulties stem from a mismatch between the updated recommendation for as-needed use and the description printed on the brand-name product (Symbicort).
“On the product label, it says Symbicort should be used on a daily basis,” Dr. Pongdee said. “But if a prescription comes through and says you’re going to use this ‘as needed,’ the health plan may say that’s not appropriate because that’s not on the product label.”
Given these access challenges with the all-in-one inhaler, other researchers have developed a workaround – asking patients to continue their usual care (that is, using a rescue inhaler as needed) but to also administer a controller medication after each rescue. When tested in Black and Latino patients with moderate to severe asthma, this easy strategy (patient activated reliever-triggered inhaled corticosteroid, or PARTICS) reduced severe asthma exacerbations about as well as the all-in-one inhaler.
If the all-in-one budesonide-formoterol does become available OTC, Dr. Shaker stressed that it “would not be a substitute for seeing an allergist and getting appropriate medical care and an evaluation and all the rest. But it’s better than the status quo. It’s the sort of thing where the perfect is not the enemy of the good,” he said.
Dr. Shaker is the AAAAI cochair of the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters and serves as an editorial board member of the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology in Practice. He is also an associate editor of the Annals of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology. Dr. Pongdee serves as an at-large director on the AAAAI board of directors. He receives grant funding from GlaxoSmithKline, and Mayo Clinic is a trial site for GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to a computer modeling study presented at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology 2023 annual meeting in San Antonio.
Asthma affects 25 million people, about 1 in 13, in the United States. About 28% are uninsured or underinsured, and 70% have mild asthma. Many are using a $30 inhaled epinephrine product (Primatene Mist) – the only FDA-approved asthma inhaler available without a prescription, said Marcus Shaker, MD, MS, professor of pediatrics and medicine at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, and clinician at Dartmouth Health Children’s, N.H.
A new version of Primatene Mist was reintroduced on the market in 2018 after the product was pulled for containing chlorofluorocarbons in 2011, but it is not recommended by professional medical societies because of safety concerns over epinephrine’s adverse effects, such as increased heart rate and blood pressure.
Drugs in its class (bronchodilators) have long been associated with a higher risk for death or near-death.
Meanwhile, research more than 2 decades ago linked regular use of low-dose inhaled corticosteroids with reduced risk for asthma death.
More recently, two large studies (SYGMA 1 and SYGMA 2) compared maintenance therapy with a low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (budesonide) vs. on-demand treatment with an inhaler containing both a corticosteroid (budesonide) and a long-acting bronchodilator (formoterol).
“Using as-needed budesonide-formoterol led to outcomes that are almost as good as taking a maintenance budesonide dose every day,” said Dr. Shaker.
The Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines now recommend this approach – as-needed inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) plus long-acting bronchodilators – for adults with mild asthma. In the United States, however, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute still suggests daily ICS plus quick-relief therapy as needed.
Dr. Shaker and colleagues used computer modeling to compare the cost-effectiveness of as-needed budesonide-formoterol vs. over-the-counter inhaled epinephrine in underinsured U.S. adults who were self-managing their mild asthma. The study randomly assigned these individuals into three groups: OTC inhaled epinephrine (current reality), OTC budesonide-formoterol (not yet available), or no OTC option. The model assumed that patients treated for an exacerbation were referred to a health care provider and started a regimen of ICS plus as-needed rescue therapy.
In this analysis, which has been submitted for publication, the OTC budesonide-formoterol strategy was associated with 12,495 fewer deaths, prevented nearly 14 million severe asthma exacerbations, and saved more than $68 billion. And “when we looked at OTC budesonide-formoterol vs. having no OTC option at all, budesonide-formoterol was similarly cost-effective,” said Dr. Shaker, who presented the results at an AAAAI oral abstract session.
The cost savings emerged even though in the United States asthma controller therapies (for example, fluticasone) cost about 10 times more than rescue therapies (for instance, salbutamol, OTC epinephrine).
Nevertheless, the results make sense. “If you’re using Primatene Mist, your health costs are predicted to be much greater because you’re going to be in the hospital more. Your asthma is not going to be well-controlled,” Thanai Pongdee, MD, an allergist-immunologist with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told this news organization. “It’s not only the cost of your ER visit but also the cost of loss of work or school, and loss of daily productivity. There are all these associated costs.”
The analysis “is certainly something policy makers could take a look at,” he said.
He noted that current use of budesonide-formoterol is stymied by difficulties with insurance coverage. The difficulties stem from a mismatch between the updated recommendation for as-needed use and the description printed on the brand-name product (Symbicort).
“On the product label, it says Symbicort should be used on a daily basis,” Dr. Pongdee said. “But if a prescription comes through and says you’re going to use this ‘as needed,’ the health plan may say that’s not appropriate because that’s not on the product label.”
Given these access challenges with the all-in-one inhaler, other researchers have developed a workaround – asking patients to continue their usual care (that is, using a rescue inhaler as needed) but to also administer a controller medication after each rescue. When tested in Black and Latino patients with moderate to severe asthma, this easy strategy (patient activated reliever-triggered inhaled corticosteroid, or PARTICS) reduced severe asthma exacerbations about as well as the all-in-one inhaler.
If the all-in-one budesonide-formoterol does become available OTC, Dr. Shaker stressed that it “would not be a substitute for seeing an allergist and getting appropriate medical care and an evaluation and all the rest. But it’s better than the status quo. It’s the sort of thing where the perfect is not the enemy of the good,” he said.
Dr. Shaker is the AAAAI cochair of the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters and serves as an editorial board member of the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology in Practice. He is also an associate editor of the Annals of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology. Dr. Pongdee serves as an at-large director on the AAAAI board of directors. He receives grant funding from GlaxoSmithKline, and Mayo Clinic is a trial site for GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to a computer modeling study presented at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology 2023 annual meeting in San Antonio.
Asthma affects 25 million people, about 1 in 13, in the United States. About 28% are uninsured or underinsured, and 70% have mild asthma. Many are using a $30 inhaled epinephrine product (Primatene Mist) – the only FDA-approved asthma inhaler available without a prescription, said Marcus Shaker, MD, MS, professor of pediatrics and medicine at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, and clinician at Dartmouth Health Children’s, N.H.
A new version of Primatene Mist was reintroduced on the market in 2018 after the product was pulled for containing chlorofluorocarbons in 2011, but it is not recommended by professional medical societies because of safety concerns over epinephrine’s adverse effects, such as increased heart rate and blood pressure.
Drugs in its class (bronchodilators) have long been associated with a higher risk for death or near-death.
Meanwhile, research more than 2 decades ago linked regular use of low-dose inhaled corticosteroids with reduced risk for asthma death.
More recently, two large studies (SYGMA 1 and SYGMA 2) compared maintenance therapy with a low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (budesonide) vs. on-demand treatment with an inhaler containing both a corticosteroid (budesonide) and a long-acting bronchodilator (formoterol).
“Using as-needed budesonide-formoterol led to outcomes that are almost as good as taking a maintenance budesonide dose every day,” said Dr. Shaker.
The Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines now recommend this approach – as-needed inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) plus long-acting bronchodilators – for adults with mild asthma. In the United States, however, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute still suggests daily ICS plus quick-relief therapy as needed.
Dr. Shaker and colleagues used computer modeling to compare the cost-effectiveness of as-needed budesonide-formoterol vs. over-the-counter inhaled epinephrine in underinsured U.S. adults who were self-managing their mild asthma. The study randomly assigned these individuals into three groups: OTC inhaled epinephrine (current reality), OTC budesonide-formoterol (not yet available), or no OTC option. The model assumed that patients treated for an exacerbation were referred to a health care provider and started a regimen of ICS plus as-needed rescue therapy.
In this analysis, which has been submitted for publication, the OTC budesonide-formoterol strategy was associated with 12,495 fewer deaths, prevented nearly 14 million severe asthma exacerbations, and saved more than $68 billion. And “when we looked at OTC budesonide-formoterol vs. having no OTC option at all, budesonide-formoterol was similarly cost-effective,” said Dr. Shaker, who presented the results at an AAAAI oral abstract session.
The cost savings emerged even though in the United States asthma controller therapies (for example, fluticasone) cost about 10 times more than rescue therapies (for instance, salbutamol, OTC epinephrine).
Nevertheless, the results make sense. “If you’re using Primatene Mist, your health costs are predicted to be much greater because you’re going to be in the hospital more. Your asthma is not going to be well-controlled,” Thanai Pongdee, MD, an allergist-immunologist with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told this news organization. “It’s not only the cost of your ER visit but also the cost of loss of work or school, and loss of daily productivity. There are all these associated costs.”
The analysis “is certainly something policy makers could take a look at,” he said.
He noted that current use of budesonide-formoterol is stymied by difficulties with insurance coverage. The difficulties stem from a mismatch between the updated recommendation for as-needed use and the description printed on the brand-name product (Symbicort).
“On the product label, it says Symbicort should be used on a daily basis,” Dr. Pongdee said. “But if a prescription comes through and says you’re going to use this ‘as needed,’ the health plan may say that’s not appropriate because that’s not on the product label.”
Given these access challenges with the all-in-one inhaler, other researchers have developed a workaround – asking patients to continue their usual care (that is, using a rescue inhaler as needed) but to also administer a controller medication after each rescue. When tested in Black and Latino patients with moderate to severe asthma, this easy strategy (patient activated reliever-triggered inhaled corticosteroid, or PARTICS) reduced severe asthma exacerbations about as well as the all-in-one inhaler.
If the all-in-one budesonide-formoterol does become available OTC, Dr. Shaker stressed that it “would not be a substitute for seeing an allergist and getting appropriate medical care and an evaluation and all the rest. But it’s better than the status quo. It’s the sort of thing where the perfect is not the enemy of the good,” he said.
Dr. Shaker is the AAAAI cochair of the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters and serves as an editorial board member of the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology in Practice. He is also an associate editor of the Annals of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology. Dr. Pongdee serves as an at-large director on the AAAAI board of directors. He receives grant funding from GlaxoSmithKline, and Mayo Clinic is a trial site for GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AAAAI 2023
Pembrolizumab before and after melanoma surgery boosts outcomes
, show results from the phase 2 SWOG S1801 trial.
The trial involved 319 patients with operable stage IIIB to stage IV melanoma. The investigators found that patients who received pembrolizumab both before and after surgery (i.e., neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy) fared better than those who received the drug only after surgery: The 2-year event-free survival rates were 72% vs. 49%, respectively.
The research was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, but similar results had already been presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology 2022 annual Meeting.
“It’s not just what you give; it’s when you give it,” said lead author Sapna Patel, MD, in a press release issued by the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, echoing comments she gave at ESMO 2022.
The study, she continued, “demonstrates the same treatment for resectable melanoma given before surgery can generate better outcomes.”
On the basis of their findings, Dr. Patel, who is associate professor of melanoma medical oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said that patients with high-risk melanoma “should start immunotherapy prior to surgery to generate an immune response while the bulk of the melanoma and the anti-tumor T cells are intact.”
The mechanism of action of PD-1 blockade “relies on the presence of preexisting anti-tumor T cells attempting to attack cancer cells,” with the immunotherapy allowing the anti-tumor cells to proliferate and mediate clinical responses.
Resection of the bulk of the tumor is therefore “likely to take away some or even most of the potential anti-tumor T cells that would proliferate after PD-1 blockade,” they write.
Likely to apply also to nivolumab
Approached for comment, Jeffrey S. Weber, MD, PhD, professor of medicine, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, said that outside of trials, both pembrolizumab and ipilimumab (Yervoy)/nivolumab (Opdivo) are already being used neoadjuvantly.
He thinks that the findings for neoadjuvant and adjuvant pembrolizumab could also apply to nivolumab because “the drugs are quite similar in efficacy.”
Dr. Weber told this news organization that, “even though the S1801 trial was not accepted as a registration trial by the FDA, I think that its results could very well change practice and confirm it for others who already use neoadjuvant therapy for palpable stage III melanoma.”
One question that is being addressed to an extent in the NADINA trial is whether adjuvant immunotherapy can be avoided all together and patients receive only neoadjuvant therapy, although Dr. Weber said, “I doubt that will be the case.”
Study details
In this study, patients were randomly assigned to either surgery followed by 18 doses of adjuvant pembrolizumab, or to receive 3 doses of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab followed by surgery and then 15 additional doses of adjuvant pembrolizumab.
After a median duration of follow-up of 14.7 months, there were 38 events in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group and 67 in the adjuvant-only group.
“Events” were defined as disease progression, toxic effects, or complications that precluded surgery or the initiation of adjuvant therapy within 84 days of surgery, as well as the inability to fully resect the gross disease, melanoma recurrence, and death.
The team calculated that event-free survival was significantly longer in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group (P = .004), with 2-year event-free survival at 72% vs. 49% in the adjuvant-only group.
“The benefit of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab was seen across all subgroups of patients,” the investigators note.
At the data cut-off, there were 14 deaths in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group vs. 22 in the adjuvant-only group, which the researchers say is too few to allow “definitive comparison” in terms of overall survival.
Definitive surgery had been performed in 88% of neoadjuvant-adjuvant patients and in 95% of those assigned to adjuvant-only pembrolizumab. The most common reason for not undergoing surgery was disease progression.
Among the patients for whom safety data were available, 7% in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group had at least one grade 3 or 4 adverse event related to pembrolizumab, whereas 7% had at least one grade 3 or 4 adverse event related to surgery.
In the adjuvant-only arm, 4% of patients had at least one grade 3 adverse event related to surgery, with no grade 4 adverse events reported.
The rates of grade 3 or 4 adverse events during adjuvant therapy were similar in the two groups, at 12% in patients assigned to neoadjuvant-adjuvant therapy and 14% in those given adjuvant-only pembrolizumab.
“Future studies can explore deescalation strategies for both surgery and adjuvant therapy, as well as approaches for patients whose melanoma does not respond to neoadjuvant therapy,” the researchers commented.
The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and Merck Sharp and Dohme.
Dr. Patel reports numerous relationships with industry, including with Merck, manufacturer of pembrolizumab; other coauthors also have numerous relationships with industry. Dr. Weber is a regular columnist for this news organization and lists his disclosures in his Weber on Oncology column.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, show results from the phase 2 SWOG S1801 trial.
The trial involved 319 patients with operable stage IIIB to stage IV melanoma. The investigators found that patients who received pembrolizumab both before and after surgery (i.e., neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy) fared better than those who received the drug only after surgery: The 2-year event-free survival rates were 72% vs. 49%, respectively.
The research was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, but similar results had already been presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology 2022 annual Meeting.
“It’s not just what you give; it’s when you give it,” said lead author Sapna Patel, MD, in a press release issued by the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, echoing comments she gave at ESMO 2022.
The study, she continued, “demonstrates the same treatment for resectable melanoma given before surgery can generate better outcomes.”
On the basis of their findings, Dr. Patel, who is associate professor of melanoma medical oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said that patients with high-risk melanoma “should start immunotherapy prior to surgery to generate an immune response while the bulk of the melanoma and the anti-tumor T cells are intact.”
The mechanism of action of PD-1 blockade “relies on the presence of preexisting anti-tumor T cells attempting to attack cancer cells,” with the immunotherapy allowing the anti-tumor cells to proliferate and mediate clinical responses.
Resection of the bulk of the tumor is therefore “likely to take away some or even most of the potential anti-tumor T cells that would proliferate after PD-1 blockade,” they write.
Likely to apply also to nivolumab
Approached for comment, Jeffrey S. Weber, MD, PhD, professor of medicine, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, said that outside of trials, both pembrolizumab and ipilimumab (Yervoy)/nivolumab (Opdivo) are already being used neoadjuvantly.
He thinks that the findings for neoadjuvant and adjuvant pembrolizumab could also apply to nivolumab because “the drugs are quite similar in efficacy.”
Dr. Weber told this news organization that, “even though the S1801 trial was not accepted as a registration trial by the FDA, I think that its results could very well change practice and confirm it for others who already use neoadjuvant therapy for palpable stage III melanoma.”
One question that is being addressed to an extent in the NADINA trial is whether adjuvant immunotherapy can be avoided all together and patients receive only neoadjuvant therapy, although Dr. Weber said, “I doubt that will be the case.”
Study details
In this study, patients were randomly assigned to either surgery followed by 18 doses of adjuvant pembrolizumab, or to receive 3 doses of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab followed by surgery and then 15 additional doses of adjuvant pembrolizumab.
After a median duration of follow-up of 14.7 months, there were 38 events in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group and 67 in the adjuvant-only group.
“Events” were defined as disease progression, toxic effects, or complications that precluded surgery or the initiation of adjuvant therapy within 84 days of surgery, as well as the inability to fully resect the gross disease, melanoma recurrence, and death.
The team calculated that event-free survival was significantly longer in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group (P = .004), with 2-year event-free survival at 72% vs. 49% in the adjuvant-only group.
“The benefit of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab was seen across all subgroups of patients,” the investigators note.
At the data cut-off, there were 14 deaths in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group vs. 22 in the adjuvant-only group, which the researchers say is too few to allow “definitive comparison” in terms of overall survival.
Definitive surgery had been performed in 88% of neoadjuvant-adjuvant patients and in 95% of those assigned to adjuvant-only pembrolizumab. The most common reason for not undergoing surgery was disease progression.
Among the patients for whom safety data were available, 7% in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group had at least one grade 3 or 4 adverse event related to pembrolizumab, whereas 7% had at least one grade 3 or 4 adverse event related to surgery.
In the adjuvant-only arm, 4% of patients had at least one grade 3 adverse event related to surgery, with no grade 4 adverse events reported.
The rates of grade 3 or 4 adverse events during adjuvant therapy were similar in the two groups, at 12% in patients assigned to neoadjuvant-adjuvant therapy and 14% in those given adjuvant-only pembrolizumab.
“Future studies can explore deescalation strategies for both surgery and adjuvant therapy, as well as approaches for patients whose melanoma does not respond to neoadjuvant therapy,” the researchers commented.
The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and Merck Sharp and Dohme.
Dr. Patel reports numerous relationships with industry, including with Merck, manufacturer of pembrolizumab; other coauthors also have numerous relationships with industry. Dr. Weber is a regular columnist for this news organization and lists his disclosures in his Weber on Oncology column.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, show results from the phase 2 SWOG S1801 trial.
The trial involved 319 patients with operable stage IIIB to stage IV melanoma. The investigators found that patients who received pembrolizumab both before and after surgery (i.e., neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy) fared better than those who received the drug only after surgery: The 2-year event-free survival rates were 72% vs. 49%, respectively.
The research was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, but similar results had already been presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology 2022 annual Meeting.
“It’s not just what you give; it’s when you give it,” said lead author Sapna Patel, MD, in a press release issued by the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, echoing comments she gave at ESMO 2022.
The study, she continued, “demonstrates the same treatment for resectable melanoma given before surgery can generate better outcomes.”
On the basis of their findings, Dr. Patel, who is associate professor of melanoma medical oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said that patients with high-risk melanoma “should start immunotherapy prior to surgery to generate an immune response while the bulk of the melanoma and the anti-tumor T cells are intact.”
The mechanism of action of PD-1 blockade “relies on the presence of preexisting anti-tumor T cells attempting to attack cancer cells,” with the immunotherapy allowing the anti-tumor cells to proliferate and mediate clinical responses.
Resection of the bulk of the tumor is therefore “likely to take away some or even most of the potential anti-tumor T cells that would proliferate after PD-1 blockade,” they write.
Likely to apply also to nivolumab
Approached for comment, Jeffrey S. Weber, MD, PhD, professor of medicine, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, said that outside of trials, both pembrolizumab and ipilimumab (Yervoy)/nivolumab (Opdivo) are already being used neoadjuvantly.
He thinks that the findings for neoadjuvant and adjuvant pembrolizumab could also apply to nivolumab because “the drugs are quite similar in efficacy.”
Dr. Weber told this news organization that, “even though the S1801 trial was not accepted as a registration trial by the FDA, I think that its results could very well change practice and confirm it for others who already use neoadjuvant therapy for palpable stage III melanoma.”
One question that is being addressed to an extent in the NADINA trial is whether adjuvant immunotherapy can be avoided all together and patients receive only neoadjuvant therapy, although Dr. Weber said, “I doubt that will be the case.”
Study details
In this study, patients were randomly assigned to either surgery followed by 18 doses of adjuvant pembrolizumab, or to receive 3 doses of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab followed by surgery and then 15 additional doses of adjuvant pembrolizumab.
After a median duration of follow-up of 14.7 months, there were 38 events in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group and 67 in the adjuvant-only group.
“Events” were defined as disease progression, toxic effects, or complications that precluded surgery or the initiation of adjuvant therapy within 84 days of surgery, as well as the inability to fully resect the gross disease, melanoma recurrence, and death.
The team calculated that event-free survival was significantly longer in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group (P = .004), with 2-year event-free survival at 72% vs. 49% in the adjuvant-only group.
“The benefit of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab was seen across all subgroups of patients,” the investigators note.
At the data cut-off, there were 14 deaths in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group vs. 22 in the adjuvant-only group, which the researchers say is too few to allow “definitive comparison” in terms of overall survival.
Definitive surgery had been performed in 88% of neoadjuvant-adjuvant patients and in 95% of those assigned to adjuvant-only pembrolizumab. The most common reason for not undergoing surgery was disease progression.
Among the patients for whom safety data were available, 7% in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group had at least one grade 3 or 4 adverse event related to pembrolizumab, whereas 7% had at least one grade 3 or 4 adverse event related to surgery.
In the adjuvant-only arm, 4% of patients had at least one grade 3 adverse event related to surgery, with no grade 4 adverse events reported.
The rates of grade 3 or 4 adverse events during adjuvant therapy were similar in the two groups, at 12% in patients assigned to neoadjuvant-adjuvant therapy and 14% in those given adjuvant-only pembrolizumab.
“Future studies can explore deescalation strategies for both surgery and adjuvant therapy, as well as approaches for patients whose melanoma does not respond to neoadjuvant therapy,” the researchers commented.
The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and Merck Sharp and Dohme.
Dr. Patel reports numerous relationships with industry, including with Merck, manufacturer of pembrolizumab; other coauthors also have numerous relationships with industry. Dr. Weber is a regular columnist for this news organization and lists his disclosures in his Weber on Oncology column.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
EoE: One-food elimination works as well as six-food elimination
according to a new report.
A one-food elimination diet (1FED) led to histologic remission in 34% of patients, as determined on the basis of eosinophil count at 6 weeks, and in 40% of patients who followed a six-food elimination diet (6FED) – a nonstatistical difference, the research team wrote.
“The takeaway message is that one-food (milk) elimination is an effective treatment and a reasonable first-line treatment for EoE,” senior study author Marc Rothenberg, MD, PhD, a professor of pediatrics and director of the allergy and immunology division at the Cincinnati Center for Eosinophilic Disorders at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, said in an interview.
“The study was designed by the Consortium of Eosinophilic Disease Researchers (CEGIR), which includes the nation’s top institutions working with patient advocacy groups, together with the National Institutes of Health,” he said. “The group, under advice from patients, determined that it was an important question to research if one-food elimination would be effective – and how effective – compared with six-food elimination.”
The study was published in The Lancet Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
Studying EOE and food elimination
Previous studies have found that eliminating six common foods that trigger esophageal injury – milk, eggs, wheat, soy, fish, and nuts – can substantially reduce EoE symptoms. The 6FED has become a common approach to managing the disease.
In recent years, however, researchers have conducted small, nonrandomized studies of the less restrictive 1FED and have found some success.
In a multisite, randomized trial, Dr. Rothenberg and colleagues compared the 6FED with the 1FED among 129 adults aged 18-60 years with a confirmed EoE diagnosis, active EoE symptoms, and a high number of eosinophils in esophageal tissue. The participants enrolled at 1 of 10 U.S. medical centers that participate in CEGIR, which is part of the NIH-funded Rare Diseases Clinical Research Network.
Between 2016 and 2019, 67 participants were assigned to the 1FED group, which eliminated only animal milk from the diet, and 62 participants were assigned to the 6FED group, which eliminated milk, eggs, wheat, soy, fish/shellfish, and peanuts/tree nuts. After following the diet for 6 weeks, participants underwent an upper endoscopy exam and esophageal tissue biopsy. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with histologic remission, or a peak count of less than 15 eosinophils per high-power field (eos/hpf).
If the number of eosinophils indicated that EoE was in remission, the participant exited the study. If EoE wasn’t in remission, those who were on 1FED could proceed to 6FED, and those who were on 6FED could take fluticasone propionate 880 mcg two times per day with an unrestricted diet. Both groups followed the protocols for 6 weeks and underwent another exam with tissue biopsy.
At 6 weeks, 25 patients (40%) on 6FED and 23 patients (34%) on 1FED achieved histologic remission. The difference was not statistically significant.
There were also no significant differences between the groups at stricter thresholds for partial remission, defined as peak counts of 10 eos/hpf or less and 6 eos/hpf or less. The rate of complete remission (at a peak count of ≤ 1 eos/hpf) favored 6FED, at 19% versus 6% among 1FED.
The two diets had a similar impact across several other measures, including reduction in peak eosinophil counts, reduction in EoE symptoms, and improvement in quality of life. For 6FED versus 1FED, the mean changes from baseline in the Eosinophilic Esophagitis Histology Scoring System were –0.23 versus –0.15. In addition, the mean changes in the Eosinophilic Esophagitis Endoscopic Reference Score were 1 versus –0.6, and in the Eosinophilic Esophagitis Activity Index, they were –8.2 versus –3. None of the differences were significant.
Among the patients who didn’t respond to 1FED, 21 opted to follow 6FED in the study’s second phase. Of those patients, nine (43%) attained remission after following the more restrictive diet. Among the 11 patients who didn’t initially respond to 6FED and who opted to receive fluticasone propionate, nine patients (82%) achieved remission.
“We examined a series of validated endpoints that have not previously been examined in diet trials,” Dr. Rothenberg said. “We are surprised to see that one food was equally effective as six foods.”
Incorporating food elimination therapy
Dr. Rothenberg and colleagues are continuing their research into EoE and food-elimination diets, with a strong focus on furthering diet therapy. In particular, the research team wants to understand how to potentially add milk – and other foods – back to the diet.
Wael Sayej, MD, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Massachusetts Baystate Regional Campus, Springfield, has found success with the one-food elimination diet among children with EoE, he said in an interview.
In a retrospective study, Dr. Sayej and colleagues found that a one-food elimination diet was an effective first-line treatment option for pediatric patients.
“Once we get past the one-food or two-food elimination, it becomes much more difficult and cumbersome for patients to follow,” said Dr. Sayej, who is also a pediatric gastroenterologist with Baystate Health in Springfield and who wasn’t involved with the CEGIR study. “Obviously, I prefer my patients to follow a strict dairy-free diet as long-term therapy, rather than have them on a medication for the rest of their life.”
Dr. Sayej advises patients to follow the one-food elimination diet in his practice. If patients aren’t responsive, he offers options for additional dietary elimination or initiation of steroid therapy.
“The most important thing about initiating dietary elimination therapy is to take the time to educate the patient and family about the disease, the risks or complications associated with untreated disease, and the pros and cons of the treatment options,” he said.
The study was cofunded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The authors have research, consultant, and leadership relationships with several pharmaceutical companies and organizations not related to this study. Dr. Sayej disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
according to a new report.
A one-food elimination diet (1FED) led to histologic remission in 34% of patients, as determined on the basis of eosinophil count at 6 weeks, and in 40% of patients who followed a six-food elimination diet (6FED) – a nonstatistical difference, the research team wrote.
“The takeaway message is that one-food (milk) elimination is an effective treatment and a reasonable first-line treatment for EoE,” senior study author Marc Rothenberg, MD, PhD, a professor of pediatrics and director of the allergy and immunology division at the Cincinnati Center for Eosinophilic Disorders at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, said in an interview.
“The study was designed by the Consortium of Eosinophilic Disease Researchers (CEGIR), which includes the nation’s top institutions working with patient advocacy groups, together with the National Institutes of Health,” he said. “The group, under advice from patients, determined that it was an important question to research if one-food elimination would be effective – and how effective – compared with six-food elimination.”
The study was published in The Lancet Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
Studying EOE and food elimination
Previous studies have found that eliminating six common foods that trigger esophageal injury – milk, eggs, wheat, soy, fish, and nuts – can substantially reduce EoE symptoms. The 6FED has become a common approach to managing the disease.
In recent years, however, researchers have conducted small, nonrandomized studies of the less restrictive 1FED and have found some success.
In a multisite, randomized trial, Dr. Rothenberg and colleagues compared the 6FED with the 1FED among 129 adults aged 18-60 years with a confirmed EoE diagnosis, active EoE symptoms, and a high number of eosinophils in esophageal tissue. The participants enrolled at 1 of 10 U.S. medical centers that participate in CEGIR, which is part of the NIH-funded Rare Diseases Clinical Research Network.
Between 2016 and 2019, 67 participants were assigned to the 1FED group, which eliminated only animal milk from the diet, and 62 participants were assigned to the 6FED group, which eliminated milk, eggs, wheat, soy, fish/shellfish, and peanuts/tree nuts. After following the diet for 6 weeks, participants underwent an upper endoscopy exam and esophageal tissue biopsy. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with histologic remission, or a peak count of less than 15 eosinophils per high-power field (eos/hpf).
If the number of eosinophils indicated that EoE was in remission, the participant exited the study. If EoE wasn’t in remission, those who were on 1FED could proceed to 6FED, and those who were on 6FED could take fluticasone propionate 880 mcg two times per day with an unrestricted diet. Both groups followed the protocols for 6 weeks and underwent another exam with tissue biopsy.
At 6 weeks, 25 patients (40%) on 6FED and 23 patients (34%) on 1FED achieved histologic remission. The difference was not statistically significant.
There were also no significant differences between the groups at stricter thresholds for partial remission, defined as peak counts of 10 eos/hpf or less and 6 eos/hpf or less. The rate of complete remission (at a peak count of ≤ 1 eos/hpf) favored 6FED, at 19% versus 6% among 1FED.
The two diets had a similar impact across several other measures, including reduction in peak eosinophil counts, reduction in EoE symptoms, and improvement in quality of life. For 6FED versus 1FED, the mean changes from baseline in the Eosinophilic Esophagitis Histology Scoring System were –0.23 versus –0.15. In addition, the mean changes in the Eosinophilic Esophagitis Endoscopic Reference Score were 1 versus –0.6, and in the Eosinophilic Esophagitis Activity Index, they were –8.2 versus –3. None of the differences were significant.
Among the patients who didn’t respond to 1FED, 21 opted to follow 6FED in the study’s second phase. Of those patients, nine (43%) attained remission after following the more restrictive diet. Among the 11 patients who didn’t initially respond to 6FED and who opted to receive fluticasone propionate, nine patients (82%) achieved remission.
“We examined a series of validated endpoints that have not previously been examined in diet trials,” Dr. Rothenberg said. “We are surprised to see that one food was equally effective as six foods.”
Incorporating food elimination therapy
Dr. Rothenberg and colleagues are continuing their research into EoE and food-elimination diets, with a strong focus on furthering diet therapy. In particular, the research team wants to understand how to potentially add milk – and other foods – back to the diet.
Wael Sayej, MD, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Massachusetts Baystate Regional Campus, Springfield, has found success with the one-food elimination diet among children with EoE, he said in an interview.
In a retrospective study, Dr. Sayej and colleagues found that a one-food elimination diet was an effective first-line treatment option for pediatric patients.
“Once we get past the one-food or two-food elimination, it becomes much more difficult and cumbersome for patients to follow,” said Dr. Sayej, who is also a pediatric gastroenterologist with Baystate Health in Springfield and who wasn’t involved with the CEGIR study. “Obviously, I prefer my patients to follow a strict dairy-free diet as long-term therapy, rather than have them on a medication for the rest of their life.”
Dr. Sayej advises patients to follow the one-food elimination diet in his practice. If patients aren’t responsive, he offers options for additional dietary elimination or initiation of steroid therapy.
“The most important thing about initiating dietary elimination therapy is to take the time to educate the patient and family about the disease, the risks or complications associated with untreated disease, and the pros and cons of the treatment options,” he said.
The study was cofunded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The authors have research, consultant, and leadership relationships with several pharmaceutical companies and organizations not related to this study. Dr. Sayej disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
according to a new report.
A one-food elimination diet (1FED) led to histologic remission in 34% of patients, as determined on the basis of eosinophil count at 6 weeks, and in 40% of patients who followed a six-food elimination diet (6FED) – a nonstatistical difference, the research team wrote.
“The takeaway message is that one-food (milk) elimination is an effective treatment and a reasonable first-line treatment for EoE,” senior study author Marc Rothenberg, MD, PhD, a professor of pediatrics and director of the allergy and immunology division at the Cincinnati Center for Eosinophilic Disorders at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, said in an interview.
“The study was designed by the Consortium of Eosinophilic Disease Researchers (CEGIR), which includes the nation’s top institutions working with patient advocacy groups, together with the National Institutes of Health,” he said. “The group, under advice from patients, determined that it was an important question to research if one-food elimination would be effective – and how effective – compared with six-food elimination.”
The study was published in The Lancet Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
Studying EOE and food elimination
Previous studies have found that eliminating six common foods that trigger esophageal injury – milk, eggs, wheat, soy, fish, and nuts – can substantially reduce EoE symptoms. The 6FED has become a common approach to managing the disease.
In recent years, however, researchers have conducted small, nonrandomized studies of the less restrictive 1FED and have found some success.
In a multisite, randomized trial, Dr. Rothenberg and colleagues compared the 6FED with the 1FED among 129 adults aged 18-60 years with a confirmed EoE diagnosis, active EoE symptoms, and a high number of eosinophils in esophageal tissue. The participants enrolled at 1 of 10 U.S. medical centers that participate in CEGIR, which is part of the NIH-funded Rare Diseases Clinical Research Network.
Between 2016 and 2019, 67 participants were assigned to the 1FED group, which eliminated only animal milk from the diet, and 62 participants were assigned to the 6FED group, which eliminated milk, eggs, wheat, soy, fish/shellfish, and peanuts/tree nuts. After following the diet for 6 weeks, participants underwent an upper endoscopy exam and esophageal tissue biopsy. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with histologic remission, or a peak count of less than 15 eosinophils per high-power field (eos/hpf).
If the number of eosinophils indicated that EoE was in remission, the participant exited the study. If EoE wasn’t in remission, those who were on 1FED could proceed to 6FED, and those who were on 6FED could take fluticasone propionate 880 mcg two times per day with an unrestricted diet. Both groups followed the protocols for 6 weeks and underwent another exam with tissue biopsy.
At 6 weeks, 25 patients (40%) on 6FED and 23 patients (34%) on 1FED achieved histologic remission. The difference was not statistically significant.
There were also no significant differences between the groups at stricter thresholds for partial remission, defined as peak counts of 10 eos/hpf or less and 6 eos/hpf or less. The rate of complete remission (at a peak count of ≤ 1 eos/hpf) favored 6FED, at 19% versus 6% among 1FED.
The two diets had a similar impact across several other measures, including reduction in peak eosinophil counts, reduction in EoE symptoms, and improvement in quality of life. For 6FED versus 1FED, the mean changes from baseline in the Eosinophilic Esophagitis Histology Scoring System were –0.23 versus –0.15. In addition, the mean changes in the Eosinophilic Esophagitis Endoscopic Reference Score were 1 versus –0.6, and in the Eosinophilic Esophagitis Activity Index, they were –8.2 versus –3. None of the differences were significant.
Among the patients who didn’t respond to 1FED, 21 opted to follow 6FED in the study’s second phase. Of those patients, nine (43%) attained remission after following the more restrictive diet. Among the 11 patients who didn’t initially respond to 6FED and who opted to receive fluticasone propionate, nine patients (82%) achieved remission.
“We examined a series of validated endpoints that have not previously been examined in diet trials,” Dr. Rothenberg said. “We are surprised to see that one food was equally effective as six foods.”
Incorporating food elimination therapy
Dr. Rothenberg and colleagues are continuing their research into EoE and food-elimination diets, with a strong focus on furthering diet therapy. In particular, the research team wants to understand how to potentially add milk – and other foods – back to the diet.
Wael Sayej, MD, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Massachusetts Baystate Regional Campus, Springfield, has found success with the one-food elimination diet among children with EoE, he said in an interview.
In a retrospective study, Dr. Sayej and colleagues found that a one-food elimination diet was an effective first-line treatment option for pediatric patients.
“Once we get past the one-food or two-food elimination, it becomes much more difficult and cumbersome for patients to follow,” said Dr. Sayej, who is also a pediatric gastroenterologist with Baystate Health in Springfield and who wasn’t involved with the CEGIR study. “Obviously, I prefer my patients to follow a strict dairy-free diet as long-term therapy, rather than have them on a medication for the rest of their life.”
Dr. Sayej advises patients to follow the one-food elimination diet in his practice. If patients aren’t responsive, he offers options for additional dietary elimination or initiation of steroid therapy.
“The most important thing about initiating dietary elimination therapy is to take the time to educate the patient and family about the disease, the risks or complications associated with untreated disease, and the pros and cons of the treatment options,” he said.
The study was cofunded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The authors have research, consultant, and leadership relationships with several pharmaceutical companies and organizations not related to this study. Dr. Sayej disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
FROM THE LANCET GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY